Decentralizing Winning Game 1 - DeLux's Variable Striking Counter Picking System

[quote]

Accidental double post.

 

[Ghostbone]

Here's why this system is pointless.

Lets assume we have a list of stages 1-13, 1 being the best (+6 advantage)for player 1, 13 being the best (+6 advantage) for player 2.
At first we might think it's in their best interest to not expend any strikes for game 1 except for when their opponent offers the stage, as otherwise it's a pointless strike on a stage that they might not offer anyway.
So both players do the minimum of two strikes of their two worst stages, so now we have 3-11 still there.
Player 1 offers stage 3, now player 2 if he accepts, is being stupid, as they still both have 6 strikes for games 2 and 3, so that's just giving away an advantage to player 1.
Which applies to both players, so they eventually wittle down to stage 7, which is completely neutral. And for games 2 and 3 they strike two stages each.
Your system has accomplished the same feat FLoSSing game 1 and having 2 stage bans games 2 and 3, while being way more complicated and unnecessary, but that's not necessarily what will happen.....

Now, the only other option player one can legitimately choose to do (by legitimate I mean correctly/intelligently) is strike an extra three stages for game 1, so he's striked 13,12,11,10 and 9 while player 2 has struck 1 and 2,
so they strike 3, then 8, then 4, then 6, and play on 5, a +2 advantage for player 1 (the highest he can try to get for game 1).
Game 2 is +5 player 2's advantage.
Game 3 is then +2 player 1's advantage.
In this case player 1 gets two advantaged games (and they're on the same stage >.>), so what is player 2 forced to do to stop that? Strike 6 stages overall before player 1 even decides what to strike and then offer, in this case player 1 will strike a total of 6 as well, so they end up on an even stage (otherwise player 2 ends up with 2 advantaged stages, which player 1 wants to avoid).
Oh look
It' like FLoSSing, except instead of a fair striking method we get 211222221111, which is pretty biased for player 1 lol.

Your system is inferior to simply doing a FLSS for game 1 and having 2 stage bans for games 2 and 3.
Kinda nice idea in theory but it doesn't work in practice.

 

[DeLux]

I see what you're saying in creating a net imbalance on one side. I wonder if this is what quote is trying to get at. (although you're off by one on game two, it would be +5, not +6). So the net balance is going to be +/-1 for two stage strikes.

Let me see if I can come up with an amendment to make it perfectly competitively neutral.

 

[quote]

I see what you're saying in creating a net imbalance on one side. I wonder if this is what quote is trying to get at. (although you're off by one on game two, it would be +5, not +6). So the net balance is going to be +/-1 for two stage strikes.

Let me see if I can come up with an amendment to make it perfectly competitively neutral.

It is. I'm terrible at explaining things.

something I'm trying to figure out:

G1, when you are striking, you mentioned the "the full legal stage list." does this include counterpicks?

G1, can you play on counterpick stages?

Do strikes carry through all three games?

I realize that all of these sound like dumb questions, but from what I'm interpreting from that last post from ghostbone, my understanding of the ruleset seems to be incorrect.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I know that strikes do NOT carry through all games, otherwise they would be BANS!

 

[Ghostbone]

I see what you're saying in creating a net imbalance on one side. I wonder if this is what quote is trying to get at. (although you're off by one on game two, it would be +5, not +6). So the net balance is going to be +/-1 for two stage strikes.

Let me see if I can come up with an amendment to make it perfectly competitively neutral.

Yea you're right about the +5 and not +6 bit, but that was a counting mistake on my part, which affected the rest of it, player 1 can do slightly better >.> I've amended my post with the changes.
But anyway, I don't think you can make this system anymore neutral, an changes will just make it not neutral in a different way.
Adding more strikes won't solve the problem, you'll just end up with slightly less polar counter-picks (and it would be the same as adding stage bans in our current system)
Though there is one advantage to your system I can see, and it's in a bo5, where you can your 4 extra strikes from after game 1, and so you can let your opponent have a +6 counter-pick, then you can strike down to a +2 counter-pick. Which gives you a higher chance of winning at least one of them.

The other problem with this is all your talk of how people can save their strikes to do XYZ etc. is all decided by player 1, player 2 basically has to go along with it otherwise he'll be at a disadvantage. (and player 2 has to pre-emptively do this with your system in its current state)

 

[quote]

Yea you're right about the +5 and not +6 bit, but that was a counting mistake on my part, which affected the rest of it, player 1 can do slightly better >.> I've amended my post with the changes.
But anyway, I don't think you can make this system anymore neutral, an changes will just make it not neutral in a different way.
Adding more strikes won't solve the problem, you'll just end up with slightly less polar counter-picks (and it would be the same as adding stage bans in our current system)
Though there is one advantage to your system I can see, and it's in a bo5, where you can your 4 extra strikes from after game 1, and so you can let your opponent have a +6 counter-pick, then you can strike down to a +2 counter-pick. Which gives you a higher chance of winning at least one of them.

The other problem with this is all your talk of how people can save their strikes to do XYZ etc. is all decided by player 1, player 2 basically has to go along with it otherwise he'll be at a disadvantage. (and player 2 has to pre-emptively do this with your system in its current state)

This is the other problem that I was alluding to earlier, but didn't explain.

I think that this can still be changed to remain neutral in some way though.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Actually, ghostbone, is not that complicated.

Once again, people would Strikes off the stages they do not want to play at.
Not striking means that you would not mind playing the MU in other stages, so it would be unlikely to strike again after opponent's proposal.

If you still NEED more strikes, just means your character is not very versatile...

 

[DeLux]

I think based on the math I've concluded that every two strikes in game one shifts game one in your favor by 1 game, but in game two/three/four/five it shifts it in theory at a one to one ratio.

The fix would probably be on a logical ratio to give people a larger strike pool for game 1 (one that in theory could cover the spread of 13 stages at the beginning), and the strikes that aren't used get divided by two going into the counter picking rounds.

That would effectively eliminate the possible imbalance issue throughout. if I'm not mistaken, albeit making the system slightly more complicated

 

[quote]

I think based on the math I've concluded that every two strikes in game one shifts game one in your favor by 1 game, but in game two/three/four/five it shifts it in theory at a one to one ratio.

The fix would probably be on a logical ratio to give people a larger strike pool for game 1 (one that in theory could cover the spread of 13 stages at the beginning), and the strikes that aren't used get divided by two going into the counter picking rounds.

That would effectively eliminate the possible imbalance issue throughout. if I'm not mistaken, albeit making the system slightly more complicated

I don't think that this is the best solution, I think that this would diminish the positive effect of your plan in balancing out game 2-3 with the extra strikes.

I'm not sure if this is useful information or not, but would it be possible to have an even number of stages available for game 1? After player's start making offers, the number of potential strikes to be used can become less relevant. This obviously gives player two an advantage, due to having more potential strikes for game 1, but this could be used as a way to balance out the issue addressed by me and ghostbone.

 

[DeLux]

?

Based on the math, the divide by two makes things equal :\


ACTUALLY:

I might amend it to something like:

Players are given a Finite number of striking turns in a pool to last throughout the match
During the first striking turn, Player 1 may opt to strike up to two stages from the legal stage list at the expense of one striking turn or pass at zero expense to his
Player 2 may then opt to strike up to two stages from the remaining legal stages at the expense of one striking turn or pass at zero expense to his pool.
Once both players pass in succession, the alternating stage offering begins.


This keeps the variable system, as well as let's player 2 from being forced to succumb to the whims of player 1 as well, while not necessarily committing someone to striking on game 1 if they choose not to.

 

[Ghostbone]

?

Based on the math, the divide by two makes things equal :\


ACTUALLY:

I might amend it to something like:

Players are given a Finite number of striking turns in a pool to last throughout the match
During the first striking turn, Player 1 may opt to strike up to two stages from the legal stage list at the expense of one striking turn or pass at zero expense to his
Player 2 may then opt to strike up to two stages from the remaining legal stages at the expense of one striking turn or pass at zero expense to his pool.
Once both players pass in succession, the alternating stage offering begins.


This keeps the variable system, as well as let's player 2 from being forced to succumb to the whims of player 1 as well, while not necessarily committing someone to striking on game 1 if they choose not to.

Can you expand on this further? By match do you mean game 1 or the whole set? It sounds like you mean players will be offering stages for every game now....
/lol live edit

 

[DeLux]

It encompasses that system but allows for also different variations of that system as well making it deeper

 

[Ghostbone]

It encompasses that system but allows for also different variations of that system as well making it deeper

K, so how does it make it deeper?

 

[DeLux]

K, so how does it make it deeper?

More options and choices while maintaining overall neutrality = more tactics and more depth


lol, let me write out a full amended system to set us something to readdress that responds to the valid issues you guys brought up

I figured there would be kinks to work out, but I think this really could work out

 

[Ghostbone]

More options and choices while maintaining overall neutrality = more tactics and more depth


lol, let me write out a full amended system to set us something to readdress that responds to the valid issues you guys brought up

I figured there would be kinks to work out, but I think this really could work out

Not seeing the more options >.>, a full amended system would be nice though, I'll wait until you get that up to argue about it.

 

[Ussi]

I was thinking.. I think this ruleset should have more stages legal or strikes be less and not do flossing on the first stage. I think a 9 or 11 (if more stages) starter list would work better for this.

 

[Akaku94]

Full Striking (I'm assuming that's what flossing is... otherwise ignore this) is much better than a starter list imo. Starter lists are inherently biased toward characters that don't deal well with stage effects. Diddy, Falco, ICs are all higher on the tier than they probably should be because they do well on the current starter list. Stage diversity within a character is an inherently good trait, and flossing takes that into account. By flossing, the most neutral stage for that matchup taking into account player bias as well.

 

[Kewkky]

Full Striking (I'm assuming that's what flossing is... otherwise ignore this) is much better than a starter list imo. Starter lists are inherently biased toward characters that don't deal well with stage effects. Diddy, Falco, ICs are all higher on the tier than they probably should be because they do well on the current starter list. Stage diversity within a character is an inherently good trait, and flossing takes that into account. By flossing, the most neutral stage for that matchup taking into account player bias as well.

What if I strike your best stages, then proceed to strike every 'okay' stage and end up with something crazy like WarioWare or 75m? You'll be busy striking MY best stages to notice what I'm trying to do.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[Ussi]

I just think with 2 strikes on CPs (its the minimal you have) with only 13 stages, is like having 2 stages bans. Though i guess if Mk is still around then RC and Brinstar are pointless to keep as no one will let themselves be CP'd there cause they'll always assume pocket MK. Only way around it is to main or have a pocket MK yourself ._.

 

[Laem]

Flossing: Full Legal Stage Striking.
Shame on you, cookie.

For that matter, why wouldn't flossing for every game work? Neutral game one.. neutral game two... neutral game three.. etc. However, character CPing will remain, but this does not appear to be the issue at hand.
(I do apologize if you facepalm now and put this suggestion right next to all the other crappy suggestions)

 

[Kewkky]

Flossing: Full Legal Stage Striking.
Shame on you, cookie.

For that matter, why wouldn't flossing for every game work? Neutral game one.. neutral game two... neutral game three.. etc. However, character CPing will remain, but this does not appear to be the issue at hand.
(I do apologize if you facepalm now and put this suggestion right next to all the other crappy suggestions)

Hey man, I don't understand all this fancy talk. Full striking sounded to me like all stages were available. D:

 

[WindMajor]

Get with the times, Cookie.

 

[Akaku94]

I like you Kewkky, so I won't beat you over the head with it, but yes, Full striking would be from all legal stages

Anyway, Flossing for game 1 and 2 bans for the rest allows for more stages to be legal imo. I think a 19-stage legal list would work under that sort of system. I have one of those somewhere, but I'm too lazy to go find it right now... I think it was in my experimental ruleset thread a few weeks back...

The point is that more stages is better, and that including the borderline stages is preferable (legal until proven banworthy)

EDIT: and Flossing every game would be terrible. I brought that up a while ago, and was quickly reminded that it removes a majority of stages from ever seeing play (RC sees play under CPs, but it's practically never one of the three most neutral stages in a given mu, for example)

 

[popsofctown]

What if I strike your best stages, then proceed to strike every 'okay' stage and end up with something crazy like WarioWare or 75m? You'll be busy striking MY best stages to notice what I'm trying to do.

Just off the top of my head.

Stages with random effects that introduce variability shouldn't be on the legal list anyway.

It could be something crazy like Rainbow cruise but that's probably one of your bad stages.

 

[Akaku94]

using an analogy I saw earlier in this thread (I think):

suppose 17 legal stages, with stage 1 being best for character A and 17 being the best for character B. A starter list would be an (arbitrary) set of stages that may or may not be in the middle of this range. With flossing, however, this scenario usually plays out:

A strikes 17
B strikes 1
A strikes 16
B strikes 2
...
A strikes 10
B strikes 8

And the first game starts on stage 9, the most neutral for the matchup. A starter list has no real benefit other than possibly a little bit of saved time (negligible imo), so why not adapt flossing for any and every strike-based game? Whatever is decided, Flossing for strike-based games and 2 Ban for CP-based games works best, and retains as much of the CP system as possible without becoming broken.

 

[popsofctown]

What if each game is striking, but on CP games the loser of last game gets a certian proportion of additional strikes? So it would be stage 5/17 instead of 9/17 and such.

I kind of like how that proportion can be reused and wouldn't change feel much if the legal stage list expands or shrinks.

Then again I guess if the number of bans for a CP game is a certain fraction of the number of legal stages you get the same effect..

 

[Ghostbone]

What if each game is striking, but on CP games the loser of last game gets a certian proportion of additional strikes? So it would be stage 5/17 instead of 9/17 and such.

I kind of like how that proportion can be reused and wouldn't change feel much if the legal stage list expands or shrinks.

Then again I guess if the number of bans for a CP game is a certain fraction of the number of legal stages you get the same effect..

Pretty much this.

Say we have 17 legal stages or whatever, and on game 2 the loser gets 12 strikes and the winner gets 5 strikes.
stage 9 is completely neutral, stage 17 gives a +8 advantage to the loser, and stage 1 gives a +8 to the winner.
No matter what the winner should just strike stages 17,16,15,14 and 13, and the loser should strike 1-11, and we play on 12.
If the winner simply had 5 stage bans, they would ban 17-13, and the loser would counter-pick 12.

 

[popsofctown]

I'd like it if we decided what that fraction is. It could help make it clear whether stages are overcentralizing or not because of the consistency.
I'm trying to say something here but i can't explain it.

1/6th? I like sixths.

 

[DeLux]

If I follow the math on Ghostbones +/- adv system, I came to the following conclusion: A stage strike in game 1 is worth 1/2 the value of a stage strike in the counter pick phases. I can go through reasons as to why, but essentially it boils down to in the cp sense it directly removes an entire stage that is going to be picked while in the striking phase it removes a stage that had a 50% chance of being picked.

So I amended the system as follows:


1. Draw Lots for Player 1/ Player 2 Designation
2. Player 1 Picks Port
3. Player 2 Picks Port
4. Players Double Blind Pick their characters for game 1
5. Stage Striking Begins:
a. Each player is given a finite number of stage striking turns to use throughout the entire set. For hypothetical purposes, we will give them 6 turns for a 3 game set and 8 turns for a 5 game set.
b. Player 1 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
c. Player 2 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
d. b and c repeat until there is one remaining stage OR both players pass consecutively.
e. In the event there is more than one legal stage left unstruck, the player who passed first in steps "5b-d" offers a stage out of the remaining stages left unstruck for play on game 1. The player offered the stage may reject the stage unless it is the last remaining stage. If the player rejects the stage, he will counter offer another stage for play on game 1 out of the remaining stages left unstruck. This process will repeat itself until there is only one stage left or a player agrees to a stage.
6. Game 1 is played on the stage decided upon by the variable striking system
7. The Loser of the previous game offers the next stage out of the legal stage list. The winner of the previous game may reject the stage at the expense of a stage striking turn. This process continues until the winner agrees to the stage for the next game or runs out of stage strikes. If the winner does not have any striking turns left in his striking pool, the next game must be played on the stage offered by the loser of the previous game.
8. The winner of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game
9. The loser of the previous game selects his character to be played in the next game.
10. Players play on the agreed upon stage.
11. Repeat Step 7-10 until a winner is determined by games in the set.

 

[Flayl]

So let me get this straight, one player will be able to strike 12 stages if he so chooses?

 

[DeLux]

Assuming the opposing player decides to not counter strike, that is fully possible

 

[Flayl]

I can't find counter strikes in your ruleset.

Spoiler

nor half life's badum-tish

 

[DeLux]

From the edited version I just posted

a. Each player is given a finite number of stage striking turns to use throughout the entire set. For hypothetical purposes, we will give them 6 turns for a 3 game set and 8 turns for a 5 game set.
b. Player 1 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
c. Player 2 may choose to use a striking turn. If they opt to strike, they use a striking turn from their pool and may strike up to 2 stages from the remaining unstruck stages on the full legal stage list. If they wish to strike 0 stages, they may declare they "pass" at the cost of no striking turns.
d. b and c repeat until there is one remaining stage OR both players pass consecutively.



steps b and c alternate. So a player can choose to let his opponent strike more stages if he so desires by passing. A player can only strike two stages at a time before an opponent can interupt.

 

[Flayl]

That's not a counter strike... That's just a regular strike.

Ok, we're talking about a stagelist with 17 stages right?

In a normal FLSS ruleset, this would mean 8 strikes each. However, your ruleset allows for a player to concede up to 4 of their strikes to the other player, provided the other player uses all of his strikes.

I guess strikes don't carry over is that it? It's not clear in the ruleset.

 

[DeLux]

I don't understand where you got 17?

The legal stage list is 13

 

[Flayl]

The examples in this page all used 17 stages and you were talking to Ghostbone, who was using 17 stages.

You ruleset makes even less sense to me with 13 stages.

 

[DeLux]

Where's the confusion?

In the current context of 7 starters, someone takes 1 turn to strike 2, the next person takes one turn to strike 3, and then the first player takes 1 turn to strike 1 stage. At which point there is only one stage left to agree on.

In my system, a player may take a turn to strike 2 stages or he may pass, the next person may take a turn to strike 2 stages or they may pass, if they both pass, then the stages are alternately offered until they agree.

I'm just removing the forced strikes on stages, removing the arbitrary distinction of starters vs. counter picks, and using a turn system normalizing a strikes influence on the stage list in context of the +/- system that ghostbone was using.

 

[popsofctown]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH it's like game one there is twice as much strikeage, which leads to more median stages. It's like a natural neutral stage list, people will double strike down to the stages neutral for their personal character.

 

[DeLux]

They could also elect to play game 1 at a disadv to protect themselves against their opponent's cps.

If you played at a -6 stage on game one, you would have 6 strikes against your opponent's CP game 3 etc



I made a modification to it that I had originally intended to that I didn't edit when I first posted ><