Firstly the match procedure here is not my idea and I am trialing it in tournament settings. It was trialed prior to this at multiple Fern De'rouge within a ladder based setting. I have had lengthy discussions regarding this procedure with the person whose idea it was and others within the community who are all long time community members and some of which are experienced TOs (including the person who came up with this procedure)
I believe the ability to ban stages is NOT a bigger advantage than the ability of choosing a stage to play on. The reason we allow the winner to change character (most fighting games dont) and have stage bans in the first place is to reduce the advantage that the choosing player gets from choosing the a stage since for Smash Bros. stages can play a significant enough roll in the way a character can perform within certain match ups.
Repeat steps 1 through 6 for the second game with Player 1 and Player 2 roles switched. i.e Player 2 starts by banning 2 stages. ( player 2 then has the advantage of knowing the players character and what to ban for the next game)
Its heavily in player 2's favour.
I disagree, again since I believe choosing the stage is more advantageous than banning stages. If anything I would say this format is
very slightly in Player 1's favour since
they have the advantage of knowing Player 2's character and what stage to pick for the next game. But again very slightly since Player 1 has the option to change characters after knowing the stage to be played and also, especially with good players, usually this
anyway, you're probably going to be familiar with the characters your opponent plays and vice-versa before game 1 regardless
The way I see a traditional Bo3.
- game 1.
no advantage to either player
(due to double blind picks and a balanced striking system of neutral stages)
- game 2.
small advantage loser of game 1
(choosing a stage = big advantage, winner option to ban stage and change character to offset this advantage somewhat, then allow loser to choose character so they dont get character counterpicked)
- game 3.
set advantage to winner of game 1
(small advantage for the reasons mention for game 2 + now forcing their opponent to win under a slight disadvantage)
Traditionally, Bo2 sets have been played out as if they are a Bo3 except without the 3rd game for the sets that would normally require it. I feel that this method is slightly unfair to the winner of the first game as they have played one game on equal terms and one game with a disadvantage. Usually in a case where a player loses Game 2 after winning Game 1 the players are closely matched and the result of Game 1 could of gone either way. The reward for winning the neutral game is the advantage they will have in Game 3 to take the set and place higher than their opponent. A Bo2 set played under the Bo3 format robs the neutral game winner of this reward.
The procedure I am trailing here attempts to make this situation equally fair to both players. As in each player will play a game with an advantage and a disadvantage.
Its for this reason I don't agree exactly with your Proposed System since effectively Game 1 advantage goes to the loser of RPS. Also if the RPS winner defeats his opponent ,under the slight disadvantage, in Game 1 then Game 2 is also the RPS loser advantage. In other words the RPS winner has now played 2 games with a slight disadvantage. For closely matched players this set could easily go 1-1, however with each player playing a game with an advantage and a disadvantage the disadvantageous Game 1 winner is more likely to take the set 2-0 and have the reward for beating their opponent on the opponents counter-pick.
This is not to say your proposed system is all bad. One of the things I kinda dont like about the way I am currently doing things is the lack of double blind picks Game 1 since I sort of agree with Splice. Things I may change with your system might be
Proposed system
- Blind picks, told to someone else
- RPS, Winner chooses to either Pick a Stage or Ban Stages
- They then ban stages
- Other player picks stage
- Players then play their characters from blind pick
- Match is played
- Blind picks Again, told to someone else
- Player than Picked the Previous Stage now Ban Stages
- Other Player Picks a Stage
- Players then play their new characters from step 7
- Match is played
My alternative, which I may trial at future events, is to have both games played on neutral stages with striking procedure as if each game was Game 1 of a traditional Bo3. The downside to this is that players that generally dont make it through pools dont get the opportunity to play on counter-picks or even experience the counter-pick procedure.
