- Jan 19, 2015
You also have to take into account that a player may have more than one character they play, who might like completely different stages from each other.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Use Smashboards links to get your gaming stuff and support the site, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, GameCube Controller Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Edition, Nintendo Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Edition Pro Controller - Switch, a Nintendo Switch Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Edition - Switch or a Poké Ball Plus. As an Amazon Associate Smashboards earns from qualifying purchases.
I'm considering hosting my own tournaments to test this out. It seems like a lot of fun and I believe that statistically it provides the most fair stage possible because the most fair stage between two players is more likely to appear if they are given more options. The drawback to this is that it would take more time and your tool eliminates that problem.Howdy folks, I haven't posted here before but I started thinking about the issues this thread has been talking about. I think that there's just some fundamental problems with stage striking itself, and it sounds like I'm not the only one.
The solution I came up with seems to be almost the same as something Akiak said a number of pages back. Basically, each player should list all the stages in the order that they prefer, then we 'strike' the stage at the bottom of each player's list, until we have one stage left for each round in the set.
The main difference is that Akiak suggested using pencil and paper to keep track of this, which seems like a bad idea to me because of how much time and effort it would require. Instead, I made a simple utility program:
Basically, the idea is you can click and drag to move stages around to create the order you prefer for stages.
You cannot create profiles with a phone at this point, but you CAN put the saved profiles on your phone and then load them up. So if someone has the profiles of everyone at the tournament on their phone, they can set up matches almost instantly (faster than stage striking with 5 stages, anyway).
I know it's a little rough around the edges, but does this seem like something that would work? I think it solves basically all the problems everyone is talking about here, assuming long as people find it intuitive enough that they can do it without wasting too much time (which might be a big if). If lots of people show interest maybe I'll try to update it so you can create profiles on a phone.
While I definitely agree there is potential for specific stage morphing timing to favour certain situations, I see this problem as similar to the problem of pick order in chess. even in what is essentially one of the fairest games ever, going first or second drastically impacts what strategies a player can use. within this hypothetical stage morph match I see similar mindsets forming with players over time, with the order being determined by RPS I think players will be able to suitably adapt their strategy and picks so that they can take the most advantage out of the pick order they were given ( though this may take time to develop).At the risk of being a shameless self promoter, I'll mention that my solution does include a "use stage morph" option. The algorithm it uses to pick the stages becomes slightly more complex if you turn it on though, which worries me slightly. I feel like it's best if everyone understands exactly how the formula works.
If we aren't going to use my filtering solution, however, then I would say that, yes, stage morph could be used to solve some of the problems inherent in a starter/counter-pick paradigm. Allowing both players to pick a stage could be good. But it's also possible that the order of the stages ends up a problem because KOs are more likely to occur at certain times, and the stage might be more important at those specific moments that a KO occurs.
For example, lets say, for round numbers, that the first stocks are lost around 1 minute, the second stocks around 2 minutes, and the third around 3 minutes. If the stage morph occurs every 1.5 minutes, then 2 of the 3 KOs are more likely to happen on the second stage. Of course, it varies a lot from one match to the next, and I'm not even sure whether the first match or the second is more important... but the point is, the order of the two stages when using stage morph could end up mattering. I'm still in favor of giving it a try though, my point is that we may find that you can't just say 'both players get to choose a stage so it's perfectly fair'.
I wouldn't be concerned about camping when it comes to stage morphing specifically when it comes to how I want it utilized ( used in game one only, morphs twice between both picks). The idea within its implementation would be that players having the ability to pick the most optimal character and the most optimal stage, essentially giving them the freedom to pick their most ideal scenario and pit it against their opponents most ideal scenario, essentially when player A is on his stage pick ideally he would have chosen it well enough so that the opportunity for player B to camp doesn't occur, he instead has massive advantage within the 1:30 that his pick remains active. the skill check for player A being can he take advantage and gain a lead, while the skill check for player B being can they survive or counter the opponent's advantage, once the stage morphs the dichotomy flips creating a pendulum of advantage and disadvantage for both players.In addition to skeleghost's points, there are 2 fundamental issues with stage morph: 1 stage must come first, and there is no "1-2-2-2 etc:" like setting for the morph timer that we know of meaning that the first stage's player as a difficult to quantify advantage and if the difference between stage advantages is great enough the player who is not on their stage pick is encouraged to camp and wait for the stage to morph into a more favorable stage.
I might be being overzealous regarding the whole "no changing lists" things, to be honest... it is actually quite difficult to exploit this for metagaming purposes. But be aware that it is possible to exploit list changing, and if it ever becomes a big thing, the results will not ideal.I'm considering hosting my own tournaments to test this out. It seems like a lot of fun and I believe that statistically it provides the most fair stage possible because the most fair stage between two players is more likely to appear if they are given more options. The drawback to this is that it would take more time and your tool eliminates that problem.
The problems being brought up with it I do not believe (for the most part) are actual problems. The idea that a player may not do well in certain matchups with their stage list or they main characters that are good on different stages is not a reason to not use the tool. It's a reason for that individual player to not place certain stages high on their list. It involves some strategy. If you don't feel comfortable all the time on certain stages, rate them lower.
Regarding people changing their lists in the midde of the tournament. I don't think it matters enough to outweigh the huge benefits. I think people should be welcome to change their lists before their match is called and then once the TO says what stage they're going to play on, that's what stage they play on. There's a possibility that a player may not have enough time to rework their list before their match is called but w/e. There's no way the other player can be screwed by it because it always picks a stage both players like. It's a very minor flaw especially in comparison to other things at tournaments like working with tiny stage lists that benefit certain characters over others and being matched up in bracket by coincidence with people who play a character who counters yours. Tournaments aren't 100% fair.
I think people forget that the goal here is not to find the perfect solution to selecting stages. It's to find ones that are better than the absolutely horrible way we select stages currently. Having a small and boring stage list that doesn't allow players to have a say in what stages they think are fair is not "neutral" or "fair" or "even". Certain people decide what stages are best for every player and then the people and characters that are best on those stages dominate. With the above tool, the players decide what stages are fair for themselves and then the tool produces the average. It's not perfect but it's way better than what we have now. So what if it changes the skill set and considerations required for a smash set a little?
While that does look pretty awful, that's also something that's likely to be fixed in a day 1 patch, so I'm reserving judgment for now.
I do hope you're right.While that does look pretty awful, that's also something that's likely to be fixed in a day 1 patch, so I'm reserving judgment for now.
I've heard other people say PS1 ledges are better now, too, so that might actually be legit. In that case, PS1 over PS2.In other news, we actually got a pretty interesting write-up on stages from somebody who actually got the game early and has played with a decent number of community members so far. He's got some relatively liberal ideals, so I think you'll find it interesting. Of note is that he's actually claiming that PS1's ledges are less pineappley than PS2's.
I played around with it for the first time a little earlier so I wanted to get some advice regarding how you would apply it in tournament. I was thinking this:I might be being overzealous regarding the whole "no changing lists" things, to be honest... it is actually quite difficult to exploit this for metagaming purposes. But be aware that it is possible to exploit list changing, and if it ever becomes a big thing, the results will not ideal.
Anyway, I will try to make a more mobile friendly version of the utility. Right now, it relies on click-and-drag to make the lists, but you can't touch-and-drag. However, you can LOAD two player's lists and a rules set onto a mobile device, as long as you have access to the three files in question. Warning: coding and design work does in fact take a bit of time and effort and I work full time, so I may not have anything until next weekend. I'll also put a readme out soon. Let me know if there are any features that would be useful (with the caveat that I might just say "that's awkward to make for technical reasons", but no harm in asking).
Thank you. As someone who was deeply involved with competitive Brawl I think it's unreasonable to start banning things because possible sharking when this game doesn't even have Brawl's mechanics. If you lose to someone sharking in Smash 4 or Ultimate...like I'm sorry...but they outplayed you.- I have no idea why everyone seems to think sharking is an issue again, while it wasn't in smash 4, and with the hard ledge grab limit, it should be even less of a problem.
- Funny that Halberd's ceiling is now apparently too big.
- Mushroom Kingdom U is only like 20% bigger than Battlefield, calm down about that.
- Between Hazardless Smashville and Yoshi's Island Brawl, I say we go with Yoshi's because everyone is so sick of Smashville's music/background.
This will be tested day 1.I have no idea why everyone seems to think sharking is an issue again, while it wasn't in smash 4, and with the hard ledge grab limit, it should be even less of a problem.
Yup, seems that stage can never get reasonable blastzones.- Funny that Halberd's ceiling is now apparently too big.
People who have played the game claim they feel it's too big, so that's something to keep in mind.- Mushroom Kingdom U is only like 20% bigger than Battlefield, calm down about that.
I think both should probably be legal, but if we're going with one it's probably Smashville, music/background are not that important.- Between Hazardless Smashville and Yoshi's Island Brawl, I say we go with Yoshi's because everyone is so sick of Smashville's music/background.
This probably also needs field testing because I cannot shake the idea that the order of stages would be a balance problem if you allow both sides to pick their most preferred stage, though I'll note that games should not be going close to time. timers are usually set as high as the TO can get away with in the worst case scenario specifically to avoid games coming anywhere close to time (and thus discourage stalling) so if you want 2 goes on each stage per match you'll probably have to go for 1 minute morphs though anything match time related will be highly variable.I wouldn't be concerned about camping when it comes to stage morphing specifically when it comes to how I want it utilized ( used in game one only, morphs twice between both picks). The idea within its implementation would be that players having the ability to pick the most optimal character and the most optimal stage, essentially giving them the freedom to pick their most ideal scenario and pit it against their opponents most ideal scenario, essentially when player A is on his stage pick ideally he would have chosen it well enough so that the opportunity for player B to camp doesn't occur, he instead has massive advantage within the 1:30 that his pick remains active. the skill check for player A being can he take advantage and gain a lead, while the skill check for player B being can they survive or counter the opponent's advantage, once the stage morphs the dichotomy flips creating a pendulum of advantage and disadvantage for both players.
I like the idea of multi-tier group striking, in theory it could select between 81 stages in 4 strikes each, which is completely overkill for any possible scenario, at the cost of only a small amount of precision, but think this list is backwards. Rather than trying to make a few larger balanced lists for people to strike between I think the stages should be in small groups of similar stages. My thinking is that the first pick in the listed layout is one that is not very intuitive or easy to value, making it hard to decide the best choice for newer players (who may well pick randomly or brainlessly follow whatever advice they were given due to the amount of thought needed to asses the choice) and more prone to subtle balance issues due to this. By contrast if you first divide by type of stage(tri-plat, mid-plat, flat etc and then by which stage in that category(flats could have FD, wilys and a 2D omega for example) what you can quite easily strike with intent even for a newer player as they can first imagine what kind of stage they want, then the more specific stuff afterwards. It also means you can give each group a descriptive name, making it easier to remember what's where and declare your strikes.
he literally cited a doc posted by someone who played the game and says brinstar is sharkable
After playing with it earlier, I think that it would just require players submitting a stage list before each tournament...or none at all if they want to use the default list or they have submitted a list in a previous tournament and don't want to submit a new one. If that's the case, I don't think people changing their lists in the middle of a tournament will be an issue because it doesn't seem to be possible. The tool saves each list as a a text document and stages are generated by the TO using the premade text documents with the tool. So the TO just uses the original document. Because the stage list is only seen by the player who made it and the TO, I don't think it's possible for another person to adapt to another player's list. Especially considering it may screw them up against other players in the tournament because they can't change their list once the tournament starts.I think that if you are using a pre-declared strike list system, and allow mid-tournament changes, there will be instances of people trying to play list mindgames for advantage at the highest levels as exact list preferences will become public knowledge and there is often money on the line, so trying to get the game 1 advantage will be very tempting. I don't think you can avoid this without basically asking people to make new lists every round anyway. If you are going to ask people to build a new list for each opponent, then note that it will take time and require a larger tech presence than other striking methods, though i can't directly compare it to striking so it would need to be field tested.
I can't, but it seems like everyone is trying to use it to preemptively ban stages, which is so completely backwards i can't even understand it. It's just like stages like Green Greens with mid-stage pits. I don't really see an issue with those (at least the ones without solid walls on either side like Saffron), but everyone seems to be claiming with zero evidence so far that they're bad and need to be banned. This is a new game, built from the ground up, I just want as much content to have a FAIR chance as humanly possible. If a stage is demonstrably at issue in some way, fine, I won't be complaining that it's let go, but otherwise, it needs to stay.The game is not even out yet, how can you say with certainty that sharking isn't a problem? It needs to be tested.
As someone who hasn't actually run a tournament, I am not going to claim to know exactly the best methodology. But that's pretty darn close to what I was thinking. If you have multiple devices that players can use before the tournament to setup, that might be good... but... well... how many spare tablets and laptops do you have laying around? That said, if a TO learns to be quick at it, they might be able to translate someone's list pretty fast using their own device. Maybe.I played around with it for the first time a little earlier so I wanted to get some advice regarding how you would apply it in tournament. I was thinking this:
>Create facebook event
>Put link to the page in the event description with a request to save a stage list and send it to me through Facebook messenger or email.
>Indicate that it's fine to change it as many times as needed and send a new version as long as it's before the event starts.
>Save everyone's files in one folder.
>Load the two appropriate files when the players have a set together
Is that what you had in mind? I'm actually having a hard time understanding how someone could change stage lists in the middle of a tournament if the TO takes premade files from their own computer.
This sounds reasonable to me (and the argument against gaps, as simple as it is, seems solid). I still worry about the sharking thing becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.I think sharking should be tested once the game is released, and I strongly suspect sharking stages will end up banned.
Gaps in the middle of the stage (like with Green Greens) means that you can camp really hard and force the opponent to jump, putting many characters at a significant disadvantage.
The way I saw it, I imagined players could just keep the lists on their phones (either typed down or with an app) and then when they meet they simply compare them with each other and figure out the winning stage. Is that too much to ask of them?As someone who hasn't actually run a tournament, I am not going to claim to know exactly the best methodology. But that's pretty darn close to what I was thinking. If you have multiple devices that players can use before the tournament to setup, that might be good... but... well... how many spare tablets and laptops do you have laying around? That said, if a TO learns to be quick at it, they might be able to translate someone's list pretty fast using their own device. Maybe.
Regarding the changing of stage lists: This is only a problem if TOs allow it. That is, if someone has reached round 3 of the tournament, and then says "I've changed my stage list, use this from now on", that can be exploited. If the TO says 'ok, the tournament has started, your list is locked now' then it's unlikely to produce issues. Although it's still probably better if players never have access to each other's lists (unless they willingly share them, of course).
I will say that the logistics of getting started and set up is the one thing that makes me doubt this system. I think that 'rank the stages in order' is pretty intuitive for a new player, much moreso than "stage striking". But actually getting the stage filtering list into your phone or computer before the tournament starts? Well, I hope the overhead isn't too much. Like I said, I'm planning to work a bit more on the application this weekend to make it more phone-friendly.
I definitely recommend creating a few template/premade lists, like maybe "wide stages" "tall stages" "small stages" "conservative stages" and "weird stages". Or maybe just the preferences of a few players you know, who have divergent tastes. Then players without their own list can choose a template, swap a few stages around, and just use that. Also, the stage list can and should be large, but if you intend to run more than one tournament, then maybe it would make sense to start small-ish, like 20-25. That way, it's easier for those last-minute players to make the list they want. The system is fair with pretty huge stage lists, but that's not what worries me, it's setting up each player in the first place.
There's pretty much no reason not to do that, unless you need the lower-ranked stages for a tie-breaker (which is debatable).Possible time save for TOs and app: Only ask players to order their top N/2 +1 stages. Players should spend less time thinking about the order of their least favorite stages and will have fewer stages to write.
Yeah, it's an interesting question what to do in the following case:unless you need the lower-ranked stages for a tie-breaker (which is debatable)
Sorry if i gave the impression I didn't like it, I think list based systems are one of the ones with real potential, I just point out potential issues so they could be addressed or at least known about to avoid nasty surprises. No truly perfect solution exists, it's a matter of choosing trade offs. So please, test away.I would like to test and come up with solutions to any problems with this system rather than scrapping it because I think it could make competitive smash way better.
Unfortunately it could be a lot worse than that. Say you have 13 stages, and these were the lists:Yeah, it's an interesting question what to do in the following case:
Player 1's top 3 stages are:
1. Final Destination
3. Pokemon Stadium
Player 2's top 3 stages are:
2. Final Destination
3. Pokemon Stadium
Is it better to tie-break by using some method (rock-paper-scissors?) to pick between BF and FD which both players prefer over PS? Or is it better to tie-break by picking PS which both players equally prefer?
I personally would prefer using some method to pick between BF and FD, since it guarantees you only need to order N/2+1 stages no matter what, maximises average preference, and doesn't force you to deal with situations where the next best stage is much lower down on both players' lists or also a tie.
Of course in nice situations like this where the next best stage is obvious and in both players' top 3, I'm guessing they would probably just agree to play on PS rather than deal with rock-paper-scissors or something, but the rules need to deal with cases where players don't agree and this is an easy example to think about.
The idea is fairly simple: instead of deciding 1 stage, you take the top 3 or 5. For game 1 you can either play the most preferred stage, or strike through the selected stages. For future rounds the loser selecting one of the other stages chosen that haven't been player yet to go to.
Regarding the CP process, I don't think it's a good idea to extend the lists past the first match. It puts much more emphasis on the lists themselves, which means players are going to spend a lot more time thinking about them. It also removes a little bit of excitement since the stages are all known from the start and the players simply have to go through them one-by-one.Taking the top 3 or 5 is what the app I made already does. It orders them with the 'best' stage in the middle, because I figured it would be lame if it started on the most favored stage and then got worse as the set progressed.
If we have Kalos Pokémon League and Unova Pokémon League already, as well as Pokémon Stadium 1/2 hazards off, do we really need Pokémon Stadium 1 hazards on? It's a pretty bad stage, after all (and hazards on is an issue unless they patch in a toggle).I was thinking to seperate PS1 and PS2, PS1 with hazards on can be taken into consideration.