For Glory Rules and Other Fighting Games

[Raijinken]

I believe it was @ItalianBaptist who first made me realize an interesting point: Two stocks is effectively the standard best-of-three that most other fighting games default to in their gameplay settings at all skill levels (each stock is a round, first to lose twice loses).

I decided to run with this a bit, and realized (perhaps months late, I dunno how much of an observant genius some of you will undoubtably claim to be) that a maximum-length match of Bo3 with 99 seconds on the clock is 4.95 minutes, basically a 5 minute match. This is, as we're presumably all aware, the exact setup For Glory uses.

To mixed approval and frustration, Sakurai and friends have, 15 years after the series' creation, decided to give us a ruleset essentially matching other fighting games. We decided (quite immediately) we didn't want this ruleset, and began (or perhaps continued) our arguing over what constitutes the "proper way to play competitive Smash."

Smash isn't "other fighting games." Even excluding obvious differences like platform play, it tends to be a bit slower (and certainly has the potential to be, regardless of which entry in the franchise), and there are a lot more stage versions to pick from than a reskinned flat arena. Additionally, when compared to health (the time-out determinant in most fighting games), a character's percentage isn't quite as a significant indicator of whether they have a lead or not. We generally still refer to percent, though, as the random nature of bob-ombs in Sudden Death detracts from its viability as a tiebreaker.

Basically, I'm wondering if it would actually be good for Smash, as a game and community trying to belong in the FGC, to actually use 2s/5m and (edit: revised my stance here) random Omega stages.

Arguably the main thing that sets aside Smash Bros from other fighters is the platforming element. If we wanted, we could take Battlefield as our one stage of play. (edit: stance revised) This has huge implications for character matchups and balance, but all stages and selection processes influence that - it's impossible to remove from the equation (and frankly no one seems interested in adopting the "more balanced" stage selection approaches on a larger scale anyway due to the practice and selection time investments). If we did, should we use Battlefield, FD, or Random Omega?

Teams are another mostly-unique element in Smash. While it is clear, from both a standardization stance and experience stance, that we should not use 2 minute time, there are other considerations for doubles. Should we emulate For Glory's team attack absence? Doing so removes a lot of silly strategies like G&W+Projectile, but opens up for a lot of other different forms of abuse. I'd be in favor of keeping team attack, but I'd be interested to read some analysis of the tradeoff.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it worth even trying to fight our entrenched grassroots mentality to give Sakurai's (and the rest of the FGC's) rules a real shot? Would it lead to greater acceptance of Smash as an actual competitive fighting game? Is it against the spirit of Smash to (do what its own designers chose to do in its online ranked mode) remove so much of what can and does make Smash unique?

I'm interested to see some constructive discussion on this.

 

[WritersBlah]

We trying to be Japan now? (No offense to any Japanese players, you're all amazing.)

I mean, there's some validity to your suggestion, and limiting ourselves to just 1-3 stages would probably consolidate the meta into something a lot simpler, but I have the feeling that a lot of us already like the way Smash 4 currently runs. To make such a radical change this early on would probably create an even larger rift than customs vs no customs.

 

[Raijinken]

We trying to be Japan now? (No offense to any Japanese players, you're all amazing.)

I mean, there's some validity to your suggestion, and limiting ourselves to just 1-3 stages would probably consolidate the meta into something a lot simpler, but I have the feeling that a lot of us already like the way Smash 4 currently runs. To make such a radical change this early on would probably create an even larger rift than customs vs no customs.

I'm not suggesting any more than one stage, though I'm being a bit flakey on which one I'd lock into for good.

I can't argue that a lot of people like how Smash currently is. I love a lot of things about Smash, I just don't think the community's infighting and over-all attitude is healthy in the long run.

I'm just wondering if simplifying it (for "main event" sorts of things, not side-events or whatever) would save us a lot of headache in the long run and make for a more robust and stable competitive scene.

You'd get rid of the customs vs not debate (sadly), and maybe even Miis as well (also sadly), depending on how adoptive of Sakurai's rules we wanted to be. But you'd save a lot of time at tournaments (no stage picking), and during practices (only one stage to learn if we go BF or FD, and only wall-type and friction variances to learn if we do random Omega).

There'd also be a lot of attitude-adjustment to be done, though. The thought of a time-out makes many Smash players cringe and cry inside. It's another one of those generally disliked things that's completely standard for other fighting games.

 

[Wintropy]

I think it's a very interesting (and, post-EVO context, timely) insight and I thank you for sharing it with us. My core reservation with the premise is that limiting the stage selection to a static choice would be severely crippling for a number of characters, not to mention compromise the diversity that Smash is renowned for.

Final Destination, to cite the stage used in the For Glory ruleset, is far from the most balanced stage. It's indisputably the most neutral stage, in that it has no extraneous ephemera or stage hazards whatsoever. It is literally a flat platform suspended in mid-air. In theory, it's totally balanced, offering no help or hindrance to any fighter over any other.

Except that it does. Quite profoundly so. Little Mac is almost expressly based on this kind of stage in terms of competitive viability; a flat, open space with no platforms and binary avenues of approach is Mac's favourite type of stage, next to full walkoffs (which we ban for obvious reasons). Contrast that with a character like Robin, who has no advantage whatsoever on this kind of stage, and it seems to set up an intrinsically weighted kind of game. It would be very difficult indeed for Robin, a character that struggles against rushdown tactics at the best of times, to maximise their stage control options when there isn't anything on the stage to work with. Now these examples are deliberately cherry-picked to offer the most extreme ends of the theoretical spectrum, but you get what I mean: a singular choice of stage will inevitably lead to a weighted metagame (and yeah, you can make the case that it's already weighted by default - to wit: choose Sheik or you're at a disadvantage right off the bat - but the point of counterpicking your stage is to at least try to mitigate this kind of objective favour).

The same could be said for any choice of stage. I'm of the opinion that Smashville or Town & City are probably the most universally-friendly stages (relative to other stages; no stage will ever be objectively neutral for every character), yet there are still intrinsic values within these stages that weigh their favour towards certain characters over others.

It's worth mentioning that Smash is not other fighting games, nor is it intended to be. Sakurai has made that explicitly clear. Traditional fighting games (1v1 duel with vitality gauges and minimal stage interaction) work from a very different sense of fundamentals than Smash does. The essential goal of a traditional fighter is simple: reduce your opponent's vitality to zero with a variety of moves while trying to ensure you don't get hit. Different fighters offer different elements to distinguish themselves from these core rules (e.g. Street Fighter has super combos, Tekken has breakable walls and floors, Marvel vs Capcom has a tag-team system, BlazBlue has a dedicated button for special powers, etc), yet at the most fundamental level, the principle is the exact same. The closest we could come to finding an appropriate analogy for Smash's impetus on stage elements would be Tekken and Dead or Alive, both of which feature breakable walls and floors in some of their stages. This does have an impact on play: in addition to the game being briefly disrupted by the transition to a new area, the entire layout of the stage can change (itself enabling different strategies for wall pressure, even further options for stage transitions and, in the case of Soul Calibur, ring-out KOs) and the player that had been launched through the stage itself is rendered briefly vulnerable while they get back up and is subject to further damage upon landing. This isn't a huge distinction and it doesn't have nearly as profound an impact on the game as it would in Smash (except for Soul Calibur - certain stages can be exploited for their ring-out potential, which, for the uninitiated, counts as an instant KO): while it would be remiss of me to say it doesn't make any difference (it does), the degree to which it informs the fundamental understanding of the game's core values isn't nearly as extreme as it is in Smash. Neutering the ability to choose different stages in Smash would not only compromise its vast tactical depth (I'm of the belief that Smash is indeed a strategic and complex game, just in a very different manner to traditional fighters), it would also try to turn Smash into something that it isn't: to wit, a traditional fighter.

It's also worth a quick recap of why Sakurai designed the For Glory ruleset as he did, to wit, Final Destination is a "common" choice of stage for competitive players (whether Sakurai has studied competitive play or just got his insight from the notorious "Final Destination, no items, Fox only" meme, we can't say), which he ostensibly believed would be the most balanced and non-threatening stage for a healthy and diverse competitive experience.

Just to clarify, I am most certainly not attacking your idea or even disagreeing with it. I'm just offering constructive feedback. It's a great concept for a thread and I look forward to seeing how it develops. I will keep an eye on the discussion and chime back in as I am required to!

 

[WritersBlah]

I can't argue that a lot of people like how Smash currently is. I love a lot of things about Smash, I just don't think the community's infighting and over-all attitude is healthy in the long run.

Sorry, I don't think I made my post clear enough. I meant more from a "this is how the general gist of how Smash has played since 64" kind of way, I'm fully aware that the ruleset argument has a lot of people, including me, upset, but I don't think fully adopting a For Glory ruleset is the answer, especially since FG's meta is way different than any other competitive Smash scene's meta. As different as 64, Melee, Brawl, PM, and Sm4sh are, For Glory is just radically different imo.

 

[Raijinken]

I think it's a very interesting (and, post-EVO context, timely) insight and I thank you for sharing it with us. My core reservation with the premise is that limiting the stage selection to a static choice would be severely crippling for a number of characters, not to mention compromise the diversity that Smash is renowned for.

Final Destination, to cite the stage used in the For Glory ruleset, is far from the most balanced stage. It's indisputably the most neutral stage, in that it has no extraneous ephemera or stage hazards whatsoever. It is literally a flat platform suspended in mid-air. In theory, it's totally balanced, offering no help or hindrance to any fighter over any other.

Except that it does. Quite profoundly so. Little Mac is almost expressly based on this kind of stage in terms of competitive viability; a flat, open space with no platforms and binary avenues of approach is Mac's favourite type of stage, next to full walkoffs (which we ban for obvious reasons). Contrast that with a character like Robin, who has no advantage whatsoever on this kind of stage, and it seems to set up an intrinsically weighted kind of game. It would be very difficult indeed for Robin, a character that struggles against rushdown tactics at the best of times, to maximise their stage control options when there isn't anything on the stage to work with. Now these examples are deliberately cherry-picked to offer the most extreme ends of the theoretical spectrum, but you get what I mean: a singular choice of stage will inevitably lead to a weighted metagame (and yeah, you can make the case that it's already weighted by default - to wit: choose Sheik or you're at a disadvantage right off the bat - but the point of counterpicking your stage is to at least try to mitigate this kind of objective favour).

The same could be said for any choice of stage. I'm of the opinion that Smashville or Town & City are probably the most universally-friendly stages (relative to other stages; no stage will ever be objectively neutral for every character), yet there are still intrinsic values within these stages that weigh their favour towards certain characters over others.

It's worth mentioning that Smash is not other fighting games, nor is it intended to be. Sakurai has made that explicitly clear. Traditional fighting games (1v1 duel with vitality gauges and minimal stage interaction) work from a very different sense of fundamentals than Smash does. The essential goal of a traditional fighter is simple: reduce your opponent's vitality to zero with a variety of moves while trying to ensure you don't get hit. Different fighters offer different elements to distinguish themselves from these core rules (e.g. Street Fighter has super combos, Tekken has breakable walls and floors, Marvel vs Capcom has a tag-team system, BlazBlue has a dedicated button for special powers, etc), yet at the most fundamental level, the principle is the exact same. The closest we could come to finding an appropriate analogy for Smash's impetus on stage elements would be Tekken and Dead or Alive, both of which feature breakable walls and floors in some of their stages. This does have an impact on play: in addition to the game being briefly disrupted by the transition to a new area, the entire layout of the stage can change (itself enabling different strategies for wall pressure, even further options for stage transitions and, in the case of Soul Calibur, ring-out KOs) and the player that had been launched through the stage itself is rendered briefly vulnerable while they get back up and is subject to further damage upon landing. This isn't a huge distinction and it doesn't have nearly as profound an impact on the game as it would in Smash (except for Soul Calibur - certain stages can be exploited for their ring-out potential, which, for the uninitiated, counts as an instant KO): while it would be remiss of me to say it doesn't make any difference (it does), the degree to which it informs the fundamental understanding of the game's core values isn't nearly as extreme as it is in Smash. Neutering the ability to choose different stages in Smash would not only compromise its vast tactical depth (I'm of the belief that Smash is indeed a strategic and complex game, just in a very different manner to traditional fighters), it would also try to turn Smash into something that it isn't: to wit, a traditional fighter.

It's also worth a quick recap of why Sakurai designed the For Glory ruleset as he did, to wit, Final Destination is a "common" choice of stage for competitive players (whether Sakurai has studied competitive play or just got his insight from the notorious "Final Destination, no items, Fox only" meme, we can't say), which he ostensibly believed would be the most balanced and non-threatening stage for a healthy and diverse competitive experience.

Just to clarify, I am most certainly not attacking your idea or even disagreeing with it. I'm just offering constructive feedback. It's a great concept for a thread and I look forward to seeing how it develops. I will keep an eye on the discussion and chime back in as I am required to!

As a former Robin main, I'm all-too aware of his struggles on Final Destination, just as my brother (a Little Mac main) is familiar with Mac's struggles everywhere else. But, as was a rather popular topic spearheaded by Budget Player Cadet for a while, no stage or selection system will have complete parity. As-is, Smashville is considered the premier "balanced" stage, but it's also considered by the Sheik boards (or was last I heard) to be her best stage in every matchup (a contest she already wins without even factoring in stage). Not knowing what stage Sakurai thinks himself to be balancing for, we can't exactly try to plan for eventual patching to, say, make Robin good on FD, or make Mac good on 75M. Characters will always have issues brought about by their design that no stage can make up for. This is also entirely apart from the idea of using stage variety to influence balance, in fact, the idea is quite the opposite - to pick a stage and see what happens.

As for Smash's stage variety and the tactics behind choosing the right stage, I'm of the opinion that the sacrifice wouldn't be as great as you seem to feel it would be. A lot of this goes back to character dominance per patch, and historical stage preference. Some of the commentators at EVO voiced complaints that the FLSS system being run wasn't worth the time it took when "most players just end up on Smashville anyway." Stage selection itself is an imperfect system - it's rather common to see players picking for comfort over advantage (for instance, taking Sheik to Smashville as most any character, or taking Cyclone Kong to Battlefield). Simply put, I don't think from a gameplay stance, removing stage selection (which, due to ruleset or mentality or both, is actually already quite limited for most higher-end play) makes a significant impact. It offers some strategic depth, but it's also a point of contention (I think I can only seriously suggest this because I'd value the cessation of argument over adding Stadium 2 to the legal stage list).

Now, to the idea of Smash not being (or being intended to be) other fighting games. I agree with that statement. I wonder, though, why, despite the clear distinction, Smash still makes appearances at fighting game events, such as EVO. If we're so different and wish to emphasize and embrace that difference, why do we push to have a presence at a fighting game event? To compare to a similar question, should esports be streamed on ESPN (or even called esports at all) when they're so different from "sports" to begin with? How much do we want to conform to the idea of a "fighting game" versus how much do we just want to be Smash? And, if we just want to be Smash, should we be trying to fit Smash events into timeframes designed for regular fighting games? Do matches need to be short? Do we need to cull so many stages for randomness and interference when unintrusive stages are the exception instead of the rule? Basically, if we're not "other fighting games", why do we go half-in to trying to be like them?

 

[C0rvus]

That is pretty interesting. Of course it should have no effect on the way we make rulesets. Smash is a very different game. Stages, stock count, etc matter quite a lot, and I'm not a fan of how FG has set the "default" stock count for Smash 4 to 2. Brawl had 3 stocks, but it was a slower game. It also took Brawl a bit to settle on its stock count, so I hope more TOs experiment with 3 stocks for Smash 4. That aside, the rules for "serious" online matches set by the developers does say a bit about how they consider the game, or perhaps how they think we think of the game.

 

[Wintropy]

As a former Robin main, I'm all-too aware of his struggles on Final Destination, just as my brother (a Little Mac main) is familiar with Mac's struggles everywhere else. But, as was a rather popular topic spearheaded by Budget Player Cadet for a while, no stage or selection system will have complete parity. As-is, Smashville is considered the premier "balanced" stage, but it's also considered by the Sheik boards (or was last I heard) to be her best stage in every matchup (a contest she already wins without even factoring in stage). Not knowing what stage Sakurai thinks himself to be balancing for, we can't exactly try to plan for eventual patching to, say, make Robin good on FD, or make Mac good on 75M. Characters will always have issues brought about by their design that no stage can make up for. This is also entirely apart from the idea of using stage variety to influence balance, in fact, the idea is quite the opposite - to pick a stage and see what happens.

Yeah, as I say, it's logistically impossible for a stage to be objectively and absolutely balanced for every character. My rebuttal in defence of counterpicking is that it at least offers a chance to mitigate a stage's favourable / unfavourable elements. If your character doesn't work well on Final Destination, well, that's okay, you have the option of going to Battlefield instead.

It isn't a perfect system, and even counterpicking has its drawbacks, but I think the important thing is that it opens up possible avenues to help eliminate an objective advantage. A singular stage would mean that a certain character could work excellently there every single time, whereas another character has no chance of ever playing to that same degree. It's essentially a home-field advantage that remains universal and immutable. ItalianBaptist's reference to the Denver Bronco's home stadium is a worthwhile comparison in that sense.

That said, I agree that it's just as much down to character design as it is stage design. I wouldn't dare suggest choice of stage should trump choice of character, just that it's nice to keep our options open.

As for Smash's stage variety and the tactics behind choosing the right stage, I'm of the opinion that the sacrifice wouldn't be as great as you seem to feel it would be. A lot of this goes back to character dominance per patch, and historical stage preference. Some of the commentators at EVO voiced complaints that the FLSS system being run wasn't worth the time it took when "most players just end up on Smashville anyway." Stage selection itself is an imperfect system - it's rather common to see players picking for comfort over advantage (for instance, taking Sheik to Smashville as most any character, or taking Cyclone Kong to Battlefield). Simply put, I don't think from a gameplay stance, removing stage selection (which, due to ruleset or mentality or both, is actually already quite limited for most higher-end play) makes a significant impact. It offers some strategic depth, but it's also a point of contention (I think I can only seriously suggest this because I'd value the cessation of argument over adding Stadium 2 to the legal stage list).

This is true. Honestly, I'm more so reluctant to accept Final Destination itself as the hypothetical stage of choice than I am the notion of a singular choice in itself - if anything, I would strongly advocate for BF or T&C over FD. But that's another matter entirely. Just my own personal bias slithering its way into the conversation.

Now, to the idea of Smash not being (or being intended to be) other fighting games. I agree with that statement. I wonder, though, why, despite the clear distinction, Smash still makes appearances at fighting game events, such as EVO. If we're so different and wish to emphasize and embrace that difference, why do we push to have a presence at a fighting game event? To compare to a similar question, should esports be streamed on ESPN (or even called esports at all) when they're so different from "sports" to begin with? How much do we want to conform to the idea of a "fighting game" versus how much do we just want to be Smash? And, if we just want to be Smash, should we be trying to fit Smash events into timeframes designed for regular fighting games? Do matches need to be short? Do we need to cull so many stages for randomness and interference when unintrusive stages are the exception instead of the rule? Basically, if we're not "other fighting games", why do we go half-in to trying to be like them?

Now this right here is a good question, and I must confess I have no answer. I honestly have no distinct opinion on the subject of Smash as a fighting game - I'm just playing devil's advocate and pointing out that stage selection matters much more in Smash than it does other games of its ilk.

You mentioned that you're unfamiliar with Tekken's mode of play and how stage choice factors into it, so I just thought I'd inform you of how it works in a theoretical-competitive context. The different between Smash and Tekken is that stage character design doesn't factor nearly as much into stage choice in Tekken, whereas in Smash, characters like Little Mac are designed to work best on a flat stage with minimal aerial play. I wasn't rebutting your notion with my own notion that "Smash isn't a fighter, ergo we shouldn't treat it like a fighter", I was just explaining that stage control as an element of the gameplay in itself is much more important to the context of Smash than it is to other fighters. I'm all for considering Smash in the same context as traditional fighting games, though I will admit I'm a tad concerned about what forms we'd have to contort ourselves into in the Smash community to fit that criteria.

 

[WritersBlah]

Now, to the idea of Smash not being (or being intended to be) other fighting games. I agree with that statement. I wonder, though, why, despite the clear distinction, Smash still makes appearances at fighting game events, such as EVO. If we're so different and wish to emphasize and embrace that difference, why do we push to have a presence at a fighting game event? To compare to a similar question, should esports be streamed on ESPN (or even called esports at all) when they're so different from "sports" to begin with? How much do we want to conform to the idea of a "fighting game" versus how much do we just want to be Smash? And, if we just want to be Smash, should we be trying to fit Smash events into timeframes designed for regular fighting games? Do matches need to be short? Do we need to cull so many stages for randomness and interference when unintrusive stages are the exception instead of the rule? Basically, if we're not "other fighting games", why do we go half-in to trying to be like them?

This is a question that I feel can be best answered as pride versus control. Like it or not, competitive Smash as a whole is pretty niche. Niche compared to other fighting games, niche compared to video games as a whole, and extremely niche compared to sports in general. I think the main issue is that we, as a community, want recognition. We want Smash to eclipse all competitive sports. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that most of us have had that crazy fantasy of Smash being televised and having tons of adoring fans a la football/American football/basketball. We want that recognition, because deep down, we know how niche we are. We've all been part of that social outcast group in high school or college, and as we consolidate with our peers in adulthood, we (or at least I) always feel we have to hide part of ourselves in front of others because our passion isn't considered a "normal" activity. It's hard for most people to relate to, and because we're so invested in it, it becomes more of a desire for us to want Smash in the limelight.

By the same token however, we know even much larger eSports like League, Dota, CS:GO, COD and such, who all have much larger budgets and presences in the media are having trouble finding footing when it comes to hitting the mainstream. Fighting games are considered a niche within eSports, and Smash is even smaller. There's no game that's comparable to ours (PlayStation All-Stars not withstanding) so by default, we know we have to latch on to something larger if we hope to make it big. Unfortunately, the most general thing that is IS fighting games. That's why we push for stuff like EVO, we want that recognition, because unfortunately, I don't know how much success we could have with trying to clawi our way up to the top exclusively on Smash, because even Smash-centered events like CEO and APEX still have tournaments for Street Fighter and Marvel.

Now, as to whether we need to conform to the fighting game "mold" so to speak, in order to get a larger following, is a largely complex question. Do we really want to change ourselves that much just to have a shot at making it big? Or would we rather stay niche, where we have full control over the game we want to play? Unfortunately, I think the bigger anything gets, the more it has to fit a certain "mold." That goes for any sport, not just Smash. In the end, what do we really want?

 

[C0rvus]

The way we mitigate poor stages for different characters/match ups is by stage striking for game 1. We have a bunch of starter stages/neutral but none of them are perfect, that's not really possible. But, through stage striking, each player gets to eliminate the ones they don't want, in the end picking whichever stage both players agree on the most. After game 1, counter picking plays a big role in stage play; a mechanic unique to Smash, at least in its magnitude. I know stages matter a bit in Tekken/SoulCalibur since there is a size variance and the ability to get ring outs depending on the stage. The bottom line is that stages matter, but the rules are set up to make your sets play out in a fair manner.

 

[Raijinken]

The way we mitigate poor stages for different characters/match ups is by stage striking for game 1. We have a bunch of starter stages/neutral but none of them are perfect, that's not really possible. But, through stage striking, each player gets to eliminate the ones they don't want, in the end picking whichever stage both players agree on the most. After game 1, counter picking plays a big role in stage play; a mechanic unique to Smash, at least in its magnitude. I know stages matter a bit in Tekken/SoulCalibur since there is a size variance and the ability to get ring outs depending on the stage. The bottom line is that stages matter, but the rules are set up to make your sets play out in a fair manner.

While the counterpicking part of stage selection works pretty decently, there've been a lot of debates about the drawbacks of the starter/counterpick system. Disregarding player comfort (as well as arguments about why a stage should be legal game 2 but not game 1), let's take the Big Three stages, FD, Battlefield, and Smashville. Take a cherry-picked matchup like Sheik vs Robin (clearly Sheik's favor before any stage selection happens, some players think it's as bad as 90-10). Of those starting stages (doesn't matter who picks first), Final Destination is a terrible stage for Robin, and Battlefield is a good stage for Robin. Sheik will ban Battlefield because it's Robin's best bet, Robin will ban FD because it's his worst bet, and now the match goes to Sheik's best stage. An already-bad matchup is made essentially unwinnable (bar an exceptional skill gap). Of course, that's an extreme case, and if we said FD was the only legal stage, Robin wouldn't be much better off.

The more stages you add to the selectable list, the more likely you are to reach the "most fair" stage for a matchup assuming both players strike and pick perfectly for their character. Characters' preference for certain stages isn't something that can be removed since it was designed into the game. But I have a guess (or hope, rather) that the game would be more balanced on average if players weren't allowed that sort of input to essentially remove their opponent's viability (if stage was chosen before character I might feel differently). Final Destination probably isn't the right choice in that regard, but we really don't know because we don't have data from numerous instances of this sort of ruleset. The theories all point to FLSS allowing the most-fair matches on-average, but it's time consuming and, as evidenced by EVO, a lot of players would rather just agree to play a less favorable stage (especially if they aren't finely aware of stage impact) than go through the whole process. Unless, to pseudoquote AshKetchum, someone wants to be That Guy and strike Battlefield, FD, and Smashville just to screw people out of their comfort zone.

Basically, I'm interested in seeing if removal of that strategic process would in some way improve the balance between players of comparable gameplay skill (regardless of character choice) by removing player-induced bias or knowledge/ignorance.

 

[WritersBlah]

Unless, to pseudoquote AshKetchum, someone wants to be That Guy and strike Battlefield, FD, and Smashville just to screw people out of their comfort zone.

Just as an aside, could you link me to that post? It sounds like an interesting read. Excellent post on your end by the way.

 

[Raijinken]

Just as an aside, could you link me to that post? It sounds like an interesting read. Excellent post on your end by the way.

It was a statement during his EVO commentary. I probably shouldn't yet attribute it to AshKetchum, as I'm not 100% certain it was him and not someone else who said it, but if/when EVO matches are uploaded (or if already, whenever I get the chance to rewatch), I will attempt to find the particular occasion and link it for you.

 

[C0rvus]

While the counterpicking part of stage selection works pretty decently, there've been a lot of debates about the drawbacks of the starter/counterpick system. Disregarding player comfort (as well as arguments about why a stage should be legal game 2 but not game 1), let's take the Big Three stages, FD, Battlefield, and Smashville. Take a cherry-picked matchup like Sheik vs Robin (clearly Sheik's favor before any stage selection happens, some players think it's as bad as 90-10). Of those starting stages (doesn't matter who picks first), Final Destination is a terrible stage for Robin, and Battlefield is a good stage for Robin. Sheik will ban Battlefield because it's Robin's best bet, Robin will ban FD because it's his worst bet, and now the match goes to Sheik's best stage. An already-bad matchup is made essentially unwinnable (bar an exceptional skill gap). Of course, that's an extreme case, and if we said FD was the only legal stage, Robin wouldn't be much better off.

The more stages you add to the selectable list, the more likely you are to reach the "most fair" stage for a matchup assuming both players strike and pick perfectly for their character. Characters' preference for certain stages isn't something that can be removed since it was designed into the game. But I have a guess (or hope, rather) that the game would be more balanced on average if players weren't allowed that sort of input to essentially remove their opponent's viability (if stage was chosen before character I might feel differently). Final Destination probably isn't the right choice in that regard, but we really don't know because we don't have data from numerous instances of this sort of ruleset. The theories all point to FLSS allowing the most-fair matches on-average, but it's time consuming and, as evidenced by EVO, a lot of players would rather just agree to play a less favorable stage (especially if they aren't finely aware of stage impact) than go through the whole process. Unless, to pseudoquote AshKetchum, someone wants to be That Guy and strike Battlefield, FD, and Smashville just to screw people out of their comfort zone.

Basically, I'm interested in seeing if removal of that strategic process would in some way improve the balance between players of comparable gameplay skill (regardless of character choice) by removing player-induced bias or knowledge/ignorance.

Right, if we only have 3 starters, that example becomes an issue. That's why we need a bigger list of starter stages, and it needs to be an odd number. My current proposed stage list has Smashville, Final Destination, Battlefield/Miiverse, Dreamland 64, Town and City (for a 5 starter list), add Delfino Plaza and Lylat Cruise for a 7 stage list. Castle Siege, Halberd, and Kongo 64 round out the counterpicks. With this list, stage striking goes in a 2-2-1-1 order, I don't know how many bans will be needed for counterpicking (maybe 2 or 3). You could even add lesser-used stages to this list for a wider variety of counter-picks (Skyloft, Wuhu, Mario Circuit, Gamer? idk)

At least in the Robin vs Sheik example, Sheik could ban Battlefield and Dreamland, but then Robin can slash FD and Smashville to assure himself a non-terrible stage for this MU. Delfino, Town and City, and Lylat Cruise is a better selection. Lylat is pretty good for Robin, so Sheik may want to ban it. Likewise, the movement and places to run and hide in Delfino may give Sheik a better shot, so Robin would probably strike it. Town and City might be the most neutral stage for this MU, and most sets may end up starting here; or not, who knows?

 

[Raijinken]

Right, if we only have 3 starters, that example becomes an issue. That's why we need a bigger list of starter stages, and it needs to be an odd number. My current proposed stage list has Smashville, Final Destination, Battlefield/Miiverse, Dreamland 64, Town and City (for a 5 starter list), add Delfino Plaza and Lylat Cruise for a 7 stage list. Castle Siege, Halberd, and Kongo 64 round out the counterpicks. With this list, stage striking goes in a 2-2-1-1 order, I don't know how many bans will be needed for counterpicking (maybe 2 or 3). You could even add lesser-used stages to this list for a wider variety of counter-picks (Skyloft, Wuhu, Mario Circuit, Gamer? idk)

At least in the Robin vs Sheik example, Sheik could ban Battlefield and Dreamland, but then Robin can slash FD and Smashville to assure himself a non-terrible stage for this MU. Delfino, Town and City, and Lylat Cruise is a better selection. Lylat is pretty good for Robin, so Sheik may want to ban it. Likewise, the movement and places to run and hide in Delfino may give Sheik a better shot, so Robin would probably strike it. Town and City might be the most neutral stage for this MU, and most sets may end up starting here; or not, who knows?

A fair analysis. T&C's a lot less terrible for Robin than most of the others (I also agree with your striking logic), though the temporary FD-like phase still causes trouble. Fortunately we now have Dreamland (whenever it's widely adopted, I've admittedly only really watched EVO since Dreamland was released) to give platform-favored characters a bit more bargaining power.

That said, the counter-picks don't give Robin much to work with in that matchup in the event he wins round 1. Castle Siege phase 1 is okay for him, 2's statues block projectiles and let Sheik fair him into the wall, 3 is just tilty uneven FD. Halberd's ceiling is low, giving extra power to Sheik's vertical kill options, while the platform doesn't do much to help Robin. Sheik can run circles around Robin in Kongo 64 (and he can't Arcfire towards midstage since it won't hit the ground from most positions), though. If Robin still bans FD and T&C is banned by Dave's Stupid Rule, with 1 more ban Robin basically has to pick which of three bad situations to enter (same for 3 total bans instead of 2). And then, going into the final round, Dave's Stupid Rule still means he can't go back to T&C. With two bans, Sheik can pick which platform stage Robin gets (of Battlefield, Dreamland, and Lylat), with three, Robin's stuck in Sheik's territory again.

But we've delved pretty hard into this one particular matchup. There are certainly ways (especially with Dream Land) to help even out stage selection, should those methods be adopted.

I'm curious for some more opinions though. What characters truly suffer on Battlefield, bar Little Mac (since he basically suffers anywhere but FD)? There are characters who rely very heavily on that sort of platform presence for their general playstyle (Robin, Shulk, Marth, Pikachu, Brawler, etc), but, especially with regards to generally high-tier characters, are there any who would want to ban Battlefield for any reason aside from it facilitating another character's strengths more than their own? Referring back to the example, for instance, Sheik doesn't really have a reason to dislike Battlefield, it would (presumably) only be a ban because it's one of Robin's top picks. I could see Villager disliking it as it gives characters far more approach options (and a somewhat safer stagespike from my observation) against his wall, but even Sonic can make up for his reduced escape space with easier vertical kills.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

In regards to your last point, I think it's a matter of what gameplay characteristic we want. Having BF-only games (I'm honestly 109% for this and town and city) lends to a more reliable offense due to more approach options and ways to attack. I think that will be healthy for this game since FD is so one-dimensional. I think the game will step up in appeal once we get rid of FD honestly since platforms offer tons of gameplay correctness to smash games. Little Mac I don't think is entirely bashed there since on the lower platforms he can poke with UTtilt? And Uair. On the higher he can poke with Uair until his opponents are tired. Idk, but I just feel platforms are the only way to go.

 

[Raijinken]

In regards to your last point, I think it's a matter of what gameplay characteristic we want. Having BF-only games (I'm honestly 109% for this and town and city) lends to a more reliable offense due to more approach options and ways to attack. I think that will be healthy for this game since FD is so one-dimensional. I think the game will step up in appeal once we get rid of FD honestly since platforms offer tons of gameplay correctness to smash games. Little Mac I don't think is entirely bashed there since on the lower platforms he can poke with UTtilt? And Uair. On the higher he can poke with Uair until his opponents are tired. Idk, but I just feel platforms are the only way to go.

I believe Mac's usmash also goes through the platforms, though while I can't verify at this moment, I don't think utilt does (at least not by much). Even for Mac, there are extremely few characters who can effectively rack damage when not at his altitude, his problem lies in catching up if someone takes a lead and goes for a time-out (which a FG-esque ruleset would certainly make somewhat more standard). But I think it's a fairly safe statement that Battlefield doesn't result in matches nearly as polarized as Final Destination does.

 

[WakerofWinds]

I believe it was @ItalianBaptist who first made me realize an interesting point: Two stocks is effectively the standard best-of-three that most other fighting games default to in their gameplay settings at all skill levels (each stock is a round, first to lose twice loses).

I decided to run with this a bit, and realized (perhaps months late, I dunno how much of an observant genius some of you will undoubtably claim to be) that a maximum-length match of Bo3 with 99 seconds on the clock is 4.95 minutes, basically a 5 minute match. This is, as we're presumably all aware, the exact setup For Glory uses.

...

Basically, I'm wondering if it would actually be good for Smash, as a game and community trying to belong in the FGC, to actually use 2s/5m and a single stage (whether FD Random Omega, Battlefield, or other).

Arguably the main thing that sets aside Smash Bros from other fighters is the platforming element. If we wanted, we could take Battlefield as our one stage of play. This has huge implications for character matchups and balance, but all stages and selection processes influence that - it's impossible to remove from the equation (and frankly no one seems interested in adopting the "more balanced" stage selection approaches on a larger scale anyway due to the practice and selection time investments). If we did, should we use Battlefield, FD, or Random Omega?

Teams are another mostly-unique element in Smash. Should we go full Glory and remove team attack? Doing so removes a lot of silly strategies like G&W+Projectile, but opens up for a lot of other different forms of abuse. I'd be in favor of keeping team attack, but I'd be interested to read some analysis of the tradeoff.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it worth even trying to fight our entrenched grassroots mentality to give Sakurai's (and the rest of the FGC's) rules a real shot? Would it lead to greater acceptance of Smash as an actual competitive fighting game? Is it against the spirit of Smash to (do what its own designers chose to do in its online ranked mode) remove so much of what can and does make Smash unique?

I'm interested to see some constructive discussion on this.

It's (the thing about stock + time) pretty interesting. I realized the same thing just before EVO. Smash 4 is very much like KI in that way, and I think that's pretty great. Sure, 3 stocks is undeniably better for the players, but once I realized that the 2-stock, 5/6-minute format was very similar to other games, it no longer bothered me. I'm glad that other people have also come to this realization.

As for the stage thing, I disagree that we should limit it to one stage. As long as we're comparing ourselves to fighting games, let's talk about those. Specifically, let's talk about NRS games. Let's narrow it down even further and talk about Injustice. In case you didn't know: Injustice is a fighting game where stage selection matters just as much as character choice. Why? Interactibles. These are objects on the stage that you can interact with by pressing a single button. Pressing that button more-or-less gives you free damage on your opponent. They were extremely important to Injustice.

It gets more interesting than that. There are three types of characters in Injustice: Power, Tech, and Agile. Power characters can pick up interactibles and use them in that way, which basically destroys the interactible. Tech characters place bombs on the interactables, causing the bombs to explode. The way the bombs function differs based on whether the interactible was ground-based or in the air. Agile characters merely jump off of the interactibles and can use them to start an offensive.

I realize that my explanation is extremely minimal. You'd be better off looking up some Injustice videos (they were at Evo last year!) to see just how they work. As you can (hopefully) see, based on which type your character is, and what kinds of interactibles each stage has, stage choice is extremely important for Injustice. It's part of the flair that makes that game unique, even among NRS games.

And that's also what makes Smash unique. We have stages that matter. We have percent, not health, and you have to send your opponent into the blast zone rather than reducing their health to 0. We're not like other fighting games, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kaladin]

People would still gentleman's to smashville.


It sounds like you're writing from a why the hell not standpoint. However, I fail to see how this could be superior to the current ruleset. Sakurai "giving" us competitive rules should really be taken with a grain of salt, as should how other fighting games operate. So, tell me, why would this be better than what we have now?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Unless, to pseudoquote AshKetchum, someone wants to be That Guy and strike Battlefield, FD, and Smashville just to screw people out of their comfort zone.

I volunteer as tribute!

Also I think DeLux does this? Maybe I'm mistaken. But yes, striking a stage not for any advantage/disadvantage but instead to take away a comfort pick is something I can see being quite effective. One of the perks of having studied every stage in the game, I guess?

 

[Raijinken]

I volunteer as tribute!

Also I think DeLux does this? Maybe I'm mistaken. But yes, striking a stage not for any advantage/disadvantage but instead to take away a comfort pick is something I can see being quite effective. One of the perks of having studied every stage in the game, I guess?

I can relate. Call it "uncompetitive" or whatever you want (such a strategy is certainly enabled by our current rules, so I feel like decrying it is a bit of a scrub attitude), but I'd sooner go to a stage I'm less confident on if I know the odds of my opponent having ever played there are slim-to-none. It's a fun but different application of stage knowledge, and one that I'd admittedly miss about a single-stage ruleset.

 

[DeLux]

I volunteer as tribute!

Also I think DeLux does this? Maybe I'm mistaken. But yes, striking a stage not for any advantage/disadvantage but instead to take away a comfort pick is something I can see being quite effective. One of the perks of having studied every stage in the game, I guess?

Funnily enough, I'm generally the the type of person that says to most opponents that we can go to whatever stage they want for thee first game and use zero bans out of the four allotted during the CP phase.

But if my opponent is a **** then I'll make sure we end up on something none of us want

 

[Big-Cat]

I've always been fine with two stocks, five minutes. The stage selection issue is iffy but in an ironic sense. 90% of matches I see on stream are on Smashville despite there being more stages. Might as well make Smashville the only one legal then.

 

[T0MMY]

Basically, I'm wondering if it would actually be good for Smash, as a game and community trying to belong in the FGC, to actually use 2s/5m and a single stage (whether FD Random Omega, Battlefield, or other).

It would be good for competition, but bad for community backlash.
Basically if everyone put aside their differences and agreed to this we'd have a much better image and I think more opportunities to grow due to improved relations.
But this doesn't seem likely at all in reality, 'cuz complaining is so prevalent, which really doesn't do much good for us as a whole.

Arguably the main thing that sets aside Smash Bros from other fighters is the platforming element.

Disagree, I think there are so many elements of this game that sets it apart from the plethora of fighting games that I would not take that proclamation at face value.

If we wanted, we could take Battlefield as our one stage of play.

At this point you've deviated from the For Glory rules and created amatter for debate - and thus ushering in the complaining instead of the doing.

Teams are another mostly-unique element in Smash. Should we go full Glory and remove team attack?

As much as I could be OK with a For Glory ruleset I would NOT want to support a For Glory teams ruleset. Why? Because the 2-min Team Attack OFF setting is degenerative in nature, there's just too much that would come about that would ultimately kill the scene, imo. Additionally it is understood that Team Attack ON open up obvious depth and enriches competition (saving teammates from being KO'd, setups, and even waking up Jigglypuff after a Rest).

What are your thoughts on this? Is it worth even trying to fight our entrenched grassroots mentality to give Sakurai's (and the rest of the FGC's) rules a real shot?

I would say it is worth it, but I'd question the pragmatism. Would it actually happen or would we have juvenile attempts to quash it just because a lot of people entitlement-minded people wouldn't get what they want and would rather destroy the scene than have others playing their own way?
I saw it with Customs and how much people were willing to destroy the scene rather than compromise.

I think it's a very interesting (and, post-EVO context, timely) insight and I thank you for sharing it with us. My core reservation with the premise is that limiting the stage selection to a static choice would be severely crippling for a number of characters, not to mention compromise the diversity that Smash is renowned for.

Doesn't seem to be the case on For Glory.
Little Mac being the most obvious matter of fact, he is not being over-centralized, so why the speculation on this?
In fact, I think the online lag is more of a factor for which characters are being used than the single Stage issue.

The other question is why there is so much stress on trying to balance the characters by allowing for more and more Stage "variety" in hopes of randomly having it miraculously work.
If characters are bad on certain Stages then don't use them when your opponent CPs there or when stage strikes dictate that a certain group of characters would be your best bet to win then use them. Why Little Mac, Robin, or Sheik are attempted to be used as argument makes little sense to me, competitively.

Basically, I'm interested in seeing if removal of that strategic process would in some way improve the balance between players of comparable gameplay skill (regardless of character choice) by removing player-induced bias or knowledge/ignorance.

Didn't seem to work last time it was attempted (Meta Knight).

 

[Raijinken]

People would still gentleman's to smashville.

It sounds like you're writing from a why the hell not standpoint. However, I fail to see how this could be superior to the current ruleset. Sakurai "giving" us competitive rules should really be taken with a grain of salt, as should how other fighting games operate. So, tell me, why would this be better than what we have now?

That's what I want input on.

The (essentially) objective benefits I see are:

• Tournaments run faster.
  • Even the time it takes for someone to gentleman's to Smashville (which, obviously, the gentleman's rule has no place in a single-stage ruleset) is longer than it takes to tell the game to automatically Random you to a single stage.
  • Shorter time means that any timeout is a minute shorter than any timeout under common current rules.
• Tournament practice becomes simpler with the removal of stage strategy/knowledge (aside from whichever becomes legal, or for the few tricks between Omegas).

The points that are far more contentious (again, in my opinion) are:

• Time-out becomes a more viable strategy
  • But much of the Smash community hates timeouts.
• Picking which stage to use is little better than current arguments over which stages to use.
• Stage is ultimately vastly reduced or removed as a variable.
  • Easier to practice a single stage than a legal stagelist
  • Removes the meta-game advantage offered by stage knowledge or picking strategy (when utilized properly)
  • Reduces the already low thematic diversity (an issue of series image rather than competition).
  • Regardless of which stage is used, certain characters will be benefit more than others.
    • Though this trait is shared with the current ruleset.
• Customs are (as of writing this) disallowed.
  • Miis have no logistical reason to be, and some including myself think it fair to assume their current online ban is due to Hitler and genitalia.

I can think of no objective drawbacks to this system over the other, but of course, I'm biased because I suggested it entirely because I'm not satisfied with the current one.

It would be good for competition, but bad for community backlash.
Basically if everyone put aside their differences and agreed to this we'd have a much better image and I think more opportunities to grow due to improved relations.
But this doesn't seem likely at all in reality, 'cuz complaining is so prevalent, which really doesn't do much good for us as a whole.


Disagree, I think there are so many elements of this game that sets it apart from the plethora of fighting games that I would not take that proclamation at face value.


At this point you've deviated from the For Glory rules and created amatter for debate - and thus ushering in the complaining instead of the doing.


As much as I could be OK with a For Glory ruleset I would NOT want to support a For Glory teams ruleset. Why? Because the 2-min Team Attack OFF setting is degenerative in nature, there's just too much that would come about that would ultimately kill the scene, imo. Additionally it is understood that Team Attack ON open up obvious depth and enriches competition (saving teammates from being KO'd, setups, and even waking up Jigglypuff after a Rest).


I would say it is worth it, but I'd question the pragmatism. Would it actually happen or would we have juvenile attempts to quash it just because a lot of people entitlement-minded people wouldn't get what they want and would rather destroy the scene than have others playing their own way?
I saw it with Customs and how much people were willing to destroy the scene rather than compromise.



Doesn't seem to be the case on For Glory.
Little Mac being the most obvious matter of fact, he is not being over-centralized, so why the speculation on this?
In fact, I think the online lag is more of a factor for which characters are being used than the single Stage issue.

The other question is why there is so much stress on trying to balance the characters by allowing for more and more Stage "variety" in hopes of randomly having it miraculously work.
If characters are bad on certain Stages then don't use them when your opponent CPs there or when stage strikes dictate that a certain group of characters would be your best bet to win then use them. Why Little Mac, Robin, or Sheik are attempted to be used as argument makes little sense to me, competitively.


Didn't seem to work last time it was attempted (Meta Knight).

Thanks for the input. You've helped me realize some points I didn't word well at all, and I like a lot of your points on this subject.

I did not, in its literal form, mean to take the precise For Glory ruleset. For Glory includes a character ban (Miis) that seems unnecessary when you consider that equipment is banned (and a tournament setting is less likely to care about Hitler or genitalia since, from a standardization perspective, single-size Miis, probably guest-sized, are all that I could see being included in this ruleset).

As you mention, and as I forgot when writing the post, FG doubles sucks. I would instead suggest it follow the exact same rules as singles, save with two characters on the field. While Friendly Fire is off in For Glory, it's one of those cases that the Smash community has essentially universally decided is for the better of doubles. However, that would necessitate a more, shall we say, competitive view of Game&Watch's inevitably-discovered nonsense, or perhaps a general agreement to ban any doubles team which becomes as centralizing as G&W+Pikachu once did.

As for stage, at its root level, I meant "just one stage," and not "Final Destination, but now that I think about it maybe Battlefield is better?" But you're right, any amount of stage discussion creates debate, including discussion over whether to use Random Omega or just FD. Between the two, I'd prefer Random Omega, but perhaps even such small differences (probably a bit more impactful than the Smashville Balloon but not as impactful as Wispy, to my experience) would be cause to restrict it to Final Destination alone.

I have no doubt people are more willing to crush the scene than compromise, but frankly, I see the current situation as exactly the same.

And lastly, character tier is, like you mention, unhelpable from this stance. My hope is that balance patches and general meta progression can, together, prevent the tier list from approaching any past game's narrowness with respect to viability. As such, essentially learning to deal with character supremacy competitively while being on-guard for patches that may drastically impact it seems, to me, like the most "competitive" approach.

 

[Wintropy]

Doesn't seem to be the case on For Glory.
Little Mac being the most obvious matter of fact, he is not being over-centralized, so why the speculation on this?
In fact, I think the online lag is more of a factor for which characters are being used than the single Stage issue.

The other question is why there is so much stress on trying to balance the characters by allowing for more and more Stage "variety" in hopes of randomly having it miraculously work.
If characters are bad on certain Stages then don't use them when your opponent CPs there or when stage strikes dictate that a certain group of characters would be your best bet to win then use them. Why Little Mac, Robin, or Sheik are attempted to be used as argument makes little sense to me, competitively.

I...don't know what you're implying here? I don't recall saying that a single stage would necessarily lead to an influx of characters who find that stage advantageous, any more so than I think it would make it a truly unfair advantage for that character. I don't think a For Glory-style ruleset would suddenly mean Little Mac would emerge as top-tier, if that's what you're inferring from my comment (I'm exaggerating here, but reductio ad absurdum satire aside, I wasn't implying it would skew the meta in any massive way).

I also didn't say, or at least intend to imply, anything about characters being balanced by stages. My concern is just that a single-stage meta would be inherently less technically complex than a multi-stage meta and that would ensure a natural advantage to certain characters, with a natural disadvantage for others. I don't think it's a huge deal, much less that it would fundamentally rupture the entire paradigm of our current meta, just that there are multiple stages in Smash for a reason (it's a platform fighter, the platform aspect can't just be eliminated without necessary repercussions), worth bearing in mind when advocating a singe-stage meta. A single-stage meta would ensure it's impossible to counterpick characters for stages because there are no stages to work with: you either adapt to Final Destination or you pick another character. That's my concern. That's it. No more, no less.

 

[Raijinken]

I...don't know what you're implying here? I don't recall saying that a single stage would necessarily lead to an influx of characters who find that stage advantageous, any more so than I think it would make it a truly unfair advantage for that character. I don't think a For Glory-style ruleset would suddenly mean Little Mac would emerge as top-tier, if that's what you're inferring from my comment (I'm exaggerating here, but reductio ad absurdum satire aside, I wasn't implying it would skew the meta in any massive way).

I also didn't say, or at least intend to imply, anything about characters being balanced by stages. My concern is just that a single-stage meta would be inherently less technically complex than a multi-stage meta and that would ensure a natural advantage to certain characters, with a natural disadvantage for others. I don't think it's a huge deal, much less that it would fundamentally rupture the entire paradigm of our current meta, just that there are multiple stages in Smash for a reason (it's a platform fighter, the platform aspect can't just be eliminated without necessary repercussions), worth bearing in mind when advocating a singe-stage meta. A single-stage meta would ensure it's impossible to counterpick characters for stages because there are no stages to work with: you either adapt to Final Destination or you pick another character. That's my concern. That's it. No more, no less.

I think his interpretation was generally fair - we spent a good bit discussing how screwed Robin is by Sheik in general, or by FD, or by our current stage selection process. But then again, from a competitive standpoint, which is his general stance, it is basically a willful choice to pick a sub-par character when competing. We either stick to them and develop their meta with all its shortcomings, or swap to whoever we think gives us the most reliable wins.

 

[Wintropy]

I think his interpretation was generally fair - we spent a good bit discussing how screwed Robin is by Sheik in general, or by FD, or by our current stage selection process. But then again, from a competitive standpoint, which is his general stance, it is basically a willful choice to pick a sub-par character when competing. We either stick to them and develop their meta with all its shortcomings, or swap to whoever we think gives us the most reliable wins.

Yeah, in hindsight, I realise I may have come off a bit strong on that front. It wasn't really my intention or my implication to suggest that stage choice is that important, but it's kinda hard to climb off your soapbox when you've already gotten atop it~ ;3

I am curious, though, to what extent do you think these proposed rules would (theoretically) mitigate Smash's time concerns? Would it help the overall process run more quickly and efficiently if we could just streamline the stage selection process to any distinct degree?

 

[Kaladin]

That's what I want input on.

The (essentially) objective benefits I see are:

• Tournaments run faster. Tournaments would also run faster on one minute FFA, random stage, Sudden Death tie breaker. Competitiveness should not be sacrificed for speed.
  • Even the time it takes for someone to gentleman's to Smashville (which, obviously, the gentleman's rule has no place in a single-stage ruleset) is longer than it takes to tell the game to automatically Random you to a single stage.
  • Shorter time means that any timeout is a minute shorter than any timeout under common current rules.
• Tournament practice becomes simpler with the removal of stage strategy/knowledge (aside from whichever becomes legal, or for the few tricks between Omegas). Again, banning all characters but Falcon would make practicing a lot easier, as well as increase viewer satisfaction. Part of smash is learning to play with the diversity of both characters and stages. This seems like something worth considering, but absolutely not a deciding factor.

The points that are far more contentious (again, in my opinion) are:

• Time-out becomes a more viable strategy
  • But much of the Smash community hates timeouts. Hey, we let Villager, Sonic, etc play. We shouldn't decide the future of the meta based off of immature ResidentSleeper spammers in stream chat.
• Picking which stage to use is little better than current arguments over which stages to use. Why? I disagree. It just raises the stakes of the argument.
• Stage is ultimately vastly reduced or removed as a variable.
  • Easier to practice a single stage than a legal stage list Already talked about this
  • Removes the meta-game advantage offered by stage knowledge or picking strategy (when utilized properly)
  • Reduces the already low thematic diversity (an issue of series image rather than competition).
  • Regardless of which stage is used, certain characters will be benefit more than others.
    • Though this trait is shared with the current ruleset. Exactly. In any given matchup, any given stage will grant advantage to one character over another (excluding dittos). Now, to reduce the stage list to a single stage would make matchups objectively more polarized. A character will always get that advantage, essentially making MU ratios more extreme no matter what. I think this is an objective disadvantage compared to the current set: less polarized MUs: basically, your proposal makes the game less balanced and more brawl-like.
• Customs are (as of writing this) disallowed.
  • Miis have no logistical reason to be, and some including myself think it fair to assume their current online ban is due to Hitler and genitalia. No argument there.

I can think of no objective drawbacks to this system over the other, but of course, I'm biased because I suggested it entirely because I'm not satisfied with the current one.

I added my thoughts above.

 

[Raijinken]

Yeah, in hindsight, I realise I may have come off a bit strong on that front. It wasn't really my intention or my implication to suggest that stage choice is that important, but it's kinda hard to climb off your soapbox when you've already gotten atop it~ ;3

I am curious, though, to what extent do you think these proposed rules would (theoretically) mitigate Smash's time concerns? Would it help the overall process run more quickly and efficiently if we could just streamline the stage selection process to any distinct degree?

A lot of that depends on how you consider or define Smash's time consuming processes in a tournament. It's got a LOT of variables, which I'll go through my views on.

Coaching takes time. On one hand, it's a pretty standard process in many competitions. On the other hand, I personally feel like once you're on the stage (or at the screen), you should be on your own. It's not addressed in my suggestion, but it's a time-taker.
Stage selection is one of the most variable time-takers. It ranges from "Smashville?" "Sure!" to a full striking or banning process. FLSS takes even longer for the tradeoff of theoretically improved stage picking with respect to reaching matchup neutrality, which is hard to gather data for when, as said (and not really mockingly) most people will just gentleman's Smashville anyway. In that respect, single-stage saves anywhere from a second to perhaps a (worst-case) minute or so per round.
Character selection (and by extension, moveset selection) are pretty quick most of the time, especially if a blind pick is called. I think when watching EVO the longest character pick I saw was Ally very slowly deciding he wanted to stake a match on Marth for some reason. By contrast, many (or at least, a portion of vocal) players play just a character or two, significantly shortening the character selection time. It's also hard to separate that time from coaching.
The last thing is actual match time. It's been discussed elsewhere, but moving the time-out line closer makes it more likely for that resolution to be chosen. However, I think it's impossible to say (based on statistics) whether or not the increase in matches going to the now-maximum 5-minute time would be better or worse than a fewer number going to a 20% longer time. I am only familiar or skilled at statistics at a basic college level, but my guess is that the net effect would be approximately negligible on over-all match length, on average. I am probably wrong, but I don't think it's provable beyond theory without numbers we simply don't have. This assumes we keep the current tiebreaker system instead of adopting Sudden Death, which could add any amount of time to a match.
The number of matches in a set could also be affected by the change in stock and time, depending on certain matchups. On the whole, though, I don't think the "ease" with which a weaker player could force a game three (which wouldn't offer them or their opponent any sort of stage swapping advantage here) would result in a higher average match count.

Basically, I'm inclined to think that the time saved on picking stages would amount to a minute per set on average (even at EVO people took their time thinking on stages), and I do not think this minute would be offset by other factors. A minute per set adds up over larger events, it then becomes up to the TO to run the event well enough to not waste the saved time (keeping players with imminent matches out of friendlies and nearby, smart player assignment to avoid having to re-setup custom control schemes, etc).

Tournaments would also run faster on one minute FFA, random stage, Sudden Death tie breaker. Competitiveness should not be sacrificed for speed.
Again, banning all characters but Falcon would make practicing a lot easier, as well as increase viewer satisfaction. Part of smash is learning to play with the diversity of both characters and stages. This seems like something worth considering, but absolutely not a deciding factor.
Hey, we let Villager, Sonic, etc play. We shouldn't decide the future of the meta based off of immature ResidentSleeper spammers in stream chat.
Why? I disagree. It just raises the stakes of the argument.
Exactly. In any given matchup, any given stage will grant advantage to one character over another (excluding dittos). Now, to reduce the stage list to a single stage would make matchups objectively more polarized. A character will always get that advantage, essentially making MU ratios more extreme no matter what. I think this is an objective disadvantage compared to the current set: less polarized MUs: basically, your proposal makes the game less balanced and more brawl-like.

I'll answer these a line at a time.
1 and 2) I absolutely agree. However, part of determining whether we're sacrificing competitiveness or not depends on how we consider what goes into competitive Smash. Stage selection is, ultimately, a meta-game choice (in the game theory sense, which is to say, you do not select your stage while you are fighting your opponent). Thus, we have to decide whether or not stage selection adds "competitiveness," or merely variety.

3) I agree. I simply state a perceived state of the playerbase.

4) You're right, but given the relatively low-stakes of stock/time arguments and customs/non arguments, I am inclined to agree with the fear of people breaking the community in order to avoid a ruleset that doesn't favor their character.

5) This already happens in our Smashville meta due to player ignorance (it is considered Sheik's best stage). All stagelists will have matchup bias (as my previous harping on Robin vs Sheik illustrates), and reducing it to a single stage does not change how polar any given matchup is on that stage, but which polar matchups become (or are able to become) relevant. A Smashville-focused meta creates just as many Sheik-polar matchups as a Final Destination-only meta creates Little Mac-polar matchups. However, lacking data (and referring to T0mmy's statement about it likely being lag, not stage, that influences popularity in For Glory), I don't think we can decisively claim the overall balance becomes worse while our over-all game and meta knowledge is still developing.

 

[Wintropy]

Well, anecdotal input, the tournament I went to a few weeks ago was scheduled to last two hours (it was a small tournament and we were confident we could run it quickly and simply).

Even when we split up the Winner's and Loser's Brackets between two television sets (again, it was a small tournament with a minute budget), it ended up taking five hours.

I can honestly appreciate why other FGC players would feel burdened by Smash's relatively expansive commitment. An average of a minute a set would definitely make a distinct difference in the long run.

Obviously, of course, there's a marked contrast between theory and practice. The question I have to ask is, would anybody be willing to test the waters with this proposed ruleset, just to quantify if it would really work in effect?

 

[Raijinken]

Well, anecdotal input, the tournament I went to a few weeks ago was scheduled to last two hours (it was a small tournament and we were confident we could run it quickly and simply).

Even when we split up the Winner's and Loser's Brackets between two television sets (again, it was a small tournament with a minute budget), it ended up taking five hours.

I can honestly appreciate why other FGC players would feel burdened by Smash's relatively expansive commitment. An average of a minute a set would definitely make a distinct difference in the long run.

Obviously, of course, there's a marked contrast between theory and practice. The question I have to ask is, would anybody be willing to test the waters with this proposed ruleset, just to quantify if it would really work in effect?

I would, but it would be on my relatively casual friends. Like any theory, it takes far larger tests on varied groups of people to determine not only the actual effectiveness, but the reception to the changes.

Just for some number theory, though, my numberguesses would basically save an hour on a 16-person double elimination tournament from stage selection alone.

 

[Wintropy]

I would, but it would be on my relatively casual friends. Like any theory, it takes far larger tests on varied groups of people to determine not only the actual effectiveness, but the reception to the changes.

Just for some number theory, though, my numberguesses would basically save an hour on a 16-person double elimination tournament from stage selection alone.

Oh yeah, I mean, when I said "anybody", I was asking rhetorically if TOs would actually feel compelled to try this out for however long it would take to accrue verifiable results?

Kind of a big ask, especially since Smash fans tend to feel more comfortable with their most familiar ruleset over a new, totally theoretical, untested, guinea pig set. I'd definitely be keen to see results, of course - even just to say, "We did it, we know how valid an idea this is."

 

[Kaladin]

A lot of that depends on how you consider or define Smash's time consuming processes in a tournament. It's got a LOT of variables, which I'll go through my views on.

Coaching takes time. On one hand, it's a pretty standard process in many competitions. On the other hand, I personally feel like once you're on the stage (or at the screen), you should be on your own. It's not addressed in my suggestion, but it's a time-taker.
Stage selection is one of the most variable time-takers. It ranges from "Smashville?" "Sure!" to a full striking or banning process. FLSS takes even longer for the tradeoff of theoretically improved stage picking with respect to reaching matchup neutrality, which is hard to gather data for when, as said (and not really mockingly) most people will just gentleman's Smashville anyway. In that respect, single-stage saves anywhere from a second to perhaps a (worst-case) minute or so per round.
Character selection (and by extension, moveset selection) are pretty quick most of the time, especially if a blind pick is called. I think when watching EVO the longest character pick I saw was Ally very slowly deciding he wanted to stake a match on Marth for some reason. By contrast, many (or at least, a portion of vocal) players play just a character or two, significantly shortening the character selection time. It's also hard to separate that time from coaching.
The last thing is actual match time. It's been discussed elsewhere, but moving the time-out line closer makes it more likely for that resolution to be chosen. However, I think it's impossible to say (based on statistics) whether or not the increase in matches going to the now-maximum 5-minute time would be better or worse than a fewer number going to a 20% longer time. I am only familiar or skilled at statistics at a basic college level, but my guess is that the net effect would be approximately negligible on over-all match length, on average. I am probably wrong, but I don't think it's provable beyond theory without numbers we simply don't have. This assumes we keep the current tiebreaker system instead of adopting Sudden Death, which could add any amount of time to a match.
The number of matches in a set could also be affected by the change in stock and time, depending on certain matchups. On the whole, though, I don't think the "ease" with which a weaker player could force a game three (which wouldn't offer them or their opponent any sort of stage swapping advantage here) would result in a higher average match count.

Basically, I'm inclined to think that the time saved on picking stages would amount to a minute per set on average (even at EVO people took their time thinking on stages), and I do not think this minute would be offset by other factors. A minute per set adds up over larger events, it then becomes up to the TO to run the event well enough to not waste the saved time (keeping players with imminent matches out of friendlies and nearby, smart player assignment to avoid having to re-setup custom control schemes, etc).


I'll answer these a line at a time.
1 and 2) I absolutely agree. However, part of determining whether we're sacrificing competitiveness or not depends on how we consider what goes into competitive Smash. Stage selection is, ultimately, a meta-game choice (in the game theory sense, which is to say, you do not select your stage while you are fighting your opponent). Thus, we have to decide whether or not stage selection adds "competitiveness," or merely variety.

3) I agree. I simply state a perceived state of the playerbase.

4) You're right, but given the relatively low-stakes of stock/time arguments and customs/non arguments, I am inclined to agree with the fear of people breaking the community in order to avoid a ruleset that doesn't favor their character.

5) This already happens in our Smashville meta due to player ignorance (it is considered Sheik's best stage). All stagelists will have matchup bias (as my previous harping on Robin vs Sheik illustrates), and reducing it to a single stage does not change how polar any given matchup is on that stage, but which polar matchups become (or are able to become) relevant. A Smashville-focused meta creates just as many Sheik-polar matchups as a Final Destination-only meta creates Little Mac-polar matchups. However, lacking data (and referring to T0mmy's statement about it likely being lag, not stage, that influences popularity in For Glory), I don't think we can decisively claim the overall balance becomes worse while our over-all game and meta knowledge is still developing.

Regarding the last point: you are absolutely correct about our smashville centered meta. The difference between that and a ruleset mandating smashville is that an enforced ruleset objectively buffs sheik, whereas a bunch of ignorant players always going to smashville may have the same effect, that effect is the fault of the players, not the rules. Thus, a single-stage mandate essentially forces the polarized match ups/unbalancing of the game, and that is the primary issue I have with your proposal.

 

[Charey]

People just going Smashville is a direct result of Brawl/Early Smash4 tournaments going to 3 starter list, with that list SV is the ONLY option if one of the two characters prefers a flatter stage. The platform lover needs to strike FD and the platform hater must strike BF leaving SV. Then people started repeating the false idea that SV was preferred because it's the "Most neutral."

Smashville is Shiek's best stage as most people know, but players will be idiots and CP sheik to SV anyways. As a Charizard player I will state that Smashville is his worst stage by a fairly wide margin by combing the things he doesn't like about platforms(combo extenders) with taking away his main use platforms(trapping an opponent above him) making this idea a huge Nerf to Zard because some players are bad at stage selection.

FLSS lets players strike to a stage that is actually neutral. We don't make rulesets to cater to lazy players making bad choices, anymore then we would try to make a rule about forcing Fox players to multi-shine. Making the pre-game faster by only a few frames is no reason to make the game worse by eliminating one of the key things that makes smash a unique game.

 

[Shouxiao]

I do not think For Glory rules shall help. As far as stages go I think Battlefield is actually the most neutral stage. Now I am aware that certain characters prefer having platforms on Battlefield and some would prefer a flat stage like the Omegas.

The question even if we do For Glory rules would things truly change or get better. People would simply debate about which Omegas to use. Some have grass and others do not and that can affect movement due to traction. The big thing however would be stages that characters can go under or stages that characters can wall jump or cling. That greatly effects edgeguarding and recovery. For characters that can go under stages that is a possible option for them to get out of a bad spot.

Do with simply stick to using Final Destination or do we make the Omegas various categories and have them be starters. Some Omegas basically = Final Destination and might as well be a stage pallet swap. Others have walls and or grass.

 

[Pazx]

So I don't play online, but apparently Tourney Mode is 1 stock 3 minutes. I'm not sure how stages work, but this is clearly the dev's "ultra competitive" mode rather than FG. Does this affect your argument at all?

 

[Baby_Sneak]

So I don't play online, but apparently Tourney Mode is 1 stock 3 minutes. I'm not sure how stages work, but this is clearly the dev's "ultra competitive" mode rather than FG. Does this affect your argument at all?

It's actually 2 stock 3 minutes. Not that it makes it any better however

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It's actually 2 stock 3 minutes. Not that it makes it any better however

I'd bet money it's to ensure that tourney matches can all fit in the 3 minute YouTube limit.

 

[Raijinken]

So I don't play online, but apparently Tourney Mode is 1 stock 3 minutes. I'm not sure how stages work, but this is clearly the dev's "ultra competitive" mode rather than FG. Does this affect your argument at all?

It confuses me, for sure. But it doesn't make me any less curious about the effect of simplifying the ruleset. To what extent, I guess, becomes the new question to me. And as ParanoidDrone mentioned, there could be other reasons for the limit.

There are a lot of things with For Glory (or Tournament Mode) that have some theory to speculate at behind them (like if Miis are banned for any reason besides potential obscenity, and if 3-minutes is an upload-enabling limit or intended for competition, and if Friendly Fire and Sudden Death should be tweaked, etc). I'd be interested in seeing some stated views on those sorts of questions as well.

Edit: Tournament Mode seems to have varying rules. Some of the standard elimination tournaments I tested were 2s5m.