All the players have to do is just remember one number - the number of stocks the winning player has over his opponent. If I'm interpreting the results correctly, TKOs count your number of deaths at the end of the game. I really don't think this is a big problem - this is like the players not agreeing who won games in a set. You are framing this as a much bigger issue than in reality.
I think you are really underestimating this. Numerous times in stock matches I have seen players look at how many stocks they have and be surprised. Same goes for commentators. It happens even when the stocks are there the whole time, it will definitely happen when you take them away. People just lose count sometimes, especially when there are multiple minutes between counts, its human nature. Not sure if its possible to gleam from the post game score the necessary info (might be, hadn't thought of that), but the fact that players can possibly forget or lose track of the score during the match is a big negative.
You are arguing against any form of a timer here. I think we are just approaching the rules with a different set of values. I, personally, do not want 8+ minute games, and would rather see a stally/campy game end rather quickly with one player forced to approach within 4 minutes than have one go on for, in the present case, a potentially unbounded period of time.
I think what is missing from your values is fairness. Time mode is not fair, it gives a lopsided advantage to whoever is in the lead. I think this has been covered in past posts. You want to promote other values over fairness, I think you will find yourself in the minority there as far as tournaments go.
Flipping a coin is luck based, and again is risky - if I choose link vs pika, and the coin flips to dreamland, then oh well. I really have yet to hear a fair way of choosing the first stage, as I believe one doesn't exist, but at least here we are getting closer.
Your version is pre-smash mind game based, which is based at least partially on luck. I don't like either method. Stage striking or having a predetermined starter stage is more fair.
You can argue that this hurts puff (even though puff against samus I'm not too sure about), but the idea is not to make one objective list that stays the same and helps/hurts some characters. If puff is hurt by this, then move her down the list. If some character is too buffed, then move them up. Again, if the goal here is to increase character variety (which is one of my goals, it might not be one of yours), then the ruleset adapts based on thoughts and results and changes over time.
Hey you asked the question I just answered it. Some characters are going to be negatively effected by this because they don't beat all the characters below them. Okay so lets change the tier list based on that... but now some of the matchups are changed because of the tier list shift, so after the next tournament there might be a tier list change, which affects the matchups, so after the next tournament there mgiht be a tier list change... Thus the success of the puff player depends on where in the tier list puff is at the time of the tournament based on what part of the cycle of this perpetual tier list shifting we are currently at, as opposed to where the actual metagame is currently at. That's not right.
Again, if you are not aiming towards the particular goals that I'm shooting for here, then discussing the merits of a ruleset won't go very far. Resolving that would require a much more fundamental discussion about things, which is a different matter entirely.
It sounds like your values are max fun, max character diversity, and max entertainment value, all at the expense of fairness. If you are talking about having some fun friendlies, okay, but that set of values is generally not what a tournament is for. Except a YOLO tournament, which is way more fun than this ruleset anyway
