• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Minor DSR issue?

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
I had this issue come up last weekend at a tournament.
I counterpicked someone to Dreamland and won. My opponent, being salty, CP'd back to Dreamland and won. I said "I'll go back to Dreamland." My opponent's saltiness being satisfied, he decides to use DSR to prevent me to go back to Dreamland, even though it is also the last stage he won on.

I think this is ********.

Discuss.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
... I don't see the problem. You've already won there, so you can't go back. The only time it'd be fair is if he agreed to go there.
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
I think it's dumb that I can't CP to the last stage he won on, regardless of DSR stuff. It's obvious that this is how DSR works, but I don't like that it can be used in this way. Perhaps I'm in the minority back here?
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
Uh yeah? Rephrase it and add something like "unless it is also the last stage the CPer's opponent won on"
Was hoping to get more than 1 person's opinion on this.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
No no, I agree that it is a missed detail and should be addressed. It should be the stage you last won on, unless you lost there between winning and your CP choice. If an opponent wants to pull salt and take you back, and then does win there, you should be able to final salt and break the 1-1 stage tie, completing the spicing cycle and then beginning your meal. What was I talking about...?
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
Cactus i thought you were all about playing as many stages as possible? In any case, im against the idea of modifying the rule. If you've won on that stage, and he's won on that stage, neither of you are able to pick it or both of you are able to pick it. I also don't think a loss counteracts a win.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I don't see how my stance on playing more stages and my opinion of how DSR should work are related in this scenario.

The rule should really be more like "The last person to win on any stage is not allowed to use that stage as their next counterpick."

The problem is that we assign the "state" to the player rather than the stage in the current version.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
I think its fine the way it is. You shouldn't get more than 1 win on a stage unless the opponent agrees, either by choosing it themselves or by the gentlemen clause
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
Stating your position over and over and saying what we should or shouldn't do doesn't accomplish anything.

Back your claims. Why should a person be allowed to rechallenge on a stage they just lost, then not be able to tie break a 1:1 on a single stage? This is by far the most exciting possible option, and doesn't take anything away from the matchup because it seems to be the most fair stage as deemed by both players. (First round is a stage strike, deeming it the most neutral, second round is that stage used in a salty rematch, with the challenger believing he can win on that stage).

DSR as a rule currently serves the role of encouraging the use of more stages, but that is not its original or even primary purpose. DSR is to prevent abusive rematching on the same stage when victory is a nearly sure thing, and it is a tool created during a time when we had a very liberal stage list. If the opponent is using, and then winning, the stage that they lost on first round, the odds of victory on that stage are not stacked against him.


This particular scenario is one that could be played out better, with a greater excitement factor at no competitive cost. The only thing preventing that is the poor wording of the rule as the scenario isn't one that we expected.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
I think I would be okay with DSR being negated by a CP to the DSR'd stage.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
From a play to win standpoint, neither player should be doing this. If they were to do this, I agree that it is fairly balanced since both players have shown they are able to win on that stage, but I still don't agree that a player should be able to go back to a stage they have won on, regardless of losses on the stage, unless the opponent agrees to it. In a bo5, would a player who lost game 1, won game 2 on the same stage be able to counterpick that stage game 4? If he does, I see abuses. If he doesn't, its unfair.

:phone:
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
Why is it unfair to not be able to counterpick to a stage if you were the last player to win on that stage?

Also, what players should be doing has no relevance. Basing things on what players should be doing is why we miss these outlier scenarios.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
"Why is it unfair to not be able to counterpick to a stage if you were the last player to win on that stage?"

At that point, the players are 1-1 on the stage. If you only give the first winner a chance to go back, you are biasing that player over the other, which I believe is a strict definition of fair (equality)

:phone:
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I don't see how that makes it unfair. There is no bias effect, it is a matter of exhausting an option due to recently held victory. If you win the battle and take the hill, you can't battle and win the hill over again. You are already standing on top. If you won the first battle for the hill, and then lose the second one, you lose your position and are no longer standing on top of the hill, letting you challenge it again...


This is unfair because the last winner on stage X was B, and he is trying to use it consecutively.
Round 1, A and B strike to X.
Round 2, B takes A back to X.
Round 3, A takes B to Y.
Round 4, B takes A back to X.


This scenario is fair because both players are selecting X an equal number of times (2.5)
Round 1, A and B strike to X.
Round 2, B takes A back to X.
Round 3, A takes B back to X.
Round 4, B takes A back to X.
Round 5, A takes B back to X.
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
I'd just really like to see more than 3 people post their view on this in this thread tbh lol. It's always good to have Cactuar agreeing with me but what's the point of a BR if only like 5% of us ever post?
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
Same problem as the old mbr really. Only now we are at the bottom of the home page instead of included in the melee section, so people check the MBR even less.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
I just subscribed to each subforum of the MBR so I see it all the time in my User CP.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
That's what I did, too, aisight.

Ill respond to ur post when I get home, cactus.

:phone:

Edit- well that was my intention at least, haha. Here's my response.

Your king of the hill analogy is wrong. After winning the hill, both players reset to neutral and are actually able to reclaim the hill from even footing. In that sense its actually more like capture the flag :awesome:

As for the match simulation, it would be better to compare the first simulation to one like this:
A beats B on X
B beats A on X
A beats B on X
B beats A on Y
A beats B on Z

I don't see a reason why A should be able to cp X twice but B can't. I don't think who won game 1 matters if they have both won a game on the stage, since they so far have shown, as you said, to be very even on the stage and that the stage is the fairest stage in the match-up.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
From a stage perspective, my analogy is correct. You are viewing individual matches as a new opportunity while i am viewing it as a continuation of the set. Only one person can have the last win on a stage. In your example, the opponent has the option to go back again. I really dont see how your example applies because that option is still available. The effect of the stage at any point does not change. At no point is it unfair, as both players have the same options throughout the set. The only way it gets restricted is if the loser of r1 does not pull salt. His action of rematching on the same stage is the reason that stage becomes selectable again. If the opponent does the same thing r3, he can do it again r4, hence it being a fair exchange of stages.

Basically, your last paragraph is wrong. B has the same selection options as A.

I think you may have your argument confused with the one scar used to defend not applying dsr to r1 stage selection. This is not the same scenario.
:phone:
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
Well, in that case, why not just revise the rule to "a stage may not be selected by the last player who won on that stage"?

EDIT: nvm, this brings up the issue of multiple stages having been won on by a single player. :(
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
The set is about winning X games first. There is no king of the hill of a stage, unless you make this rule.

And yes, when the game count is at 1-1 on the same stage, if you allow 1 player to pick the stage on their next counterpick but not the other player, it is unequal; A has more counterpick choices than B otherwise.


edit- ah yes, scar's rule. I had forgotten about that. Actually, wasnt that in the old MBR? I think he reposted it out in the public forums or something, tho.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
A does not have more counterpick choices than B. As soon as A wins on that counterpick again, B has that stage opened up and has the exact same number of counterpicks as A. B does not have counterpick selection in r3, so the number of counterpicks he has open to him in that round doesn't matter to the argument at all.

Seriously, at what point does B have less counterpick options than Player A? I think you are overlooking that the player who lost round 1 has to willingly choose to go back to that stage. The effect of this is an outlier and applying the same logic as we do in standard scenarios is not a good approach. That they become 1-1 doesn't really mean anything towards your point.

Player A wins on X
Player B wins on Y. Player B has 6 counterpicks.
Player A can't go to X. Player A has 5 counterpicks.
Player B can't go to Y. Player B has 5 counterpicks.
Going into Round 5, Player A has 4 counterpicks.

Player A wins on X.
Player B wins on X. Player B has 6 counterpicks.
Player A wins on X. Player A has 6 counterpicks.
Player B wins on X. Player B has 6 counterpicks.
Going into Round 5, Player A has 6 counterpicks.

Player A wins on X
Player B wins on X Player B has 6 counterpicks
Player A wins on Y Player A has 6 counterpicks.
Player B can't go to X. Player B has 5 counterpicks.
Going into Round 5, Player A has 5 counterpicks.

The third scenario is what I think you are focused on. Player B chose to take the last win on X. Looking at what happens here, Player A has 5 CP choices in R2, but loses on X and has 6 going into R3.

The problem is, this is not unfair given the availability of playout options. Player A, if he chooses to go back to X in R3, gives Player B 6 CP choices in R4. It remains a fair mechanism because both players have the ability to do this. If either player does it, they give up that stage for recounterpick. If it does happen, then the option is opened up again for the opposite player. In ALL of the possible playouts, it requires a voluntary action from the loser of that stage's last match, which in turn requires another voluntary action by the last loser of the stage to elect that stage for the next match.
 

KirbyKaze

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
Spiral Mountain
I think if someone repicks a level they've lost on then it should be open to both players because yeah pretty much.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
Im too tired to clarify and respond to every point, since things have seemed to escalate in length. I have 2 points:

1) Every game is handled independent of each other
2) If the series goes 1-1 on the same stage, but one players doesn't want to go back there, its not as fair as it is implied by the score.

#2 is kinda what i've been trying to say, but in different wording. How is it fair that player A gets to choose to back to X after going 1-1 on the stage, but player B isn't allowed the same choice? If player B doesn't want to go back, he has no choice; if player A doesn't want to go back he simply chooses another stage (and B is not provided with the same choice the next time he is able to choose a stage).
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
It's fair because Player B selecting the stage would be pushing the advantage, unless he just lost on it again.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,994
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
DSR is a direct hindrance to advantage due to chronology. The only way it limits you is if you happened to win on a stage in the previous round that you won.
 

Strong Badam

Super Vegeta
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,515
#2 is kinda what i've been trying to say, but in different wording. How is it fair that player A gets to choose to back to X after going 1-1 on the stage, but player B isn't allowed the same choice? If player B doesn't want to go back, he has no choice; if player A doesn't want to go back he simply chooses another stage (and B is not provided with the same choice the next time he is able to choose a stage).
It is Player B's fault. Basically, by CPing back to the a stage he lost on, he has decided that the stage doesn't have enough disadvantage to avoid going back to. If he's just being ******** because of pride or whatever then I give no ****s for his sentiments. This usage of DSR is not what DSR was intended to prevent.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
It is Player B's fault.
Its his fault that the rule makes one of his stage choices give his opponent an extra stage choice if he wins the game? If nothing else, it is further disincentive to use that one stage choice.

Basically, by CPing back to the a stage he lost on, he has decided that the stage doesn't have enough disadvantage to avoid going back to.
He apparently doesn't think that way if he doesn't agree to go back game 3.

This usage of DSR is not what DSR was intended to prevent.
And this isn't an intention of DSR either.

aisight said:
DSR is a direct hindrance to advantage due to chronology. The only way it limits you is if you happened to win on a stage in the previous round that you won.
I mean chronology of game wins and advantage.




I don't really want to get into burden of proof, since thats not really my jazz, but i'm tired of trying to prove why its bad and its not even my place. You should be explaining why its good.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
So everyone agrees and sveet is the only one with the opposing opinion? Sounds like a successful rule-change to me.
 

Fortress | Sveet

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
16,260
Location
Northern IL
I usually agree with cactuar, but be never agrees with me. Its one of the strangest relationships i've ever had.
 
Top Bottom