Determining the procedure to pick stages in Smash 4

[popsofctown]

Frustration/desire not to strike from the average player should resolve itself. If both players dislike the striking process, the players can agree on a stage or agree to random. If only one player dislikes the striking process, that player can tell the player who wants to strike "just pick the stage". Alternatively they can strike for a couple rounds and then tell their opponent to pick from what's left. That form of compromise isn't necessary with striking from neutrals, but will emerge.

Legislating randomness because people are too lazy to strike is terrible and caustic. You should never introduce more RNG than necessary to a competitive game. There's no reason to random when one play could just pick from what's left.

 

[T0MMY]

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.

If you are referring to Capp's groundless accusation towards me than you would be wrong.

If you read my posts you would have seen no such thing and instead would have seen me simply just ask how it could be "abused" - at which point Capps has still not reasonably shown it to be the case (just recently made another fallacy ad traditionalis).
Additionally, the same can be said with a irrational prisoner's dilemma, and if you read the posts you would have found my question about how ANY of these methods could not be accused of such dilemma reamins unanswered (wonder why?)

Better Pro Tip: Read the posts you are referring to before you respond.

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?

Interesting that you bring this question up, as this is what I heard the Starcraft tournaments were doing. They had a pool of maps and the players would strike (or more likely "veto") down to 3 maps and random from there.
Somehow this was ok for Stracraft competition, so I tried it out in a Smash version. Still has to be said: It works much better in actual practice than Capp's is making it out to be without ever trying it out.
I would advocate to TO's to try it out, but I believe there's an even better method, and I have yet to get to the part where I do advocate a method yet (gotta finish up with Capp's way-too-wordy posts; and if you are reading this: don't worry Capp's I'm coming for you in just a moment).

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Since all sorts of crazy ideas are flying around anyway, how about a blind pick system?

Basically it would work like this:

Each player has a number of suggestions and strikes (The exact number depends on how many legal stages the tournament is running).
Both players write their suggestions and strikes and give them to a third person.
The Third person checks if there is an agreement between suggestions, if there is one, the players pick that stage.
Otherwise, the struck stages are removed and the selection goes to random.
Problem solved, no need for a direct agreement between players, and no need to directly favor a player who gets first pick since there isn't one.

This is more of a problem solver and can fit in any ruleset without being it's main ruleset.

 

[popsofctown]

Since all sorts of crazy ideas are flying around anyway, how about a blind pick system?

Basically it would work like this:

Each player has a number of suggestions and strikes (The exact number depends on how many legal stages the tournament is running).
Both players write their suggestions and strikes and give them to a third person.
The Third person checks if there is an agreement between suggestions, if there is one, the players pick that stage.
Otherwise, the struck stages are removed and the selection goes to random.
Problem solved, no need for a direct agreement between players, and no need to directly favor a player who gets first pick since there isn't one.

This is more of a problem solver and can fit in any ruleset without being it's main ruleset.

Not a bad notion



Starcraft maps are balanced based on thousands of people laddering and comparing statistical data from only 3 non-mirror matchups the game has. Things are so balanced there that it would be like striking down to Battlefield, Melee Battlefield, and Fountain of Dreams and then randoming. The randoming has almost no impact, which is why it's whatever.

If that's what the outcome of striking tends to look like in Wii-U, then that's ok I guess. But it's not an example that supports randoming between FD and delfino.

 

[T0MMY]

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.

That's funny, as that is exactly what I thought of you, but I was respectful enough to keep opinion to myself and patient enough to continue following you on your path. The complete lack of response to pressing questions and the continual usage of fallacy is enough to test the strongest of patience (case in point, quoting my writing as "stuff"), but I think at this point maybe we can agree to keep such opinions to ourselves and let reason guide us the rest of the way.

I'm not sure if I need to be more clear or what else to do honestly.

Just be concise and honest and reason will direct the course without much effort. Learning (or rather unlearning) isn't necessarily an easy task.
But I thank you for your patience and will continue along with you.

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.

That's funny, as I began my professional Smash career at MLG 2006 and I clearly remember reading those rules before competing (or even registering for that matter).
And I have to say, I do not remember these rules being standard everywhere. So what's the point of bringing this up?

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

That was far after starter/counterpick were introduced. Sorry, but you must be new around here.

As a bonus, we now have to thank the gods the Smash Wiki is not know for being well up to date.

Again, what is the point of bringing up obscure Smash Wiki rules which seemingly nobody used?

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.

Not only can that be argued, but more importantly: What's your point?

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.

Custom Stages now? Where is this going?

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.

Considering that random stage selection has been used in tournaments up to this current year, I hardly see your point except to try to defend yourself for being hypocritical.

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.

Ah, here is finally your point, although completely superfluous I have to thank you for taking me down memory lane with that wordy posting.
To emphasize, I will make evident that which should have been said without the long recollection of past rulesets:
"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."

As I am sure you are aware of, I never made the point that if known to be a problem it should still be forced on people:
My point was that an Agreement Method would INCLUDE a random stage selection IF ALL players AGREE to that process. I do not believe a TO should step in and nullify that choice.

So, that entirely long post you made was a complete waste of time for you. For that, I am sorry. But it should not deter us from our path, let us proceed.

On FLSS & Random

Spoiler

You missed the key words, at random.

Why be so presumptuous? I did not miss that word, please do not belittle me with such groundless accusations when simply asking if I missed a word would work so much better for both of us.

Let me elucidate: The reason why I said it would include both Striking and FLSS systems is that they both would include a random element in who decides the Stage (assuming the usual procedures for such methods and having to assume a striking-like procedure with FLSS as it was rather ambiguous to need an assumption).
And to clarify further... When Striking, a player must have FINAL SAY in the striking. The big question comes down to HOW DOES THE PROCEDURE DETERMINE THIS ADVANTAGE?

Answer: Currently many rulesets like Apex go off port priority, which coincidentally turns out to be determined by some kind of random chance (coinflip in a lot of events, or G&W Judgement, or sometimes the anti-competitive game of skill RPS is used - heresy, I say). Other rulesets are often left blank in this regard or just simply defer to a coinflip or other random event.

There you go, now we have a stage is chosen by RNG, something you seem to be against. So what say you about your support of methods that use this? And you can see now why I did NOT miss any "key words".

On starter abuse

Spoiler

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.

You have fun trying it out against Mew2king with that 66.6% chance it is NOT going to work out for you (on a 3-stage Starter and upwards to about 90% chance it is not going to work out for you on larger stage lists). With "enough luck" you could also be a billionaire, write a dozen Pulitzer prize novels, or even convince me that you are correct.
But instead I think I'll just call you out on the grounds that I never advocated this; I stated it should be an option for a TO to allow the players to decide a Stage if all Players agree to it.

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.

Looks like you were the one that misunderstood me. I never said anything about a horrible stagelist. What would happen is if you agreed to said Strike Method (no matter how "horrible") then you'd end up DQ'd for not playing your match.

Now the FLSS:

Spoiler

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.

I agree the bad name is not worth continuing on with, as I said "good luck with that" and left it at that.

It does take more time.

Alright, you just sold me on not using it.
Time's tight with my overly successful tournaments as it is, I want MORE games played with LESS time. Agreement Method does this (more efficient), is inclusive, more accepted, and functions properly without the ambiguity problem of FLSS (I'm not sure how to even operate the system the way it was worded).

However, with the Agreement Method, if my attendees want to use the FLSS I'll let them because it is that awesome at being inclusive of all other methods. The good thing is FLSS won't be popular enough to take up much of my tournament time (if any).

Sorry, this puzzle itself wasn't that bad to solve. The stage itself is not unfair in your scenario.

Bingo!
We have ourselves a winner.
Now that you have changed stance on the "reality" of the Stage being unfair, we can proceed.

The issue is a TO can force players to not be allowed to play on the stage most fair for their character matchup

I'm split in my reaction to this part of your post:
1st: It's the TO's event, they can do whatever the EFF they want. If you don't like it, go to another tournament.
2nd: I believe it is not the TO's job to interfere with the game - their job is to oversee the brackets running through on time and their attendees having a fun and fair competition (other jobs like payouts and such as well).

Conclusively, I am not supportive of such a situation, but if I found myself at a tournament where this were the case I wouldn't have much to complain about other than how I need to get better on the Stages used rather than be a scrub about it and demand the entire tournament scene should revolve around me, the character I want to use, and my personal opinions about what constitute "most fair".
Again, not supporting this, but this is the harsh reality.

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.

Despite bias as to what "true meta" may mean, I find it very difficult to support FLSS when there was no structure of how to operate it.
So before we get any deeper into it, please enumerate the proceedings for the method. And then I'll let you know my thoughts on it.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

Since all sorts of crazy ideas are flying around anyway, how about a blind pick system?

Basically it would work like this:

Each player has a number of suggestions and strikes (The exact number depends on how many legal stages the tournament is running).
Both players write their suggestions and strikes and give them to a third person.
The Third person checks if there is an agreement between suggestions, if there is one, the players pick that stage.
Otherwise, the struck stages are removed and the selection goes to random.
Problem solved, no need for a direct agreement between players, and no need to directly favor a player who gets first pick since there isn't one.

This is more of a problem solver and can fit in any ruleset without being it's main ruleset.

That actually seems like an ok idea to me. I'd like to see it in practice to see how that would go.

 

[Piford]

Since all sorts of crazy ideas are flying around anyway, how about a blind pick system?

Basically it would work like this:

Each player has a number of suggestions and strikes (The exact number depends on how many legal stages the tournament is running).
Both players write their suggestions and strikes and give them to a third person.
The Third person checks if there is an agreement between suggestions, if there is one, the players pick that stage.
Otherwise, the struck stages are removed and the selection goes to random.
Problem solved, no need for a direct agreement between players, and no need to directly favor a player who gets first pick since there isn't one.

This is more of a problem solver and can fit in any ruleset without being it's main ruleset.

If they are writing them down, why give them to a third person? They can just compare what they wrote. Also, I would require them to number the stages they suggest. They do this if two or more stages are suggest by both players. This way you can add up the numbers (1st get the most points, points descend from there) to see which is the most agreed upon stage.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

If they are writing them down, why give them to a third person? They can just compare what they wrote. Also, I would require them to number the stages they suggest. They do this if two or more stages are suggest by both players. This way you can add up the numbers (1st get the most points, points descend from there) to see which is the most agreed upon stage.

I guess when you think of it, if it was just two people then perhaps an argument may break out from the decision as the two players may get into an internal debate about stages. A third may help calm things down. Just a theory there.

 

[Piford]

I guess when you think of it, if it was just two people then perhaps an argument may break out from the decision as the two players may get into an internal debate about stages. A third may help calm things down. Just a theory there.

Well the whole point about numbers is to avoid debate.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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 agree entirely, this is truly the weakness of FLSS if we are all honest. I'm guessing in the end we wont have twenty stages or more, maybe 15 tops (more like 11-13) but even those lower numbers does take considerable time. We could make the striking go faster (so for an 11 stage list instead of like, 1-2-2-2-2-1 go 2-3-3-2 or something which would slightly help).

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 think you are correct that originally that was the reason why this was done. However by removing those stages you had to deal with a bit it accidentally nerfed the characters good on those kinds of stage by not letting them be used for the most important match of a set, game one. More then anything it's a philosophical difference where some want static stages even though they are not equally fair for both characters the players could choose, or those who want the stages to be fair for both characters to choose while allowing possible stage interference.

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

That level of interference and what people think is acceptable vs what isn't would determine that but it's so fluid between people. If we actually could somehow 100% make a full system to decide which stages were legal and not that worked always I would do it. I've tried SO hard though, and I always end up losing a few really great stages. Maybe I just lack the brilliance to come up with that standard.

HOWEVER, I think I found something I might quite like suggested by our friend here:

Since all sorts of crazy ideas are flying around anyway, how about a blind pick system?

Basically it would work like this:

Each player has a number of suggestions and strikes (The exact number depends on how many legal stages the tournament is running).
Both players write their suggestions and strikes and give them to a third person.
The Third person checks if there is an agreement between suggestions, if there is one, the players pick that stage.
Otherwise, the struck stages are removed and the selection goes to random.
Problem solved, no need for a direct agreement between players, and no need to directly favor a player who gets first pick since there isn't one.

This is more of a problem solver and can fit in any ruleset without being it's main ruleset.

I would like to remove the possibility of random if possible. The ideas that two players submit the stages they want to play on and those they refuse to and compare them is a cool concept. We just need a better "if this doesn't work" option.

Let's just pretend we have 11 stages legal and use it for an example (since there is no way we'll have less then that ever).

So each player could write down five stages they want to start on, and 2 they refuse to.

Or maybe better yet, both players choose which stages they don't want to play on FIRST so none of the five picks they make are wasted by being unusable. That would leave 7 stages left in our example. Each player writes down from the stage they'd most like to play on to the worst. They are compared side by side.

If the players have any stages that are on the exact same part of their list, the first stage to match is the one they play on. An example below. (I used 3DS stages, so just transfer this over to Wii U or whatnot).

[collapse=Two Player's Choices Number 1]
Player 1 ~~~~~~~~~ Player 2
Battlefield ~~~~~~~~~ Final Destination
Prism Tower ~~~~~~~~~ Prism Tower
Arena Ferox ~~~~~~~~~ Yoshi's Island
Brinstar ~~~~~~~~~ Brinstar
Final Destination ~~~~~~~~~ Tomodachi Life
[/collapse]

Prism Tower they both agreed earliest would be best for the first match, so they play there.

If however, none of them match position, the first one of both players to match at all would be chosen. An example again:

[collapse=Two Player's Choices Number 2]
Player 1 ~~~~~~~~~ Player 2
Battlefield ~~~~~~~~~ Final Destination
Prism Tower ~~~~~~~~~ Brinstar
Arena Ferox ~~~~~~~~~ Yoshi's Island
Brinstar ~~~~~~~~~ Prism Tower
Final Destination ~~~~~~~~~ Tomodachi Life
[/collapse]

Prism Tower is on both of their lists, and is the highest on both lists that match, so it is chosen.

This could be done using the entire legal stagelist (to please those who enjoy FLSS) and would be much quicker. This also allows both opponents a bit more say in the stages.

It only becomes an issue if NONE of the stages match at all. With our example and only 7 stages to choose from it's very likely that one in the end will match. In fact, if I'm right it's impossible! It might even still be impossible to not have a match if the number was increased to nine stages if I'm doing this correctly.

SO by allowing two players a proper number of bans, and only leaving so many stages left you could make this work. This would be like striking only so many stages (by banning them) but instead of going random allowing player influence to decide the match. It cuts down on time AND allows for good variety and a large amount of legal stages.

THIS I can say I might actually like! Now that's it's drawn out a bit more, what do folks think? Please try to poke as many holes in this as you can, or better yet find a simpler way to write it so if could be explained in a ruleset. Maybe this could be tried out. Seriously @ Volt-Ikazuchi you just gave me good inspiration there!

Name thought up of for it that probably sucks but will allow it to be easily discussed for now? The Comparison Stage Selection System. (CSSS)

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@ LiteralGrill If I'm understanding your example right, then it works like this?

1. Each player picks a stage.
2. If the stages don't match, each player picks another stage.
3. Fight on the first stage picked by both players at some point. (So, not necessarily a simultaneous pick.)

(Step 3 could use a rewording...)

Also, a question. Suppose for the first pick the players choose FD and Battlefield. Second pick, they choose Battlefield and FD. Which one do they fight on?

 

[LiteralGrill]

@ LiteralGrill If I'm understanding your example right, then it works like this?

1. Each player picks a stage.
2. If the stages don't match, each player picks another stage.
3. Fight on the first stage picked by both players at some point. (So, not necessarily a simultaneous pick.)

(Step 3 could use a rewording...)

To simplify as best I can:

1. Each player bans an equal amount of stages from the legal stagelist until only 9 are left
2. Each player writes down five of those stages in order of they one they most want to play on to the least
3. The players compare lists. If any of their stages is listed in the exact same spot as the other list, they play there.
4. If not, the first stage on each list to match is the stage played on.

Also, a question. Suppose for the first pick the players choose FD and Battlefield. Second pick, they choose Battlefield and FD. Which one do they fight on?

I knew there would be SOMETHING. This is quite the issue...

Worse even the possibility of:

FD --- Battlefield --- Arena Ferox --- Prism Tower --- Tomodachi Life
Battlefield --- FD --- Prism Tower --- Arena Ferox --- Brinstar

Literally an impossible list to choose from... Crud. Since I drew this up so quickly, I am unsure I have a response as to how to fix it.

You could go random on those first stages to criss-cross but as I didn't want random select that would defeat the purpose.

I mean if you had:

FD --- Battlefield --- Arena Ferox --- Prism Tower --- Tomodachi Life
Battlefield --- FD --- Prism Tower --- Brinstar --- Prism Tower

You could just go to match Prism Tower down the list. But with a possibility choosing is completely impossible... I do not have a solution. YET. I'll try to think if there is a way to make that work fairly, any ideas from folks would be good!

 

[ParanoidDrone]

3. The players compare lists. If any of their stages is listed in the exact same spot as the other list, they play there.

This is the line I'm really wondering about. Consider the following:

Player 1|Player 2
Battlefield|Final Destination
Final Destination|Arena Ferox
Prism Tower|Prism Tower
Tomodachi Life|Battlefield
Arena Ferox|Tomodachi Life

By your rules they would fight on Prism Tower even though both would have preferred to fight on Final Destination.

 

[LiteralGrill]

This is the line I'm really wondering about. Consider the following:

Player 1|Player 2
Battlefield|Final Destination
Final Destination|Arena Ferox
Prism Tower|Prism Tower
Tomodachi Life|Battlefield
Arena Ferox|Tomodachi Life

By your rules they would fight on Prism Tower even though both would have preferred to fight on Final Destination.

I did not know you could make tables on here... I am an idiot.

I did type this up hastily so I agree with you I missed that. Okay, just change the rules to make it the stages closest to each other in ranking is the one chosen first in all circumstances. as it should cover for the other rule anyways correct?

While we are at it, I solved the issue of the dead lock.

Player 1|Player 2
Battlefield|Final Destination
Final Destination|Battlefield
Prism Tower|Tomodachi Life
Tomodachi Life|Prinsm Tower
Arena Ferox|Brinstar

If such a deadlocked case would occur, players would take the remaining four stages and write them down in the order of the one they wanted to play on most to the least and add them to the table above. In this way a match would happen no matter what even if the first choice was deadlocked. (No need to go random!)

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If such a deadlocked case would occur, players would take the remaining four stages and write them down in the order of the one they wanted to play on most to the least and add them to the table above. In this way a match would happen no matter what even if the first choice was deadlocked. (No need to go random!)

From a rules perspective I understand the need to have a clear, unambiguous stage choice, but from the players perspective it sounds illogical that even though they both have Battlefield/FD/Prism/Ferox in their top 4, the fact that they deadlocked in this specific manner will end up forcing them to play on their 5th ranked stage or below. If at all possible I believe a method of resolving the highest-ranked deadlock would be preferable. (In this case, picking between Battlefield/FD.)

The question, of course, is how to resolve that deadlock in a way that satisfies both players...sounds like something I'd find on a computer science test.

 

[LiteralGrill]

From a rules perspective I understand the need to have a clear, unambiguous stage choice, but from the players perspective it sounds illogical that even though they both have Battlefield/FD/Prism/Ferox in their top 4, the fact that they deadlocked in this specific manner will end up forcing them to play on their 5th ranked stage or below. If at all possible I believe a method of resolving the highest-ranked deadlock would be preferable. (In this case, picking between Battlefield/FD.)

The question, of course, is how to resolve that deadlock in a way that satisfies both players...sounds like something I'd find on a computer science test.

I agree the system for that wouldn't be perfect, it would simply remove the deadlock. Perhaps allowing the players to choose from one of the stages that caused the deadlock before forcing them to strike further should be included as well. With an even number of stages (which would happen in every deadlock) simply striking would not do, and random should be avoided if possible.

Like I thought on the deadlock itself I will try to think on this. With this being such a fresh idea I figured there would be kinks to work out. Do you have any good ideas on how to maybe solve this?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I agree the system for that wouldn't be perfect, it would simply remove the deadlock. Perhaps allowing the players to choose from one of the stages that caused the deadlock before forcing them to strike further should be included as well. With an even number of stages (which would happen in every deadlock) simply striking would not do, and random should be avoided if possible.

Like I thought on the deadlock itself I will try to think on this. With this being such a fresh idea I figured there would be kinks to work out. Do you have any good ideas on how to maybe solve this?

The simplest solution would be to random between the two but that's not ideal. I'm not sure what other solutions there may be, I'll have to think on it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The simplest solution would be to random between the two but that's not ideal. I'm not sure what other solutions there may be, I'll have to think on it.

Certainly, I'll have to sleep on it and look into the history of other spots to see if any such thing exists and how it is solved. Maybe there is a solution there somehow.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Frustration/desire not to strike from the average player should resolve itself. If both players dislike the striking process, the players can agree on a stage or agree to random. If only one player dislikes the striking process, that player can tell the player who wants to strike "just pick the stage". Alternatively they can strike for a couple rounds and then tell their opponent to pick from what's left. That form of compromise isn't necessary with striking from neutrals, but will emerge.

Legislating randomness because people are too lazy to strike is terrible and caustic. You should never introduce more RNG than necessary to a competitive game. There's no reason to random when one play could just pick from what's left.

I don't generally find RNG as toxic to the game as you do. I believe this has come up at several points (I certainly like Halberd a lot more than you), but just consider the context of the situation. Most tournaments run brackets which are significantly more RNG on results than swiss; I'm pretty sure bracket luck is actually probably the biggest driver of performance for the average attendee (that is, for players who are not among the very best or very worst who show up on any given day, where they randomly get put in the bracket is the main thing that determines how far they make it). We are now playing a game in which G&W can combo into Judgment Hammer and in which Villager's primary physical aerials have absurdly random reward on hit (it's incredibly common to be hit with a uair from Villager in a situation in which only some turnip counts will kill and others won't, and it decides games easily). Since I believe in most match-ups stage fairness follows a bell curve (the stages best for either player are best by a big margin while the stages near the middle are very close in value to each other), the RNG introduced by such a system is fairly small and especially small compared to the RNG we already accept by running bracket events and playing a game with these basic mechanics. I don't want to just say that randomness is great since obviously all else being equal we'd want to avoid it, but I think we have to consider randomness as just one factor to be balanced against others and for there to be acceptable amounts to allow to achieve other goals.

I think it's also too easy to overlook the deeper social context here. There's very real pressure on people to "just agree to Smashville", and while more independent thinkers like you or I are hardly moved by such weak things as social pressure, a lot of people are with the awkward and unstructured haggling over stages when people are being whiny about striking but you won't just agree to Smashville being especially unpleasant. I guarantee the effect of this is going to be drastically magnified if the procedure's overall length is more than doubled, and the worry of making a bad tournament experience is only going to compound on TOs with concerns over just taking too much time on stage selection. Stage rules are only as effective as we can see them implemented in real events. I wouldn't dissuade TOs from using full list striking so long as they don't trim down the stage list to shorten the procedure, but I would definitely want to give TOs a tool to speed up and simplify the procedure with this being the best one I have (the number of stages randomed versus struck just being a matter of TO discretion with all being struck for TOs who believe they can handle it). So what I'm saying here is less about competing with the current line of thinking on full list striking so much as trying to make the system more flexible in a way that more TOs will find practical for what they do. Not doing something like that I have very large worries will result in TOs doing something very different than any ideal solution that will end up with us having awful stage rules... again.

 

[popsofctown]

In my experience with gaming, games that already have some RNG that they except still benefit from reducing RNG. I've played lots of card game tournaments, which are very random, with meticulous rules that minimize further RNG even though it takes RNG to play them at all. The primary tournament format for MtG is swiss.


But anyway, you may be right about the system being better at inducing actual use. While I wouldn't enjoy partial FLSS partial random, it lead to a format i do enjoy since people would get sick of RNG over time and keep insisting the number of strikes go up, I expect..

 

[LiteralGrill]

First off, a much better name for the new idea: Simultaneous Stage Selection. This is based off the fact it is so similar to simultaneous action selection in other games.

Benefits to this system:

• Allows for a system like FLSS to have more stages without taking so much time
• Helps remove the possibility of a "first player advantage" when picking stages (though does not entirely eliminate it)
  
• Increases character viability by allowing more stages
• Doesn't use random to determine the stage unless both players agree to do it (only in the case of a deadlock really as well)
• The system works for any stagelist of at least 9 stages on up.

Anyways, so far we have this:

1. Players takes turns banning stages from the legal stagelist until only 9 are left
2. Players write down 5 of those nine stages in order from the one the want to play the most to least.
3. Players then simultaneously reveal their lists to each other.
4. The stage closest to each other on each list is the first stage chosen.
5. In the case of a deadlock players will continue to check the list to see if any other stages match. If there is a match they will use that stage.
6. If there is still a deadlock, players may agree to use one of the deadlocked stages using any means they deem fair.
7. If players cannot agree to one of the deadlocked stages the players will write down the remaining four stages in order from the one the want to play the most to least.
8. The players will then compare their list again and use the stage closest to each other on each list for first stage chosen.


For @ ParanoidDrone

I have not sound a perfect solution on what to do in case of a deadlock. The chance of having a 100% deadlock is not very high, but I have it covered. Hopefully they will be lucky and have another matching stage to fight on. If not, the players can see if they want to agree to pick one of the deadlocked stages at random or use any other method they want (rock paper scissors etc.) Then only if players cannot agree are they forced to strike down further into the stages.

It allows every opportunity possible to try and give players a stage they both agree on before having to go down that far on the stages they want to pick, but also makes sure if they just can't agree in any way at least there is a method to follow that cannot fail to choose a stage.

I REALLY want thoughts on this and to see if anyone has any other ways to improve it as I honestly think this has potential. Simultaneous Stage Selection (SSS). Maybe the future? ;P

 

[Judo777]

Hey, sorry to throw a random tangent question into the discussion, but how will the different FDs be addressed? I assume if a player chooses FD he can select FD or any Omega Stage he desires, and if FD is banned it bans all of the variants.

My next question is, what about for the starter stage. Say I get last pick and you leave me with Yoshis or FD. Can I strike Yoshis and pick an FD with walls (wiley castle)? Must both payers agree?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Hey, sorry to throw a random tangent question into the discussion, but how will the different FDs be addressed? I assume if a player chooses FD he can select FD or any Omega Stage he desires, and if FD is banned it bans all of the variants.

My next question is, what about for the starter stage. Say I get last pick and you leave me with Yoshis or FD. Can I strike Yoshis and pick an FD with walls (wiley castle)? Must both payers agree?

This is a good question! /r/smashbros wrote up an Omega Clause I think works quite well.

*Any player who has chosen Final Destination to fight on, MUST allow their opponent to decide if the match will be played on any Omega Walled Stage*, or any Omega Floating Stage**. If Final Destination is banned, any other Omega form stage are banned as well.

*Golden Plains, Paper Mario, Mushroomy Kingdom, Gerudo Valley, Yoshi’s Island, Dream Land, Unova Pokemon League, Arena Ferox, Reset Bomb Forest, WarioWare Inc., Distant Planet, Tortimer Island, Boxing Ring, Balloon Fight, Living Room, Find Mii, Tomodachi Life, PictoChat 2, Green Hill Zone, Wily Castle, Pac-Maze.

**Battlefield, Final Destination, 3D Land, Rainbow Road, Jungle Japes, Spirit Train, Brinstar, Corneria, Prism Tower, Mute City, Magicant, Flat Zone 2, Gaur Plains.

+Final Destination will count as Ω Form – Floating.

 

[popsofctown]

Omega Living Room should be the only Omega. Ignoring the adorable puppy or kitten adds an additional skill test.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Well, the point of the RNG in my idea was exactly to don't let players have a direct influence the stage selection in case of a severe disagreement. In a case of a deadlock like both players want BF and FD, you can either let them try to reach an agreement, or do something like flipping a coin or crossing out the other stages in random select or whatever seems reasonable.

If they are writing them down, why give them to a third person? They can just compare what they wrote. Also, I would require them to number the stages they suggest. They do this if two or more stages are suggest by both players. This way you can add up the numbers (1st get the most points, points descend from there) to see which is the most agreed upon stage.

I actually had this idea but forgot to write it in my post. A priority system solves most deadlocks, and leaves the perfect stalemates for the RNG.

 

[T0MMY]

Seeing as Capps failed to successfully find any invalidation to my reasoning I will let my argument stand strong in the awesome glory of it's bathing light. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh....

So!... Now a few things I have tested!
I think you all would be interested in hearing about:

The Proceedings & Conclusions of the FLSS (oh dear):

Spoiler

In addition to the point I brought up about the FLSS being too burdensome on already time-constrained TO's, I decided to try out the FLSS.
Immediately I was reminded of just why I abandoned such a system: The design of such will more often than not result in playing on a Stage that NEITHER PLAYER REALLY WANTS.
Is this a conclusive possibility for the rest of you? Probably more serious of a flaw than time constraints!

Eventually the entire process of trying to work things out dwindled down to 5 stages where we struck and had a more acceptable result. And if we throw a grossly unfair counterpick system into the mix we are back to the same system we had with Brawl.
Sorry, but at least I tried it out (again).

It seems the discussion has proceeded to further possible options (dost mine eyes deceiveth me, Capps acquiescing to RNG??)
Honestly, how things are working out right now seem to be both taxing, time consuming, and convoluted (be sure to bring your controller AND a pad of paper with pen now), but I believe all of you capable of coming up with some good solutions.

I am about ready to post my current method of Stage Choice here and see what everyone thinks about it. But willing to see how the rest of this plays out for just a little longer (I've got a tourney this weekend, I'll let everyone know how it turns out there). Eager to see some of the solutions until then.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Seeing as Capps failed to successfully find any invalidation to my reasoning I will let my argument stand strong in the awesome glory of it's bathing light. Ohhhhh yeahhhhh....

So!... Now a few things I have tested!
I think you all would be interested in hearing about:

The Proceedings & Conclusions of the FLSS (oh dear):

Spoiler

In addition to the point I brought up about the FLSS being too burdensome on already time-constrained TO's, I decided to try out the FLSS.
Immediately I was reminded of just why I abandoned such a system: The design of such will more often than not result in playing on a Stage that NEITHER PLAYER REALLY WANTS.
Is this a conclusive possibility for the rest of you? Probably more serious of a flaw than time constraints!

Eventually the entire process of trying to work things out dwindled down to 5 stages where we struck and had a more acceptable result. And if we throw a grossly unfair counterpick system into the mix we are back to the same system we had with Brawl.
Sorry, but at least I tried it out (again).

It seems the discussion has proceeded to further possible options (dost mine eyes deceiveth me, Capps acquiescing to RNG??)
Honestly, how things are working out right now seem to be both taxing, time consuming, and convoluted (be sure to bring your controller AND a pad of paper with pen now), but I believe all of you capable of coming up with some good solutions.

I am about ready to post my current method of Stage Choice here and see what everyone thinks about it. But willing to see how the rest of this plays out for just a little longer (I've got a tourney this weekend, I'll let everyone know how it turns out there). Eager to see some of the solutions until then.

Capps was actually criticizing my idea for using too much RNG.
I don't even care if you're trolling or if you actually have a viable system behind that sarcasm, but this post is basically a waste of space. Either try to have a serious argument or stop wasting our time.
In fact, if you actually read my suggestion, you may improve your system so it's not that prone to griefing and DQ fests.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sorry @ T0MMY I've just got you on ignore at this point. Every single discussion I've ever had with you in the past has been pointless and never lead to anything substantially useful. So I'm not wasting my time continuing them. I mean especially with that last post? I'm not dealing with that kind of attitude. I have better things to do, especially if you can't read enough to see:

Capps was actually criticizing my idea for using too much RNG.
I don't even care if you're trolling or if you actually have a viable system behind that sarcasm, but this post is basically a waste of space. Either try to have a serious argument or stop wasting our time.
In fact, if you actually read my suggestion, you may improve your system so it's not that prone to griefing and DQ fests.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Anyways @ Volt-Ikazuchi let's have a good discussion.

Well, the point of the RNG in my idea was exactly to don't let players have a direct influence the stage selection in case of a severe disagreement. In a case of a deadlock like both players want BF and FD, you can either let them try to reach an agreement, or do something like flipping a coin or crossing out the other stages in random select or whatever seems reasonable.

See I did allow it so that if both players themselves can agree to use it they can. I don't like it myself and I'd strike down to the lower stages, but if the two player both say they agree they can agree. At least it has a backup if players can't agree that gets them to a stage. But most of the time both players should get a stage they both want a good bit.

I actually had this idea but forgot to write it in my post. A priority system solves most deadlocks, and leaves the perfect stalemates for the RNG.

How would you implement this priority system? The idea in normal striking is that it's balanced a bit so whoever second is compensated a bit for doing so to make it even. Is there a way you could make it so splitting the deadlock is even? That'd be awesome!

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Anyways @ Volt-Ikazuchi let's have a good discussion.



See I did allow it so that if both players themselves can agree to use it they can. I don't like it myself and I'd strike down to the lower stages, but if the two player both say they agree they can agree. At least it has a backup if players can't agree that gets them to a stage. But most of the time both players should get a stage they both want a good bit.



How would you implement this priority system? The idea in normal striking is that it's balanced a bit so whoever second is compensated a bit for doing so to make it even. Is there a way you could make it so splitting the deadlock is even? That'd be awesome!

The priority system works as Piford suggested. The players write their suggestions in order of preference. That way, let's consider an example of a uneven deadlock.

Player 1 suggests: FD - BF - Omega (Wall)
Player 2 suggests: Skyloft - FD - Omega (Wall)

In this case, your example would have them pick an Walled Omega Variant. However, FD is a more preferable stage to both since P1 chose it as it's best option and P2 as it's second best, instead of O-W, which ranked 3rd in both.

In perfect deadlocks like: P1: FD - BF
P2: BF - FD
The players can either reach an agreement, or let a form of RNG decide between BF or FD to remove player interference and thus, stop any arguments.

Now about post game 1 or after solved discussion, I still haven't thought much about it since this wasn't supposed to turn into a main form of stage picking, though it can work as one if adjusted.
Maybe a variable number of suggestion and or strikes depending of Win/Set ratio. Any ideas?

 

[Raijinken]

I like this system (as proposed in the OP).

And while we can hope the game is matchup based, we still currently appear to have cases like Sheik and Rosalina, who don't have many/any perceived unfavorable matchups.

 

[T0MMY]

Capps was actually criticizing my idea for using too much RNG.

Yeah, I just suggested that the TO simply allow for the option of letting the players agree to use random (an in-game option at that, which adheres to his "native" standard) and got just as much or more criticism. Just as an option

I don't even care if you're trolling or if you actually have a viable system behind that sarcasm, but this post is basically a waste of space. Either try to have a serious argument or stop wasting our time.

I think I've given too many people too much opportunity for a serious argument and just end up being ignored because my arguments are stronger than them. So, if they refuse the serious then I will brighten up my posts with some icons. Are they too much for you?

In fact, if you actually read my suggestion, you may improve your system so it's not that prone to griefing and DQ fests.

And if you read my posts you'll see I never proposed "my" system.
How can you suggest improvements on something never proposed?

Sorry @ T0MMY I've just got you on ignore at this point. Every single discussion I've ever had with you in the past has been pointless and never lead to anything substantially useful.

Yeah, if I had the chance of running from hard-pressing questions which exposed flaws to my reasoning and had a choice to hit ignore I'd do it to. If I were afraid of the truth!

So I'm not wasting my time continuing them. I mean especially with that last post?

More silly icons are forthcoming until you get back on track with things.

Answer to your accusations:
How is using a RANDOM event to determine An advantage to a team in violation with competitive principles? Again, you will have to not only answer to other fighting game communities but professional athletic sports leagues as well. The argument ad traditionalis was clearly a fallacy, so the question remains a glaring hole with your reasoning.
Until you prove your stance then I am forced to have an option to allow for an agreement for an RNG to make determining factors on which team gets an advantage if such an advantage is unavoidable.

As stated earlier I have a very strong system in place (not a forced RNG as was groundlessly accused of) to determine stage usage procedures and will be trying them out this weekend and reporting on the reception of such rules. Until then you've got one big question up there waiting to be answered, don't take too long with it because there were more hard-hitting questions that were "ignored".

 

[LiteralGrill]

The priority system works as Piford suggested. The players write their suggestions in order of preference. That way, let's consider an example of a uneven deadlock.

Player 1 suggests: FD - BF - Omega (Wall)
Player 2 suggests: Skyloft - FD - Omega (Wall)

In this case, your example would have them pick an Walled Omega Variant. However, FD is a more preferable stage to both since P1 chose it as it's best option and P2 as it's second best, instead of O-W, which ranked 3rd in both.

In perfect deadlocks like: P1: FD - BF
P2: BF - FD
The players can either reach an agreement, or let a form of RNG decide between BF or FD to remove player interference and thus, stop any arguments.

OH! I actually fixed to to match like EXACTLY what you said in my last iteration of it. We're on the same page! I also made it so if in that deadlock they absolutely cannot agree to RNG or anything else it could still be struck to find a stage. So I think the worst kinks are out of it.

Now about post game 1 or after solved discussion, I still haven't thought much about it since this wasn't supposed to turn into a main form of stage picking, though it can work as one if adjusted.
Maybe a variable number of suggestion and or strikes depending of Win/Set ratio. Any ideas?

Well, I assume after game one players counterpick as usual, counterpicking stages isn't bad in any way as long as with so many stages we at least consider having more then one ban possibly. Or even just have those stages they banned to get down to nine stages be banned the entire set which would save even MORE time.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

OH! I actually fixed to to match like EXACTLY what you said in my last iteration of it. We're on the same page! I also made it so if in that deadlock they absolutely cannot agree to RNG or anything else it could still be struck to find a stage. So I think the worst kinks are out of it.



Well, I assume after game one players counterpick as usual, counterpicking stages isn't bad in any way as long as with so many stages we at least consider having more then one ban possibly. Or even just have those stages they banned to get down to nine stages be banned the entire set which would save even MORE time.

Wait, did you already test it? What was the situation?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Wait, did you already test it? What was the situation?

Oh I haven't tested it in tournament yet! Just theoretically going through stages and seeing how the system would work. I think I got rid of any of the technicalities that could mess up the system, since no matter what you can have a stage to play on. It just needs to be tested somehow now to see if it's a time saver.

 

[T0MMY]

Where would this be tested out? Do you host tournaments (where can I find their listings)?
And although my proposed problem of time constraints may or may not be address through these testings, there's my other proposed issue of being a convolution to the attendees (bringing paper/pen, and comparing their lists of stages preferred/banned/etc.) - it's going to run into the same problem as FLSS with the "agree to Smashville" resolution, in that the players are just going to say "wanna just go to a random omega?" and be done with it.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Where would this be tested out? Do you host tournaments (where can I find their listings)?
And although my proposed problem of time constraints may or may not be address through these testings, there's my other proposed issue of being a convolution to the attendees (bringing paper/pen, and comparing their lists of stages preferred/banned/etc.) - it's going to run into the same problem as FLSS with the "agree to Smashville" resolution, in that the players are just going to say "wanna just go to a random omega?" and be done with it.

There's not so much convolution. This system was designed to stop random discussions from escalating. And you don't really need pen and paper. As long as it is a blind suggestion/strike system, the concept still works.

On another note, where's your icons? Come on, they are the best things about your posts, one icon in a post is just sad.

Oh I haven't tested it in tournament yet! Just theoretically going through stages and seeing how the system would work. I think I got rid of any of the technicalities that could mess up the system, since no matter what you can have a stage to play on. It just needs to be tested somehow now to see if it's a time saver.

What technicalities? How are you planning to use that system? I just want to know what are we going to test.

 

[LiteralGrill]

What technicalities? How are you planning to use that system? I just want to know what are we going to test.

I hadn't thought about the possibility of there being a deadlock when I first made the system, that was the main technicality. Now it looks like no matter what players would be able to pick a stage so it should work now. I would be trying out the system to see if it works, people like it, and if it has any other issues. I'll probably start with something small like just a few friends first before I go full scale tournament, just to make sure it's understandable and explained well. I'll have to write it out to look more like official rules too.

 

[T0MMY]

There's not so much convolution. This system was designed to stop random discussions from escalating. And you don't really need pen and paper. As long as it is a blind suggestion/strike system, the concept still works.

I suppose that is subjective and will ultimately be left up to the attendees to decide. But like I said, I can see this as having the same issues as any method that has too many steps and what-ifs: "agree to random omega?"
When given a stage most readily agreed upon as an option over going through a painful process they will simply use the Agreement Method, hence I just work with that since it's a stronger method.

On another note, where's your icons? Come on, they are the best things about your posts, one icon in a post is just sad.

There's a formula to it. Can't just throw them out there randomly, some wouldn't like the RNG in that.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I hadn't thought about the possibility of there being a deadlock when I first made the system, that was the main technicality. Now it looks like no matter what players would be able to pick a stage so it should work now. I would be trying out the system to see if it works, people like it, and if it has any other issues. I'll probably start with something small like just a few friends first before I go full scale tournament, just to make sure it's understandable and explained well. I'll have to write it out to look more like official rules too.

That's my concern. How exactly the system will work.
I have no way to properly test it, so I'd like to know if it would work as a full Stage Pick Ruleset or if it just works for exceptional cases like it was originally designed.

 

[LiteralGrill]

That's my concern. How exactly the system will work.
I have no way to properly test it, so I'd like to know if it would work as a full Stage Pick Ruleset or if it just works for exceptional cases like it was originally designed.

I'll have to find that out through testing, which I promise to do. Once I have results I'll let you know.