Determining the procedure to pick stages in Smash 4

[Piford]

It's like the reverse of the prisoner's dilemma. We shall call it, the DeLux dilemma.

At this rate, our new stage selection process will be called DeLux's Cat.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Is there a name for a reverse prisoner's dilemma?

Anyways, yeah this wont work. while the idea philosophically sounds good in practice it's not decent to enforce.

Meh, if we name anything call it the "Capps" something. I wanna be internet famous

 

[DeLux]

Is there a name for a reverse prisoner's dilemma?

Anyways, yeah this wont work. while the idea philosophically sounds good in practice it's not decent to enforce.

Meh, if we name anything call it the "Capps" something. I wanna be internet famous

I shall make a hybrid of your contributions and call it THE DELUX DILEMMA.

 

[Piford]

Is there a name for a reverse prisoner's dilemma?

Anyways, yeah this wont work. while the idea philosophically sounds good in practice it's not decent to enforce.

Meh, if we name anything call it the "Capps" something. I wanna be internet famous

The name for it is actually the reverse prisoner's dilemma, simple as that.

 

[DeLux]

I think the term you're looking for is mutually assured destruction brinksmanship THE DELUX DILEMMA

 

[T0MMY]

What if its both players refusing to agree with each other, with no clear player being stubborn or something.

Sorry but the players here bring up a valid point. I could easily argue that I do not want to fight on the stage the opponent does and simply go towards DQ time kicking us both out of an event even though it's totally within reason for me to refuse said stage or not agree. This rule can't work simply for that, you could pressure players into choosing your stage or just being DQd.

It's actually not within reason; it is unreasonable for attendees to travel (rather far distances for many of my events) and pay to enter a tournament I am running just to do something to get them DQ'd.
Now the problem you are facing is NOT about my way of determining a stage, it is about the Tardines Rule. And, I'm sorry, if a player is not playing their game because they are not present or refusing to play for any reason then they are DQ'd. If two players are doing this, they are both DQ'd:

Question to both of you: What works better than DQ'ing players who are not playing their match whether present or not and for any reason?

When either of you can give me a stronger reason for an alternative I will try it out, but until then I will defer to the Tardiness Rule that many TO's adhere to as a Standard.

Reminder: Trying not to get off topic of Stage Selection, as this is actually about Tardiness for the moment.

 

[Piford]

It's actually not within reason; it is unreasonable for attendees to travel (rather far distances for many of my events) and pay to enter a tournament I am running just to do something to get them DQ'd.
Now the problem you are facing is NOT about my way of determining a stage, it is about the Tardines Rule. And, I'm sorry, if a player is not playing their game because they are not present or refusing to play for any reason then they are DQ'd. If two players are doing this, they are both DQ'd:

Question to both of you: What works better than DQ'ing players who are not playing their match whether present or not and for any reason?

When either of you can give me a stronger reason for an alternative I will try it out, but until then I will defer to the Tardiness Rule that many TO's adhere to as a Standard.

Reminder: Trying not to get off topic of Stage Selection, as this is actually about Tardiness for the moment.

Instead of DQ for not being able to agree, I would think something like forcing the players to choose random from the stage list would be a better option.

 

[popsofctown]

Instead of DQ for not being able to agree, I would think something like forcing the players to choose random from the stage list would be a better option.

When I play the best player in my state, I would insist on my favorite stage, or play a random stage to try to upset him.


The payoff matrix of the game theory structure presented here is represented by Chicken or also, as I mentioned, Tragedy of the Commons, although Chicken works better metaphorically.
Mutually assured destruction also follows the chicken structure.

DeLux knows well enough that the game theory structure probably already has a name which is why it's hilarious he wants to name it after himself. He has advanced a step beyond claiming actually-new ATs

 

[T0MMY]

Instead of DQ for not being able to agree, I would think something like forcing the players to choose random from the stage list would be a better option.

Very good thoughts. And... That is actually what I use in my tournaments.

A little story:

Spoiler

But one player said it was "unfair" because (forgive his theorycrafting here) depending on the potentiality of his opponent's character and the potentiality of his choice in character and given a random element of the three stages (FD, BF, SV) therein lies a POTENTIAL that in AT LEAST ONE MATCHUP his opponent could POSSIBLY have SOME KIND of matchup advantage due to the Stage which he did not get to choose (yet knew was a possibility).
I simply said "then choose the best character for potentially any of those Starters" and left it at that until I could find a better alternative. It worked, but I'm open minded enough to try out more things...

And now I will simply just say "You've got 5 minutes, I'm starting the clock."

I'll let you know how it works out.

Edit: (as a post was made during my last post) I'm not sure how the Tragedy of the Commons complaint can NOT be assumed by every other method. Example - I will push for getting Stage Choice in "striking" as well as pushing for "random" selection or ANY method as long as I feel I am getting some kind of advantage. The only way around this is actually to DQ if an agreement is not made, is this not so?

 

[popsofctown]

Stage striking is a zero sum game. Striking a stage gives me an advantage and you lose that same advantage.

Chicken/Tragedy are not zero sum games, there's a possibility where both players lose, both are DQ'ed. They'll make your tournament finish on time, sure, but forcing a player to concede advantages to you by threat of mutually assured destruction doesn't have a competitive feel to it because it's not zero sum. The free-for-all format is entirely unpopular almost solely because player interactions aren't zero sum.

 

[Piford]

Stage striking is a zero sum game. Striking a stage gives me an advantage and you lose that same advantage.

Chicken/Tragedy are not zero sum games, there's a possibility where both players lose, both are DQ'ed. They'll make your tournament finish on time, sure, but forcing a player to concede advantages to you by threat of mutually assured destruction doesn't have a competitive feel to it because it's not zero sum. The free-for-all format is entirely unpopular almost solely because player interactions aren't zero sum.

But isn't a tournament finishing on time extremely important. Having the Grand Final get canceled is much worse than having the chance at loosing your advantage, is it not? Smart players would still agree to stage strike if they can't agree on a stage quickly because they wouldn't want to get DQd.

 

[popsofctown]

Grand Finals or fair play is a false dilemma.

In practice players probably wouldn't stage strike with this rule, because there's no list to stage strike from, and it's harder to create a social norm of that complexity. A social pressure like the "don't be a d*** and pick akuma" social pressure would emerge to replace the missing rule, and it would probably end up being "agree to play on Smashville or you're a d***". That pattern would mainly be broken by brand new players and unusual cases where the stakes are high and someone wants to play chicken, or player A hates player B personally and wants to play chicken, or player A is already a social outcast so he goes ahead and plays chicken all the time anyway.

 

[Piford]

Grand Finals or fair play is a false dilemma.

In practice players probably wouldn't stage strike with this rule, because there's no list to stage strike from, and it's harder to create a social norm of that complexity. A social pressure like the "don't be a d*** and pick akuma" social pressure would emerge to replace the missing rule, and it would probably end up being "agree to play on Smashville or you're a d***". That pattern would mainly be broken by brand new players and unusual cases where the stakes are high and someone wants to play chicken, or player A hates player B personally and wants to play chicken, or player A is already a social outcast so he goes ahead and plays chicken all the time anyway.

So how should we pick stages?

 

[popsofctown]

Status quo is better than having players agree on a stage and DQing those that don't.

My favorite stage selection method, which I already posted in this thread i believe, is full list stage striking from the list of stages without random elements, then subsequent games played on the stage that winner struck last during stage striking.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It's actually not within reason; it is unreasonable for attendees to travel (rather far distances for many of my events) and pay to enter a tournament I am running just to do something to get them DQ'd.
Now the problem you are facing is NOT about my way of determining a stage, it is about the Tardines Rule. And, I'm sorry, if a player is not playing their game because they are not present or refusing to play for any reason then they are DQ'd. If two players are doing this, they are both DQ'd:

Question to both of you: What works better than DQ'ing players who are not playing their match whether present or not and for any reason?

When either of you can give me a stronger reason for an alternative I will try it out, but until then I will defer to the Tardiness Rule that many TO's adhere to as a Standard.

Reminder: Trying not to get off topic of Stage Selection, as this is actually about Tardiness for the moment.

Instead of DQ for not being able to agree, I would think something like forcing the players to choose random from the stage list would be a better option.

See, this allows a player to force the opponent to go random for no other reason then to try and get a random advantage. Which people will do. During a Grand Finals Set. I would LOVE to see how a stream or even just other players would react to such a thing.

Players shouldn't be able to abuse your rules to force the other player to either take a tardy DQ or go random and hope for luck. That's not fair to anyone. I personally would do that in EVERY match I entered if I went to a tournament because it would honestly be in my favor to force an opponent to take a gamble. Why let him choose a stage ever when I can force them out of their element?

The rule you have made for players to choose a stage IS the problem since it allows them to abuse your tardiness rule. This will never work in a large scale tournament without wide scale abuse. Rules need a better structure then that, and they need to not be able to be used with a loophole to do something bad.

 

[Piford]

Status quo is better than having players agree on a stage and DQing those that don't.

My favorite stage selection method, which I already posted in this thread i believe, is full list stage striking from the list of stages without random elements, then subsequent games played on the stage that winner struck last during stage striking.

But what if you want to switch characters? You might end up on a stage thats bad for the character you want to counterpick. Maybe a variation on that could work where the looser could choose from the last 5 (this number is dependent on the amount of legal stages ther are) stages the winner struck from.

 

[popsofctown]

If you increase the number of stages the loser can choose, he's probably going to pick the earliest strike he can get at every time, which breaks the spirit of the system.

I'd propose instead that the loser could pick the same stage he just lost on if he likes (which is probably pretty neutral and should be at least adequate for the character he wants to CP) or treat the game as a win if he likes (next game is played on the stage HE struck last during FLSS). The gives the loser a choice of three stages, which should be plenty for him to have access to a stage that works for his pocket character, especially if he's strategic during stage striking (if you main a platformy character but pocket a campy wallclinger, you can strike omegas late instead of early to keep your option open to CP to a wall-omega)

EDIT: If you want it to extend better to Bo5, any stage a player lost on can be picked, not just the most recent one.

 

[Piford]

If you increase the number of stages the loser can choose, he's probably going to pick the earliest strike he can get at every time, which breaks the spirit of the system.

I'd propose instead that the loser could pick the same stage he just lost on if he likes (which is probably pretty neutral and should be at least adequate for the character he wants to CP) or treat the game as a win if he likes (next game is played on the stage HE struck last during FLSS). The gives the loser a choice of three stages, which should be plenty for him to have access to a stage that works for his pocket character, especially if he's strategic during stage striking (if you main a platformy character but pocket a campy wallclinger, you can strike omegas late instead of early to keep your option open to CP to a wall-omega)

EDIT: If you want it to extend better to Bo5, any stage a player lost on can be picked, not just the most recent one.

It seems still a little too restrictive. The whole point of counter picking a stage is to get the advantage over your opponent, not a slightly less neutral stage. Counterpicking rewards knowledge of the game and its matchups, and rewards those with skills on all the legal stages. I still think Counter-picking was handled well, but if you could use the first round stage strike to quicken it up thats great. For your method, limiting counterpicks to 3 out of lets say 15 legal stages is extremely limiting. It also heavily favors characters who are better on more stages. For example, lets say we have Mario and Luigi and a 15 stage list. Luigi's better on 5 stages, Mario is better on 9, and there is one neutral stage. When stage selecting goes correctly. Mario first 6 bans are all the stages Luigi's good on and the neutral stage. Luigi bans mario's 6 best stages. Now were left with 3 stages, all of which Mario has the advantage on. The first match is now played on Mario's 8th best stage. Now with your way, round 2 can only be played on stages that give Mario and advantage. Now Luigi is being forced to CP on a stage that doesn't give him an advantage. But if you perform old CP, Luigi will play on his 3rd best stage (assuming 2 strikes). So now game 1 Mario has a slight advantage, Game 2 Luigi has an advantage, and Game 3 Mario has an advantage. In your way, Mario has a slight advantage all 3 times.

 

[popsofctown]

-Mario gets a slight advantage all 3 times because Mario is a better character, as evidenced by him being stronger on more of the game's stages than Luigi is.

-If you recalibrate the numbers in your example, whether Luigi gets an advantage can depend on the number of bans. How do you know that's the right number of bans? How can you be sure that's the right number of bans for all Mario-Luigi sort of pairings? It seems arbitrary.

->>I don't agree with the loser's right to large stage counterpick advantage, so my viewpoint is radically contrary to most people's. In my view, the point of a smash set is to scientifically determine which player is better within a half hour time limit, with maximum accuracy. Giving the loser a strong advantage in games following a loss reduces the accuracy of the experiments, because it behaves more like a Bo1 followed by players taking turns winning. That inaccuracy should be reduced if possible, even at the expense (or perceived expense) of stage strategy mechanics that make the game slightly more interesting.


After ungratifying victories on Halberd and stupid losses to Melee Peach stitch pull in PM, I put a pretty big emphasis on wanting to see ruleset choices that minimize violations of "may the best man win".

I'll point out the the status quo ruleset for counterpicking itself shows inner turmoil and a disdain for permitting highly polar stages. Why does winner get a ban (or sometimes, for no reason at all, two) to restrict the loser's ability to get a strong advantage for the next game? It's not elegant or internally consistant at all.

 

[Piford]

-Mario gets a slight advantage all 3 times because Mario is a better character, as evidenced by him being stronger on more of the game's stages than Luigi is.

-If you recalibrate the numbers in your example, whether Luigi gets an advantage can depend on the number of bans. How do you know that's the right number of bans? How can you be sure that's the right number of bans for all Mario-Luigi sort of pairings? It seems arbitrary.

->>I don't agree with the loser's right to large stage counterpick advantage, so my viewpoint is radically contrary to most people's. In my view, the point of a smash set is to scientifically determine which player is better within a half hour time limit, with maximum accuracy. Giving the loser a strong advantage in games following a loss reduces the accuracy of the experiments, because it behaves more like a Bo1 followed by players taking turns winning. That inaccuracy should be reduced if possible, even at the expense (or perceived expense) of stage strategy mechanics that make the game slightly more interesting.


After ungratifying victories on Halberd and stupid losses to Melee Peach stitch pull in PM, I put a pretty big emphasis on wanting to see ruleset choices that minimize violations of "may the best man win".

I'll point out the the status quo ruleset for counterpicking itself shows inner turmoil and a disdain for permitting highly polar stages. Why does winner get a ban (or sometimes, for no reason at all, two) to restrict the loser's ability to get a strong advantage for the next game? It's not elegant or internally consistant at all.

I think you make a lot of good points, but its all kinda hard to follow (or im just stupid ). But in my example, wouldn't we want then the matches to be played on the neutral stage to let "the best man win?" It would remove advantages that characters give. But theres really no way to make sure that the match happens on the neutral stage, unless we say something like "All first games between Mario and Luigi must be played on Skyloft" I think determining a the closest-to-neutral stage for every matchup and forcing game 1 to be played on that stage, but that would require a lot of work and research. Also, sorry if I'm making no sense because my logic is flawed.

 

[popsofctown]

I think you make a lot of good points, but its all kinda hard to follow (or im just stupid ). But in my example, wouldn't we want then the matches to be played on the neutral stage to let "the best man win?" It would remove advantages that characters give. But theres really no way to make sure that the match happens on the neutral stage, unless we say something like "All first games between Mario and Luigi must be played on Skyloft" I think determining a the closest-to-neutral stage for every matchup and forcing game 1 to be played on that stage, but that would require a lot of work and research. Also, sorry if I'm making no sense because my logic is flawed.

Right, it's a lot of work to figure out what Mario and Luigi's true Skyloft is, so you use stage striking (preferably full-list) to make it the Mario player's and Luigi player's responsibility to strike down to that stage.

Playing that neutral stage reached by striking for every game of the set would be the absolute most scientific thing to do, but you get a lot of variety and sacrifice only a smidge of accuracy if you select the winner's last strike as the subsequent stage of the set.



A pessimist might say that removing free loser's choice counterpicking kills variety and the value of stage knowledge, but I think there's plenty of room for that with striking, if not more room for it. At the Brawl event a week ago, I played Meta Knight against a Sheik, I asked if we could agree on Smashville but the guy said he would prefer to strike. I struck FD and Yoshi's, he surprised me by striking Battlefield and Smashville, leaving Lylat. I expected an edge but the guy had a really good knowledge of how to fight on slopes and what his gameplan was. Practicing certain stages so that you can use your strikes in unexpected ways can payoff, just like learning an unusual, theoretically weak opening in chess can be beneficial if you practice it more than your opponent has

 

[Piford]

Right, it's a lot of work to figure out what Mario and Luigi's true Skyloft is, so you use stage striking (preferably full-list) to make it the Mario player's and Luigi player's responsibility to strike down to that stage.

Playing that neutral stage reached by striking for every game of the set would be the absolute most scientific thing to do, but you get a lot of variety and sacrifice only a smidge of accuracy if you select the winner's last strike as the subsequent stage of the set.



A pessimist might say that removing free loser's choice counterpicking kills variety and the value of stage knowledge, but I think there's plenty of room for that with striking, if not more room for it. At the Brawl event a week ago, I played Meta Knight against a Sheik, I asked if we could agree on Smashville but the guy said he would prefer to strike. I struck FD and Yoshi's, he surprised me by striking Battlefield and Smashville, leaving Lylat. I expected an edge but the guy had a really good knowledge of how to fight on slopes and what his gameplan was. Practicing certain stages so that you can use your strikes in unexpected ways can payoff, just like learning an unusual, theoretically weak opening in chess can be beneficial if you practice it more than your opponent has

That works on a stage list of 5 stages, but if we have 15 stages in Smash 4 its a different story. With your way of striking, I'm guaranteed to not need to know how to play on 6 of those stages. I'm also guaranteed to play on one stage every set, so I might as well learn that stage the best. Now if this is a good or a bad thing, I'm not sure. It could be disadvantageous to always strike the exact same stages. One thing I could see happening is that people wouldn't learn a stage, and then get taken to it on surprise and then people blame the stage. Lets say Orbital Gate ends up being legal. Thats a stage that requires knowledge of the order of the stage to play most effectively. A match might be taken there with one player not knowing how the stage work. He didn't strike it because usually the other player strikes it. Now he looses horribly there, and people use that match as evidence that Orbital Gate needs to be banned, and then it gets banned. It got banned because it was disadvantageous to learn to play there, so people didn't learn it. And since people didn't learn it, it got banned for no reason.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

That works on a stage list of 5 stages, but if we have 15 stages in Smash 4 its a different story. With your way of striking, I'm guaranteed to not need to know how to play on 6 of those stages. I'm also guaranteed to play on one stage every set, so I might as well learn that stage the best. Now if this is a good or a bad thing, I'm not sure. It could be disadvantageous to always strike the exact same stages. One thing I could see happening is that people wouldn't learn a stage, and then get taken to it on surprise and then people blame the stage. Lets say Orbital Gate ends up being legal. Thats a stage that requires knowledge of the order of the stage to play most effectively. A match might be taken there with one player not knowing how the stage work. He didn't strike it because usually the other player strikes it. Now he looses horribly there, and people use that match as evidence that Orbital Gate needs to be banned, and then it gets banned. It got banned because it was disadvantageous to learn to play there, so people didn't learn it. And since people didn't learn it, it got banned for no reason.

The scenario you describe with Orbital Gate is basically one of my biggest concerns with any liberal stage list.

 

[Piford]

The scenario you describe with Orbital Gate is basically one of my biggest concerns with any liberal stage list.

That's why I think counterpicking should remain how it was before. It forces you to learn all the stages that are legal, not just the ones you want to.
Also I still like my idea of stage suggesting for round one, since its basically just stage striking in reverse. You suggest a stage to play on, and then your opponent accepts or vetos. You continue until a stage is accepted or there is one stage left.
Just throwing that out there.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

That's why I think counterpicking should remain how it was before. It forces you to learn all the stages that are legal, not just the ones you want to.
Also I still like my idea of stage suggesting for round one, since its basically just stage striking in reverse. You suggest a stage to play on, and then your opponent accepts or vetos. You continue until a stage is accepted or there is one stage left.
Just throwing that out there.

I just had a hilarious idea. Suppose each player keeps vetoing the other's suggestion, so that only the most dynamic-yet-legal stages are left because neither seriously considered them as an option. So they have to play on one of them by default, either by mutual agreement or when they leave only one left.

I'm not sure if that's a point for or against the idea but it made me giggle.

 

[Piford]

I just had a hilarious idea. Suppose each player keeps vetoing the other's suggestion, so that only the most dynamic-yet-legal stages are left because neither seriously considered them as an option. So they have to play on one of them by default, either by mutual agreement or when they leave only one left.

I'm not sure if that's a point for or against the idea but it made me giggle.

It would likely never happen if the player new what they were doing. And if they didn't know what they were doing and ended up on a stage that was bad for them, its their fault.

 

[popsofctown]

You don't have to learn all the stages in the old system either. No one learns Pokemon Stadium 2 because Brinstar and RC are "juicier" counterpicks.

You can always strike stages to avoid learning them, but you still have to learn over half the stagelist.

BTW: I'm not a proponent of banning stages that lack circle camping, walkoff-camping, and RNG. So in your scenario with the orbital gate, I would be more like, no, Orbital Gate is not banned. Learn it or burn a strike on it.

My system is coupled with the notion that players, not a banlist, shoulder all responsibility for keeping stage polarization from harming them.

 

[T0MMY]

See, this allows a player to force the opponent to go random for no other reason then to try and get a random advantage.

I'm not sure how a 1 in 3 (or 5 depending on stagelist) chance is really going to be that advantageous when 66.6% of the time on a 3 stage list you are going to get screwed over and on a greater stage list it's even worse. Which is why people didn't want to opt for that... however...
This is why I said I would rather just opt for a DQ for whoever was not playing their matches (Apex uses this rule as well, for example). As it just makes my job as a TO that much easier and doesn't run into potential complaints about theoretical possibilities. Refer to rule #3: Play the Game.

Players shouldn't be able to abuse your rules to force the other player to either take a tardy DQ or go random and hope for luck.

I'm not sure how you got that a DQ could be forced on someone, just the player refusing to play their match... nothing new there (not sure of a TO that does not use this ruling).

The rule you have made for players to choose a stage IS the problem since it allows them to abuse your tardiness rule.

Still not showing how. As soon as someone refuses to play on every stage in the game they are essentially saying they are not going to play the game, thus their opponent(s) wins through DQ.

But I'll help you out here: In an extreme case where BOTH players refuse to play on EVERY Stage except only one AND at which their opponent does the same with a different Stage then they've essentially done a strike method leaving two stages.
If they've agreed to a Strike method without heeding proper protocol on who gets to choose first/last then a coinflip (or in-game Judgement) is used to determine this (all disagreements are ruled through a random decision, as found in Apex rules and most official sports rulings).
At any point after this someone refuses to play, they are DQ'd.
A DQ cannot reasonably be forced on another player in this situation from what I see when following simple protocol even in this extreme situation. Is there something that needs patched?

This will never work in a large scale tournament without wide scale abuse. Rules need a better structure then that, and they need to not be able to be used with a loophole to do something bad.

Sorry, but most of these rules weren't even of my own device; these rules have been around for a long time and were used in practice simply through "common sense" before they were written down. Tardiness rules and coinflips/Judgements regarding disagreements can be found in Apex and other nationally used rules because it is the most fair method we have.
Either the top players have yet to find a way to abuse this like they had with the pause button (I've required Pause:OFF in my rules, which was unfortunately not the norm at the time of some abuses) or there really is no "loophole" way of forcing a DQ on an opponent.
Care to explain more or did I cover everything?

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm not sure how a 1 in 3 (or 5 depending on stagelist) chance is really going to be that advantageous when 66.6% of the time on a 3 stage list you are going to get screwed over and on a greater stage list it's even worse. Which is why people didn't want to opt for that... however...
This is why I said I would rather just opt for a DQ for whoever was not playing their matches (Apex uses this rule as well, for example). As it just makes my job as a TO that much easier and doesn't run into potential complaints about theoretical possibilities. Refer to rule #3: Play the Game.

If we thought going random was a good way to decide the stage we would still be doing so in Melee. There is a reason that if your rules loophole here allows me to force that other33% chance to get the other stage I want it's a problem. The difference between winning match one, the most important match of the game or not is too important to leave to RNG.

I'm not sure how you got that a DQ could be forced on someone, just the player refusing to play their match... nothing new there (not sure of a TO that does not use this ruling).

An example. "I refuse to play on any stage other then Find Mii for the first match."

"That's silly! At least go to Battlefield or something."

"Nope, it's either Find Mii or you are forced to go random."

Now, let's pursue this. Either as you said we go random from a starter list (defeating the purpose of this stage procedure in the first place and giving someone a 33% chance of getting a very polarizing stage). OR

But I'll help you out here: In an extreme case where BOTH players refuse to play on EVERY Stage except only one AND at which their opponent does the same with a different Stage then they've essentially done a strike method leaving two stages.
If they've agreed to a Strike method without heeding proper protocol on who gets to choose first/last then a coinflip (or in-game Judgement) is used to determine this (all disagreements are ruled through a random decision, as found in Apex rules and most official sports rulings).
At any point after this someone refuses to play, they are DQ'd.
A DQ cannot reasonably be forced on another player in this situation from what I see when following simple protocol even in this extreme situation. Is there something that needs patched?

They risk taking a coin flip and actually fighting their first match on Find Mii at a 50% chance. That or they realize those odds are terrible and try to beg for random on starter stages, still leaving it up to random. There is the loophole and problem. I have a strong chance of manipulating my opponent for no other reason then to force them onto a highly uncompetitive stage to try and force my luck to win. I shouldn't be able to game your rules to win. I should only be able to win by player skill.

If you want more stages played on, use a FLSS (Full List Striking System) and have players strike from the entire list of legal stages. Not only is this more fair, it increases stage variety as well. There already a better system, so just use that one for what you want.

 

[popsofctown]

As soon as someone refuses to play on every stage in the game they are essentially saying they are not going to play the game, thus their opponent(s) wins through DQ.

I sit down with Capps. I tell him I refuse to play on every stage in the game except FD.

Capps says he refuses to play on every stage in the game except Find Mii.

Neither of us are refusing to play on every stage in the game, but we can't agree on a stage to play. Do you see the issue?

 

[T0MMY]

If we thought going random was a good way to decide the stage we would still be doing so in Melee. There is a reason that if your rules loophole here allows me to force that other33% chance to get the other stage I want it's a problem. The difference between winning match one, the most important match of the game or not is too important to leave to RNG.

First, deferring to Melee's past is fallacy ad traditionalis. What was done in the past does not determine our future.
Second, if a random ruling is, as you say, "unfair" then you'll have to explain why - you may like to know I borrowed the idea from what I heard was used in Starcraft II tournaments (striking stages to a pool and randoming the remaining). You may also have to take up your accusation to professional athletic sports leagues who use similar methods to determine any kind of advantage (random coin flip to determine who gets first play). As far as I can see if two players are made aware of the possibility and the potentiality of the ("neutral") Stages that can come up random then it is fair play.
Thirdly, I was not purporting a random stage should be the only system used, I simply pointed out the option of it. I may have already stated that I am NOT using it in my near future events but it will be a POSSIBLE option for competitors to use. And, yes, I have used it (to great success) which is to say I try things before I knock them, can you say the same?

An example. "I refuse to play on any stage other then Find Mii for the first match."
"That's silly! At least go to Battlefield or something."
"Nope, it's either Find Mii or you are forced to go random."

I see where your confusion lies:
Refusal is not part of an Agreement method.
Agreement method is offering to go to a stage. If it is declined the other player would offer an alternative.

I think I already illustrated through example how it would come to another alternative of agreement (e.g. agree to striking, agreeing to a random starter, etc.
Again, I hope you are not insisting I am pushing a random-only choice here, as that is just one of many options to agree to

Now, let's pursue this. Either as you said we go random from a starter list (defeating the purpose of this stage procedure in the first place and giving someone a 33% chance of getting a very polarizing stage). OR

They risk taking a coin flip and actually fighting their first match on Find Mii at a 50% chance.

Ah, ok, you are still taking the assumptive path that a Random-only method is being used.
Here's how it is actually played out at tournaments:
"Want to go to Find Mii?"
"Sure/No"
If Sure: end
If No: "How about Battlefield instead? It's a bit more basic for a first round of play."
If Sure: end
If No: "We'll strike or choose Random then" (either from starters or from FLSS)
If Random: end
If Strike: They either agree to use Mr. Game & Watch's Judgement in-game, or a Referee is called to coin-flip to determine who strikes first/last and strike down to at least one stage.
Else: The player refusing to ANY method will be given a 5 minute warning to agree to which method to use (Striking, or Random Starter if a Gentleman's Agreement is not met).
If Time Up: DQ'd
If Agreement is made before time: end

Done in about 2 minutes or less. And this is at the extreme cases. Over a span of monthlies for a year there was only ONE instance where someone wanted to test out the extremes and ended up getting a random stage (Wario vs Meta Knight on Final Destination, Wario won and it didn't seem the Stage had much to do with it as he had won on Battlefield previously in a very similar game).

If you want more stages played on, use a FLSS (Full List Striking System) and have players strike from the entire list of legal stages. Not only is this more fair, it increases stage variety as well. There already a better system, so just use that one for what you want.

I think you just made a mistake thinking the previous system excludes a FLSS option. As illustrated above I've shown how it is inclusive. So it cannot be replaced with a FLSS as it encompasses it.
But I am interested in hearing you out why it would be "more fair" (and more fair than what exactly?)
FLSS using a list of "legal" stages sounds like an oxymoron, in that it is not a "full list" if there are legal stages it entails there are illegal stages, thus a not-full list of Stages, ergo oxymoron. Not that this would invalidate the system, just points out how it could come off a little dishonest and some may just avoid it because of that.

Hope I cleared up all questions for you and popsofctown. Let me know about anything else before I spring the system I'd like to use in future events, almost there & thanks for following me this far.

 

[LiteralGrill]

First, deferring to Melee's past is fallacy ad traditionalis. What was done in the past does not determine our future.
Second, if a random ruling is, as you say, "unfair" then you'll have to explain why - you may like to know I borrowed the idea from what I heard was used in Starcraft II tournaments (striking stages to a pool and randoming the remaining). You may also have to take up your accusation to professional athletic sports leagues who use similar methods to determine any kind of advantage (random coin flip to determine who gets first play). As far as I can see if two players are made aware of the possibility and the potentiality of the ("neutral") Stages that can come up random then it is fair play.
Thirdly, I was not purporting a random stage should be the only system used, I simply pointed out the option of it. I may have already stated that I am NOT using it in my near future events but it will be a POSSIBLE option for competitors to use. And, yes, I have used it (to great success) which is to say I try things before I knock them, can you say the same?

I was only mentioning Melee to show WHY we don't use random stage selection anymore. It created issues where getting certain stages could seriously decide who won an entire set all at random. Any kind of random stage selection should be avoided as much as possible for that reason. At least our current system involves player skill and knowledge when selecting matches even if it has some issues. There is no point deferring to random, an inferior system, when we had no need to. I would say random received years of testing to show it does not work well, it has be tried enough to be knocked.

Especially since if you are choosing from starter stages only you may not be choosing from stages that best fit the match up. The term "neutral stages" is simply an incorrect one, no stage is neutral in every match up. That poor wording has haunted stage legality and rules debates for years and it's sad it ever happened.

I see where your confusion lies:
Refusal is not part of an Agreement method.
Agreement method is offering to go to a stage. If it is declined the other player would offer an alternative.

I think I already illustrated through example how it would come to another alternative of agreement (e.g. agree to striking, agreeing to a random starter, etc.
Again, I hope you are not insisting I am pushing a random-only choice here, as that is just one of many options to agree to

I can refuse every single offer my opponent gives me for stages besides Find Mii. Your method allows this. I have no need to offer any alternative of my own. All you said was "pick stages". I chose Find Mii. If my opponent refuse to agree, what do we do then?

Ah, ok, you are still taking the assumptive path that a Random-only method is being used.
Here's how it is actually played out at tournaments:
"Want to go to Find Mii?"
"Sure/No"
If Sure: end
If No: "How about Battlefield instead? It's a bit more basic for a first round of play."
If Sure: end
If No: "We'll strike or choose Random then" (either from starters or from FLSS)
If Random: end
If Strike: They either agree to use Mr. Game & Watch's Judgement in-game, or a Referee is called to coin-flip to determine who strikes first/last and strike down to at least one stage.
Else: The player refusing to ANY method will be given a 5 minute warning to agree to which method to use (Striking, or Random Starter if a Gentleman's Agreement is not met).
If Time Up: DQ'd
If Agreement is made before time: end

Done in about 2 minutes or less. And this is at the extreme cases. Over a span of monthlies for a year there was only ONE instance where someone wanted to test out the extremes and ended up getting a random stage (Wario vs Meta Knight on Final Destination, Wario won and it didn't seem the Stage had much to do with it as he had won on Battlefield previously in a very similar game).

Then every player you have is being silly and not abusing your system. I would do so in every single match as it is far superior to have a random shot at getting a large advantage to to go to the most even stage. Your rules can be gamed, there in lies the issue. You might as well keep a solid standard and just use that to decide stages, at least it can't possibly be horribly abused to give someone a possible undeserving win. The rule itself is flawed, and even if most players wont abuse it it only takes one lucky player to ruin an entire tournament with it.

I think you just made a mistake thinking the previous system excludes a FLSS option. As illustrated above I've shown how it is inclusive. So it cannot be replaced with a FLSS as it encompasses it.
But I am interested in hearing you out why it would be "more fair" (and more fair than what exactly?)
FLSS using a list of "legal" stages sounds like an oxymoron, in that it is not a "full list" if there are legal stages it entails there are illegal stages, thus a not-full list of Stages, ergo oxymoron. Not that this would invalidate the system, just points out how it could come off a little dishonest and some may just avoid it because of that.

Hope I cleared up all questions for you and popsofctown. Let me know about anything else before I spring the system I'd like to use in future events, almost there & thanks for following me this far.

No player in their right mind should be agreeing to do what the other players wants in any way as it gives them an advantage. Strike stage? Which ones? I want to only strike from find Mii, Gaur Plains, and Living Room. There lies another part of the rules that can be gamed. I can make simple and reasonable requests since in your rules these technically are reasonable requests even though they have ridiculous outcomes.

Anyways, FLSS is just the name it has had over the years, as you strike from the FULL LIST of legal stages. Yes it's not perfect, but it's the name it most commonly is know by and it's not so easy to rename these kinds of things (plus FLoSSing is a fun way to say it or something like that.)

Compared to the current system of starter/counterpick or your proposed system, FLSS is superior in many rights and reasons. I'll try to go through it all below. I was working on something to explain FLSS to the subreddit anyways so it works out good.

Spoiler

Hello everyone, today I'm here to talk about something many people have been seeing in our rulesets on the subreddit for smash 3DS as of late, the Full List Striking System (FLSS, sometimes known as FloSSing).


The idea of this system is that instead of separating stages into starter and counterpick, all stages are legal to play from game one. You strike from the FULL legal STAGE LIST (see where the FLSS comes from?)


We have been running this for a few events lately and people have been asking us why. Today I'm hoping to help explain the benefits to using FLSS and why we have been using it and encourage others to try the system as well.


A reality to the game we play is no stage is equally fair; every stage offers some characters and competitors advantages and disadvantages over others. However when we develop our rules we are always trying to have a maximum amount of viability. Each stage also has different gameplay intrinsically and requires players to learn to play in a greater array of conditions to win. An ideal stage is a component in a system that overall maximizes the gameplay variety and thus the magnitude of the skill test of a competitive player. Competitors are rewarded by a game that has overall more competitive depth as there's simply more skill that needs to be built on the road to be the best. Spectators are rewarded with a greater variety of fresh experiences to watch unfold. So in that sense, no one stage could ever be ideal and a ruleset of few stages is always bad no matter which stages you pick, but you can have stages work great in conjuction with each other to make the best experience for all.


We know this about stages, so how do we go about choosing the best stages to play on for the first match then? The truth of the matter is for each set of characters the stage that is the most fair to fight on first is totally different due to the nature of the game.


To try and help with this, the starter/counterpick system was formed. While an okay system this still presented issues. By having this starter/counterpick dichotomy we have created another issue. We do not include the stages that might be the most fair in other matchups by not allowing them to be played on for game one, thus skewing the game to give an unfair advantages to certain characters. With game one being the most important game in every set this is not good.


The idea of starter/counterpick has other issues as well however. To start, it is actually counterproductive to practice playing on counterpick stages. To win a set, you need to win 2/3 games. Since your opponent's counterpick is your biggest disadvantage, you focus on winning on your own counterpick and the game 1 stage. The game one stage is always going to be from the starter list. Your best winning play is to pick a character whose natural best stages are starters and to counterpick those starters with your counterpicks. You have to learn minimal stages, and you'll get maximal results. Learning counterpick stages is a lot of work, and no matter how good you are at it, it will never win you sets as you still have to win game one or a counterpick match on a starter your opponent picked. It's just a sucker's play to bother with that at all, and of course when no one learns these stages


This flaw presents itself in other ways as well. Now that most players are playing more matches on these starter stages, players do not understand these counterpick stages anymore. The quality of matches on these stages when they do get occasional play since players have less knowledge of these stages. This lack of knowledge can make players feel like the stage is broken or unfair when the simple truth of the matter is they just do not know how to play there.


Over time people ask to have these stages banned, and more and more stages are lost until we have an incredibly smaller stage list. Why should we design this implication into our own rules and eliminate perfectly fair stages in the process.


Now I am not saying all stages we have legal should stay legal forever, over time some stages really will prove to be issues. But we do lose many fine stages this way and as we discussed above the less stage variety we have the less viability everyone has. So doing this actually hurts our meta in the long run.


Also, how can a stage not be good enough for the most important game of a match, game one, but be okay for the rest of the set? This simply makes no sense.


To combat this, the FLSS was designed. This is how it combats the issues starter/counterpick presents.


To start with all stages legal this allow every player and character to play on the stage most even for the two of them. With more stages to choose from this allows the first match to be played on the stage most even for both competitors instead of forcing someone onto a stage that may not be fair in their matchup. This increases viability for everyone.


This also requires players to know ALL of the stages equally so no stage ends up removed unfairly do to a lack of knowledge. Also this allows it so it players cannot manipulate the stage choosing procedure to only practice on a limited number of stages to win. This means players must have more skill to compete and also allows more variety for viewers to watch (which is quite nice). This also means more of our stages are tested much faster so that we know sooner if a stage has real issues or not so it can be removed from competition. Finally, this shows that all stages are equal no matter what point of the match you are in which is more logically coherant.


Yes, this system means you might not be playing on a stage for game one you are normally used to so it may seem strange at first. But over time if you do this often it will become something you get used to and you will enjoy how much more fair it makes the game for everyone and how much more variety in our meta it encourages.


So please give this a solid try and keep an open mind. We know it is different from what you are used to, but even the systems of old from choosing at random to start/counterpick and lots of other incredibly odd things that have been tried they all started somewhere and took some acceptance to become something people either cast away or made into the standard. We hope this system will become the latter.

 

[Piford]

Full list stage striking with a time limit is probably whats going to end up happening in tournaments. The only problem I see with FLSS is that it requires an odd number of stages, but we can simply separate Omega's if the list ends up with an even number of stages. Also, @ LiteralGrill you stole my post, understanding Starter/Counterpick was the 6th part in my series of post on legal stages =P. But anything I could write was probably be worse than what you wrote.

 

[T0MMY]

I was only mentioning Melee to show WHY we don't use random stage selection anymore.

It's still fallacy to do that, no matter what you believe your motivation was.
But, for my curiosity's sake (as I love to tie up all loose ends), could you please pontificate:
What tournaments were using this random method?
When were the tournaments held (month/year)?
Was it only one method allowed, or other choices offered?
What were the Stage Lists?

The answers to those questions are more important than just saying Melee didn't do it, and still doesn't, so we shouldn't.

It created issues where getting certain stages could seriously decide who won an entire set all at random.

So, striking method and even the FLSS can create said issues, this point seems, if true, would also seem to invalidate your reasoning.

I would say random received years of testing to show it does not work well, it has be tried enough to be knocked.

Or more concisely: So, you knocked it before trying it. Ok, well that's cool and all... but a double-standard considering your opinion of TO's banning stages without trying them out...
On my end of things I have at least tried it out and found it to be much more successful than you are describing...
Now who has a stronger point here?

I can refuse every single offer my opponent gives me for stages besides Find Mii. Your method allows this. I have no need to offer any alternative of my own. All you said was "pick stages". I chose Find Mii. If my opponent refuse to agree, what do we do then?

Just to help you out a little further:
Although offering a Stage to use may extend all the way to include every single stage, it does not necessitate that, nor is that how it is commonly used. The usage is offering a couple Stages and if there's an agreement the match can start immediately without the need to go through a much lengthier process of striking (time constrains are worsened with a Full List Stage Select in this case).
If there's no agreement the first few offers it will default to a more lengthier process. Maybe you don't like it, but it is being used nation-wide (and I wouldn't be surprised if you've been using it) and Agreement not going away anytime soon because of how efficient and effective it is.

Then every player you have is being silly and not abusing your system. I would do so in every single match as it is far superior to have a random shot at getting a large advantage to to go to the most even stage. Your rules can be gamed, there in lies the issue.

Might as well put in a reminder that they are not 'my' rules, I have given you rulings from nationals such as Apex where Stage choice in striking ultimately comes down to a random decision (or worse yet, they do allow for Rock Paper Scissor matches to be an officially determining method... anathema to Competitive Principals).
You're preaching to the choir here about how it CAN be better... but it's up to you and I to work out a better place, not to detract on matters like I pointed out above.
So, work with me here, it's not a battle of wits how I see this, but a plan to help each other out.

The rule itself is flawed, and even if most players wont abuse it it only takes one lucky player to ruin an entire tournament with it.

You'll have to clarify how. As it is you made it out like I was gunning for random method only.
I will have to at this point ask you to go back and read my post and quote me as saying this, or you will then in your next post admit to me that I never said this.
If you fail to this empirical test then I will have to be lead to assume you are purposely trying to put "words into my mouth" to create red herrings/straw men and thus I will bid you a good day to deal with your flossing on your own using this kind of illogical method.

Please do me this favor so we can continue a reasonable discussion.

No player in their right mind should be agreeing to do what the other players wants in any way as it gives them an advantage.

Who said agreeing to a stage was going to give them an advantage? I've agreed to many different stages because I could abuse them better than my opponent (who was hoping the "random" elements would help them).
I've even got video proof of it; on a trip up to compete in Washington my opponents thought Green Green was a good way to get an advantage due to random bomb blocks and apples. How wrong they were; I declined any kind of ban and abused their choice proudly.
Case in point.

Strike stage? Which ones? I want to only strike from find Mii, Gaur Plains, and Living Room. There lies another part of the rules that can be gamed. I can make simple and reasonable requests since in your rules these technically are reasonable requests even though they have ridiculous outcomes.

If you notice the rulings for striking I gave you stated to strike from the starters (FLSS or otherwise). If you strike from Find Mii, Gaur Plains, and Living Room because they are on the starters (FLSS or otherwise) then I'll strike whichever are left, choose my character and play it out.
So now that I see you see how it is resolved. Thank you.

Anyways, FLSS is just the name it has had over the years, as you strike from the FULL LIST of legal stages. Yes it's not perfect, but it's the name it most commonly is know by and it's not so easy to rename these kinds of things (plus FLoSSing is a fun way to say it or something like that.)

I'm sure it will be real popular. Good luck with that.

Compared to the current system of starter/counterpick or your proposed system, FLSS is superior in many rights and reasons

Ok, I'll look over it and give my impression.
Before I do I'll let you know I've already developed a Full Stage Striking method long ago and rejected it - not due to any flaws it inherently had, but because the system when put into practice was very time consuming. ALL my attendees ended up just looking at the overwhelming possibilities and saying "So... want to go to Smashville?"
And thus was born the Agreement Method (first named the "Agree to Smashville" method). I later included the option to agree to Battlefield or Final Destination and finally just said to agree to any stage (which was not explicitly banned due to time constraints of the tournament itself).
From there I've been working out the kinks... and now that you've seen m y path, I will follow yours and compare where you go...

Please excuse my very elegant TL;DR version:

The idea of this system is that instead of separating stages into starter and counterpick, all stages are legal to play from game one. You strike from the FULL legal STAGE LIST.
A reality to the game we play is no stage is equally fair; every stage offers some characters and competitors advantages and disadvantages over others.

As much as I was agreeing with your issues with the flaws of the counterpick system, I have to stop you here and challenge you on your idea of "A reality... is no stage is equally fair..."
Reality? No Stage fair?
I'll leave you to your concepts of what is and is not reality for the time being, but I will get to your reasoning behind no Stage being "fair": Every Stage offers characters/competitors advantages/disadvantages over others.

So what this equates to is that the Stage itself is actually not the problem of "fair", but the character matchup (and I'll get to competitors later)... CHARACTER MATCHUP.
The Stage does not change when characters are chosen...
So why is it that you believe the Stage somehow becomes unfair when the players have the choice of which characters to use AFTER the Stage is determined? (unless not so)
If I am choosing a character after we've agreed to a Stage and there's some kind of skewed matchup between your and my choice then it's not the Stage to be blamed, it's ME.
Is this some kind of bizarre scapegoating of a Stage or is there something you can clarify for me? Because this has just become illogical to blame an unchanging Stage for MY choice of make the match "unfair".

I'll get more into it when we've crossed this barrier.
Until then, I'll leave this puzzle for your hands.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Stuff.

I encourage you to read what I wrote again. I mean no offense but it seems that everything I said flew over your head, like you could not comprehend the point I was trying to make or ignored details to it. I read over your response and it seriously seems like you missed entire sentences of what I wrote. I'm not sure if I need to be more clear or what else to do honestly. I'll try again here and see how it goes.

To save those uninterested from reading spoilers. First, on random stage selection:

Spoiler

I would like to refer you to several rulesets to show how the use of random stage selection only for a first stage is unfair and has been thoroughly tested to be proven so. We can dig back as far as MLG 2006 to know they used random stages with just one mulligan per player as their way to choose a starting player. Further back then even that you can dig up various tournaments that had similar rulesets. But for the sake that it is incredibly difficult to find these old threads and various postings (since some no longer even exist because when MLG bought Smashboards they deleted a bunch of old posts) we only have definitive proof that anyone can find that MLG used random as their stage selection method.

For those curious, something dug up for an MLG tournament ruleset:

Spoiler

1. The higher seed has first choice for their seat and controller port.
2. The first round stage is selected by random.
3. Random select stages limited to: Final Destination, Battlefield, Yoshi's Story, Fountain of Dreams, Rainbow Cruise, Dreamland 64 & Pokemon Stadium
4. Stages not listed on the random select list that are not banned are open for counter picks by the losing player.
5. Stages banned for Singles Only: Great Bay
6. Stages banned for Doubles Only: Fountain of Dreams.
7. Stages banned for Singles & Doubles: Fourside, Hyrule Temple, Flatzone, Brinstar Depths, Icicle Mountain, Big Blue, Mushroom Kingdom 1, Venom and Yoshi's Island 64

Now here's a fun one, where the stagelists was not the "Neutral" List but changed to Random List because the term "neautral" wasn't correct or work for it. Here the MBR is discussing it. - Here they are rolling it out. This was in 2008.

By the time 2009 came around we have the MBR Recommended Ruleset where we see a very loud and official starter/counterpick being introduced.

As a bonus, we now have to thank the gods the Smash Wiki is not know for being well up to date. On their website they actually still have a really weird ruleset apparently based on the MBR official rules that don't actually seem to exist anywhere else I search... How odd. I thought I would share them just in case as they mention random stage select as well as this may keep these rules safe if they aren't documented anywhere else. So the actual time these existed could have been even further back then anyone could imagine.

Those rules:

Spoiler

Definitions
Neutral Stage: A neutral stage is any stage allowed in the initial random select for the first game of a match (i.e. Battlefield).
Banned Stage: A banned stage is any stage that is not allowed either in the initial random select or by choice in games two and three (i.e. Temple). In order to play on a banned stage both players must agree to it.
Available Stage: An available stage is any stage that can be chosen by a player in games two and three. These include all of the neutral stages, but exclude all banned stages. Therefore, all neutral stages are available stages, but not all available stages are neutral. For example, Pokémon Stadium is an available stage that is not a neutral stage.

1-on-1

• Usually, sets between players are played best 2 out of 3 matches (using 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 for final rounds).
• Double Elimination.
• Each match is played with timed stock, with 4 lives and 8 minutes.

• In the case that time runs out and both characters have an equal amount of lives, the character with less damage wins the match. If both characters have equal lives and damage, the match must be replayed; Sudden Death is strictly not to be played.

• Items are turned off.
• The first match is played with a Random Stage.

• The random select is comprised of neutral stages:

• Yoshi's Story
• Fountain of Dreams
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Dream Land (N64)

• Players are given the option to "strike" stages from the random select.

• For the first match, characters are chosen double-blind - at the same time, so that neither player knows his opponent's character beforehand. In practice, this rule is often ignored, but players always reserve the option to force a double-blind pick.
• The loser of the first match (and of successive matches) chooses the next stage, and then the winner chooses his character, and then the loser chooses his character. This series of choices is called slob picks.

• The loser can pick either a neutral stage or a counterpick stage, this list is based on MBR recommended ruleset:

• Pokémon Stadium

• The loser cannot pick any banned stages:

• Big Blue
• Brinstar
• Brinstar Depths
• Corneria
• Flat Zone
• Fourside
• Great Bay
• Green Greens
• Icicle Mountain
• Jungle Japes
• Kongo Jungle
• Kongo Jungle (N64)
• Mushroom Kingdom
• Mushroom Kingdom II
• Mute City
• Onett
• Poké Floats
• Princess Peach's Castle
• Rainbow Cruise
• Temple
• Venom
• Yoshi's Island (pipes)
• Yoshi's Island (N64)

• The loser can also not choose any stage that has already been played earlier that round. This rule is known as "Dave's Stupid Rule," named after Scamp.
• The winner can ban stages from the opponent's selection, except in best-of-5 sets.

The rules most folks know nowadays though are from Apex, especially the Apex Melee Ruleset. I don't think anyone can argue that this is not the most widely used of every Melee ruleset to date. But in here is something many people may have forgotten about. Forced Character Selection is off. For those who do not remember this at all or don't know what it is the rules can explain it: "The losing player once had the option to select Random Stage as their counterpick and remove the option to change characters from the winner of the previous round. This is no longer legal. If a player wishes to select Random Stage as their counterpick, the winner of the previous round may choose to change their character." Showing further distaste at the possibility of being forced to a random stage and recognizing that this was once done and proved itself to be bad.

From way back in probably 2004/2005 till it slowly changed mid 2008 the idea of custom stages to start on was tested thoroughly, and the results were found to be bad enough that a new stage selection tool would be created.

You said don't knock it till you tried it, but I think at least 4 years of trying it by tons of TOs was enough in this case. There is something to said that things should be tested I totally agree, but if they have been thoroughly proven to cause issues before, forcing people in tournament to try them at the risk of hurting an event when we have so much evidence showing this is a problem it is not worth it.

It created issues where getting certain stages could seriously decide who won an entire set all at random.

So, striking method and even the FLSS can create said issues, this point seems, if true, would also seem to invalidate your reasoning.

You missed the key words, at random. The current system and FLSS has the players themselves deciding which stages to play on, there is no random factor. If a player strikes to a terrible stage in FLSS they must blame themselves, not RNG. Yes players could still pick a very polarizing stage in both methods but the players are willingly doing so.

Now that I think I covered that EXHAUSTIVELY (kudos to anyone who read that) I think I can continue. On the whole random starter stage abuse thing:

Spoiler

Might as well put in a reminder that they are not 'my' rules, I have given you rulings from nationals such as Apex where Stage choice in striking ultimately comes down to a random decision (or worse yet, they do allow for Rock Paper Scissor matches to be an officially determining method... anathema to Competitive Principals).
You're preaching to the choir here about how it CAN be better... but it's up to you and I to work out a better place, not to detract on matters like I pointed out above.
So, work with me here, it's not a battle of wits how I see this, but a plan to help each other out.

I was specifically referring to how you would handle it if two players could not decide on a stage. You said at first you would go random with starter stages, but if possible you would go random between the two stages they had chosen. I'm not saying you want to go all random, but a stubborn player could always just on purpose not let a stage be chosen and when you deferred to your random starter stage method in the rules take their chance and hope for their lucky stage. If they did this all tournament, it would essentially be going all random for starters anyways. (I would do it every single match, I'll take a 33% chance to have a polarizing starter stage on the most important match of a set, it could win me the entire tournament with enough luck.)

That is the specific part that is flawed, if a player wanted to under what you said yourself you would do in that situation, a player could force another to go random and do so an entire tournament essentially making starter stages for them chosen always at random. It's not that you yourself are saying that is the method they should all choose, it's that they could abuse the rules to make it the case themselves.

If you notice the rulings for striking I gave you stated to strike from the starters (FLSS or otherwise). If you strike from Find Mii, Gaur Plains, and Living Room because they are on the starters (FLSS or otherwise) then I'll strike whichever are left, choose my character and play it out.
So now that I see you see how it is resolved. Thank you.

You seem to have misunderstood me. You said I was allowed to pick a stage in whatever method I choose with my opponent. I could only offer my opponent the chance to strike from a horrible stagelist and refuse any other stage selection method no matter what they offered. By doing so, you would refer to your choosing at random rule again. Is the problem coming more apparent? I can be a jerk and force my starter stage to be chosen at random every time, there's an issue when that can happen.

Now onto the FLSS stuff:

Spoiler

I'm sure it will be real popular. Good luck with that.

I promise I am not the one who came up with FLoSSing... It's just been around a while and some folks like it. I guess it might be a clever way to remember what it is or to call it out quickly for commentary. Anyways, how catchy a name is is definitely not worth continuing on.

Before I do I'll let you know I've already developed a Full Stage Striking method long ago and rejected it - not due to any flaws it inherently had, but because the system when put into practice was very time consuming.

It does take more time. However, it does allow players to just choose that one stage if they really want to (like your method, this is the one time where Gentlemen's Pick really shines) BUT forces a safe default to fall back in in case a player can't decide, or allows those that want to strike it out to still do so.

So what this equates to is that the Stage itself is actually not the problem of "fair", but the character matchup (and I'll get to competitors later)... CHARACTER MATCHUP.
The Stage does not change when characters are chosen...
So why is it that you believe the Stage somehow becomes unfair when the players have the choice of which characters to use AFTER the Stage is determined? (unless not so)
If I am choosing a character after we've agreed to a Stage and there's some kind of skewed matchup between your and my choice then it's not the Stage to be blamed, it's ME.
Is this some kind of bizarre scapegoating of a Stage or is there something you can clarify for me? Because this has just become illogical to blame an unchanging Stage for MY choice of make the match "unfair".

I'll get more into it when we've crossed this barrier.
Until then, I'll leave this puzzle for your hands.

Sorry, this puzzle itself wasn't that bad to solve. The stage itself is not unfair in your scenario. The issue is a TO can force players to not be allowed to play on the stage most fair for their character matchup (within reason, no one is saying legalize 75M for matchup fairness), forcing them to either change characters or have a worse chance of winning. This in turns skews the meta unfairly for those characters. That is what happens when you have starter/counterpick, stages that could (and sometimes are) the best and most even stage for game one can't be played on and it hurts viability since game one is the most important match of the set.

This is why FLSS is superior in that regard. It always allows (within reason, again stages that are broken are banned) two players to have the most even stage for their two characters to fight on with no artificial limitations on which stage to pick, where as starter/copunterpick forces an artificial barrier on character performance. As long as it is possible our rules should not hamper the true meta of the game if unnecessary.

 

[SaltyKracka]

Haha, is this guy really advocating the use of a ruleset so easily abused?

Protip: If people can compare your ruleset to the prisoner's dilemma in any form, you've failed.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I was thinking about this and the problems with random versus the time issues of full list striking (these two being honestly the only two vaguely workable systems) and I realized something that in retrospect was pretty obvious. Why not do both?

Let's say we have 20 legal stages. We each get to strike 4 stages, removing them from the random pool (mechanically this is just doing 9 stage striking). We then just random from the remaining 12 stages. It's a flexible system actually; TOs can balance the needs of their time constraints versus their desire for maximally fair stage selection results. TOs who really worry about time can have fewer strikes while those who care only about good results can have enough strikes to get through the full list and not rely on a random selection at all (that is, full list striking is a subset of this ruleset recommendation in which you strike away all but one stage and randomly select from that pool of one). Most TOs would probably pick something somewhere in the middle that makes sure the stage outcome is always decent but sometimes not great but that keeps things moving pretty fast, something like striking away half of the stages and randoming from the other half.

In terms of fairness, I love full list striking. If every player were like those of us who post in a stage procedure thread, I'd be 100% for it. In practice, a lot of players find striking already tedious, and asking for them to strike from twice as much is really asking a lot from players who aren't that into the system whle also raising very real time worries from TOs (I know stage selection isn't why tournaments run late, but seriously, we're talking about multiplying the size of striking by about 2.5!). If you ask a lot of real players to do stage striking from 23 stages, they're going to immediately start offering Smashville and get increasingly annoyed with anyone who insists on actually doing the striking because it's such a production; I would prefer to at least give TOs some sort of tool to be able to handle this situation within their communities instead of the obvious but completely terrible answer of just banning some stages to trim the numbers down. This system here has the benefit as well of being super simple as opposed to my far more convoluted proposition from earlier, and simplicity is likely a good sign.

 

[DeLux]

You should also note that striking from 23 stages in your example would probably end up favoring one of the players depending on the way the turns are setup. Striking from 21 or 25 would maintain the symmetry of competitive balance.

 

[LiteralGrill]

As many stages as there are that look good I'm not expecting us to hit numbers up in the 20s. I see 11 100% non arguable these are legal stages (unless something magically comes up to ban them) and maybe 15 total if you add a few more questionable stages.

Striking from 11-15 wouldn't be as bad, long yes but not impossible.

 

[Judo777]

I know people don't want to hear this, but we have to factor in that striking from 20 stages takes a long time.

Time constraints must be considered.

I might be mistaken on this, but I thought the purpose of a starter stage was to help eliminate either player having to fight the stage too much on the first match. Like to help prevent the stage from interfering too heavily into the match (the reason people johned about PS1 in brawl was that it was a stater that was incredibly intrusive and people thought it probably shouldn't have been a starter).

I guess I'm saying we should probably define the purpose of a starter and counter pick and define their differences.