Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Unknownkid]

I see. Fair enough. So it should be (1-2-1) Winner->Loser->Winner? So the loser of the RPS picks the stage?

 

[Ghostbone]

So viewers>competitors? I do get your point, but it does feel rather odd only to have later matches Bo5. But that is my opinion.

This has nothing to do with viewers or spectators.

Earlier matches can never be Bo5, there's not enough time in the tournament for it.

But that doesn't mean later rounds shouldn't be bo5, if there's enough time for it.

 

[Thinkaman]

It's not about spoiling people's fun because not everyone can have it.

It's about common sense: Due to the way stage selection works, a Bo3 set is literally a different game than a Bo5 set, playing on different stages different percentages of the time and rewarding pocket characters slightly more.

We don't play Bo3 in some rounds and Bo5 in others for the same reason we don't play Smash 4 in some rounds and Melee in others. I realize that's taking it to an absurd extreme, but I'm just underlying the point that still stands: You gotta compete in the exact same game, or else your "competition" is a joke.

 

[Megamang]

So like, most of all competition is a joke? Damn =[

 

[Thinkaman]

So like, most of all competition is a joke? Damn =[

The fact that both these games are awesome and 99.999% similar keeps this boat afloat.

But they are two different games and as any competitive player knows the difference does matter; otherwise, we wouldn't even be talking about it!

Edit: For example, if someone decided that grand finals would use a different stage list than the rest of EVO, EVO would still probably be a great tourney. But it would still be really stupid.

 

[Pazx]

I don't really want to get involved in this bo3 vs bo5 argument as I can't see this (all bo3/bo5) taking off as a popular opinion, but I do have to question why you would rather have a ruleset that is overall less suitable for competition than a ruleset that is slightly inconsistent. Say you were given the choice between donating (at no cost of your own) $50 each to 2 charities, or donating $50 to one charity and $100 to another, the second option is clearly the right choice if you have no other options. You guys are beginning to sound like our friend who is too caught up in the concept of competitive philosophy to see the forest for the trees.

Probably to allow slower matchups to complete without a timeout. Japan does 2s/7m and did 3s/10m in brawl IIRC.

I personally think more time=more boring. The timer pushes players to act and while I used to advocate more time, I believe we should be doing 2s/5m or 3s/7m.

Not only does Smash give players much more space to retreat but we give players far more time to retreat, which can make matches drag on and bore viewers. People often say stock counts affect how aggressive players are, but in practice it comes down to the timer forcing the losing player to make plays.

Less time = timeouts are an easier and thus more viable win condition = more people actively trying to time out their opponent.

More time = timeouts are harder = playing defensive is less rewarding = faster play.

From my own experience, I believe the above theories to be more or less true.

 

[Megamang]

Yea, in certain MUs (most involving a certain blue hedgehog...) the timeout starts as soon as the first stock is taken, and I have to spend 4 minutes chasing them down, and I can't help but think if there was no timer it would be faster. Obviously this isn't the solution, but dear god do not do 2 stock 5 minutes unless we want most games to take 5 minutes and come down to who gets the first couple of hits.

Thinkaman I was referring more broadly to competition. From starcraft 2, to tennis, to boxing. Differing competition lengths are pragmatic for so many reasons, and don't make competition a joke.

 

[Ghostbone]

The fact that both these games are awesome and 99.999% similar keeps this boat afloat.

But they are two different games and as any competitive player knows the difference does matter; otherwise, we wouldn't even be talking about it!

Edit: For example, if someone decided that grand finals would use a different stage list than the rest of EVO, EVO would still probably be a great tourney. But it would still be really stupid.

Even using your ridiculous logic, Bo3 is just an objectively worse version of the game. Just because some of the tournament HAS TO be run with this worse game, doesn't mean the whole tournament should be.

And like Megamang pointed out, almost every other competitive game does the exact same thing. Later rounds get more games because that increases consistency of results. All you're doing is trying to make the whole tournament less competitive, for no gain.

 

[Teshie U]

Less time = timeouts are an easier and thus more viable win condition = more people actively trying to time out their opponent.

More time = timeouts are harder = playing defensive is less rewarding = faster play.

From my own experience, I believe the above theories to be more or less true.

Japan's meta looks far more defensive than ours.
The thing about less time means there is a greater urgency of having the lead. Which means more fighting over the lead, which pushes the game towards its end. If both players are willing to camp it out, so be it. Any good player trying to win will abuse their lead regardless.

 

[Thinkaman]

No one is arguing that playing more games doesn't increase the consistency of results, or that this isn't a good thing. No one is also saying that Bo5 isn't a better game than Bo3, just that it is different.

It's just that the idea that having the ~20% of the players in the event who go 0-4 play fewer games total than the top 8 get to play in a single set is totally unacceptable as a community.


The point of a tournament is to celebrate competition and to determine the best player. But all of that is for naught if we adopt policies that repeatedly marginalizes the newest players. A strong community and new blood is required for competition to continue to exist--it's not about charity, it's about survival.

In a 64-man Bo3 bracket, a player who loses winner's finals but comes back and wins grands will play anywhere from 18-23 games, depending on how many sets go to game 3. But if they suddenly swap to Bo5 for top 8, that player would play 23-33 games.

These pot monsters fund our grassroots scene, and we repeatedly tell them that tournaments are the best way to get good, the most valuable experience. Yet then we turn around and enforce a structure where we the best players get 6-8 times as much of that most valuable experience? And they are expected to foot the bill for this and line the pockets of players like me and you, week after week?

How is that not a scam?


All the most successful competitive games in the world focus primarily on ladders, where new players have the opportunity to play just as many serious games as the best. All the most successful smash communities place a huge emphasis on smashfests and special new-player-friendly events like Arcadians.

Due to overhead and setups required, it is difficult to run full ladders in single-day events or nationals. Running a double elim-bracket is a raw deal for the weakest and newest players, but there's rarely a viable alternative.

But that's no excuse to double down on giving us elite players an even bigger share of the experience.

 

[Das Koopa]

I don't see why the spectator value of the game should be drastically reduced because we don't have the adequate setup to run Bo5s the entire tournament. That's why Top 8 will always run Bo5s and I can't disagree with it - it's produced better top-level play. If newer players want to get there, they should improve.

I feel Melee's system is pretty good, for example, as it similarly rewards people who are good, and if that community can grow in spite of the trial-by-fire nature of starting out, I don't see why Smash 4 can't.

 

[Megamang]

Everyone that gets eliminated is free to continue playing. Good players in my scene will often do friendlies with much lesser players in serious sets, to give them that experience. Sure it isn't 'tournament play' but its valuable nonetheless. If your scene has no friendlies or the better players refuse to do friendlies, thats a community problem more than a format problem.

 

[Ghostbone]

No one is arguing that playing more games doesn't increase the consistency of results, or that this isn't a good thing. No one is also saying that Bo5 isn't a better game than Bo3, just that it is different.

It's just that the idea that having the ~20% of the players in the event who go 0-4 play fewer games total than the top 8 get to play in a single set is totally unacceptable as a community.


The point of a tournament is to celebrate competition and to determine the best player. But all of that is for naught if we adopt policies that repeatedly marginalizes the newest players. A strong community and new blood is required for competition to continue to exist--it's not about charity, it's about survival.

In a 64-man Bo3 bracket, a player who loses winner's finals but comes back and wins grands will play anywhere from 18-23 games, depending on how many sets go to game 3. But if they suddenly swap to Bo5 for top 8, that player would play 23-33 games.

These pot monsters fund our grassroots scene, and we repeatedly tell them that tournaments are the best way to get good, the most valuable experience. Yet then we turn around and enforce a structure where we the best players get 6-8 times as much of that most valuable experience? And they are expected to foot the bill for this and line the pockets of players like me and you, week after week?

How is that not a scam?


All the most successful competitive games in the world focus primarily on ladders, where new players have the opportunity to play just as many serious games as the best. All the most successful smash communities place a huge emphasis on smashfests and special new-player-friendly events like Arcadians.

Due to overhead and setups required, it is difficult to run full ladders in single-day events or nationals. Running a double elim-bracket is a raw deal for the weakest and newest players, but there's rarely a viable alternative.

But that's no excuse to double down on giving us elite players an even bigger share of the experience.

Again with the "Some players don't get it, so we have to drag the quality of the whole tournament down to match them"

How does bo5 in later rounds marginalize newer players? It doesn't affect them whether later rounds are bo5 or bo3 because they don't make it to later rounds

****, soon you'll be arguing that every tournament should be round robin as well, since otherwise not every player gets to play the same amount of sets. It's the only logical conclusion based on your premises. To you, it shouldn't matter that double elim is the only viable tournament setup, since it's "unfair" we should just stop running them I guess?

Contrary to your opinion, players don't only go to tournaments to play tournament sets, and someone's tournament experience isn't ruined just because people who made it to later rounds get to play more games. Friendly setups are still available, and it's better if later rounds have more games because that gives this player who got out early more high level games to watch and learn from.

What tournaments do you go to that players complain about bo5 in finals or top 8? I've literally never heard a complaint from ANY player about bo5, only complaints from VARIOUS PEOPLE, whether top 3 or out in round 3, about not enough bo5 sets at the end.

 

[Thinkaman]

Everyone that gets eliminated is free to continue playing. Good players in my scene will often do friendlies with much lesser players in serious sets, to give them that experience. Sure it isn't 'tournament play' but its valuable nonetheless. If your scene has no friendlies or the better players refuse to do friendlies, thats a community problem more than a format problem.

Again with the "Some players don't get it, so we have to drag the quality of the whole tournament down to match them"

How does bo5 in later rounds marginalize newer players? It doesn't affect them whether later rounds are bo5 or bo3 because they don't make it to later rounds

Contrary to your opinion, players don't only go to tournaments to play tournament sets, and someone's tournament experience isn't ruined just because people who made it to later rounds get to play more games. Friendly setups are still available, and it's better if later rounds have more games because that gives this player who got out early more high level games to watch and learn from.

These two objections address one another.

The bottom-line issue is that there is a finite amount of playtime available at an event; some goes to bracket, some goes to friendlies. Bracket takes priority, but both are critical to the community. I think we all agree on this?

Top players getting more time in a double elim bracket is unavoidable and understandable--but where do we draw the line? 4x amount of play is unfortunate, but 8x amount of play crosses into WTF mode.

Of course friendlies are important; that's what I'm talking about! When you make the top 8 play what can be an additional 2 hours of time, that's 2 additional hours that the rest of the community doesn't have access to those setups and more importantly those players.



I believe that every player has the right to spend their tourney time however they want; no one has an obligation to spend X amount of time mentoring new players every event. But when we adopt a structure that enforces a certain pattern of behavior, we have to take responsibility for its consequences.

We can never forget that these are the people paying for our tournaments.

****, soon you'll be arguing that every tournament should be round robin as well, since otherwise not every player gets to play the same amount of sets. It's the only logical conclusion based on your premises. To you, it shouldn't matter that double elim is the only viable tournament setup, since it's "unfair" we should just stop running them I guess?

I already said that double elim is pretty undesirable but is often the only choice we can offer due to setup constraints.

Again, all the most successful competitive game out there are built on a ladder structure where everyone can play the same number of games and can gain the same amount of XP. This is no accident. It is unfortunate that we have constraints that prevent Smash from doing the same in most cases, but this information should still inform our understanding about how our format shapes the community.

What tournaments do you go to that players complain about bo5 in finals or top 8? I've literally never heard a complaint from ANY player about bo5, only complaints from VARIOUS PEOPLE, whether top 3 or out in round 3, about not enough bo5 sets at the end.

They don't complain. They just don't come back.

No one wants to pay $10 to watch people they've never met play video games; you can do that on Twitch for free.

 

[Ghostbone]

These two objections address one another.

The bottom-line issue is that there is a finite amount of playtime available at an event; some goes to bracket, some goes to friendlies. Bracket takes priority, but both are critical to the community. I think we all agree on this?

Top players getting more time in a double elim bracket is unavoidable and understandable--but where do we draw the line? 4x amount of play is unfortunate, but 8x amount of play crosses into WTF mode.

Of course friendlies are important; that's what I'm talking about! When you make the top 8 play what can be an additional 2 hours of time, that's 2 additional hours that the rest of the community doesn't have access to those setups and more importantly those players.

Bo5 in Finals (W/L/G) doesn't affect the amount of setups, only 1 game can be played at a time so only one setup can be used, and that setup will be used whether finals are bo3 or bo5.
Even in top 8, most of the time all of top 8 is played on stream on the same setup, so again, you're not taking away any friendly setups by having top 8 be bo5.

I believe that every player has the right to spend their tourney time however they want; no one has an obligation to spend X amount of time mentoring new players every event. But when we adopt a structure that enforces a certain pattern of behavior, we have to take responsibility for its consequences.

We can never forget that these are the people paying for our tournaments.

They get what they pay for.
In fact, most of the time, people out in earlier rounds get to play way more smash than the people who are in top 8, bo5 or not. TOs will expect people still in the tournament not to be playing friendlies as they need to be ready for when their match is called. As a player in finals at all the tournaments I go to, I spend a lot more time helping TO and standing around waiting for games, while other players get to play friendlies the whole time once they're knocked out (once friendlies setups become available, which happens WAY earlier than the bracket becoming bo5 lmao). I accept it as the nature of tournaments.

I already said that double elim is pretty undesirable but is often the only choice we can offer due to setup constraints.

Again, all the most successful competitive game out there are built on a ladder structure where everyone can play the same number of games and can gain the same amount of XP. This is no accident. It is unfortunate that we have constraints that prevent Smash from doing the same in most cases, but this information should still inform our understanding about how our format shapes the community.

It's fallacious to assume that a format that works for other games will work/is the ideal for Smash.
Also, even games with online ladders have local or online tournaments that are either double elim like smash, with more games in later rounds, or SINGLE ELIM, which is even worse for the new player. Yet league tournaments still thrive, starcraft tournaments still thrive, etc.

They don't complain. They just don't come back.

No one wants to pay $10 to watch people they've never met play video games; you can do that on Twitch for free.

This just tells me it's never actually happened, and it's a contrived problem you'd thought up that doesn't have grounds in reality.

 

[Yikarur]

Saying that "Bo5 is objectively better" is objectively wrong.

I'd say all Bo3 is objectively better than a split format. (Bo3 early, Bo5 later)

The whole ruleset gets always messed-up by Bo5 because suddenly important points in the ruleset don't work anymore because a Bo5 is a completely different representation of the game.

Today we had a Top8 Bo5 at a tournament and we had 3:0, 3:0, 3:1, 3:0, 3:0, 3:0 3:2 (GF) (3:2 GF2)

This game is a game of skill comparison. If you are worried about "Bo3 being not consistent enough" you should not worry about the format but about the game you're playing. (TCGs are Bo3 only btw, and sometimes even Bo1, and that has a much higher variance than Fighting Games)

3 Stock Bo3 is all you need for consistency. If you change the format mid-tournament new skills are suddenly going to be rewarded.
- Long time adaption is suddenly more important (if you suck at fast adaption you are suddenly rewarded by playing Bo5, it's a different format)
- Your endurance is challenged more. If you are good at playing long sets you get rewarded by Bo5.
- You potentially play on more stages, making DSR and Bans different from a Bo3 set.
- You are able to "test" random things because you lose less of the set (by losing 1/3 instead of 1/2)

Bo3 and Bo5 are different formats and you suddenly change the format mid-tournament. This doesn't make sense to me. Maybe the player who drowned im pools would win the tournament if all sets were a Bo5, because he needs longer to adapt to his opponent but after he has adapted he's much stronger? (we even have a similar case in germany.. but not that extreme of course)

Different skill sets are required at different portions of the tournament and this doesn't seem fair. All sets of a tournament should be treated equally, because otherwise you cannot even compare results, because they basically played a different game with different rules.

 

[Nul]

Bo5 in Finals (W/L/G) doesn't affect the amount of setups, only 1 game can be played at a time so only one setup can be used, and that setup will be used whether finals are bo3 or bo5.
Even in top 8, most of the time all of top 8 is played on stream on the same setup, so again, you're not taking away any friendly setups by having top 8 be bo5.

A lot of assuming and overthinking here. Think's point is that top players get more bracket time. Money is on the line in bracket, friendlies normally not so. There are more than enough players that play differently on and out of bracket. He's not talking about set-ups being taken away.

They get what they pay for.
In fact, most of the time, people out in earlier rounds get to play way more smash than the people who are in top 8, bo5 or not. TOs will expect people still in the tournament not to be playing friendlies as they need to be ready for when their match is called. As a player in finals at all the tournaments I go to, I spend a lot more time helping TO and standing around waiting for games, while other players get to play friendlies the whole time once they're knocked out (once friendlies setups become available, which happens WAY earlier than the bracket becoming bo5 lmao). I accept it as the nature of tournaments.

Brutal. Maybe in your case, you have enough set-ups to have a match always running since bracket start. No waiting matches. Sure, that is the case. But I just ran a 12-man 2-setup bracket, and the 4 people who tied 9th didn't get to play again, even friendlies. They got 2 sets, and got to watch. When a set-up opened, 3 already left, and the 4th got blocked effectively then left.

It's fallacious to assume that a format that works for other games will work/is the ideal for Smash.
Also, even games with online ladders have local or online tournaments that are either double elim like smash, with more games in later rounds, or SINGLE ELIM, which is even worse for the new player. Yet league tournaments still thrive, starcraft tournaments still thrive, etc.

Think didn't even say it was ideal for Smash. Think didn't even tie ladder format, idealism, and Smash together; he noted that we don't have the opportunity to truly try it.

This just tells me it's never actually happened, and it's a contrived problem you'd thought up that doesn't have grounds in reality.

I could give you a list of ~40 people who showed once to my previous tournament series and my current #16 that never returned to any of our local tournaments again. Not counting OOS entrants, which is 3. It happens.

But seriously, Fallacy Fallacy? Strawman complex on Think? Burden of proof? Tu quoque? Composition argument? Sharpshooting? Appeal to authority? Black and White? You're a walking yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I'm going to light Ad Hominem you a bit and warn you that your CJ is destroying your argument.

You don't need a bo5 to determine who the better player is between 1st and last seed.

People here need to realise the ideal is bo5 for the whole tournament, but that's not feasible because of time constraints. But just because we can't run bo5 for the whole tournament doesn't mean we shouldn't run bo5 for as much as we can lmao.

So what you're saying is that we cater / yield to top players? Never mind that about WR1 is about 75% unseeded rounds, WR2 50%, LR1 100%, LR2 100%, if the typical happens that seeds win their early rounds. That's a lot of rounds that fall outside your argument conveniently ignored.

I can run Bo5 tournaments, I've got the time. Oh, wait, did you say I didn't have the time? I guess I've just pointed out a tournament that has fallen outside your argument.

I believe (don't know 100%) that I don't have enough time in my life to adequately facepalm in response to your postings. I urge you to check yourself, Ghostbone.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I personally strongly support Bo5's in the 2 stock meta.
The matches are short enough, and in order to avoid outlying results (upsets), more games are necessary.
But due to numerous circumstances there usually is a lot of time between games, and this dead time sure adds up in the end. So, to save time, the earlier rounds where these upsets are less likely to happen are run with Bo3. They still CAN happen, but it is a risk worth taking if the gain is to run the tournament properly.
The cut is not necessarily the Top 8, for what is worth it could be Top 16, 32, 64, or whatever you consider is better for your own event.

With 3 stocks however, Bo5's might be a bit too much, even if reserved to the Top 3 only.
Matches already have a lot of player interaction, and while they can get close even if they play out all of the 5 games, all of the outlying results are likely to already happen within each game and can get override with good enough gameplay (although is more difficult as the skill disparity is lower).
Also, since there are fewer games, mid-game time is minimized to the point it is less likely to drag down the whole tournament, though this can still happen.


In the end, both 3sBo3 and 2sBo5 require 6 stocks to win, and the Sets' average time is about the same, so it all comes down to preference.

-------
The ultimate reason why I prefer 2 stock, Bo5 despite risking myself to get double-eliminated and get way less average playtime, is that there are more opportunities to pick Stages. The option to see more stages is greater, and that's something I'd take any day though a lot of players don't take the chance and play full-Smashville anyway.

 

[Ghostbone]

This game is a game of skill comparison. If you are worried about "Bo3 being not consistent enough" you should not worry about the format but about the game you're playing. (TCGs are Bo3 only btw, and sometimes even Bo1, and that has a much higher variance than Fighting Games)

I mean, I literally just gave a bunch of examples showing that bo5 gets you more consistent results than bo3, but ok.
And just because another community only does Bo3, doesn't mean they're correct, and doesn't mean we should follow suit.

3 Stock Bo3 is all you need for consistency.

0 Evidence for this. Go pull up the data that 3 stock sets never have different results between bo3 and bo5 if you think this is the case, until then you can't parrot it around like it's a fact.
Because if you want evidence to the contrary, you need look no further than losers finals of Beast 6 lol.

If you change the format mid-tournament new skills are suddenly going to be rewarded.
- Long time adaption is suddenly more important (if you suck at fast adaption you are suddenly rewarded by playing Bo5, it's a different format)
- Your endurance is challenged more. If you are good at playing long sets you get rewarded by Bo5.
- You potentially play on more stages, making DSR and Bans different from a Bo3 set.
- You are able to "test" random things because you lose less of the set (by losing 1/3 instead of 1/2)

You're magnifying minute differences. As a whole, best of 5 tests all the same skills as bo3, just to a greater extent. Your list of 4 skills is dwarfed by the 100s of skills that are exactly the same because we're still playing smash 4 lol.

Bo3 and Bo5 are different formats and you suddenly change the format mid-tournament. This doesn't make sense to me. Maybe the player who drowned im pools would win the tournament if all sets were a Bo5, because he needs longer to adapt to his opponent but after he has adapted he's much stronger? (we even have a similar case in germany.. but not that extreme of course)

This scenario is highly unlikely, but even if it exists....
WE CAN'T DO Bo5 FOR THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT, IF WE COULD THEN WE WOULD.
This isn't some consipiracy to take away games from people early in bracket or something lmao, it exists out of necessity. We'd like to give that player bo5 from round 1, but it's impossible. Realistically if they're good enough to beat the players who get to bo5 sets in the bracket, they'd also be getting to the bo5 sets in bracket.

Different skill sets are required at different portions of the tournament and this doesn't seem fair. All sets of a tournament should be treated equally, because otherwise you cannot even compare results, because they basically played a different game with different rules.

"Basically played a different game"
Do you even hear yourself lol, are you really that deep in your theory that you're calling bo5 a different game than bo3?
You can't honestly think this, you can't honestly think that the skills required to play smash 4 are drastically different between different set lengths, that what makes a player good is drastically different between bo5 and bo3, that the top players in the two formats would be completely different because obviously they're as different as Melee and Smash4? (since i'm not even the one who first made this comparison, I'll use it again lol)

A lot of assuming and overthinking here. Think's point is that top players get more bracket time. Money is on the line in bracket, friendlies normally not so. There are more than enough players that play differently on and out of bracket. He's not talking about set-ups being taken away.

...he literally was talking about set-ups getting taken away lmao. I can't put this any nicer, but actually read the post I was quoting next time.

Brutal. Maybe in your case, you have enough set-ups to have a match always running since bracket start. No waiting matches. Sure, that is the case. But I just ran a 12-man 2-setup bracket, and the 4 people who tied 9th didn't get to play again, even friendlies. They got 2 sets, and got to watch. When a set-up opened, 3 already left, and the 4th got blocked effectively then left.

Your problem lies more in the 2 total setups rather than any format.

Think didn't even say it was ideal for Smash. Think didn't even tie ladder format, idealism, and Smash together; he noted that we don't have the opportunity to truly try it.

I mean, you can say that's technically true, but it was heavily implied.
What's even your point here, that Think's argument was actually meaningless and I can't respond to it?

I could give you a list of ~40 people who showed once to my previous tournament series and my current #16 that never returned to any of our local tournaments again. Not counting OOS entrants, which is 3. It happens.

This happens in any scene, and it has nothing to do with bo5 in later sets lol (well more specifically, if you think there's a correlation, provide evidence). Some people just don't like the tournament atmosphere.

But seriously, Fallacy Fallacy? Strawman complex on Think? Burden of proof? Tu quoque? Composition argument? Sharpshooting? Appeal to authority? Black and White? You're a walking yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I'm going to light Ad Hominem you a bit and warn you that your CJ is destroying your argument.

You know you can't just call out fallacies without pointing them out and explaining why they apply in this circumstance.
Because as it stands, this part of your post has nothing of substance to reply to lol.

So what you're saying is that we cater / yield to top players? Never mind that about WR1 is about 75% unseeded rounds, WR2 50%, LR1 100%, LR2 100%, if the typical happens that seeds win their early rounds. That's a lot of rounds that fall outside your argument conveniently ignored.

Did you just try and call me out for strawmanning, then strawman me? Be a little bit more self aware please. I never said we cater to top players, how do the other rounds fall outside my argument? The point was that in earlier rounds, skill differentials are greater, so bo5 is a lot less relevant (but still better if you can pull it off obviously). That point still stands and you've said nothing to challenge it.

I can run Bo5 tournaments, I've got the time. Oh, wait, did you say I didn't have the time? I guess I've just pointed out a tournament that has fallen outside your argument.

I believe (don't know 100%) that I don't have enough time in my life to adequately facepalm in response to your postings. I urge you to check yourself, Ghostbone.

If you have time for all Bo5 tournaments, then you should run all bo5 tournaments. You're really missing the point if you think that has anything to do with what me or Think or talking about lol.
Lmao at the end, people must find you extremely obnoxious to talk to.

 

[Megamang]

2 Independent thoughts here:

If I had to choose how I was going to play out 6 stocks, I would heavily prefer bo5 2 stocks over bo3 3 stocks. First, more stage variety is nice. Second, I like the format of 2 'wins' to win because it feels natural to me in fighting games, though this is obviously purely down to my preference. Third, I think it feels better to get more 'resets' for a new game. If something goes horribly wrong, through either my fault or something like an insanely good gimp/early kill from my opponent, having to slug it out for 2 more stocks and being on match point after one loss sucks. Simply playing out one stock to get a feel for the opponent, taking the loss, and then going into the next match not on match point but only down a game is a nicer feeling. Lastly, more quick games I think is better making the game feel faster paced, and leads to cool games like Sinji vs johnnumbers where every % matters. Over 2 stocks this is pretty cool, over 3 it drags on forever and the game is pretty much over at some obvious point before it ends. Obviously most of this is subjective; these are just some thoughts I have on the matter as a tournament attender.


Ok, next, if we are to say that bo3 is radically different in skill-testing than bo5... whichever we chose we are saying is superior, arbitrarily. Even if they were so different, both are smash 4, so which are we testing? By having both formats we are testing the skill sets over a wider range for the players.

 

[Nul]

...he literally was talking about set-ups getting taken away lmao. I can't put this any nicer, but actually read the post I was quoting next time.

You missed:

Top players getting more time in a double elim bracket is unavoidable and understandable--but where do we draw the line? 4x amount of play is unfortunate, but 8x amount of play crosses into WTF mode.

Despite the fact that you quoted it. Sure, he mentioned set-ups being prioritized to bracket, but clearly (to me) an afterthought.

Your problem lies more in the 2 total setups rather than any format.

And there are tournaments run with just one set-up that still do friendlies afterwards. If they waited (at mine), they could have played friendlies later, but how would they have known that if this was their first time going to an event? BTW not all new players ask the TO about every faucet of an event.

I mean, you can say that's technically true, but it was heavily implied.
What's even your point here, that Think's argument was actually meaningless and I can't respond to it?

Hah, I can see you don't want to lose an argument for the sake of not losing. You could have responded back with tournament done in full pooled RR and (actually) brought results (like a link) or even ones done in Swiss. (3DS easily does this, shocker) Both of which go in with the argument of "more XP" per player per event as opposed to Double Elim. While a ladder format would ordinarily take days or weeks to properly iron out result, it does not mean someone doesn't have the time to pull this together. It means we haven't had the resources (venue, time, set-ups, manpower, etc.) and motivation towards this goal to make it happen yet. Trust me, there are enough local TOs (I know 1 current, 2 past) out there that couldn't / can't even organize a small OOS sized tournament.

This happens in any scene, and it has nothing to do with bo5 in later sets lol (well more specifically, if you think there's a correlation, provide evidence). Some people just don't like the tournament atmosphere.

You didn't quote Bo5, so don't misrepresent the argument. I get that it originated as a "Bo5 sets at end" argument, but the fact is that people leave because they don't get to play. The point is that LR1/2 drop outs don't get to play for hours in plenty of cases. Even the friendly set-ups tend (depends on TO) to be prioritized to players who are still in bracket to and maintain warm-up.

Think's argument is closer to that "people who would complain simply leave, because they can do what they are doing right now for free elsewhere."

I get that he simplified it, but, take a deep breath, this argument is too universal to place into just Bo5 set complaints - it is everything bad that a new player sees "against" (not on purpose also) them because it is their first time. They are deciding if they should invest the time - note everyone values their time above everyone else.

You know you can't just call out fallacies without pointing them out and explaining why they apply in this circumstance.
Because as it stands, this part of your post has nothing of substance to reply to lol.

Yet you still replied. ("Nothing ...", Black and white, meaning you would not have replied) Why bother pointing the ties if you're just going to circumvent points anyway? What I'm trying to say is: Calm down.

Did you just try and call me out for strawmanning, then strawman me? Be a little bit more self aware please. I never said we cater to top players, how do the other rounds fall outside my argument? The point was that in earlier rounds, skill differentials are greater, so bo5 is a lot less relevant (but still better if you can pull it off obviously). That point still stands and you've said nothing to challenge it.

I could have quoted the entire page-61 [posts 2401-2440] set of your posts for this. I asked if that's what you meant, brought correlation, and generalized arguments against it. I mean, it could mean you meant that WR1/2 are supposed justified to never have Bo5, but I'm not you. Get your fallacies straight, because I set-up a "Loaded Question" to test, and I'm (not) sorry but you ate that up.

My point is that you can't seed everyone (mostly thanks to new players, vigilance of TOs) because a player with no seed is considered to be without ranked skill, and unseeded players are seen as less of a skill gap (generally, we both know this is not always) than those of seed: There will be unseeded players playing unseeded players, and that is seen as a closer skill level match. The community views this as such because it is relayed in locals groups and posts, and even last year's EVO commentary during pools. Bo5 is viable to some matches in WR1/2, and considerably all of LR1/2 because the skill gap is much closer. LR1/2 is "culled" lower-end skilled players, but there are a good number of them that have a small skill gap play each other here. With my recent tournament, Flex Sets actually showed (maybe proved? too small a sample IMO) that there was viability in having a Bo5 set in WR2 and LR1 as are there were 3-2 scored sets. Feel free: http://vegassmash.challonge.com/ReKT16s - Note: top 4 was seeded, #1 as a PR 11-30 local, #2 - #4 based on previous tournament showing / placing. Flex sets until WLGF Bo5.

If you have time for all Bo5 tournaments, then you should run all bo5 tournaments. You're really missing the point if you think that has anything to do with what me or Think or talking about lol.
Lmao at the end, people must find you extremely obnoxious to talk to.

This was namely in response to your black and white representation. I got uppity (I'm behind a monitor, can't be seen, and have no sympathy [to maybe reciprocate] because I can't read the emotion on your face that I can't see) and it showed in my word choice.

Also, I am going to stay on the Flex sets because despite occasionally having only 2 set-ups, I still have the time to for a full Bo5. Why not Bo5 if I do have the time? This is for the aforementioned potential seeds 1-32 match that does have the skill disparity, while maintaining a level (not full) of integrity of Bo5. However if I do one day get half the set-ups to players, You can bet I'm rolling out Swiss.

Informative, really. I do prefer people to challenge me, as I challenge, but I normally bring up counter-evidence to someone's point or prove myself wrong (normally in the case of frame data, jabs are my worst offenders.)

 

[Ajimi]

Random thought, what about playing full BO5 in winner bracket, and full BO3 in loser bracket ?

 

[Ghostbone]

Random thought, what about playing full BO5 in winner bracket, and full BO3 in loser bracket ?

If anything you'd want it to be the other way around lol.
It feels really bad to go from a bo5 set to a bo3.

 

[Ajimi]

It wouldn't make sense for LF to have more play time than WF and GF.

 

[gagebair]

Random thought, what about playing full BO5 in winner bracket, and full BO3 in loser bracket ?

I believe that BO5 should be saved for top 32, both in winners and losers bracket

 

[Nul]

It wouldn't make sense for LF to have more play time than WF and GF.

But it wouldn't make sense to have LF to play a Bo3 which discerns who gets how much money a player gets on that match, while previous matches have no near-immediate effect. Plus I've seen immediate player complaint.

I believe Ghostbone made the thought that you were coupling the "standard" WLGF Bo5 as well as Bo5 all Winner's Bracket. I'd say like what Ghostbone seems to have inferred that Loser's Bracket + WLGF Bo5 would be objectively better.

I'm saying this because there were some regional Brawl tournaments (Like ReveLAtions) I've been to that did Winner's Semis Bo5 + WLGF Bo5, and there were complaints about going to Bo3 from Bo5. IIRC most of those Bo3 sets "underneath" the Bo5 WSemis were played Bo5 anyway against TO wishes / while they weren't looking. This Bo# format was weirdly popular with TOs/Organizers who were just getting into it around this time, but long-term dropped/had no interest.

I believe that BO5 should be saved for top 32, both in winners and losers bracket

If you're streaming every match on a single stream: 44/45 matches roughly equals:
12h28m if everything was a 3-0.
20h25m if everything was a 3-2 with bracket reset.
15h05m for general average match time.

If you're NOT going to stream each match until the end and run each match as fast as you can, rough cut those times in half

The calculations done on the spreadsheet also assume no hiccups in finding and sitting down the 2 players in 2 minutes. This won't happen.

If you're doing a week-long or 1-game 2-day event this would work out. However at this time frame, you're not worrying time over yourself or venue, it is now stressing on the players more.

 

[Megamang]

Sumabato 8 was bo3 the entire tournament. Most of the twitch chat (not a great metric, but its a sample) is pretty annoyed at it. One SD at the beginning pretty much determined half of finals. Then there was a character swap. Idk, im sad I didn't get to see Komorikiri's sonic much, or 9B's bayonetta. There were a few matches that were so good, it felt odd when they ended the way they did.


BUT! Here is something they did that was cool. They set up a bracket for the players who drowned in pools, and they got to play a whole tournament. Like a JV game. They called it B bracket. What if this was there, bo3 the whole way for fairness, while the A bracket gets to have bo5 near the end for the viewer's sake?

the only downside is that it is a lot more to ask of the TO. But he can always have a few people from the tournament help, the idea is only usable at big events. That way, people who pay to go don't feel jipped and get a tournament experience even if they die in pools, and we can have the more statistically reliable bo5 later in bracket!

They aired the Grand Finals of the B bracket right before regular Grand Finals, which was also cool to have an entertaining match beforehand and also gives the players more equal access to rest time, regardless of them being on losers or winners side.

 

[Yikarur]

This is standard for german tournaments.(we call it Bonus Bracket)

3 Stock Bo3 only masterrace

 

[Pazx]

Is this just an amateur bracket being discussed?

Not really ruleset related, but a good thing to have.

 

[ArikadoSD]

A decision on omegas in rulesets has to be made. You can't allow all omegas or consider them the same as FD, because Pikachu has a ridiculous advantage on omega Umbra and I didn't realize that until a Pikachu took me to it.

Either blanket ban or ban on omega Umbra or something idk.

 

[Yikarur]

A decision on omegas in rulesets has to be made. You can't allow all omegas or consider them the same as FD, because Pikachu has a ridiculous advantage on omega Umbra and I didn't realize that until a Pikachu took me to it.

Either blanket ban or ban on omega Umbra or something idk.

and ban wall omegas because some characters can wall jump.
or ban wall omegas without a wall (i.e Paclan) because only very specific character profit from them.
Everyone knows that Pikachu can QAC on that stage. It's not a problem and not a reason to change the rules.

 

[ArikadoSD]

and ban wall omegas because some characters can wall jump.
or ban wall omegas without a wall (i.e Paclan) because only very specific character profit from them.
Everyone knows that Pikachu can QAC on that stage. It's not a problem and not a reason to change the rules.

Yes it's a problem. It gives Pikachu a ridiculous advantage. Wall jumping off walled omegas doesn't give that high of an advantage.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Does UCT Omega still have that small dip in the middle or something?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Yes it's a problem. It gives Pikachu a ridiculous advantage. Wall jumping off walled omegas doesn't give that high of an advantage.

Grouping Omegas as FD is a given since 99% of the cases it's the same. Walled Omegas advantages and Pikachu tricks are very matchup depending, so having specific rules for them would be unnecessary and would just confuse newer players.
Also, I'm pretty sure you can refuse to play on certain Omegas in favor of FD all the time.

Also also, if you really want to make an argument for this, you better word it differently, right now it sounds like a knee-jerk reaction off of something that just happened.

 

[Yikarur]

Also, I'm pretty sure you can refuse to play on certain Omegas in favor of FD all the time.

I've never heard of such a rule. I don't think thats common.

 

[ArikadoSD]

Does UCT Omega still have that small dip in the middle or something?

yes, it allows Pikachu to QAC all over

Grouping Omegas as FD is a given since 99% of the cases it's the same. Walled Omegas advantages and Pikachu tricks are very matchup depending, so having specific rules for them would be unnecessary and would just confuse newer players.
Also, I'm pretty sure you can refuse to play on certain Omegas in favor of FD all the time.

Also also, if you really want to make an argument for this, you better word it differently, right now it sounds like a knee-jerk reaction off of something that just happened.

No you can't refuse to go to that stage if every ruleset obviously states that FD = omegas. This isn't gentleman's clause.

I really think this should be a no-brainer, omegas really aren't much of a problem except for this specific situation and I think that's unfair.. knee-jerk reaction, not really, because I wasn't aware of this until it happened to me in bracket.

 

[Pazx]

If this is true I would straight up ban Omega UCT, and only Omega UCT.

 

[Megamang]

Hmm, I assumed the stage was only QAC'able in regular form. Odd they don't make it flat for the Omega.

Anyways, if its really important to you that you don't give your opponent the ability to QaC (not the entire stage btw, he has to hit a certain point, going in a certain direction) freely, then refuse to play Omega UCT and then explain to your TO that pikachu has an advantage there. I can't really see someone adamantly saying they would only play UCT as their omega choice. Pikachu has better stages anyways for a player good with the QA.


Are there any other instances of the slopes having an effect on gameplay? I know others do, but the UCT ones are so slight...

 

[ArikadoSD]

Hmm, I assumed the stage was only QAC'able in regular form. Odd they don't make it flat for the Omega.

Anyways, if its really important to you that you don't give your opponent the ability to QaC (not the entire stage btw, he has to hit a certain point, going in a certain direction) freely, then refuse to play Omega UCT and then explain to your TO that pikachu has an advantage there. I can't really see someone adamantly saying they would only play UCT as their omega choice. Pikachu has better stages anyways for a player good with the QA.


Are there any other instances of the slopes having an effect on gameplay? I know others do, but the UCT ones are so slight...

That literally serves the same purpose as just banning omega UCT though lol why go through that trouble when in the ruleset when you list out the legal stages and mention that omegas = FD also mention that omega UCT is banned.

Also the slope has a minimal effect of allowing characters to survive a couple percents more than they would normally do when standing on it (at least i think) but I doubt that has any effect whatsoever on actual gameplay lmao if it was true.

 

[Megamang]

How is that? I assume it has something do with knockback angle changing based on the ground you are on (basically angle of launch is relative to the ground you are standing on)?