Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Zethoro]

I'm trying to understand more about Japan's meta as it seems to be drastically different than everywhere else, and I know for a fact that Japan has a different stagelist, I just don't know how they are different.
If anyone could help me out here with a source (or a Japanese player), that'd be wonderful.

 

[Cat8752]

Not totally sure about the common ruleset but what I remember from Umebura F.A.T. ruleset is that they do 2 stock 7 minutes. Starters were FD, BF, and SV counterpicks were DH and Lylat. Another tidbit is that I often see FD as the first stage played, kinda like SV in the U.S.

I just watched the MD/VA vs Texas crew battle at G3, and I was thinking it's weird that there isn't a special rule for olimar / alph in crews. If Olimar has to start the match down 1 or 2 stocks it will change the order of his pikmen, but there isn't a rule to force him to throw away his pikmen to get the original order of red, blue, yellow. I would think starting with white pikmen is an advantage for Olimar given the damage it does from side b, and then purple pikmen is a hit box and not a grab box. I think that should be a special rule for Olimar & Alph in crew battles. What do you guys say?

EDIT:
A special rule when fighting Lucario to account for aura should be added as well. No SDs at the start and just remember how many stocks each person has.

These seem like pretty good considerations, my only guess as to the reason this hasn't been implemented is due to people not caring enough about it. One potential problem that could arise is say an offstage moment where the opposing Lucario loses their last stock, but they still have a stock left ingame, and the winning player then plummets to their doom. This might cause arguments as to whether the winner should lose that stock or not. Otherwise that seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to implement.

 

[Zethoro]

I thought I remembered hearing their meta was much more FD based. That explains a lot of the discrepancy between our tier lists.
Thanks!

 

[Cat8752]

I thought I remembered hearing their meta was much more FD based. That explains a lot of the discrepancy between our tier lists.
Thanks!

I don't think that's the only reason their lists are different than ours, I think it has more to do with what characters top players are playing and if they've figured a character out. An example would be Sonic 3rd in almost every list and Cloud being placed top 5 in some Japan lists. Meanwhile Pika/Fox aren't placed as high because they have no Esam or as many Foxes as in the U.S.

 

[Megamang]

I don't think that's the only reason their lists are different than ours, I think it has more to do with what characters top players are playing and if they've figured a character out. An example would be Sonic 3rd in almost every list and Cloud being placed top 5 in some Japan lists. Meanwhile Pika/Fox aren't placed as high because they have no Esam or as many Foxes as in the U.S.

The stage list has an effect for sure though. For example, sonic only has to play a platform stage a maximum of once a set, and gets FD and SV otherwise, giving him a stage advantage he doesnt have in the US.

 

[Cat8752]

The stage list has an effect for sure though. For example, sonic only has to play a platform stage a maximum of once a set, and gets FD and SV otherwise, giving him a stage advantage he doesnt have in the US.

I'm sure it has a pronounced effect. In the U.S. characters who like BF/kill off the top faster than the opponent have a huge advantage, they get a low ceiling stage and two battlefields. Still, who is actually playing the characters makes a big impact on Japanese players' perceptions on said characters.

 

[LAFFS]

My friends and I often play Smash 3ds/Wii U but we can't make a rule set we all agree on.
Mostly when it comes to stages.
The arguments are what stages should be neutral/counterpicks. Should FD be legal or should we replace it with an omega stage. I can't find a commonly accepted rule set either. Is there one?
Thanks.

 

[Eugene Wang]

There is no commonly accepted stage list. Each event has gone with something different, and the best stage list is still being heavily debated.

If you would like an opinion, I would suggest 7 starter stages: Final Destination, Smashville, Town and City, Battlefield, Lylat Cruise, Dreamland 64, and Umbra Clock Tower. They're all reasonably balanced, and there's plenty of stage variety to go around. Counterpicks, I don't have a solid opinion on, so take your pick, or go FLSS.

 

[petcson]

Iowa State currently has a good ruleset for stages. Starters are FD, Smashville, Town and City, Battlefield, and Dreamland 64. Counter picks are all the stages aforementioned along with Duck hunt, Lylat Cruise, and Umbra clock tower.

From the starters the winner of rock paper scissors will ban a stage, the looser will ban 2 other stages, finally the winner will ban one of the 2 remaining starters leaving one playable stage.

After the match with the starters ends the winner gets to ban 2 stages and the looser picks from the rest.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The bottom platform lasts about 20 seconds, and most charging characters will end in a bad spot having to recover.



Now, please tell me again why DSR is not a bad rule.

 

[Respect38]

I always interpreted the purpose of stage bans to emulate a Bo5 set within the Bo3 format--that is, you play the equivalent of a Bo5 set, except instead of playing those two extra matches, both player is given a ban [the equivalent of "what stage were you most likely to lose on in a Bo5 set?"] and because both players take a "loss" on the stage they banned, it is considered to be a fast way to emulate what stages a Bo5 set would have contained, without having to play on the stages which have the most skewed matchups. This seems to jive with the fact that Bo5 sets don't use stage bans in most rulesets that I knew of myself--instead of taking the free win on the banned stage, you actually have to go to that stage and turn your advantage into the win.

I'm not saying that it truly emulates a Bo5 set, because if the matchup skew is greater on one stage than the other, then the player with the less skewed losing matchup would have rather played the full Bo5 set out for the chance to win on the stage that was the worst for them, [as the chances of them winning on their worst stage is better than the chance of their opponent winning on their worst stage] but it is a good compromise that isn't too far off of the Bo5 set that it's emulating so long as the stages on the list are sufficiently neutral.

 

[Yikarur]

I always interpreted the purpose of stage bans to emulate a Bo5 set within the Bo3 format--that is, you play the equivalent of a Bo5 set, except instead of playing those two extra matches, both player is given a ban [the equivalent of "what stage were you most likely to lose on in a Bo5 set?"] and because both players take a "loss" on the stage they banned, it is considered to be a fast way to emulate what stages a Bo5 set would have contained, without having to play on the stages which have the most skewed matchups. This seems to jive with the fact that Bo5 sets don't use stage bans in most rulesets that I knew of myself--instead of taking the free win on the banned stage, you actually have to go to that stage and turn your advantage into the win.

I'm not saying that it truly emulates a Bo5 set, because if the matchup skew is greater on one stage than the other, then the player with the less skewed losing matchup would have rather played the full Bo5 set out for the chance to win on the stage that was the worst for them, [as the chances of them winning on their worst stage is better than the chance of their opponent winning on their worst stage] but it is a good compromise that isn't too far off of the Bo5 set that it's emulating so long as the stages on the list are sufficiently neutral.

You could theorize it like that but one less ban in Bo5 was invented very very late because DSR took too many stages away.

Now, please tell me again why DSR is not a bad rule.

Could you elaborate your opinion? I think DSR is fine, but stage bans are bad. (and Bo5 are bad because we wouldn't need to discuss this if Bo5 wasn't a thing )

 

[T0MMY]

Could you elaborate your opinion? I think DSR is fine, but stage bans are bad. (and Bo5 are bad because we wouldn't need to discuss this if Bo5 wasn't a thing )

Could you elaborate why you think it is fine? There needs to be a reason to use a ruling, the bigger of an impact on the game the bigger the reason you need to use it. As it is DSR has confused many players and even made competition unplayable because there simply were not enough Stages in a Bo5 with bans from the competitors... I simply did not use DSR and that prevented more problems than DSR solved and I quickly understood why it was called Dave's "Stupid" Rule.

 

[Yikarur]

it's called Dave's Stupid Rule because someone with the name Dave picked his best stage over and over and won his sets this way.
The idea behind dave's stupid rule is stage diversity. That a player cannot get away with winning a set by being good on one particular stage only and I favor this mindset.
With 8 Stages (Ω, BF, SV, TnC, LC, DL64, DH UTC) in a Bo5 with 1 Ban, assuming you do not want to pick the stage you have banned, you are left with 4 stages. Thats 50% of the stage list and that should be enough.

The problem comes with giving the players too many bans. Bans are bad for stage diversity, because people can deny to play on certain stages for their smash carreer while not being punished because they still have a ban left.

From my personal perspective, every time I sit in banning phase with 2 bans I just have no clue what do ban. The stages are pretty fair overall and it comes down to preference in a lot of cases. 2 Bans are not needed. With 1 Ban you don't have DSR problems.

 

[Loota]

I might drive Yikarur crazy with our ban rules but we actually use 3 bans in Finland with 13 stage FLSS + you're not allowed to pick a stage you've won on in the set again + you're allowed to pick the stages you've banned yourself + you're allowed to change your bans inbetween matches. The 3 bans are to prevent counterpicking from becoming overly strong (which it should't be in the first place) while retaining a good variety of stages for the counterpicking phase, 8 stages at minimum in case of a Bo5 going to the last match. I know I won't be winning any conservative hearts to my side with this but it has been working pretty great from the start.

 

[Routa]

Hard to explain and understand, but it isn't that though system to use once you have understood how it works. But then again it might not work with less stages and it might not be the best option for big tournaments time wise.

 

[Nul]

The problem comes with giving the players too many bans. Bans are bad for stage diversity, because people can deny to play on certain stages for their smash carreer while not being punished because they still have a ban left.

From my personal perspective, every time I sit in banning phase with 2 bans I just have no clue what do ban. The stages are pretty fair overall and it comes down to preference in a lot of cases. 2 Bans are not needed. With 1 Ban you don't have DSR problems.

Well, DSR and player stage bans are both bans... So both are bad? The problem is that what if between 2 players the stage is actually what makes the difference? With no bans whatsoever, the person who wins round 1 just wins (in a vacuum) because they can get home-stage advantage again. If we have player bans, that player theoretically never has to deal with a given stage (or 2) in their entire smash career. Do we really care if anyone never wants to play on FD and T&C?

You know where this is going for stage diversity? Consistent diversity? Non-repeat stage rule (can't play on a stage played again within a match, ever) with no Gentleman's or player bans - and enforcing stage-striking neutral. No one is exempt a stage to be played, and no one abuses a stage multiple times. It gets "more fair" when we get to Bo5. Considering most people would think this stage list is fair, this "NSR" can work out. BTW I understand DSR as "you can't pick a stage you won on" so...

1 ban + DSR is nearly equivalent to 2 bans no DSR. Why? Because the last time I had been to a tournament format like this most players still used the "extra" ban to DSR-type ban. In other cases, it was because that losing round 1 was a considered fluke or SD, in which case it was not a DSR-type ban. I get that the argument that 2 bans gives you a soft 3rd because "why would you go to the stage you lost on?" says your opponent. Counter-pick character? SD'd twice? Popped off on a star KO? Not knowing what to ban sounds like a personal problem - because most bans are preference if not overridden by the small chance of match-up favor.

Now I'm considering testing NSR no player bans + 7 strike this weekend, let's see what the players think...

 

[ぱみゅ]

DSR, in my opinion, is an overly complicated rule that doesn't really bring any benefit.
I rather just use 2 Stage Bans.
In my current ruleset I have 2 Bans and I add the clause of "either player can go through the Stage Banning phase once per set".
Optionally it could be used as "soft" bans, where they would only account for the very next game, but apparently some people considered it unfair for the first counter-picker.

 

[Ajimi]

You know where this is going for stage diversity? Consistent diversity? Non-repeat stage rule (can't play on a stage played again within a match, ever) with no Gentleman's or player bans - and enforcing stage-striking neutral. No one is exempt a stage to be played, and no one abuses a stage multiple times. It gets "more fair" when we get to Bo5. Considering most people would think this stage list is fair, this "NSR" can work out. BTW I understand DSR as "you can't pick a stage you won on" so...

I had the exact same idea yesterday but you beat me to it. I think this is a very interesting ruling that should be tested.

 

[Yikarur]

DSR, in my opinion, is an overly complicated rule that doesn't really bring any benefit.
I rather just use 2 Stage Bans.
In my current ruleset I have 2 Bans and I add the clause of "either player can go through the Stage Banning phase once per set".
Optionally it could be used as "soft" bans, where they would only account for the very next game, but apparently some people considered it unfair for the first counter-picker.

why "overlay complicated" ? It can't get simpler as "you cannot pick as stage you have won on".
Like I said, 2 bans destroy stage diversity and the players motivation to care about stages, while DSR promotes it.

Additionally good chars are heavily favored by 2 bans. I don't like to benefit the best chars even more by making my ruleset in their favor. If Umbra Clock Tower and Omega are Sheiks worst stage (hypothethically) then she can just ban those two. Bad chars have only a few good stages and they will never be allowed to play on them if the players have the MU knowledge. The top chars don't care because they have even more advantaged stages in the selection.

Even if you don't like the DSR and you want to drop it, I would not use more than 1 ban. It's far too restrictive in a stage list, that doesn't need restrictions because of it's balance.

 

[Nul]

I think ぱみゅう means by DSR being complicated is the keeping track part. The [no] benefit part is argumentative. While it can be seen as fair, it is also a tad more complex to newer players than player bans.

2 player bans favors characters higher that are more affected by a stage than others. *cough*Mac*cough* Just 1 ban hurts Mac harder than 2 on Shiek / ZSS / Rosa. Besides, DSR + 1 PB = 2/3 bans in Bo5 as opposed to 2 PB = 2 bans in Bo5. DSR+1 is in the long term more restrictive than 2PB. There will never be a match where 2PB is less stage restricting than DSR+1. DSR is naturally restricting for sake of preventing stage favor as a universally applicable rule. Saying 2PB is too restrictive to DSR+1 is simply wrong because both are the same for a majority of the tournament or DSR is 3 bans after 2 wins in Bo5 matches.

I cannot see how 2PB does "destroy" stage diversity when DSR+1 won't stop it either. You know, 3 bans halts the "true neutrals" meaning that your opponent would have to pick a stage that has a CP viability. Think 3 neutral stage-strike + 3 bans, everyone would be required to learn a CP stage, and I doubt it will be the same one for everyone - how's that for stage diversity? You would likely see all the neutrals represented in round 1 (or 95% SV over here, we just love it) and a decent smattering of CP stages during rounds 2 / 3. Having bans equal to the number of neutrals while having a larger CP list guarantees a sizable level of diversity. There are enough people that like to take others out of their comfort zone, and CP stages often do that.

I've got a poll running in my local scene, and at 24 hours-ish I'll post the results.

 

[Pazx]

I think ぱみゅう means by DSR being complicated is the keeping track part. The [no] benefit part is argumentative. While it can be seen as fair, it is also a tad more complex to newer players than player bans.

2 player bans favors characters higher that are more affected by a stage than others. *cough*Mac*cough* Just 1 ban hurts Mac harder than 2 on Shiek / ZSS / Rosa. Besides, DSR + 1 PB = 2/3 bans in Bo5 as opposed to 2 PB = 2 bans in Bo5. DSR+1 is in the long term more restrictive than 2PB. There will never be a match where 2PB is less stage restricting than DSR+1. DSR is naturally restricting for sake of preventing stage favor as a universally applicable rule. Saying 2PB is too restrictive to DSR+1 is simply wrong because both are the same for a majority of the tournament or DSR is 3 bans after 2 wins in Bo5 matches.

I cannot see how 2PB does "destroy" stage diversity when DSR+1 won't stop it either. You know, 3 bans halts the "true neutrals" meaning that your opponent would have to pick a stage that has a CP viability. Think 3 neutral stage-strike + 3 bans, everyone would be required to learn a CP stage, and I doubt it will be the same one for everyone - how's that for stage diversity? You would likely see all the neutrals represented in round 1 (or 95% SV over here, we just love it) and a decent smattering of CP stages during rounds 2 / 3. Having bans equal to the number of neutrals while having a larger CP list guarantees a sizable level of diversity. There are enough people that like to take others out of their comfort zone, and CP stages often do that.

I've got a poll running in my local scene, and at 24 hours-ish I'll post the results.

MDSR (edit: MDSR + 1 ban) is less restrictive than 2PB, what are your thoughts on that?

 

[ぱみゅ]

For the record, I do not think DSR is bad enough to drag down the meta in any shape or form.
But I think it is pointless to have.
a) No player striking and counterpicking optimally would want to go back to the stage they won on Game 1 because it was, by default, the most even stage for the matchup (they might want to return to a stage previously won on for game 4+, but with enough bans, that will likely not be too much of a problem for the "countered" player).
b) Keeping track of stages played earlier on the set and who won on which is impractical.
c) And the point that concerns me the most: if people are going to agree to return to Smashville 5 out of 5 times on the set anyway, what is the point on having the rule?

I might agree that 1 ban is enough, that's irrelevant, the point is that the rule doesn't seem to bring a lot of benefits over not having it.

 

[Yikarur]

The problem of a) is that FLSS is not commonly used and thus you don't play on the most even stage for the MU under that ruleset.
I'd agree with you under FLSS but it's sadly not the standard.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Now this is interesting.
It's almost like if DSR itself implies that the current Starter/CP distinction is flawed.

 

[Nul]

I've just polled my local scene for 24 hours, the break down is effectively, ordered in % in rounded numbers:

8 Stage ODSR no Pbans: 52%
5 Stage M/W DSR 1 Pban: 38%
7 Stage WDSR 1/2 Pbans: 5% (This is what we have been running standard as a scene)
Don't care: 5%

Notice: I did not vote.

The 5 stage is 3 neu + DL / T&C --- 7 Stage is not making UCT legal. These numbers are straight from the poll.

Now, for those who regularly show to tournaments:

8 Stage ODSR no Pbans: 62% (2 TOs) (Also got most PR player votes)
5 Stage M/W DSR 1 Pban: 31% (1 TO)
7 Stage WDSR 1/2 Pbans: 7%
Don't care: 0%

Granted, this is localized in Las Vegas, and is not everywhere else. Based on these numbers I will be testing the popular option of this poll tomorrow Saturday, and doing informal surveys. I will post again with how the players feel about it after trying it.

I'll be testing 7 strike + DL ODSR no bans.

NOTE: With a fair background in statistical work, I did not word this poll this way nor was it ordered as such (except don't care is always to be on bottom) to prevent a bias. It is not perfect, no survey / poll ever is, but this is a stepping stone pointing in a fair direction.

MDSR (edit: MDSR + 1 ban) is less restrictive than 2PB, what are your thoughts on that?

Same restrictive-ness, not more or less only in Bo3, and does not promote diversity any better in Bo5. Cite "M2K Effect" - You can potentially see only 2 stages in Bo5, which means there is minimal diversity against any DSR except SDR. Excluding Gentleman's.

However Bo5 it is less restrictive. I honestly would only consider this MDSR on a 5 or less stage list, with or without 1 Pban.

 

[Ajimi]

I've just polled my local scene for 24 hours, the break down is effectively, ordered in % in rounded numbers:

8 Stage ODSR no Pbans: 52%
5 Stage M/W DSR 1 Pban: 38%
7 Stage WDSR 1/2 Pbans: 5% (This is what we have been running standard as a scene)
Don't care: 5%

Slightly confused here. I know DSR (any stage won on) and MDSR (last stage won on), but ODSR ? M/W DSR ? WDSR ?
What about your NSR (no stage repeat) ? I thought it was a great idea, but nobody else here seemed to notice.

 

[Nul]

O(DSR) - Original DSR - Can't repeat a stage played in a set (This is what I kept calling NSR)
WDSR - Winner's DSR - Can't pick a stage you won previously in a set
MDSR - Modified DSR - Can't pick the last stage you won on (You "unlock" the first one you won on Bo5, is WDSR in Bo3)
SDR - Stage Dismissal Rule - Can't pick a stage you won on again (Bo5 effective only - probably most complex DSR - You win your first CP, you can't pick it again)

Since ODSR = NSR that's probably why it is been seen as unimpressive because it is the first DSR. I'm probably going to call it NSR anyway because it is easier to call a rule what it says on the tin for new players.

 

[Ajimi]

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification ! For me DSR was your WDSR, so yeah.
Another question then : why was the ODSR replaced in tournaments by others versions ? Because of the heavy stage influence in Melee/Brawl (more than in Sm4sh) ?

 

[Nul]

Results of stage picks, Winner's Round 1 went missing: First stage (Counter-picked)

FD - 0 (5)
BF - 2 (6)
SV - 10 (3)
T&C - 4 (6)
LC - 0 (2)
DH - 1 (1)
UCT - 2 (3)
DL - (5)

In the tournament not counting WR1:
10x 2-0 matches
5x 2-1
3x 3-1
1x 3-0 (This was the bracket reset GF2)

General opinion of the players was that the [new] stage rule-set played on Saturday did not ultimately affect how well they played. Even the 2 new players did not feel like stage choice decided their placements, and most actually enjoyed having a free stage pick. UCT was well received and played into LSF. There was no complaints about no Pbans, but we had a couple people that wanted to Gentlemen 1st stage SV (If you couldn't tell we really like the stage.) I enforced non-compliance with game losses, which I did not actually have to do, since after 1 match everyone was OK with how counter-picking felt. I think the only thing I would have changed was pass out a stage list printout so striking went smoother.

My opinion: The uncertainty about the rule change waning after WR1/WR2 shows to me that this rule-set (FLSS+DL, NSR no Pbans) is viable with the general player base. I believe that with the right steps taken (print-outs, simple worded rules) that this rule-set is worthy of regional/national level.

I think I will try out a non-DSR rule-set, possibly with a larger stage list next time.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification ! For me DSR was your WDSR, so yeah.
Another question then : why was the ODSR replaced in tournaments by others versions ? Because of the heavy stage influence in Melee/Brawl (more than in Sm4sh) ?

Yes, our DSR is WDSR too. I was confused the first time I heard that wasn't the "real" DSR.

IIRC (this was during my early years as a TO) it was because pocket scenes tend to like 1 or 2 stages, and the whole "why play a stage you lost on" made ODSR enforced this in a considered unnecessary fashion. This was the bit for WDSR to become "standard." The other ones are because DSR / Pbans can get "too restrictive" for a scene. ODSR is the most restrictive, so all other variations aside of Pbans are less restrictive.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

I always feel like certain rulesets support laziness from the players, or downright reward laziness.
That's why I heavily agree with Yikarur on this topic.
Too many stage bans results in people banning stuff they find inconvenient instead of just banning stuff they have a disadvantage on.
I do feel like one stage ban is pretty much necessary in certain MU's (Mac/Dorf on DH for example), so one should be fine.
DSR as already mentioned also counters laziness and prevents cheap picks.
A too small stage list also supports this behaviour. I often get the feeling that people hating on many stages are just too lazy to learn them properly. (looking at you German smash scene and at you SoCal)

On the topic of FLSS, we ran this a while at our monthly with 13 stages, but we dropped it because the average player just didn't care.
I feel like it's a good system though if people actually put effort in their stage picks.

 

[Megamang]

I feel like I punted someones child when I disagree to start on smashville. I also got lots of flak for showing people the roof of halbard with ZSS, or for QACing to high heaven on lylat if the opponent doesn't ban it. I don't understand the reason someone would play this game and have such ignorance towards stages, as stages are a huge huge factor to what makes smash to unique. I agree that people are very lazy in this one department for some odd reason, yet will learn long footstool crap that will never happen in game. I think its an attitude of "lets just play the game", though I think the stages are a big part of the game. Keep doing your things TOs, players will start to pay attention to stages if they cost them sets (and they never should, none of the currently accepted stages are really a departure from the norm except TaC in some MUs, and DH.


Funny anecdote, back in the brawl days my TO tried to legalize Hanenbow for doubles... After a doubles MK team of me and my friend made it unplayable, Hanenbow was banned at the next monthly. Ah well =]

 

[Yikarur]

I ban Smashville pretty often because the stage favors a lot of characters.
But then people are saying "Smashville is the most neutral stage in the game" even though it allows crazy early kills, "random" plattform assistant kills, "random" plattform recovery support, 0% kills of the plattform

People are just completely ignorant. They only see what they want to see. If I tell them "Smashville is janky" (I hate that word, I only use it to counter the excessive misuse of the term) I get flamed pretty hard every time.
It's humorous.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

I ban Smashville pretty often because the stage favors a lot of characters.
But then people are saying "Smashville is the most neutral stage in the game" even though it allows crazy early kills, "random" plattform assistant kills, "random" plattform recovery support, 0% kills of the plattform

People are just completely ignorant. They only see what they want to see. If I tell them "Smashville is janky" (I hate that word, I only use it to counter the excessive misuse of the term) I get flamed pretty hard every time.
It's humorous.

It just makes me sad at this point.
I like banning SW and TnC though just to piss people off.

 

[Yikarur]

I'm thinking about the optimal striking for 7 stqrter stages but it's a bit problematic. Most combination allow the one who strikes second to choose the stage. This is not optimal.
the only possible striking seems to be 1-1-1-2-1.
1-3-2 is an hard advantage for the one striking (the last strike should never take more than 1 stage)
2-3-1 my intuition says that the second player gets an advantage here by deciding on what 2 stages out of 5 he wants to play on in one go. The first strike is always the weakest but that weak strike gets not outweighted because the opponent tells you "we play on one of those 2"
The only option left is 1-1-1-2-1 (or put the 2 on the second spot instead)

What does everyone else think? 7 Starters is such an odd number to strike from :/

 

[Ghostbone]

2-3-1 is fast and effective.

The strength of the last strike is a lot more important than the "weak" first two strikes tbh, most people would rather strike first even though the person striking second theoretically has an advantage.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

Well 5 and 9 Starters is objectively better for striking than 7, but I'd go with what Ghostbone said if it has to be 7.

 

[Yikarur]

but deciding for "I want to play on those 2 stages ouf of 5" is pretty strong. I'm not sure If I could life with that D:

 

[Ghostbone]

but deciding for "I want to play on those 2 stages ouf of 5" is pretty strong. I'm not sure If I could life with that D:

It's just on the person striking first to adequately think through their first 2 strikes

At the end of the day, you're both still just striking 3 stages from a 7 stage list.

And 9 starters would be better than 7, but there aren't 9 competitively viable stages (in most players minds)

 

[Yikarur]

It's just on the person striking first to adequately think through their first 2 strikes

At the end of the day, you're both still just striking 3 stages from a 7 stage list.

And 9 starters would be better than 7, but there aren't 9 competitively viable stages (in most players minds)

Realistically it's not rare that the player who strikes first strikes a stage that the other party wanted to strike as well. In that case it turns from like "3:3" to "2:4" and the other players thinks "nice, I have one extra strike now"
Thats why I'd probably prefer a longer, but fairer striking process.
if you do 1-2-1 with 5 Stages, 1-1-1-2-1 with 7 just takes a maximum of 10 seconds longer if the players are not sure. (the very first strikes are the fastest from experience because they are farther from the final decision)