Is there a consensus on the rules for stage selection yet?

[Omegaphoenix]

It's still an element of pure randomness that could be controlled. Stages play a role in Smash, whether we like it or not, and generally competitive rule sets are designed to reduce most elements of random chance that could affect gameplay in a negative manner. Every character has stages they benefit from, and some that benefit other characters more. Say you randomed against a Little Mac player, and you got 3 straight rounds of FD. Unlikely, yes, and a strong example but it could happen, and that's why random shouldn't be used

 

[LiteralGrill]

When Little Mac gets FD against my characters that need platforms or vice versa and pretty much decides the match for me I would be asking to turn random off as well.

 

[digiholic]

Okay, so, I came into this thread fully in support of the picking/counter-picking system, in fact, I never even considered not using it, but I've been convinced. I really think a single stage list, and a large one at that, are what Smash 4 needs to develop into a competitive game. With little in terms of combos and offensive advantage, the game could become a lot more of a positional zone control game, but only if we allow the stages to be more important than the current system allows.

 

[Pyr]

Yeah no... look at APEX 2013 finals where there are sometimes 10 minutes between each match because people are taking that long to decide on their bans and counters.

Because 1 instance of indecisiveness and other factors (rewatch it) invalidates the 99% of other cases where it takes 30 seconds.

Please see Evo 2014 as for why it takes almost no time at all. Just the entirety of Evo.

Also, this:

It's still an element of pure randomness that could be controlled. Stages play a role in Smash, whether we like it or not, and generally competitive rule sets are designed to reduce most elements of random chance that could affect gameplay in a negative manner. Every character has stages they benefit from, and some that benefit other characters more. Say you randomed against a Little Mac player, and you got 3 straight rounds of FD. Unlikely, yes, and a strong example but it could happen, and that's why random shouldn't be used

 

[Pyr]

Edit: Accidental double

 

[Funen1]

I would also be in favor of Amazing Ampharos making another thread discussing stage striking. I don't know exactly how much room there'd be to discuss alternate methods on top of that, but his explanations in this thread were quite clear. I was part of the competitive community back in 2009 (potentially getting back into it once 2015 rolls around), and I am familiar with the starter/counterpick system, but even back then I noticed just how much stages that weren't labeled as "starters" were neglected in tournament settings. So much so, in fact, that some people expressed, and continue to express, what seemed to me as knee-jerk reactions and sentiments about certain counterpicks, even "fairer" stages like Halberd or Lylat Cruise. If there would be room for AA to branch from the stage striking concept in general to a system fully designed around it and discussing the advantages it would have over other systems, that would help get some of this information out there.

 

[digiholic]

So, here's an idea, I'm just throwing out there.

Suppose we use striking to pick the first stage from a list of all legal stages (including some of the almost bad but not quite stages like Norfair) and for each subsequent round, the loser picks four stages, the winner vetoes two of them, and the loser picks one of the remaining two. There's still a lot of metagaming going on there, as well as a lot of counterpick strategy. It doesn't particularly solve the issue of being complicated, but it does solve the issue of a tiny stage list. I'm not expecting this to be the perfect setup, just a quick idea I thought of.

 

[Pyr]

So, here's an idea, I'm just throwing out there.

Suppose we use striking to pick the first stage from a list of all legal stages (including some of the almost bad but not quite stages like Norfair) and for each subsequent round, the loser picks four stages, the winner vetoes two of them, and the loser picks one of the remaining two. There's still a lot of metagaming going on there, as well as a lot of counterpick strategy. It doesn't particularly solve the issue of being complicated, but it does solve the issue of a tiny stage list. I'm not expecting this to be the perfect setup, just a quick idea I thought of.

Why would that do anything to the number of stages in the available stage list?

 

[digiholic]

It solves the problem of half the legal stages being unavailable in the first round, and the loser needing to pick four stages during the later rounds would mean that they would be more likely to pick oddball stages. This needs to be paired with a much more liberal approach to stage banning, though, to allow for some of the more dangerous stages to be available.

I don't think it's a perfect system, I just thought it would be a fun experiment.

 

[Pyr]

It solves the problem of half the legal stages being unavailable in the first round, and the loser needing to pick four stages during the later rounds would mean that they would be more likely to pick oddball stages. This needs to be paired with a much more liberal approach to stage banning, though, to allow for some of the more dangerous stages to be available.

I don't think it's a perfect system, I just thought it would be a fun experiment.

Those half of the stages unavailable at the start are that way for a rather good reason. In the past, when this was tried, people striked to a neutral most of the time. The fear of the opponent getting an advantage usually outweighed the want of having an advantage. When that happens to both at the same time... We hit a starter.

For the second half, if you pick 4, you'll want to pick 4 your character can't do poorly on. If your opponent can strike 2, they strike the ones that offer the worst time for their character. Oddball stages that are actually allowed will likely be those 2. Will we see less neutrals? It's up to the person who picks the 4. They'd have to pick 3 oddball stages at least to get even 1. At least with the system we currently have, if they want an oddball stage, they're going to get 1 that benefits them.

Playing a stage because it's underplayed isn't really the best option in the end for the same reason a character that is underplayed doesn't get played: People aren't interested in it. Those same people, when not forced to, simply won't play it.

Your suggestion is a change to a system that already works and has been proven for over a decade. If it allowed for a stronger tactical benefit or saved some time or something, then it'd be a nice one. Fact is, though, it's an idea created for the wrong reasons and looks to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. In tournament play, people play on the same 5 stages not because they don't want to or can't play on anything else. They CHOSE to, save for the first game. Again, if you want an oddball stage, you can pick one after a loss, just like they choose starters most the time.

 

[<π]

I'm so happy people don't take this approach to game play. "Fox is great as is... no need to innovate or try anything different he has been working for YEARS!"

Competitive people don't think like that.
Neutral stages are dumb. There is no nuetral stage especially not for a cast of over 50 characters. This mindset creates a play space where characters who have an advantage on the 1 or 3 or 5 (often times) extremely similar stages get a huge advantage game one (the most important match, who ever wins this will be guaranteed at least a second choice of stage). Spacies particularly falco are a great example of this, they control horizontal space so well with lazers and can always control the pace of the match with thier great lateral movement options and that powerful projectile.
Compare that to say... (for the sake of the argument lets pretend I know what I'm talking about) Toon Link who may has great vertical coverage with his disjointed hit boxes and angular cover with bombs and boomeranges. He can't keep up with fox and falcon presure on battle field or FD nearly as well as he could on say... defino or town and country. where fox and falco don't get that extreme zone control advantage.

So what exactly does a full stage list striking system do? Well it gives both players an option to find a stage for game 1 that is the most neutral!

TLink doesn't want to go FD or Battlefield or Smashvillie against falco, and Falco doesn't want to go to Delfino or TaC, Tlink is too strong there, and he just doesn't like Wuhu that boat is stupid. SO they naturally fall upon the stage the is the most nuetral for the match up and/or them personally. And what are the trade offs making the switch to this system?

Do I have to learn a new stage list? Nope...
Do I have to breath out a few more syllables during the inital stage striking? Yep... likely 3 seconds work of talking (melee plays actions per miniute are compareable to starcraft players... but don't ask them to strike an extra stage...)

Seriously though, please, what bad things come from this system?

The good?
By giving more characters a chance at a real; game one; neutral start we see an increase in character diversity in tournament.
More stages see tournament play (which I think will be a big thing if we want casual guys to get invested into the competitive scene as spectators)

For me these gains are well worth the un-comfort of changing a ten+ year old system.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I always figured that the idea of counterpick stages was to say "Striking is never going to land here anyway, might as well cross it off in advance." That is to say, either one character or the other will be opposed to it enough that it'll be one of the first stages struck. Would FLSS result in seeing every stage regularly show up on game 1, or will there be a number of stages that get struck every time anyway?

There's also the issue of having two or more redundant stages with very similar matchups that you'd effectively have to spend two+ strikes on to get rid of. If a matchup has a number of stages that favor one player enough that gives them a lot of control to ensure they always land on a good one for them. This was a big issue in Project M, and the starters and counterpicks kept getting shuffled around to try and ensure that strikes are fair and there's no redundancy in the starters that allows people to force anything. With FLSS, it'd be very difficult to ensure that strikes are balanced, and it may end up necessary to ban some stages entirely that don't need a full ban.

 

[digiholic]

So, how exactly does FLSS handle second and third round? Do you full strike again? Is there any counterpick advantage?

 

[LiteralGrill]

So, how exactly does FLSS handle second and third round? Do you full strike again? Is there any counterpick advantage?

Generally you just allow characters to pick stages as usual after that, a stage ban and a counterpick. The reason people want FLSS is game one is the most IMPORTANT game of the set and current it's skewed to give unfair advantages.

 

[Conda]

Generally you just allow characters to pick stages as usual after that, a stage ban and a counterpick. The reason people want FLSS is game one is the most IMPORTANT game of the set and current it's skewed to give unfair advantages.

This is the main reason why we have to consider a new system. We just have to go about it the way Ampharos did, and articulate things well and come to a good conclusion.

 

[smashmachine]

Generally you just allow characters to pick stages as usual after that, a stage ban and a counterpick. The reason people want FLSS is game one is the most IMPORTANT game of the set and current it's skewed to give unfair advantages.

wait what

FLSS all the games or you're just arbitrarily shifting advantages in game 1 while not actually fixing its overimportance

 

[MegaMissingno]

If you were to repeat FLSS for every round, you'd end up playing the same stage over and over for the whole set.

 

[DavemanCozy]

We could just start everything on Battlefield or Smashville. They as close to neutral as you can get.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

wait what

FLSS all the games or you're just arbitrarily shifting advantages in game 1 while not actually fixing its overimportance

As long as we use the best of three format, the first game will always be the most important due to providing a buffer zone in case they lose round two. We can't fix the over importance of round 1 without going best of one. It is the most important, so it's best that the first round be at its most neutral, which occurs through FLSS.

The counterpick rounds serve a different purpose anyway. They're designed to allow the player to influence their matchups using their knowledge of stages and match-ups.

 

[T0MMY]

We could just start everything on Battlefield or Smashville. They as close to neutral as you can get.

This is exactly what happened when I tested an all-stage striking system years ago with Brawl and exactly what happened when an adjoining state I would frequently travel to utilized a very open Stage List:

"Agree to Smashville?" became the mantra for every competitive player.

Why? Because it was too dang taxing to remember about 20 Stages and keep track of which ones were struck and which remained. And the TO ended up letting that go every time because agreeing to a stage was much quicker for the event.

But the experiment was successful in that I found out players really want to agree to something first and foremost ("Agree to Smashville?") and the Agreement Method was born.

From the FLSS-style experiments (and years of hosting) I've come to find the Competitive Standard Ruleset has the greatest acceptance rate among competitors as it stays true to the familiar Stage Striking method but includes other possibilities while maintaining an efficient system for the TO:

• Hiearchial Procedure
• Attendees content with Stage Choice
• More Open Stage List (absolutely no bans unless they impact the schedule of the tournament)
• Nearly impossible to create an "illegitimate" win due to Stage Hazard/jank

Check it out: Competitive Standard Ruleset

 

[Omegaphoenix]

We could just start everything on Battlefield or Smashville. They as close to neutral as you can get.

Also, I have a problem with this idea. They are neutral stages generally, but they aren't always the best matchups. In addition, forcing a start on one of two stages encourages a lack of stage knowledge, because it encourages finding a character great on those stages, and solely focusing on those stages, because you can just counter pick back to the starter, so the metagame stagnates around the few stages

 

[DavemanCozy]

Well realistically, we're not going to have 20+ stages this time around.

The stages I've seen be legal the most (no starters or cps, just a list of general legal stages) are:
Battlefield
Final Destination + Omegas
Smashville
Lylat Cruise
Town and City
Halberd
Delfino Plaza
Duck Hunt

Personally, I would take out Halberd and replace it with Castle Siege, or just get rid of both, but well I like the stage list right now. If it were to be an all out stage list with a ban process for 1st game 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 2 would leave two stages for the winner to pick (or 1 stage + FD + Omegas). Then just give the winner 2 bans before the loser's pick.

Having a full stage list would give the players the entire stage list right from the start.

I do like the Agreement Method as well, it should of course be implemented. I too sometimes would just rather start in Smashville of Battlefield and it is much faster to just agree on either one of the 2 stages than going through the above banning process.

EDIT: the just Battlefield or Smashville thing was just a comic remark to the whole "starters and cp" stage selection. I personally think that a full stage list right from the start would be ok, it won't change the stages picked at the beginning of a match anyways because certain stages happen to be more popular starters (Battlefield & Smashville being the most popular) while others are picked more in the 2nd round (Final Destination and Lylat, even though they are starters on most tourneys, are more rarely started on)

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

This is exactly what happened when I tested an all-stage striking system years ago with Brawl and exactly what happened when an adjoining state I would frequently travel to utilized a very open Stage List:

"Agree to Smashville?" became the mantra for every competitive player.

Why? Because it was too dang taxing to remember about 20 Stages and keep track of which ones were struck and which remained. And the TO ended up letting that go every time because agreeing to a stage was much quicker for the event.

But the experiment was successful in that I found out players really want to agree to something first and foremost ("Agree to Smashville?") and the Agreement Method was born.

From the FLSS-style experiments (and years of hosting) I've come to find the Competitive Standard Ruleset has the greatest acceptance rate among competitors as it stays true to the familiar Stage Striking method but includes other possibilities while maintaining an efficient system for the TO:

• Hiearchial Procedure
• Attendees content with Stage Choice
• More Open Stage List (absolutely no bans unless they impact the schedule of the tournament)
• Nearly impossible to create an "illegitimate" win due to Stage Hazard/jank

Check it out: Competitive Standard Ruleset

@Amazing Ampharos just pointed out last page that, with the two different Random Stage Select menus for normal and Omega forms, it's very easy to use them as a reference to see what stages currently remain and which ones are legal on the whole. Listen before you complain about now-irrelevant things like "remembering". To stage strike, you go to the Random Stage Select preferences for normal stages, look at the total list, and disable the ones you're striking! Now you can consult that to see which stages are still available. It's that simple. When you need to reset for the next set, go look at the Random Stage Select preferences for Omega forms (which you'll have preset to the current legal stage list as well) and copy those settings over to the Random Stage Select settings for normal stages. Again, very simple, very quick, very easy.

Edit: Here's the quote if you don't want to go find it:

I'd like to point out that keeping track of striking 13 stages is really easy in 4. You use the random stage switch like always, and you just turn off stages there so the game keeps track for you. In terms of resetting it, you also have the same stage list set up on the omega stages which are independent; that way, no one will forget the stage list as they can just check it in-game (you strike from the normal stages, and before the next set, they can check the omega stages to remind themselves what's legal to set the normal stages back up). As long as you know the basic rules of how stage striking works, you have to know nothing else and have to ask the TO zero questions to just do it. We've done it here, and I don't agree to Smashville and insist upon actually striking every game. It goes fast and consistently ends up on a stage favored by both sides. Logistically this is just not difficult.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@Amazing Ampharos I would be interested in a "how to counterpick" topic.

 

[T0MMY]

@Amazing Ampharos just pointed out last page that, with the two different Random Stage Select menus for normal and Omega forms, it's very easy to use them as a reference to see what stages currently remain and which ones are legal on the whole. Listen before you complain about now-irrelevant things like "remembering".

If you care:

Spoiler

First of all, I was simply recounting what happened when I did the experiment, it was not a direct point (sorry it wasn't clear enough for you, unless you are just nit-picking here).
Secondly, It is still relevant to discussion in the case when a TO does not have it set or when players (accidentally or on purpose) have changed the selections.
And this doesn't invalidate the other issues of time constraints and neither player ending up with a Stage they are NOT content with when using a Full Stage Selection (end in mixed Pizza Toppings you have to pick off).

Ultimately how can one convince a TO like myself who has been burned by a FLSS-style system to use one again especially since a much stronger system is available:

Standard Stage Select Procedure
First Step: Agreeing to Stage
Sub-step: Option for a Random Starter
Final Step: Stage Striking (there are practically no bans in this system - may be more of an open Stage List than an FLSS)

Striking in this leaves 3 Stages and all three stages are used - NO NEED FOR A "COUNTERPICK" which may actually be in violation of "fairness" principles.

It really is that easy, efficient, and inclusive.

 

[MegaMissingno]

In early pools you may see novices willing to agree because they don't know better, or pros willing to let an opponent they know they'll still beat have a handicap just to be nice. But you will never see a gentlemen's pick in grand finals. Likewise, is anyone ever going to agree to random? I just can't imagine that happening anywhere, pools or finals. So striking is still the norm for every major high-stakes match, and we're right back where we started in this discussion, haven't addressed anyone's concerns about the striking system in the first place.

 

[Pazx]

In early pools you may see novices willing to agree because they don't know better, or pros willing to let an opponent they know they'll still beat have a handicap just to be nice. But you will never see a gentlemen's pick in grand finals. Likewise, is anyone ever going to agree to random? I just can't imagine that happening anywhere, pools or finals. So striking is still the norm for every major high-stakes match, and we're right back where we started in this discussion, haven't addressed anyone's concerns about the striking system in the first place.

Actually you're quite likely to see a Gentleman's rule enacted in any game one including grand finals, it's just that it won't be "So are you cool with Norfair?", rather that they'll end up agreeing to Smashville most of the time.

 

[smashmachine]

If you were to repeat FLSS for every round, you'd end up playing the same stage over and over for the whole set.

well no, this assumes that you are even willing to go there again, despite already losing there

also this ties in to the more general idea I had of not going to the same stage twice regardless of who won on it before

 

[TechnoMonster]

Do you realize you just argued in favor of banning all non-omega stages? If platforms are making that much of a difference for outcomes, it only makes sense to play only omega stages and consider them the neutral stages.

This presumes that the default neutral stages are the Omega versions; that's a terrible assumption and not founded at all in any Smash game. Platforms are an essential element of every smash game, and the most pick stages in every competitive game (Dreamland and all other stages in 64, Dreamland, Battlefield, Stadium, and Yoshi's Island in Melee and Smashville/Battlefield in Brawl) have always had platforms. The game itself it a competition between characters from primarily platformer games.

The purpose of the tournament is to determine the best Super Smash Bros. Player. The rule should be that stages that do not grossly interfere with the test of skill between players are the legal stages. By general agreement, the neutral stages on random select are the best ones to compliment the battle between two skilled players because they confer no advantages.

The argument then is reduced to things like "Do walk-off stages so grossly interfere with the match that the lower skill player (less likely to win in a Smash game with any settings) can often win due to the stage?"

 

[Cactusblah]

This presumes that the default neutral stages are the Omega versions; that's a terrible assumption and not founded at all in any Smash game. Platforms are an essential element of every smash game, and the most pick stages in every competitive game (Dreamland and all other stages in 64, Dreamland, Battlefield, Stadium, and Yoshi's Island in Melee and Smashville/Battlefield in Brawl) have always had platforms. The game itself it a competition between characters from primarily platformer games.

The purpose of the tournament is to determine the best Super Smash Bros. Player. The rule should be that stages that do not grossly interfere with the test of skill between players are the legal stages. By general agreement, the neutral stages on random select are the best ones to compliment the battle between two skilled players because they confer no advantages.

The argument then is reduced to things like "Do walk-off stages so grossly interfere with the match that the lower skill player (less likely to win in a Smash game with any settings) can often win due to the stage?"

The very existence of omega versions of stages makes them the neutral stage type. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with platforms and wish there could be "alpha" versions of stages which would have platforms, but there's only omega.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

The very existence of omega versions of stages makes them the neutral stage type. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with platforms and wish there could be "alpha" versions of stages which would have platforms, but there's only omega.

Neutral: Impartial, having no strongly marked characteistics or features.

I'm fairly certain we may not be having the same conversation

The flat plane of FD benefits campers and Little Mac. It is not the most neutral stage

In a game where quite literally every stage other than FD has some sort of multi level platform, not having those platforms is a polarizing characteristic, which imbalances gameplay. Stop advocating FD only play. It's polarizing, unbalanced, and takes out a crucial feature of Smash

 

[Cactusblah]

Neutral: Impartial, having no strongly marked characteistics or features.

I'm fairly certain we may not be having the same conversation

The flat plane of FD benefits campers and Little Mac. It is not the most neutral stage

In a game where quite literally every stage other than FD has some sort of multi level platform, not having those platforms is a polarizing characteristic, which imbalances gameplay. Stop advocating FD only play. It's polarizing, unbalanced, and takes out a crucial feature of Smash

You can say the same thing in reverse. "Stages other than FD benefit non-campers, making FD the neutral stage."

It's a simple matter of considering FD the neutral stage simply because every stage has an omega version. It IS what For Glory uses, after all.

 

[Pyr]

You can say the same thing in reverse. "Stages other than FD benefit non-campers, making FD the neutral stage."

It's a simple matter of considering FD the neutral stage simply because every stage has an omega version. It IS what For Glory uses, after all.

It isn't that black and white though. The benefit to campers is higher than the benefit to non-campers. Thus, platforms are more neutral overall.

 

[MegaMissingno]

So what if they have Omegas? What does that have to do with anything? Why does that suddenly make it more neutral?

 

[menotyou135]

Because you want to attract new players? When these new players come to their first tournament, and then you essentially have to give them a binder full of rules before they even play their first match, they will get discouraged pretty immediately.

Due you are wrong. I have gone to many events with new people there and there have been almost zero problems. Usually, they guy next to him explains how it works because it really isn't hard at all.

I have only ever seen one time when a TO needed to come tell someone how to do it and it took like 50 seconds.

 

[menotyou135]

So what if they have Omegas? What does that have to do with anything? Why does that suddenly make it more neutral?

I guess they think that if sakurai made 30 versions of pokefloats and put it in the no items playlist, that it would be the most neutral stage.

 

[Jaxel]

Due you are wrong. I have gone to many events with new people there and there have been almost zero problems. Usually, they guy next to him explains how it works because it really isn't hard at all.

I have only ever seen one time when a TO needed to come tell someone how to do it and it took like 50 seconds.

Thats not the problem... The problem is WILL THEY COME BACK?

Everyone can show up to a single event. But if after ONE event they think to themselves, "I want to have fun playing these guys, all these stupid rules suck the fun out of the game"; they probably wont be coming back.

 

[menotyou135]

Thats not the problem... The problem is WILL THEY COME BACK?

Everyone can show up to a single event. But if after ONE event they think to themselves, "I want to have fun playing these guys, all these stupid rules suck the fun out of the game"; they probably wont be coming back.

I don't know many people who only go to one event. My question is what makes you think they won't come back outside of pure speculation? Do you have any real reason to make this assumption outside of randomly guessing? I have never seen it be a problem to anybody.

It really isn't hard to understand. I had to have it explained exactly once to me when I started and I never looked at it as too complicated.

If you are playing a game where you have to memorize at least 40 character matchups, what your character can do, and how to react to different options, you aren't going to have trouble remembering what stages are legal, especially when it usually comes down to "least BS ones are neutral, kinda BS ones are counterpicks, pure BS ones are banned."

It seriously isn't hard to figure out. It's not like we have to teach the quadratic formula everytime someone comes to an event.

 

[Jaxel]

I don't know many people who only go to one event.

And that is PRECISELY the point. You don't know them, because they never came back.

Do I have any real reason to make this assumption? The fact that I've been running tournaments for almost 15 years? I've seen the revolving door of players.

 

[Jaxel]

If you are playing a game where you have to memorize at least 40 character matchups, what your character can do, and how to react to different options, you aren't going to have trouble remembering what stages are legal, especially when it usually comes down to "least BS ones are neutral, kinda BS ones are counterpicks, pure BS ones are banned."

It seriously isn't hard to figure out. It's not like we have to teach the quadratic formula everytime someone comes to an event.

Not every person goes to a tournament because they think they are "pro". The first time someone comes to a tournament, they may not know they have to memorize 40 character matchups, etc. You're looking at this from the perspective of an established tournament player. Thats not who we are talking about. We're talking about NEW PLAYERS, who have never been to a tournament before and don't know what the experience is like.