Minor DSR issue?

[Skler]

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."

This is exactly what the rule should be like; the current rule clearly just overlooked this.

There are no downsides to making DSR slightly less S.

 

[Marc]

Can someone explain to me why the example in the first post is such a bad thing?

 

[KishPrime]

This is one of the weirdest conversations/rule-clarifications I've ever seen.

 

[Marc]

Yeah, like, I'd change my DSR accordingly if the actual problem was laid out more clearly.

 

[Skler]

The problem is:

Player 1 wins on Stage A

Player 2 picks Stage A as a counter pick and wins on it

Player 1 now can't pick stage A

DSR should say "A player may not pick the most recent stage they won unless their opponent picked it and won on it more recently," or some variation of that.

 

[Marc]

Yeah, and I'm asking why it's an issue that player 1 can't pick stage A again.

 

[Cactuar]

This is an issue based on opinion. There is nothing concrete to go along with either side of the argument.

My opinion is that I'd like to see player 1 be able to go back to the stage in R3 if the score on that stage is now 1-1. Player 2 counterpicking back to the stage he lost on, then winning on that stage, seems like cause for that stage to be available for use by player 1 in round 3.

If you are going to ask that question expecting an answer using more than opinion, you need to answer "Why is it an issue that player 1 CAN pick stage A again?" first...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

DSR as it stands does not allow this, but I think it should be allowed, since the person counterpicking is ostensibly at the disadvantage going back to the stage. The score is 1-1 but I think the most recent match indicates who likely has the current advantage on that stage.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Advantage on a stage does not carry from one game to another. I could play 100 games on DL with the same person, but the person who wins the first game does not have any sort of advantage going into the last game that they didn't have going into the first.

There is an assumption being made that the 2nd winner is at some advantage and should want to go back, but this rule change would override his ability to make that choice. If he wants to go back, he can agree to it. If he doesn't, the counter picker has the choice to go to any other stage (still keeping advantage in his hands).

 

[Skler]

Advantage on a stage does not carry from one game to another. I could play 100 games on DL with the same person, but the person who wins the first game does not have any sort of advantage going into the last game that they didn't have going into the first.

There is an assumption being made that the 2nd winner is at some advantage and should want to go back, but this rule change would override his ability to make that choice. If he wants to go back, he can agree to it. If he doesn't, the counter picker has the choice to go to any other stage (still keeping advantage in his hands).

If Player 1 has an advantage on Stage A, why the **** did player 2 pick stage A as his counter pick after he lost there? There isn't a single situation where a serious tournament player would do that (except bragging rights, and then he deserves to be at a disadvantage game 3 for being a cocky SOB). Changing DSR would allow people to do the following:

Round 1: Battlefield is struck to, player 1 wins.

Round 2: Player 2 thinks Battlefield is a good stage for him and that he just screwed up on it, so he picks Battlefield. He wins the game.

Round 3: Player 1 thinks Battlefield is a good stage for him, or he just doesn't want to deal with other stages' BS, so he picks Battlefield.


There's absolutely no reason to prevent this. Yes, both players can agree on any stage, but that's a completely separate issue. There's no reason for Battlefield to not be an option for round 3 in that set.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Advantage on a stage does not carry from one game to another. I could play 100 games on DL with the same person, but the person who wins the first game does not have any sort of advantage going into the last game that they didn't have going into the first.

There is an assumption being made that the 2nd winner is at some advantage and should want to go back, but this rule change would override his ability to make that choice. If he wants to go back, he can agree to it. If he doesn't, the counter picker has the choice to go to any other stage (still keeping advantage in his hands).

I think it's pretty obvious that that's not the sort of advantage that we're talking about. It's not that there is something in the game that gives you an advantage in game 2 on the same stage as game 1. It's that based on the pattern of past results, we have an expectation about who will win future matches. If all I have to go on is 1 match, my best guess is that the person who won that match will win the 2nd match. If I have 100 matches to go on, I might look at the overall record, and look especially at the last 10-15 matches. People definitely use this sort of information when they choose their counterpicks, even down to the stock level; If someone is about to 4 stock me, but I figure out their game and nearly come back, I have reason to suspect I'm going to win the next game especially if I pick the same stage.

I think an easy modification to the DSR rule is that you're allowed to pick any stage your opponent won on.

We've also toyed with making DSR only applicable in bo5 sets now, because with stage striking, there's less reason to believe that the first stage presents the game 1 winner with a large advantage.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Fox vs Marth, game 1 YS. Fox wins and bans FD. Marth goes back to YS. Marth barely wins on a 2 stock comeback. Marth realizes something new about the match-up that changes his perspective of the matchup on that stage. He bans FoD and would rather play on a larger stage based on this new knowledge of the opponent's style. He doesn't mind DL because 1) he likes the match-up on that stage or 2) he has a secondary he would play there. Another valid reason for not agreeing back is simply for a change in pace, for example, you think you can adapt to new stage strategies faster than him.

Under the current rules, fox could ask marth to go back to YS. If marth would rather play there than another "worse" stage (BF or DL) then he can agree. If he doesn't want to, he isn't forced to.

This rule change would assume that because a player chose the stage he lost on as a counter pick that he would agree to that stage no matter what, which is not the case. Forcing him to agree (which is what this rule does) does nothing but dissuade players from returning to a stage, because if they win it would give the opponent additional resources they wouldn't otherwise have (stages available to counterpick is a resource). In the current rules one can return to that stage knowing that if they win the opponent's options are still partially limited.


DSR makes it so that you trade one resource for another -- an available stage choice for a point towards the final win. With this rule, returning to a stage gives resources back to your opponent when otherwise they wouldn't have.


Really, this rule isn't a big deal, it doesn't change much, but no matter what it only favors the winner of the first game and restricts options of the loser of the first game. In my opinion, the ability to choose the next stage is an advantage enough, and the ability to request the stage again is enough for the advantaged player.

 

[Cactuar]

The whole point is that the stage isn't considered to be in either player's favor if they go 1-1.

The proposed change doesn't restrict any options of the loser of the first game, and gives the winner of the first game a single extra stage choice, which only comes when a certain condition, specifically one that indicates that stage being in a neutral position, is fulfilled.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

There are strategies involved with counter picking back to a stage you lost on, particularly that you are the only person able to pick that stage unless both players agree. If winning on that stage changed that, it would worsen strategies of players who would want to do that.

For example, fox vs falco on DL game 1. Fox loses, repicks it, wins. Falco picks the stage and changes to puff. If you knew they had a puff secondary and didn't want to play on DL, you would be unable to pick DL even if you could force them to play falco (they pick character first) unless you wanted to use your ban that stage (which still puts you at a disadvantage vs someone with multiple chars). In the current rule, you could strike to DL against falco and go 1-1 knowing that he couldn't pick his best puff stage as game 3 no matter what. With the rule change, it definitely disfavors the loser of the first game.

 

[Cactuar]

Why would the Falco/Puff player not just switch to Puff on the second round counterpick to DL?

Why would the Fox go back to DL when he doesn't want to play against that Falco/Puff's Puff on DL?

This is a weird, bad example and I'm not seeing how it suggests that the rule change would penalize the loser of R1 further, but rather reward the Falco/Puff for having secondaries.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

They won with falco, why would they change to puff? Its perfectly reasonable.

How about this: fox vs puff strikes to YS. Fox wins, puff changes to Falco and wins. Fox CPs it back and changes to marth. Falco would have to ban YS instead of FD if he didn't want to go back to a stage the opponent won a game on.

 

[Cactuar]

Falco would have to ban FD assuming that the Fox would go Marth.
Which means the Falco would know that the Fox could go Marth if he won R2 after going back to YS, meaning he would be going to YS expecting to be CPd back and having to play R3 vs Marth on YS.

Still not seeing your point, and still just seeing this as a benefit to having secondaries, not a punishment to losing R1.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Its a resource change. I don't like it. Theres no objective right or wrong, I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[Cactuar]

I've already stated there is no right or wrong as it is opinion based. I'm trying to get you to explain why you don't like it but your reasoning so far makes no sense to me, and I'm specifically pointing out which parts I don't get. So you need to elaborate.

That's kinda the point of the thread.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i just dont like that the loser of the first game doesn't have a choice going back if he chooses that stage for the 2nd game. Its hard to explain how it affects a set since its very situational. I'm fine with giving the players the choice to agree to circumvent DSR, but I don't think its fair to the loser of the fist game to remove his choice.

 

[Strong Badam]

Rephrase that post and you get approximately why we feel the rule change is appealing to us, Sveet. Opinions...

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i just dont like that the loser of the first game doesn't have a choice going back if he chooses that stage for the 2nd game. Its hard to explain how it affects a set since its very situational. I'm fine with giving the players the choice to agree to circumvent DSR, but I don't think its fair to the loser of the fist game to remove his choice.

Rephrase that post and you get approximately why we feel the rule change is appealing to us, Sveet. Opinions...

i just dont like that the loser of the first game has a choice in going back game 3 if he chooses that stage for the 2nd game. Its hard to explain how it affects a set since its very situational. I'm not fine with giving the players the choice to agree to circumvent DSR; I don't think its fair to give the loser of the first game any choice.



But anyways, I think its fair to claim the burden of proof is on the side dealing with changing the rules. I think this post/reply explains my feelings on the pro-change arguments so far:

The problem is:

Player 1 wins on Stage A

Player 2 picks Stage A as a counter pick and wins on it

Player 1 now can't pick stage A

Yeah, and I'm asking why it's an issue that player 1 can't pick stage A again.

 

[Cactuar]

There is no burden of proof involved, no convincing that needs to be done. It's really just going to come down to what majority thinks, so I'll probably be discussing this actively at RoM and Apex. If I remember.

 

[Skler]

It doesn't make sense that a stage that was provenn to be a 50/50 chance of winning can't be played on again.

After all, your opponent picked it for the most recent game. Why would he even want to stop you from picking it again? It just makes sense that you can pick a stage you just lost on (unless your opponent uses his ban on it for some reason).

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why would he even want to stop you from picking it again?

Obviously, if nobody ever wanted that then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

 

[Skler]

Obviously, if nobody ever wanted that then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

It sounds more like that guy was just being a salty troll, not an actual, logical reason.

If you want to please salty trolls go ahead, but I'd rather please the rational folks. There is 0 reason for a stage that has been proven to be a 50/50 chance to not be played again.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It doesn't make sense that a stage that was provenn to be a 50/50 chance of winning can't be played on again.

After all, your opponent picked it for the most recent game. Why would he even want to stop you from picking it again? It just makes sense that you can pick a stage you just lost on (unless your opponent uses his ban on it for some reason).

It sounds more like that guy was just being a salty troll, not an actual, logical reason.

If you want to please salty trolls go ahead, but I'd rather please the rational folks. There is 0 reason for a stage that has been proven to be a 50/50 chance to not be played again.

If Player 1 has an advantage on Stage A, why the **** did player 2 pick stage A as his counter pick after he lost there? There isn't a single situation where a serious tournament player would do that (except bragging rights, and then he deserves to be at a disadvantage game 3 for being a cocky SOB). Changing DSR would allow people to do the following:

Round 1: Battlefield is struck to, player 1 wins.

Round 2: Player 2 thinks Battlefield is a good stage for him and that he just screwed up on it, so he picks Battlefield. He wins the game.

Round 3: Player 1 thinks Battlefield is a good stage for him, or he just doesn't want to deal with other stages' BS, so he picks Battlefield.


There's absolutely no reason to prevent this. Yes, both players can agree on any stage, but that's a completely separate issue. There's no reason for Battlefield to not be an option for round 3 in that set.

I'm glad you want to satisfy the rational folk, but please do look at your arguments. Most of them are you simply asserting your opinion as fact ("It just makes sense that ____") and then harping on anyone who doesn't see it your way. Please recognize that there is no objective correct way. I am in favor of the status quo, but I can see the merits of both sides. The decision ultimately comes down to the individual tournament hosts, and/or cactuar for the official MBR ruleset.


Speaking of the ruleset, I'd like to go back to an idea KishPrime had when we were discussing the stage list way back when. He wanted us to post multiple variances on stage lists and allow the TOs to decide. It may be wise to publish the various types of rules we've used over the years and allow the TOs to build their ruleset from that, picking and choosing their favorite rules. We have a couple different DSR variances (plus FC's use of no stage that has been played can be picked again, regardless of winner), a half dozen modern stage lists, different striking stages, random first stage w/ mulligan (MLG style), etc.

 

[Cactuar]

I like the idea of having a repository of past/alternate rules for TOs to play legos with.

 

[Skler]

Rational people are the people worth pleasing. Keeping the status quo because it's the status quo is objectively foolish (for absolutely everything) and makes progress more difficult in any field. **** the status quo, if the status quo is good then it will remain the status quo, but just because something is the way it is there's no reason it shouldn't be changed. DSR was clearly meant to prevent somebody from picking the same stage where they have a large perceived advantage over and over again, we should change the rule so it does that and only that.

Unless anyone will argue that DSR was meant to encourage stage diversity, in which case I think they're insane.


Also, I agree with multiple stage lists, but not multiple RULE lists. Game play rules for tournament play should always be the same, stage lists are fine to change though. I just played in a tournament where Brinstar was legal. Sure, I just used my ban on it every single time, but I saw a couple games played there and people didn't seem to mind too much.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Unless anyone will argue that DSR was meant to encourage stage diversity, in which case I think they're insane.

I have seen this argument from intelligent people. In fact, I recall cactuar himself using it. To say that is not one of the purposes of the rule is wrong.

Also, the status quo should remain the status quo until something better is provided. It doesn't make sense to change the status quo just because its the status quo.

 

[Cactuar]

It's not directly meant to encourage stage diversity. Just a pleasant side effect.

The primary reason for DSR is to prevent one player from repeatedly using an advantage. The point presented here is that, given the players have gone 1-1, it is no longer viewed as an advantage.