Determining the procedure to pick stages in Smash 4

[Doval]

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'm not sure that's a key problem. It's been years since I last played at a tournament but for me they were always all-day events but the amount of time I spent playing in the brackets was maybe 1-2 hours. The majority of a large number of competitor's time isn't spent competing.

 

[popsofctown]

@ Volt-Ikazuchi I just meant the cards thing, which is an adaptation of what you or capps made up. It removes the significance of ordering, so it ends up being pretty damn simple. You only need to know to pick your five favorite stages, and to shuffle and reveal cards till you get a match


And Doval is right, if the point of a tournament is to spend lots of time competing at super smash bros, they're currently really really terrible at that. I do kinda wish they were more like FNMs where you spend over half your time playing competitive games because it's Swiss and everyone has a setup, but in reality it's not like that at all. Shrinking the amount of smash time further with a stage selection system doesn't make a lick of difference..

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

@ Volt-Ikazuchi I just meant the cards thing, which is an adaptation of what you or capps made up. It removes the significance of ordering, so it ends up being pretty damn simple. You only need to know to pick your five favorite stages, and to shuffle and reveal cards till you get a match

The catch of a lack of priority system is the lack of ways to resolve deadlocks. The system was originally my idea, then Capps expanded on it and now there are 2 variations of it.

And Doval is right, if the point of a tournament is to spend lots of time competing at super smash bros, they're currently really really terrible at that. I do kinda wish they were more like FNMs where you spend over half your time playing competitive games because it's Swiss and everyone has a setup, but in reality it's not like that at all. Shrinking the amount of smash time further with a stage selection system doesn't make a lick of difference..

That's another reason for changing the current system and the main reason the people at Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion are going nuts. The time. For everything.

The more we streamline and accelerate processes like stage selection, the less time it takes for tournaments to progress and even better, the more flexibility we have regarding effective formats like 3 Stock 7 Minutes matches.

 

[popsofctown]

The catch of a lack of priority system is the lack of ways to resolve deadlocks. The system was originally my idea, then Capps expanded on it and now there are 2 variations of it.

My card system resolves deadlocks by RNG.
You flip cards from the top and the -first- repeat revealed card is is the stage that is played. There might be other repeats further down in the deck, but they get ignored, at random.
There's no deadlocks.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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

Oh! I just tried to have some local friends come over. I figured seeing if people new to the idea of competitive smash to learn it would be hugely beneficial since I need to know if it can be taught to new folks. They did pick it up after a while.

MAYBE I can beg and convince someone to try this for a subreddit tournament we host, but that might not be easy.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

Oh! I just tried to have some local friends come over. I figured seeing if people new to the idea of competitive smash to learn it would be hugely beneficial since I need to know if it can be taught to new folks. They did pick it up after a while.

MAYBE I can beg and convince someone to try this for a subreddit tournament we host, but that might not be easy.

Ok Capps, if you're gonna try and convince someone, you have to try and hold your ground here and show some backbone. Don't give up so easily and just tell them it's for the sake of experimentation.

Also, try to actually show them how it physically works, and take it easy on the initial details. Save the specifics for when they ask about them.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ok Capps, if you're gonna try and convince someone, you have to try and hold your ground here and show some backbone. Don't give up so easily and just tell them it's for the sake of experimentation.

Also, try to actually show them how it physically works, and take it easy on the initial details. Save the specifics for when they ask about them.

It's VERY easily explained if pictures are involved. Pure text confuses folks. I don't mind testing it at all, the problem is finding a good event to test it for. I'd probably just need to host my own event for it, which is possible. Maybe this coming Saturday since our schedule is free.

 

[guedes the brawler]

i never actually went to any tournaments before, i plan on starting with the wii u game... i don't exactly understand how the current system is problematic, can someone help me?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

i never actually went to any tournaments before, i plan on starting with the wii u game... i don't exactly understand how the current system is problematic, can someone help me?

To briefly explain:

Legal stages are currently divided into "starters" and "counterpicks." Only starter stages can be played on for game 1 of a multi-game set. The problem is that there is no such thing as a truly neutral stage (every stage benefits someone more than someone else) so the list of starters benefits a subset of characters more than the rest. Since you can still counterpick to starter stages, the optimal move for players is to choose one of those characters and only learn the starter stages, completely ignoring the counterpicks. This undermines the importance of counterpicking and turns the counterpick list into a weird sort of purgatory for stages that people don't like but also can't come up with a good reason to ban.

We're advocating a change so that if a stage is legal, then it can be played on for any game in a set.

 

[guedes the brawler]

To briefly explain:

Legal stages are currently divided into "starters" and "counterpicks." Only starter stages can be played on for game 1 of a multi-game set. The problem is that there is no such thing as a truly neutral stage (every stage benefits someone more than someone else) so the list of starters benefits a subset of characters more than the rest. Since you can still counterpick to starter stages, the optimal move for players is to choose one of those characters and only learn the starter stages, completely ignoring the counterpicks. This undermines the importance of counterpicking and turns the counterpick list into a weird sort of purgatory for stages that people don't like but also can't come up with a good reason to ban.

We're advocating a change so that if a stage is legal, then it can be played on for any game in a set.

and since we have so many viable stages, this process would become far too slow, is that the problem leading to you guys trying to find a new system?


um... since players usually have only 2 characters they use at a top level, what if each player chose 5 stages to be used for the entire set?

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

and since we have so many viable stages, this process would become far too slow, is that the problem leading to you guys trying to find a new system?


um... since players usually have only 2 characters they use at a top level, what if each player chose 5 stages to be used for the entire set?

It not only becomes too slow, but it inspires players to ban perfectly legitimate stages because of unfamiliarity and it inevitably shrinks the stage list.

 

[Doval]

That's another reason for changing the current system and the main reason the people at Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion are going nuts. The time. For everything.

The more we streamline and accelerate processes like stage selection, the less time it takes for tournaments to progress and even better, the more flexibility we have regarding effective formats like 3 Stock 7 Minutes matches.

As long as the format is single or double elimination the majority of the time will still be spent not playing. There's absolutely no way around that, it's inherent to the format. After two rounds 1/4 of the competitors will have been eliminated and after 3 rounds 1/2 will be gone.

Speeding up stage selection will make the tournament as a whole end sooner but it won't make individual players spend more time competing. Most of their time is already going to friendlies.

If you wanted to maximize time spent competing, you'd do Round Robin, but then you have to have half as many setups as there are contestants and run as many sets as there are contestants.

 

[popsofctown]

Swiss, actually, Swiss is an intelligent partial round robin..

I think with 1/4th as many setups as players, running a Swiss tournament and having players play half the time would actually up playtime on average a whole lot, but I can't convince people to have more fun.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Swiss, actually, Swiss is an intelligent partial round robin..

I think with 1/4th as many setups as players, running a Swiss tournament and having players play half the time would actually up playtime on average a whole lot, but I can't convince people to have more fun.

We use Swiss for all of our online tournaments. People seem to seriously enjoy it.

 

[Thinkaman]

Some form of modified Swiss format, culling matches as required by setup and time limitations, is clearly the optimal format.

Brackets, which is ultimately the same thing with maximum culling, is rather poor and only used because of its conceptual simplicity.

 

[smashmachine]

also because having that many Wii U setups won't be viable, once everyone moves over from the 3DS

 

[MajorMajora]

I've had an idea on how to pick stages for a while, and I came up with an idea.

You start out with a random player choosing a stage. This would also include anything on the 'counter pick' stage list. The next match, regardless of the previous victor, the next person gets to choose their own stage.

In the event of a tie breaker, there is a final match a single neutral stage: one that is the same each time. Which one it is doesn't matter, though. How well characters perform on any single stage is always measured relative to how well they do on another stage (For example, does Little mac perform well on FD or does he perform worse than normal on stages with platforms? It's a matter of perspective.).

Of course, you could always reverse the order and start with the neutral, but I think it's much more hype to end on neutral than to end on a stage picked to weigh the advantage in one player's favor.

In the end, the main point of this design is that this whole problem can be solved by standardizing a single neutral stage instead of having multiple neutrals and not being sure which one to start.

 

[Thinkaman]

I've had an idea on how to pick stages for a while, and I came up with an idea.

You start out with a random player choosing a stage. This would also include anything on the 'counter pick' stage list. The next match, regardless of the previous victor, the next person gets to choose their own stage.

In the event of a tie breaker, there is a final match a single neutral stage: one that is the same each time. Which one it is doesn't matter, though. How well characters perform on any single stage is always measured relative to how well they do on another stage (For example, does Little mac perform well on FD or does he perform worse than normal on stages with platforms? It's a matter of perspective.).

Of course, you could always reverse the order and start with the neutral, but I think it's much more hype to end on neutral than to end on a stage picked to weigh the advantage in one player's favor.

In the end, the main point of this design is that this whole problem can be solved by standardizing a single neutral stage instead of having multiple neutrals and not being sure which one to start.

This has been proposed before; the main issue is that who goes first is a pretty big deal.

Counter-picking is predominantly based on how you expect the matchup to play, based on previous game(s).

 

[popsofctown]

Fixing a neutral stage as the standard is better than randoming the neutral stage as a standard.

But some people like the variety of outcomes and strategy offered by stage striking or other methods.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ok Capps, if you're gonna try and convince someone, you have to try and hold your ground here and show some backbone.

How is this for some backbone???

That's right! This Saturday November 15th 2014 I'm going to run a tournament to test out Simultaneous Stage Selection. Come and see if it actually works or not so we can move forward on the idea or not.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

How is this for some backbone???

That's right! This Saturday November 15th 2014 I'm going to run a tournament to test out Simultaneous Stage Selection. Come and see if it actually works or not so we can move forward on the idea or not.

I'm glad you did it. I would probably not worry too much about a lack of people being there. What matters is if the people who are there get it; however, judging by some of your previous reddit responses, I think you should be ready for people who didn't read those instructions.

We can at least say you tried.

Edit: You should bold the important terms and make the font bigger to make it easier for the people to follow.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm glad you did it. I would probably not worry too much about a lack of people being there. What matters is if the people who are there get it; however, judging by some of your previous reddit responses, I think you should be ready for people who didn't read those instructions.

We can at least say you tried.

Edit: You should bold the important terms and make the font bigger to make it easier for the people to follow.

Which terms do you think need the bolding more? I'm not sure how much more I can add font size on google docs formatting anything on there is horrendous...

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

Which terms do you think need the bolding more? I'm not sure how much more I can add font size on google docs formatting anything on there is horrendous...

The new terms, such as SSS, and deadlock.

I especially don't think you should have the ruleset without images until the end of the end of the page. In this case, this is a new system, so visualizing it is very important to the viewer because of how new it is. The way it is now, you might just overload your readers.

You could also simplify some of your explanations so that you don't lose your readers.

I'm not particularly good at explanations, so give me a moment and I'll send you an example of what I'd try.

 

[popsofctown]

Who is sponsoring the tournament?

 

[LiteralGrill]

The new terms, such as SSS, and deadlock.

I especially don't think you should have the ruleset without images until the end of the end of the page. In this case, this is a new system, so visualizing it is very important to the viewer because of how new it is. The way it is now, you might just overload your readers.

You could also simplify some of your explanations so that you don't lose your readers.

I'm not particularly good at explanations, so give me a moment and I'll send you an example of what I'd try.

I can't put all of the pictures in the basic explanation, it'd make it so any of the other rules got smashed around too. If there is a way to make it more exciting to read I'm all ears!

Who is sponsoring the tournament?

My wallet. XD

 

[popsofctown]

Your level of enthusiasm for this stuff is baffling

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I can't put all of the pictures in the basic explanation, it'd make it so any of the other rules got smashed around too. If there is a way to make it more exciting to read I'm all ears!



My wallet. XD

No; I mean, switch them. Switch the picture explanation with the normal rules. Those are not as important as understanding what SSS is. Well, keep the legal jargon in front, but move the counterpicking explanation to the end.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Your level of enthusiasm for this stuff is baffling

I'm a disabled guy stuck at the house for most of the day, gotta get excited about something right?

No; I mean, switch them. Switch the picture explanation with the normal rules. Those are not as important as understanding what SSS is. Well, keep the legal jargon in front, but move the counterpicking explanation to the end.

There is still such a tiny but of text before the explanation, and I even have in red that there is a visual explanation under it. If I put the other part after, I'll have people asking me how counterpicks work the whole tournament.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I'm a disabled guy stuck at the house for most of the day, gotta get excited about something right?



There is still such a tiny but of text before the explanation, and I even have in red that there is a visual explanation under it. If I put the other part after, I'll have people asking me how counterpicks work the whole tournament.

Well then, it's time to make this summary even simpler than it is then. Simplicity is key here when explaining to impatient and new people. When I read this summary, I notice how very indepth and crowded part 1 is compared to the other parts, which I'm sure come naturally to you because those are established rules. Simplifying this further without losing it's meaning is the most important thing to do.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well then, it's time to make this summary even simpler than it is then. Simplicity is key here when explaining to impatient and new people. When I read this summary, I notice how very indepth and crowded part 1 is compared to the other parts, which I'm sure come naturally to you because those are established rules. Simplifying this further without losing it's meaning is the most important thing to do.

I agree, I figured that it was a bit too complex on reading. I'm just so bad at editing anything I write myself I wasn't sure what to cut while still making sure everything was presented properly.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

How is this for some backbone???

That's right! This Saturday November 15th 2014 I'm going to run a tournament to test out Simultaneous Stage Selection. Come and see if it actually works or not so we can move forward on the idea or not.

I'm hype for this experiment. Science!
Too bad I won't be able to join it though.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm hype for this experiment. Science!
Too bad I won't be able to join it though.

Aw... sorry man. At least I'm taking action! I tested stages and now I'll do this. It seems like a worthy cause.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I have a question of the deadlock system. How many deadlocks have you found, what combinations cause a deadlock? That's very important to ask.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I have a question of the deadlock system. How many deadlocks have you found, what combinations cause a deadlock? That's very important to ask.

Well we discused this one a bit while looking at the rules togetherto tell all you other folks.

Basically, to keep the rules easier for most I'm going to change the rules to allow RNG to choose the stage from the top 2 stages in the case of a deadlock. Both players either getting their first or second most wanted stage seem acceptable, especially since it shouldn't allow for a super polarizing stage like just plain RNG might. Even though I don't like RNG I'm going to try it.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I have a question of the deadlock system. How many deadlocks have you found, what combinations cause a deadlock? That's very important to ask.

The deadlock only arises in a very specific circumstance. Let's work with the stage list in the document, Battlefield/FD/Yoshi's/Prism Tower/Tomodachi/Ferox/Brinstar.

Player 1 | Player 2
Battlefield | FD
FD | Battlefield
Yoshi's | Ferox
Ferox | Yoshi's
Prism Tower | Tomodachi

It's impossible to objectively decide between Battlefield and FD even though they're both the top 2 choices for both players Likewise for Yoshi's and Ferox. This is the deadlock. And the last entry is no help because they're unique to their respective lists.

The solution is to have the players add the rest of the stages to their list, using the same method. I haven't done a rigorous proof, but I suspect that there is always a non-deadlock solution if you include all stages in the list given that there is an odd number of stages total.

TL;DR It only deadlocks when both lists mirror each other such that for each pair of stages in one list, the same pair appears in reverse for the other list in the exact same spots, and the remaining slot in each list does not match at all.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The deadlock only arises in a very specific circumstance. Let's work with the stage list in the document, Battlefield/FD/Yoshi's/Prism Tower/Tomodachi/Ferox/Brinstar.

Player 1 | Player 2
Battlefield | FD
FD | Battlefield
Yoshi's | Ferox
Ferox | Yoshi's
Prism Tower | Tomodachi

It's impossible to objectively decide between Battlefield and FD even though they're both the top 2 choices for both players Likewise for Yoshi's and Ferox. This is the deadlock. And the last entry is no help because they're unique to their respective lists.

The solution is to have the players add the rest of the stages to their list, using the same method. I haven't done a rigorous proof, but I suspect that there is always a non-deadlock solution if you include all stages in the list given that there is an odd number of stages total.

TL;DR It only deadlocks when both lists mirror each other such that for each pair of stages in one list, the same pair appears in reverse for the other list in the exact same spots, and the remaining slot in each list does not match at all.

You are correct, it is mathematically impossible for there to not be a match of some kind at some point.

But as I said above, I think it's not unreasonable to go RNg with their top 2 stages. Getting your second worst stage tops won't destroy a match right? It's incredibly unlikely to have something horribly polarizing that way, and it does adress it being simpler and trying to keep people from being forced to their worse stages.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

You are correct, it is mathematically impossible for there to not be a match of some kind at some point.

But as I said above, I think it's not unreasonable to go RNg with their top 2 stages. Getting your second worst stage tops won't destroy a match right? It's incredibly unlikely to have something horribly polarizing that way, and it does adress it being simpler and trying to keep people from being forced to their worse stages.

Yeah you ninja'd my post and I think it snuck in between the board's usual "more messages since you started typing" alerts. RNG between the top 2 is reasonable.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yeah you ninja'd my post and I think it snuck in between the board's usual "more messages since you started typing" alerts. RNG between the top 2 is reasonable.

Sweet, yes I think RNG it will be unless it somehow causes a big problem which seems unlikely. At worst you get your 4/5th worst stage this way, which is still better then 5th worse on down as well..

Edit: I also thought it might be nice to share thanks to the help of @David-Lightheart Simultaneous Stage Selection is looking better then ever. Here's a link for those who want to see it at its current iteration.

It's been made easier to read and understand as well, to help get over the barrier of explaining something new. Now to just see if people can write down five stages reasonably.

 

[Pazx]

All the best with your tourney Capps.

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.

Until this post is addressed, we are implementing change for the sake of change.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

All the best with your tourney Capps.



Until this post is addressed, we are implementing change for the sake of change.

This method has a higher variety of stages and doesn't give a massive advantage to whoever wins the first match. I think I posted about it somewhere, but I can't remember.

Sweet, yes I think RNG it will be unless it somehow causes a big problem which seems unlikely. At worst you get your 4/5th worst stage this way, which is still better then 5th worse on down as well..

Edit: I also thought it might be nice to share thanks to the help of @David-Lightheart Simultaneous Stage Selection is looking better then ever. Here's a link for those who want to see it at its current iteration.

It's been made easier to read and understand as well, to help get over the barrier of explaining something new. Now to just see if people can write down five stages reasonably.

Great redesign, looks a lot better. The catch is that stage counter-pick system.
It keeps the same problem of whoever wins the first set wins the game, but we can fix that later.
Let's see how the players adapt to the SSS first.
Good call with the RNG. It works well since both stages favor both players, so it's somewhat balanced.