Determining the procedure to pick stages in Smash 4

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

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

All right, thanks.

 

[popsofctown]

@ LiteralGrill a nother way to resolve gridlock in your system, in the interest of time, is to use a set ordering of the stages. The earliest one wins. Alphabetic, onscreen order, whatever. Both players seem to want to play on one, anyhow.

If you wanted to avoid the stage that is earliest in the list getting unfair extra usage, you could make the list circular, and have the stage that is further counterclockwise dominate the one that is less counterclockwise. That can't tie with an odd number of stages.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

@ LiteralGrill a nother way to resolve gridlock in your system, in the interest of time, is to use a set ordering of the stages. The earliest one wins. Alphabetic, onscreen order, whatever. Both players seem to want to play on one, anyhow.

If you wanted to avoid the stage that is earliest in the list getting unfair extra usage, you could make the list circular, and have the stage that is further counterclockwise dominate the one that is less counterclockwise. That can't tie with an odd number of stages.

That would cause another deadlock.
Ex: P1: BF - FD - Yoshi
P2: Yoshi - FD - BF
That case would have to be solved via RNG. The priority system I suggested earlier works better and it's more straightforward.

 

[Pazx]

Provided the current counterpick system for melee/brawl/pm stays the same for smash 4, I would be okay with a change to starter stage selection. However, given that the main issues are fairness and time constraints, I see no reason why the system should be changed when striking could be sped up (as Capps suggested below).

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).

It is very easy to simply go into the stage select and strike stages there (there was an argument about FLSS being too confusing without in-game strikes like PM). With 19 stages the striking could go: 4-5-5-4. The striking system CAN be adjusted for any (odd) number of stages, and given that it is tried and tested it's as simple as players turning off stages they know they dislike. Players are already going to know which stages they want to play on and I can't see striking taking as long as has been suggested.

If the stage suggestion system is implemented I throw my support behind Volt's priority system.

 

[popsofctown]

FD is the first thing to match, so there's no tiebreak and no gridlock. I don't follow.

 

[Pazx]

FD is the first thing to match, so there's no tiebreak and no gridlock. I don't follow.

If the usual stage striking system is used, P1 strikes Yoshi's, P2 strikes BF and they go to FD. This stage selection thing seems like change for the sake of change.

 

[popsofctown]

I'm not a fan of the thing but I wanted to be helful

 

[Piford]

That would cause another deadlock.
Ex: P1: BF - FD - Yoshi
P2: Yoshi - FD - BF
That case would have to be solved via RNG. The priority system I suggested earlier works better and it's more straightforward.

In this case you would definitely go to FD. The players both agree its the second best stage for each of them. If you picked BF, P1 has the advantage. If you pick Yoshi's then P2 has the advantage. FD would then be neutral.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

In this case you would definitely go to FD. The players both agree its the second best stage for each of them. If you picked BF, P1 has the advantage. If you pick Yoshi's then P2 has the advantage. FD would then be neutral.

It was kind of a bad explanation and a bad example too. I don't even remember what I was thinking. Something about circular lists creating unnecessary deadlocks, like 3rd + 1st Vote Yoshi having the same priority of 1st + 3rd Vote BF instead of both players going to FD since it was the second best option for both.

I'm not a fan of the thing but I wanted to be helful

More people working to solve problems are always more helpful, but what is this thing you aren't a fan of? The current system or the system I suggested?

 

[LiteralGrill]

@ LiteralGrill a nother way to resolve gridlock in your system, in the interest of time, is to use a set ordering of the stages. The earliest one wins. Alphabetic, onscreen order, whatever. Both players seem to want to play on one, anyhow.

If you wanted to avoid the stage that is earliest in the list getting unfair extra usage, you could make the list circular, and have the stage that is further counterclockwise dominate the one that is less counterclockwise. That can't tie with an odd number of stages.

Is there a way you could show this to me visually so I could maybe get a better grasp of it? I think I understand what you are saying but something about it isn't lining up in my head.

 

[popsofctown]

With 5 and 3, for simplicity

Player 1: FD, Battlefield, Saffron City
Player 2: Battlefield, FD, PokeFloats

Then you have a fixed list in the ruleset that resolves these ties.
1. Peach's Castle
2. FD
3. PokeFloats
4. Saffron City
5. Battlefield

So the game will be played on FD because FD is earlier in the list, and the tie is FD and Battlefield.
This list would likely mean that Peach's Castle sees more play than Battlefield. Maybe not much more, but it could bother you. If it did bother you then alternatively you'd want a circular list:

12:00 Peach's Castle
2:24 FD
4:48 PokeFloats
7:12 Saffron City
9:36 Battlefield

With a circular list, with most counterclockwise item dominating, Battlefield would actually win, because the smaller gap between FD and battlefield is across the top over Peach's castle, not along the bottom, and Battlefield sits on the more counterclockwise side of the gap.

The circular list is kind of like the traffic rule for what happens when 2 cars arrive at a 2 way stop at the same time, the orientation with respect to eachother breaks the tie.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

With 5 and 3, for simplicity

Player 1: FD, Battlefield, Saffron City
Player 2: Battlefield, FD, PokeFloats

Then you have a fixed list in the ruleset that resolves these ties.
1. Peach's Castle
2. FD
3. PokeFloats
4. Saffron City
5. Battlefield

So the game will be played on FD because FD is earlier in the list, and the tie is FD and Battlefield.
This list would likely mean that Peach's Castle sees more play than Battlefield. Maybe not much more, but it could bother you. If it did bother you then alternatively you'd want a circular list:

12:00 Peach's Castle
2:24 FD
4:48 PokeFloats
7:12 Saffron City
9:36 Battlefield

With a circular list, with most counterclockwise item dominating, Battlefield would actually win, because the smaller gap between FD and battlefield is across the top over Peach's castle, not along the bottom, and Battlefield sits on the more counterclockwise side of the gap.

The circular list is kind of like the traffic rule for what happens when 2 cars arrive at a 2 way stop at the same time, the orientation with respect to eachother breaks the tie.

Why have priority in the Legal Stage List in the first place? Sounds counter productive. Not to mention abusable in certain matchups.
I still favor my original idea of letting some sort of RNG pick the stage in the case of a unsolvable deadlock (From the stages the players picked, of course)

 

[popsofctown]

It's not really abusable, you won't end up on the stage if you don't write it down

This is arbitrary like RNG, but fixed and predictable.
It was just a suggestion

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It's not really abusable, you won't end up on the stage if you don't write it down

This is arbitrary like RNG, but fixed and predictable.
It was just a suggestion

Not trying to put down your suggestion (it's rather clever IMO) but in the context of a tournament where a stage selection process will be carried out many times over I think it's important that whatever procedure we go with can be done on the fly in one's head, without the need for diagrams or writing things down, even in the worst case where players can't agree.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Why have priority in the Legal Stage List in the first place? Sounds counter productive. Not to mention abusable in certain matchups.
I still favor my original idea of letting some sort of RNG pick the stage in the case of a unsolvable deadlock (From the stages the players picked, of course)

Well currently I have it so players are allowed to use RNG IF THEY WANT. That being a huge key, it's not forced on them. But if they can't agree (and they are free to use other methods as well) they just strike down further so at least we always have a solution to make sure a stage is chosen.

It's not really abusable, you won't end up on the stage if you don't write it down

This is arbitrary like RNG, but fixed and predictable.
It was just a suggestion

It's not a terrible idea, I do just worry what would happen if we rated stages in such a way to make that possible if we might do something similar to what already happens in starter/cp. I mean at worst player have to strike down to their fifth/sixth favored stage most of the time from what little I've done at home (a few people came and we tried this out with Brawl a bit, so far so good).

Not trying to put down your suggestion (it's rather clever IMO) but in the context of a tournament where a stage selection process will be carried out many times over I think it's important that whatever procedure we go with can be done on the fly in one's head, without the need for diagrams or writing things down, even in the worst case where players can't agree.

The writing it down part is honestly the only issue it has as of now. For online tournaments this would be CRAZY easy to implement though.

 

[popsofctown]

Not trying to put down your suggestion (it's rather clever IMO) but in the context of a tournament where a stage selection process will be carried out many times over I think it's important that whatever procedure we go with can be done on the fly in one's head, without the need for diagrams or writing things down, even in the worst case where players can't agree.

Yeah I agree, just kinda putting it out there.

 

[Doval]

The main objection to Full List Stage Striking is how long it could potentially take with a large stage list, but do we have a number on the maximum amount of time stage selection can take? Any stage selection rule must terminate within a reasonable amount of time so there must be both a concrete time limit and a resolution method in case the time limit is exceeded. That raises the question of fair resolution as well.

What if you just do FLSS with a time limit per strike? You can disincentivize stalling by simply ruling that every time a player takes too long to strike, the opponent strikes for him.

This puts an upper bound on the amount of time stage striking can take while not allowing for the possibility that the timeout is exceeded with inconclusive results (e.g. 5 minutes are up and there's still 4 unstriked stages) and disincentivizing any kind of stalling to bring in some alternate resolution method (e.g. Random among the remaining stages.) Taking too long is always a disadvantage and neither player can exert influence on the other.

Suppose there's 19 stages. At 10 seconds per strike, the max amount of time is 3 minutes and 10 seconds. Is that really too long? In practice it would be shorter because there's always stages you never, ever want to go to. If the opponent takes more than 10 seconds on any strike, call a judge over and have him enforce the time limits.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Not trying to put down your suggestion (it's rather clever IMO) but in the context of a tournament where a stage selection process will be carried out many times over I think it's important that whatever procedure we go with can be done on the fly in one's head, without the need for diagrams or writing things down, even in the worst case where players can't agree.

The writing it down part is honestly the only issue it has as of now. For online tournaments this would be CRAZY easy to implement though.

As long as no player can influence the system via knowing what the other player is picking, it shouldn't be a problem. In fact it would be even better. You can do some stuff like telling someone directly beside you and then having the person confirm if you said exactly that, or even write in your phone and just showing it. No need for paper as long as you can maintain the blind pick.

Well currently I have it so players are allowed to use RNG IF THEY WANT. That being a huge key, it's not forced on them. But if they can't agree (and they are free to use other methods as well) they just strike down further so at least we always have a solution to make sure a stage is chosen.

How does this work? What is used instead of the RNG if the players don't want it?

It's not a terrible idea, I do just worry what would happen if we rated stages in such a way to make that possible if we might do something similar to what already happens in starter/cp. I mean at worst player have to strike down to their fifth/sixth favored stage most of the time from what little I've done at home (a few people came and we tried this out with Brawl a bit, so far so good).

Speaking of strikes, I had an idea. If both players strike a stage in the same suggestion round, that stage is banned from the set. That way, we don't need to consistently waste strikes on the same stage and instead use them to strike different stages, which can force more variety in the stages played. Would never work on 3DS since it has like, 6 Legal stages.

How would this system work in tandem with FLSS? Can it even work with it? I'm just curious, since I thought of this system as an auxiliary blind pick system, but it seems that it has more potential than that, and I want to know how well it would interact with other systems.

 

[Piford]

I don't think banning a stage from a set is a good idea because one stage might be awful for the character you use round one, but great for the character you counterpick round two.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I think you missed my post explaining the how everything goes. I think it answers most of your questions.

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.

So to answer:

How would this system work in tandem with FLSS? Can it even work with it? I'm just curious, since I thought of this system as an auxiliary blind pick system, but it seems that it has more potential than that, and I want to know how well it would interact with other systems.

You still use the entire legal stage list, so it's close to FLSS without the issues of how long it takes.

Speaking of strikes, I had an idea. If both players strike a stage in the same suggestion round, that stage is banned from the set. That way, we don't need to consistently waste strikes on the same stage and instead use them to strike different stages, which can force more variety in the stages played. Would never work on 3DS since it has like, 6 Legal stages.

My system as it stands allows players to ban stages at the beginning of the match until there are nine left. This lets each player get rid of their worst stages so they cannot be used during the first match. While this could be used to ban a stage for the entire match easily I agree that:

I don't think banning a stage from a set is a good idea because one stage might be awful for the character you use round one, but great for the character you counterpick round two.

How does this work? What is used instead of the RNG if the players don't want it?

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.

So basically before they are forced to strike down to a less favorable stages, the players can decide to use random, RPS, or ANY method they deem fair to pick from the deadlocked stages. But if they can't agree, the system has a backup that will make a stage be chosen so matter what.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I think you missed my post explaining the how everything goes. I think it answers most of your questions.



So to answer:



You still use the entire legal stage list, so it's close to FLSS without the issues of how long it takes.



My system as it stands allows players to ban stages at the beginning of the match until there are nine left. This lets each player get rid of their worst stages so they cannot be used during the first match. While this could be used to ban a stage for the entire match easily I agree that:







So basically before they are forced to strike down to a less favorable stages, the players can decide to use random, RPS, or ANY method they deem fair to pick from the deadlocked stages. But if they can't agree, the system has a backup that will make a stage be chosen so matter what.

Now I get it.
When I proposed the original system I proposed a variable number of Strikes and Suggestions depending on the total number of Legal Stages on the same "paper" since it would remove the need of striking from a full list and speed up the process. That was why the RNG was so crucial to the system, in case of no matching suggestions, the RNG would have been the fairest and quicker way to pick the stage.
I was actually focusing more on speed instead of counter-picking or whatever, but your system is good too.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Now I get it.
When I proposed the original system I proposed a variable number of Strikes and Suggestions depending on the total number of Legal Stages on the same "paper" since it would remove the need of striking from a full list and speed up the process. That was why the RNG was so crucial to the system, in case of no matching suggestions, the RNG would have been the fairest and quicker way to pick the stage.
I was actually focusing more on speed instead of counter-picking or whatever, but your system is good too.

Thanks! I was trying to allow for all the stages to still get struck in a way, but cut back on time. Only striking down to 9 stages is way faster especially with a big list.

 

[Thinkaman]

I want to emphasize that whatever system is used must, must, must be simple and fast.

It has to take less than 20 seconds to explain, and less than 20 seconds to do.

This is simply a non-negotiable requirement that super-cedes all others.


Semi-separate point, I think vetos are way cleaner than strikes/bans, because they remove ruleset-knowledge "skill tests" and are generally "stronger". 1 veto is a good alternative to 2 bans.

"Loser picks 2 stages, winner vetoes 1" is a much more positive experience than similar alternatives.

If we could decline a random stage in the GUI, this would probably be the best paradigm for approaching the first stage.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I want to emphasize that whatever system is used must, must, must be simple and fast.

It has to take less than 20 seconds to explain, and less than 20 seconds to do.

This is simply a non-negotiable requirement that super-cedes all others.

I agree, and that alone is why the idea of Simultaneous Stage Selection isn't going to work. After testing it, people found it difficult to understand and while it wasn't slow, it felt cumbersome at times. Back to the drawing board.

I mean, if worse comes to worse is using the old system going to kill us? We could easily have a nice sized starter list at a bare minimum.

 

[Doval]

It has to take less than 20 seconds to explain, and less than 20 seconds to do.

I agree with the former, not sure about the latter. It'd be nice to have some real numbers from tournaments to work with. At any rate I'd rather shorten matches by one minute than cut corners on stage selection.

Semi-separate point, I think vetos are way cleaner than strikes/bans, because they remove ruleset-knowledge "skill tests" and are generally "stronger". 1 veto is a good alternative to 2 bans.

"Loser picks 2 stages, winner vetoes 1" is a much more positive experience than similar alternatives.

I like that system because you don't have to commit to a ban until you see where the opponent wants to take you, but how is 1 veto worth 2 bans? If I want to ban stages X and Y and the opponent presents me with a choice between those two, I'm going to end up in one of those two stages.

 

[Thinkaman]

I agree with the former, not sure about the latter. It'd be nice to have some real numbers from tournaments to work with. At any rate I'd rather shorten matches by one minute than cut corners on stage selection.

I understand where you are coming from, but playing Smash Bros is 100x more fun than playing Stage Selection.

A key criteria of all tourney policy must be "maximizing time spent playing Smash Bros, since that is why everyone is there." This isn't the only big criteria, but it's a key one.

Of course, this is why we should be committed to a wide spread of stages. Maximum Smash Bros means playing on as many stages as reasonable. We should do whatever we can to maximize that, short of actually playing the game less.

Let's not lose sight of why we are doing this, and throw the baby out with the bath water. The purpose of wanting to play more of the game, is so we can ultimately play more of the game.

I like that system because you don't have to commit to a ban until you see where the opponent wants to take you, but how is 1 veto worth 2 bans? If I want to ban stages X and Y and the opponent presents me with a choice between those two, I'm going to end up in one of those two stages.

I mean, it's clearly less powerful with perfect knowledge, and more powerful with zero knowledge.

With zero or even incomplete knowledge, I might end up at your best stage if I fail to guess it. With more and more stages, this becomes more pronounced.

Or worse: If I forget it is legal, you rightfully say it is my fault for not knowing the tourney's rules, and I'm pissed off. This is how people who want to ban stages are born.


Anyway:
"Guess my best stage or else we play on it" is a very poor skill test in a community environment. It means that you may be semi-randomly mechanically penalized when playing someone the first time. It also rewards players for collecting intel on each other, spying on them or asking others what stage(s) they prefer.

This is not healthy as a competitive game, or as a community.

It's one thing for experienced playing or watching a player to give natural insight into that opponent's playstyle. It's another to have discrete, actionable intel that you can use to put that player at a mechanical disadvantage.

This was less pronounced when we had fewer legal stages, and fewer characters/matchups, and no custom moves. In such an environment, guessing someone's best stages based on their main was pretty easy and circumvented these problems. But with so many more factors and possibilities, suddenly that is not the case.

"Here's my X stages, veto X-1" removes the bulk of artificial reward for spying on opponents, and memorizing who likes which stages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I mean, if worse comes to worse is using the old system going to kill us? We could easily have a nice sized starter list at a bare minimum.

Realistically no, it won't kill us, but the entire point of trying to find a new system is to give people a reason to care about stages other than "flat + plat." Out of the known Wii U stages, there are only 7 that I think would really be accepted as starters:

1. Battlefield
2. Big Battlefield
3. Final Destination
4. Smashville
5. Town and City
6. Miiverse
7. Lylat Cruise

Frankly I find this list stale and boring. I'm trying not to sound like I'm arguing variety for variety's sake, but I'm worried that keeping the starter/counterpick dichotomy will lead to a large majority of games simply being played on starter stages even during the counterpick phase. Lack of play means lack of knowledge, of familiarity, and people calling for stage bans just because they don't know, for instance, that you can't circle camp with the barrels on Jungle Hijinxs because they explode if you use them too much. Or the feared sword and fire platforms in Kalos Pokemon League that do...4 damage and next to no knockback. Not to mention the business with Rayquaza that has yet to appear in a documented match.

I'm rambling, sorry. I feel a bit strongly about this for a variety of reasons, some more valid than others.

 

[Thinkaman]

No, I agree fully. The Starter/Counterpick distinction is a heavily flawed paradigm for a variety of reasons that have been repeated many times. It's just... functional and non-controversial.

We can do better.

 

[DeLux]

I'm more in favor of the multi-ban system as opposed to the suggestion system in the counterpicking phase for Yomi reasons.

For example, if I offer Stage X, Stage Y, Stage Z, and let the opponent veto 2 stages for game 2 (similar to having two bans), my opponent has clear reason not to offer stages X, Y and Z during their phase of stage offering, inherently giving them an advantage in stage selection game 3. (ie I may have accidentally offered Stages A, B, C game 2 which would have been to my opponent's favor while logic would deduce an always superior and more informed choice game 3, etc.)

In a two ban system, if you ban 1-2-1 after game 1, the stages for selection are also augmented by selection with equity in information available to make a strategic choice on the game theory level.

The distinction of available information equity is the only criticism that comes to mind in an otherwise solid system.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No, I agree fully. The Starter/Counterpick distinction is a heavily flawed paradigm for a variety of reasons that have been repeated many times. It's just... functional and non-controversial.

We can do better.

I agree, I tried an entire system and it just wont work. Let's keep throwing around ideas and seeing if we can make something up. Come on people, be insane and creative. who knows what could work froma weird idea!

I'm more in favor of the multi-ban system as opposed to the suggestion system in the counterpicking phase for Yomi reasons.

For example, if I offer Stage X, Stage Y, Stage Z, and let the opponent veto 2 stages, my opponent has clear reason not to offer stages X, Y and Z during their phase of stage offering, inherently giving them an advantage in stage selection.

Well what if I offer three pretty terrible stages for you from the starting list? You'd still be stuck with three bad stages for you to choose from. I mean this was sort of the idea behind Simultaneous Stage Selection so I like it, but both players need input.

It does suck, I LIKE SSS and it even was giving us good stages to play on consistently. If there was just a way to simplify it so it was easier to explain and didn't require writing things down it'd be golden.

 

[DeLux]

How do you define "terrible" stages? Because in the context you're talking about and you mean "terrible" for me? You made some solid strategic decisions since those stages would be good for you by virtue of being "terrible" for me (thus the model working for the counterpick phase, because the point of Thinkaman's proposal iirc was that it's hard to remember a large number of stages so there is a risk of not remembering to ban a specific stage due to not knowing it was legal). If they are just "terrible" in general, that's a question of stage legality in general.

 

[popsofctown]

It does suck, I LIKE SSS and it even was giving us good stages to play on consistently. If there was just a way to simplify it so it was easier to explain and didn't require writing things down it'd be golden.

Write down stage names over playing cards from a 1$ pack of Bicycles.

Put two card stacks by each setup. They are identical and have one copy of each stage written on them

Each player takes a deck and picks their favorite five cards.

Shuffle the ten chosen cards together and reveal cards from the top. The first two cards to match are the stage that is played.


that's the best i can do.

 

[DeLux]

I'm still not seeing the superiority of this method over striking from a 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, etc. stagelist given the built in random stage select method in the game as a logistical medium.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I agree, and that alone is why the idea of Simultaneous Stage Selection isn't going to work. After testing it, people found it difficult to understand and while it wasn't slow, it felt cumbersome at times. Back to the drawing board.

Sorry to hear your variation of the Simultaneous Stage Selection didn't work. It covered a lot of points mine didn't.

I agree, I tried an entire system and it just wont work. Let's keep throwing around ideas and seeing if we can make something up. Come on people, be insane and creative. who knows what could work from a weird idea!

It does suck, I LIKE SSS and it even was giving us good stages to play on consistently. If there was just a way to simplify it so it was easier to explain and didn't require writing things down it'd be golden.

Why don't you try my original "RNG Peacemaker" system? Sure, it works a lot better in PM where you can cross out stages from the Stage Selection Screen, but it's not that complicated.

You can use something like this ruleset:

1 - Players pick 2 or 3 stages they want to play and 1 or 2 stages they want to strike. (Numbers may vary) Then, both players tell their list to a third person.
2 - If a stage appears in both suggestion lists, the players plays in that stage.
3 - If more than 1 stage appears in both suggestion lists, the earlier stage in both lists are picked. If a deadlock occur (Examples are present in my earlier posts) a form of RNG is employed to pick between both stages. (Coin Flip, Judgment, etc...)
4 - If no stages match, the stages outside of either list are crossed out of the random selection and the stage is picked via the in-game random select.

The numbers I suggested are small enough for a neutral third person to memorize and confirm if the stages said by each player to themselves are the same they originally picked in the blind phase.

The same numbers are small enough for a coin flip to decide in case of a deadlock.

However, the small number of stages restrict the overall number of stages played since more conservative players will use the same old "Starter" stages we're all used to.

Unfortunately, a bigger number of stages require a form of recording "Read: Writing" the stage list.

Write down stage names over playing cards from a 1$ pack of Bicycles.

Put two card stacks by each setup. They are identical and have one copy of each stage written on them

Each player takes a deck and picks their favorite five cards.

Shuffle the ten chosen cards together and reveal cards from the top. The first two cards to match are the stage that is played.


that's the best i can do.

I like that. Quick and easy to implement. Low-Cost too. Excellent Idea, problem solved, 10/10, we're back in the game.


Don't forget that this system also solves the main problem with the current system.


The massive advantage the player gets when winning the first game of the set. Currently, the first player to win in the set can ignore the opponent's counterpicks and victories as long as he can keep winning on his on counter-picks.
Warning; wall of text above.

 

[LiteralGrill]

How do you define "terrible" stages? Because in the context you're talking about and you mean "terrible" for me? You made some solid strategic decisions since those stages would be good for you by virtue of being "terrible" for me (thus the model working for the counterpick phase, because the point of Thinkaman's proposal iirc was that it's hard to remember a large number of stages so there is a risk of not remembering to ban a specific stage due to not knowing it was legal). If they are just "terrible" in general, that's a question of stage legality in general.

Ah, see I thought this would be used for game one where it would have been an issue. For counterpicking, I could live with that.

Using Cards Suggestion

See, a paper and pencil isn't THAT bad. The problem is it just takes a while to do it all and it's not easy to explain to people.

Don't forget that this system also solves the main problem with the current system.

The massive advantage the player gets when winning the first game of the set. Currently, the first player to win in the set can ignore the opponent's counterpicks and victories as long as he can keep winning on his on counter-picks.
Warning; wall of text above.

Though this is very true, it does help remove some of the problems we currently have. See it looks good on paper but was cumbersome in practice and admittedly hard to explain.

Why don't you try my original "RNG Peacemaker" system? Sure, it works a lot better in PM where you can cross out stages from the Stage Selection Screen, but it's not that complicated.

Mostly because in the end a stage can be chosen at random, match one on FD as Little Mac is WAY different then match one on Wuhu Island. Like the difference between winning and losing different. That's the only issue I have with random, it can skew results pretty badly in extreme cases.

Plus, I doubt too many tournaments could spare that third person to remember the stages all of the time.

I mean it's not so bad to ask people to do SSS, I think with time each player could remember to bring something small to write with, or maybe we could even find a decent way to do this verbally with thought. (Is there a way this could literally be spoken aloud somehow? OR maybe there's a way in the CSS where both players could write things in somehow, in tags or something to solve the issue. (Though if there is a way to somehow do this verbally PLEASE let me know.) Online people can just type it out and both send it at once, it's easy there. Real life is the tough part.

The problem that's bigger though is explaining it to people. It needs to be so simple anyone can understand in a couple of minutes.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I don't see how hard it is to explain to people the paper idea. I mean, I've stayed out of this discussion because all these suggestions are complex, but that one clicked immediately.

Try asking casual smashers what they think of this idea. If they of all people understand it then there's a winner there.

 

[popsofctown]

I don't see how mine is harder to understand than stage striking.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I don't see how hard it is to explain to people the paper idea. I mean, I've stayed out of this discussion because all these suggestions are complex, but that one clicked immediately.

Try asking casual smashers what they think of this idea. If they of all people understand it then there's a winner there.

How would you word it to keep it as simple as possible when presenting it? When I tried to explain it to folks they go confused a bit.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

How would you word it to keep it as simple as possible when presenting it? When I tried to explain it to folks they go confused a bit.

That was only posted over 2 hours ago; who on earth did you explain it to, and where so that I can see?

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I don't see how hard it is to explain to people the paper idea. I mean, I've stayed out of this discussion because all these suggestions are complex, but that one clicked immediately.

Try asking casual smashers what they think of this idea. If they of all people understand it then there's a winner there.

Exactly. Capps system is good because it's very detailed and it's even more fair than mine. But my system is extremely fast and honestly, everyone can write a list in a cell phone. No need for paper. But the excess of detail to avoid RNG creates some complexity, which confuses some people.

Regarding the possibility of RNG blessing like the Little Mac Example mentioned, It's actually a 50/50 chance of either player having an advantage since both players are having the same number of stage picks. Not to mention that there is no neutral stage in smash.

I don't see how mine is harder to understand than stage striking.

I'm sorry, but can you repeat your idea? I don't really remember what was your ruleset.