Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Kneato]

CS and MC are both bad
Just put in Fountain.

Also @SOJ please add some visual indication when the platforms are gonna come out of the ground on Fountain and Delfino and they're perfect and we'll love you forever

I was actually toying with the idea of having fountain because its Blastzones work quite well. The only real downsides were the whack-a-mole platforms.

Here's what it looks like with FoD.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I still don't understand the issue of moving platforms...

 

[4tlas]

I don't have a problem with moving platforms, but the point is that some people do. Isn't the 8 stage list trying to remove ALL stages that ANYONE has a problem with? (not that that's 100% possible, but you know...goals are nice)

 

[Kneato]

I still don't understand the issue of moving platforms...

Moving platforms isn't an issue. The issue is when there is no indication that you are about to be placed on a platform when you thought you were standing on the stage which can disrupt movement.

I don't have a problem with moving platforms, but the point is that some people do. Isn't the 8 stage list trying to remove ALL stages that ANYONE has a problem with? (not that that's 100% possible, but you know...goals are nice)

Yea that's partially the goal. Already it sounds like 6 out of the 8 stages are generally accepted.

The other purpose is that balancing a smaller list is much easier than balancing a larger list. But I guess a larger list has the merit of getting more bans, which in its own way acts as a balancing mechanism.

 

[Boondocker]

I would really like to see 10-12 stages. 8 is just too small for a game like this. I think we can get at least 10 good, unique stages.
The more time that goes by the more I support the banning of Dreamland, Yoshi's story, and Distant planet. The first two are too similar to battlefeild and the last is too similar to Ps2.

Starters:

Battlefeild
Ps2
Smashville
Ghz
Bowsers

Counterpicks:

Delfinos
Yoshi's Island
Fd
FoD
Wario land

Thoughts? Eventually I would like to see Bowsers become inverted, Delfinos have less transformations, and FoD get replaced with something better.

 

[4tlas]

I don't find that Yoshi's Story or Dreamland play anything like Battlefield. The distance between the stage elements is more important than the proportion.

 

[Mc.Rad]

I still don't understand the issue of moving platforms...

Some People just aren't crazy with moving platforms. Then again it's still better than *insert Spear Pillar rant here*

 

[Kneato]

I was thinking about the advantages of a 10 stage list, and I think I underestimated the benefit of two bans in terms of balance.

I just need to reiterate that one of the most important things about the stage list in my opinion is that it has as even a distribution of elements as possible and doesn't skew in favor of any certain type of stage. This was one of the reasons I wanted a smaller stage list; in theory it is much easier to balance.

Anyways, given that, I made a 10 stage list. It is based mostly on the feedback on this thread about the 8 stage list. It also has some notable improvements over the list in the OP such as achieving a better balance of stage/blastzone sizes. Here's what it looks like.

STARTERS:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Other Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

COUNTERPICKS:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Castle Siege
Delfino's Secret
Final Destination

STATS:

I've also increased the range of what is considered an "AVG Blastzone" as it was too narrow and stages like Lylat Cruise would have been classified as "Wide Blastzones" which doesn't feel like it makes sense.

And for the record, I tested it out and Castle Siege no longer "Battlefields" you. You can't get caught under the lip of either side, at least with most recoveries.

 

[PlateProp]

Preliminary stage list idea. Starters are listed under CPs in parenthesis just to group by size and keep track of the number

Starters:


Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Distant Planet
Dreamland/Delfino (stagelist runs both, up to the TO which they would start with)

CP:
Small:
WarioWare ,FoD
(GHZ)

Med:
Yoshi's Island Brawl OR Norfair
(Smashville, Distant Planet, Battlefield)

Large:
Final Destination
(Dreamland, Delfino)

2 Bans

I chose Delfino and Dreamland just to match the amount of small stages (3), and because there are several people who like Dreamland but not Delfino, or like Delfino and hate Dreamland (We have bans for a reason yo)

For starters, went with the basics other than replacing PS2 with Distant. Distant can do everything PS2 does and more. It also has walls, creating a dynamic of two walled medium stages (Distant and YIB) and two non walled stages (Smashville and Battlefield). Norfair is an alternate, up to TO discretion.

This list leaves out 4 stages, Yoshi's Story, Castle Siege, PS2 and potentially Norfair/Yoshi's Island Brawl. Leaving these stages out sets up a potential stage swapping system where regions swap out stages every so often (two weeks or every month for example) meaning that players will be able to play on a wider variety of stages and not truely excluding them forever until the next patch or something.

 

[Kneato]

Preliminary stage list idea. Starters are listed under CPs in parenthesis just to group by size and keep track of the number

Starters:


Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Distant Planet
Dreamland/Delfino (stagelist runs both, up to the TO which they would start with)

CP:
Small:
WarioWare ,FoD
(GHZ)

Med:
Yoshi's Island Brawl OR Norfair
(Smashville, Distant Planet, Battlefield)

Large:
Final Destination
(Dreamland, Delfino)

...

This list favors narrow and high blastzones. Swapping Dreamland in for Delfino's would help it be less narrow but still much too high.

And I don't know about having FD and Norfair in one list. I think they favors the same matchups, (like PS2 and DP) and would take both your bans.

 

[PlateProp]

View attachment 71410

View attachment 71411

This list favors narrow and high blastzones. Swapping Dreamland in for Delfino's would help it be less narrow but still much too high.

And I don't know about having FD and Norfair in one list. I think they favors the same matchups, (like PS2 and DP) and would take both your bans.

Norfair is TO discretion. The list has Delfino and Dreamland. It's up to TOs which is to be starter and which is to be CP.

 

[mimgrim]

Since when is DP a medium stage?

Surely if PS2 is consider a large stage then so is DP.

 

[PlateProp]

I've never seen anyone outside of this thread consider ps2/dp a large stage.

 

[Kneato]

Norfair is TO discretion. The list has Delfino and Dreamland. It's up to TOs which is to be starter and which is to be CP.

I mean to say, no matter what stages the TO decides to go with for your list, it has some issues.

I've never seen anyone outside of this thread consider ps2/dp a large stage.

No one outside of this thread looks at stage data it seems.

DP and PS2 are some of the largest stages in the game with widths of 182 and 178 respectively. For reference, Final Destination has a width of 171.

 

[PlateProp]

I mean to say, no matter what stages the TO decides to go with for your list, it has some issues.



No one outside of this thread looks at stage data it seems.

DP and PS2 are some of the largest stages in the game with widths of 182 and 178 respectively. For reference, Final Destination has a width of 171.

Stage length is less important than the actual side blast zone difference. FD has longer top and side blasts, while DP is only 17 units taller than FD.

Also replying now to a part from earlier, you do realize that NONE of the competitive stages have larger side blasts than top blasts? Every competitive stage in the game is skewed towards narrower sides and higher tops

 

[Narpas_sword]

Also replying now to a part from earlier, you do realize that NONE of the competitive stages have larger side blasts than top blasts? Every competitive stage in the game is skewed towards narrower sides and higher tops

Where on earth are you measuring from to get that?

edit// oh I guess you're taking from centre out to a single side.

I think the interpretation is usually of the whole area though.

 

[Deleted member]

I was thinking about the advantages of a 10 stage list, and I think I underestimated the benefit of two bans in terms of balance.

I just need to reiterate that one of the most important things about the stage list in my opinion is that it has as even a distribution of elements as possible and doesn't skew in favor of any certain type of stage. This was one of the reasons I wanted a smaller stage list; in theory it is much easier to balance.

Anyways, given that, I made a 10 stage list. It is based mostly on the feedback on this thread about the 8 stage list. It also has some notable improvements over the list in the OP such as achieving a better balance of stage/blastzone sizes. Here's what it looks like.

STARTERS:
Green Hill Zone
Battlefield
Smashville
Bowser's Other Castle
Pokemon Stadium 2

COUNTERPICKS:
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Castle Siege
Delfino's Secret
Final Destination

actually this is a really cool way to go about this issue. i'll test it out over the next two weeks or so.

one issue i have with castle siege is that the character on the lower half of the stage is invariably at a minor positional advantage over a character on the right half of the stage. this probably isn't an issue in practice so much as it would just plain feel stupid to actually play.

 

[Kneato]

Stage length is less important than the actual side blast zone difference. FD has longer top and side blasts, while DP is only 17 units taller than FD.

Also replying now to a part from earlier, you do realize that NONE of the competitive stages have larger side blasts than top blasts? Every competitive stage in the game is skewed towards narrower sides and higher tops

I didn't mean the ratio between the two, I meant your list has more stages with narrow blast zones than wide blast zones, and more stages with a high vertical blast zone than stages with low vertical blast zone. This is by measurement of actual blast zone difference.

But you raise an interesting point.

What do we base a stage's size on. Stage width, or total width including blastzones? I've been basing my stage size stat on stage width, and have had a separate stat specifically for the extra size that blast zones add on.

Here are the stages ordered by size for each measurement. There are some pretty substantial differences in ranking based on which stat you are looking at, with Norfair and Bowser's Other Castle in completely separate categories.

Fun fact, if DP had Yoshi's Story blastzones, it would be a walkoff.

 

[Kneato]

actually this is a really cool way to go about this issue. i'll test it out over the next two weeks or so.

one issue i have with castle siege is that the character on the lower half of the stage is invariably at a minor positional advantage over a character on the right half of the stage. this probably isn't an issue in practice so much as it would just plain feel stupid to actually play.

I feel like Castle Siege could be really interesting for certain matchups. Like I think DDD on the right half is stronger than on the left because of the arc of waddle toss and the range of some of his moves like forward tilt.

 

[Kneato]

Have some big ideas.


STAGELIST:

I realized something while looking at the list of stages and size.

There are only 15 stages that are generally accepted to be stagelist material.

In order to make a 10 stage list that is mutually agreeable among the most people, its only a matter of removing the 5 least liked stages from the total list.

To reiterate, the stages are:

Yoshi's Story
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret
Dreamland
Bowser's Other Castle
Castle Siege
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island
Distant Planet
Norfair

Alright, first pass is easy. There is redundancy between stage roles. PS2 and DP fill the same niche, as do Norfair and FD. Out of these, DP and Norfair are less popular. Out they go.

Yoshi's Story
Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret
Dreamland
Bowser's Other Castle
Castle Siege
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island

Second pass. From the reactions in this thread, Yoshi's Story is disliked for being small, janky, and a tri plat which we already have a number of. Dream land as well is disliked for being too big, janky, and another tri plat. Down to 11 now.

Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret
Bowser's Other Castle
Castle Siege
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island

Now at this point things get subjective. Out of these, it seems that Yoshi's Island, Fountain of Dreams, and Castle Siege are the most controversial. So at this point I'm going to base it on the stage data and say that getting rid of Yoshi's Island is the best choice as that leaves us with the stagelist that has been created over the course of the past page or so. This list happens to also have a good distribution of sizes, blastzones, and platforms.

Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret
Bowser's Other Castle
Castle Siege
Wario Land
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination

Now its just down to deciding Starters and Counterpicks. Easy stuff, more extreme elements (slants, moving platforms, overly small or large, lack or abundance of platforms) means the stage is counterpick material. 5 most extreme stages become counterpicks. That would be:

Final Destination - (no plats, very big)
Wario Land - (4 plats, very small)
Castle Siege - (middle slant)
Delfino's Secret - (plats rise out of ground, slanted plats)
Fountain of Dreams - (plats rise out of ground)

The remaining 5 are starters:

Green Hill Zone
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Bowser's Other Castle

This makes me believe that the stagelist we worked towards is truly one of the best and most agreeable possible 10 stage lists we could make.


SET PROCEDURE:

I have noticed there are some issues that could be improved over the current way we handle how sets are played out and bans are done. MDSR becoming less popular is one of them.

A number of others have similarly noticed issues and have come up with an alternative called Full List Stage Strike. In theory, I agree with the principles behind FLSS, but I think the execution creates more issues than it solves. For one, it increases the down time in between matches. Another is the tendency for certain stages to never be played. I misunderstood FLSS. Or did I?

I have devised a new alternative solution based loosely on methods used in some sports like hockey and tennis. The goal of the method is to balance the power of picks and bans between the two players for every set rather than have it be based on who won certain games.

I call it Kneato's Two Legged Tie (KTLT).

The method is:

Bo3's
1: Play Rock Paper Scissors
2: Winner bans stages (2 for 10 stage list)
3: Loser chooses stage
4: Play match
5: Loser of RPS from step 1 now bans stages
6: Winner of RPS chooses stage
7: Play match
8: If neither player has 2 wins yet, begin stage striking from starters
9: Loser of RPS strikes 1 stage
10: Winner of RPS strikes 2 stages
11: Loser of RPS strikes 1 stage
12: Play final match on remaining stage

Bo5's
1: Play Rock Paper Scissors
2: Winner bans stages (2 for 10 stage list)
3: Loser chooses stage
4: Play match
5: Loser of RPS from step 1 now bans stages
6: Winner of RPS chooses stage
7: Play match
8: Loser of RPS bans stages
9: Winner of RPS chooses stage but cannot select the stage chosen in step 6
10: Play match
11: Winner of RPS bans stages
12: Loser of RPS chooses stage but cannot select the stage chosen in step 3
10: Play match
11: If neither player has 3 wins yet, begin stage striking from starters
12: Loser of RPS strikes 1 stage
13: Winner of RPS strikes 2 stages
14: Loser of RPS strikes 1 stage
15: Play final match on remaining stage

This method has a number of benefits over the classic method.

- Faster. More sets have a higher chance of ending in less games. Statistics and set simulations here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YaNN8sztXNGEo5duPLFDVd_KwE6KRYCTFwnCcgpXk00/edit?usp=sharing

- Eliminates variable counterpick power by giving both players an equal number of stages to choose from for each game. No more need for DSR or MDSR.

- Ensures that neither player has an advantage during a tie-breaking game.

- For Bo3 ensures that both players get to play a counterpick stage of their choosing.

- For Bo5 ensures that as the set progresses further (ie players are close in skill) more emphasis is put on player skill by diminishing the advantage of stage counterpick (less and less stages to choose from).

I've written up a document that goes relatively in depth on the topic. Those interested can access it here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QwVeNqLgmiDGhprcDLhIKea5atu8ECkSFX64zEFZDBw/edit


I'd like feedback from people on these ideas, particularly the new set procedure. I plan on starting to run this method and the proposed set list at the monthlies I help host. I'll see how it works in practice over time, but hearing what people theorize could help make improvements in the shorter run.

 

[mimgrim]

I think you are misunderstanding a bit what FLSS is. From what I know about it, it only applies to the first round to get rid of the starter cp system and attemps to make the first round as fair as possible. So first round people would strike from the full legal list (which needs to be an odd number as a result) and the proceeding rounds go through the banning method already set in place.

 

[Kneato]

I think you are misunderstanding a bit what FLSS is. From what I know about it, it only applies to the first round to get rid of the starter cp system and attemps to make the first round as fair as possible. So first round people would strike from the full legal list (which needs to be an odd number as a result) and the proceeding rounds go through the banning method already set in place.

My mistake, I understood incorrectly that FLSS was to be applied for each match in a set. Nonetheless, I didn't create the KTLT as a response to FLSS, but instead to improve upon the currently employed system.

 

[DMG]

FLSS has been argued for both Game 1 only, and for entire set counts. Usually it's argued for the entire set (most vocal proponents back from Brawl were talking about FLSS on the entire set count OR doing normal starters Game 1 and doing all CP's with FLSS which is close to the same)


My issue with FLSS for CP's is that it ends up giving the Winner many more bans than normal formats. In FLSS, Winner gets to effectively ban 1/2 of all stages. I would rather support expanding the ban count in current format to let Winner ban half of the entire list if we want FLSS.


The difference between FLSS and super one-half ban count would be that Loser does not have to prematurely give up any stage info during the process. Say opponent bans 7 stages in a 14 stage count. I could either have him do all 7 bans at once (normal format), or alternate bans/strikes in FLSS and give him more information. "Oh I was gonna ban FD but he used a strike on FD during this FLSS, ok I get to pick something else".


I think it's very unfavorable to the Loser, and I do not personally support or recommend any counter pick ruleset that asks the Loser to either strike, ban, give Winner more information on stages, or artificially limit his choices beyond whatever ban count we find acceptable for Winner to avoid some of the more massive CP combos (a situation that is already partially addressed if you lock in characters before any stage bans or picks)

 

[4tlas]

So it looks like the suggestion is to use the current counterpick system until the guaranteed final game in a set at which point you use current starter system? I think that's a cool idea but why? What exactly does it improve on? Is the idea to make up for a lack of DSR?

 

[DMG]

Clarity should be given to moving platforms. Most people would be fine with horizontally moving platforms, because they usually are not as disruptive. Perfect example is SV: if you have a waveland timing, this timing does not change. Uthrow puts Fox on platform at 15%? This does not change. However, try doing that on Norfair or FoD with the same timing and your success rate would depend on what position the platform is in. That's fairly significant.


Vertical platforms change many aspects of the game: tilts or aerials that poke from under the platform can suddenly not accomplish this. Waveland timings change. Whether a person pops up onto the platform, or what timing they need to tech can change. Having runs or dashes, rolls, tech rolls, chain grabs, etc interrupted because a platform rose from the floor.


Vertical moving platforms are not the worst thing in the world, but they are not nearly as accepted or liked as horizontal ones. One of Delfino's flaws can be attributed to the vertical shifts on platforms, despite how unique the stage is in large part because of that aspect. I would not hesitate to change this about the stage: FoD is the main stage that I'm not sure about because making it static would just mean a stage very similar to BF/Yoshi Melee. Some other changes might separate it from those stages: maybe static but lower/higher platform position? Idk


I actually would not mind the 8 stage, 1 ban idea. The problem I have so far is that we don't currently have a good enough selection of stages to go that lean. Even with just 8 stages, the selection of Norfair or something similar is going to be controversial. We don't have enough universally accepted stages to just go super lean and try to craft a picky list. At the same time, I'd argue that if we can intentionally craft some of these stages to become improvements or replacements, AND assuming these stages are fit for competitive play, I don't see a strong reason to not aim for 12-15 stages like most areas sit at atm. The work in accomplishing this might be too much, at which point I'd accept 8 stages IF they actually fit the criteria and are universally accepted.

 

[Kneato]

So it looks like the suggestion is to use the current counterpick system until the guaranteed final game in a set at which point you use current starter system? I think that's a cool idea but why? What exactly does it improve on? Is the idea to make up for a lack of DSR?

KTLT uses the current counterpick system but counterpick stages are played first, followed by a neutral starter system match only if neither player has already won the set (e.g. 2 wins for Bo3 or 3 wins for Bo5)

I listed some of the benefits near the bottom of my post. Trying to be succinct, the major benefits are:

- Sets run faster. I ran a simulation of both methods over 100,000 matches for a number of different skill levels and found that KTLT on average finishes in less matches in every situation. However, it does not change the final outcome of sets i.e. win rates are unaltered.

- Some have complained that the current system will cause the winner of the first match to win the set in a vast majority of cases. This is true, as my simulation found that losing the first match leaves you with a 12% chance of winning the set in Bo3 and a 15.5% chance in Bo5 assuming two players of equal skill.
KTLT treats sets differently. For Bo3 you have your match which you are expected to win because its your counterpick and the opponent has theirs where they are expected to win. If you lose while you have the advantage on your counterpick, you are expected to lose the set. If everything goes as expected where you win your game and the opponent wins theirs, the set proceeds to a neutral match to break the tie.

- Remove imbalance of counterpick power. In the standard method, if a Bo3 goes to game three, the player choosing his counterpick for that match cannot choose the stage he won on in starter because of DSR. His opponent had more stages to choose from on game 2. In KTLT, no DSR is needed.

 

[Kneato]

...I actually would not mind the 8 stage, 1 ban idea. The problem I have so far is that we don't currently have a good enough selection of stages to go that lean. Even with just 8 stages, the selection of Norfair or something similar is going to be controversial. We don't have enough universally accepted stages to just go super lean and try to craft a picky list. At the same time, I'd argue that if we can intentionally craft some of these stages to become improvements or replacements, AND assuming these stages are fit for competitive play, I don't see a strong reason to not aim for 12-15 stages like most areas sit at atm. The work in accomplishing this might be too much, at which point I'd accept 8 stages IF they actually fit the criteria and are universally accepted.

I agree with you on this. But on the flip side, I don't think we have enough good balanced stages to justify a 12-15 stage list either.

With 12 to 15 stages, a number of them are bound to skew certain matchups in a big way. To counter this, we would introduce more bans. But while that may help prevent certain players from picking stages they have an unfair advantage on, other players who don't have as many good stages will be shafted for their counterpicks. Nearly all stages they have some advantage on could be banned.

I think if PMDT continues working towards modifying stages with stagelists in mind, that would help give us better options for lists. For example, there are more viable large stages than there are viable small stages at the moment. However, too many good stages could also cause more disagreement among which list would be best and make deciding on a universal stagelist for the ruleset more difficult.

 

[4tlas]

KTLT uses the current counterpick system but counterpick stages are played first, followed by a neutral starter system match only if neither player has already won the set (e.g. 2 wins for Bo3 or 3 wins for Bo5)

I listed some of the benefits near the bottom of my post. Trying to be succinct, the major benefits are:

- Sets run faster. I ran a simulation of both methods over 100,000 matches for a number of different skill levels and found that KTLT on average finishes in less matches in every situation. However, it does not change the final outcome of sets i.e. win rates are unaltered.

- Some have complained that the current system will cause the winner of the first match to win the set in a vast majority of cases. This is true, as my simulation found that losing the first match leaves you with a 12% chance of winning the set in Bo3 and a 15.5% chance in Bo5 assuming two players of equal skill.
KTLT treats sets differently. For Bo3 you have your match which you are expected to win because its your counterpick and the opponent has theirs where they are expected to win. If you lose while you have the advantage on your counterpick, you are expected to lose the set. If everything goes as expected where you win your game and the opponent wins theirs, the set proceeds to a neutral match to break the tie.

- Remove imbalance of counterpick power. In the standard method, if a Bo3 goes to game three, the player choosing his counterpick for that match cannot choose the stage he won on in starter because of DSR. His opponent had more stages to choose from on game 2. In KTLT, no DSR is needed.

I saw your list of benefits, I was more asking about the intent behind the changes sorry!

Assuming massive skill differences in players, it should probably run faster. This is pretty much a strict positive.

As for the winner of the first match winning the set, all this does is move that burden. At the end of the day, the winner of the game on the starter stage, whether first or last, wins the set. In order to upset that, you must win on your opponent's counterpick. This is no different, which is why I don't see what the point of this part is.

I don't see why DSR is any less needed with this ruleset. The point of DSR is to provide stage variety. What forces players to choose new stages here without DSR?

 

[Kneato]

I saw your list of benefits, I was more asking about the intent behind the changes sorry!

Assuming massive skill differences in players, it should probably run faster. This is pretty much a strict positive.

As for the winner of the first match winning the set, all this does is move that burden. At the end of the day, the winner of the game on the starter stage, whether first or last, wins the set. In order to upset that, you must win on your opponent's counterpick. This is no different, which is why I don't see what the point of this part is.

I don't see why DSR is any less needed with this ruleset. The point of DSR is to provide stage variety. What forces players to choose new stages here without DSR?

Oh! I misunderstood.

In KTLT, Bo3 by design can't have DSR. The only time DSR could apply is game 3, and KTLT always has game 3 stage struck from starters.

In Bo5, you aren't allowed to choose the same stage for your second counterpick. In retrospect, I guess this is a modified version of DSR. But it is intended to ensure that your second counterpick is weaker than your first.

Bo5 in KTLT has something akin to "phases" where if players are more evenly matched and reach later phases, the outcome of each match is more based on player skill and less based on stage advantage.
Phase 1: P1 gets a strong counterpick, then P2 gets a strong counterpick
Phase 2: P2 gets a weaker counterpick, then P1 gets a weaker counterpick
Phase 3: Neutral stage struck from starters.



Also, even in a situation where players are evenly matched, sets finish in fewer matches. Not just when there is a large difference in skill.

It took me a bit to wrap my head around it but it comes down to statistics.

For the two different methods, here are the requirements for a set to end in two games for equally matched players. The % chances are estimates.

- Classic: One player must win a match on a neutral stage (50% chance) then win a match on the opponents counterpick (40% chance)

- KTLT: One player must win a match on their counterpick (60% chance) then win a match on the opponents counterpick (40% chance)

The chance of a 2 game set is therefore higher in KTLT across not only big skill differences, but evenly matched players as well.

 

[4tlas]

Oh! I misunderstood.

In KTLT, Bo3 by design can't have DSR. The only time DSR could apply is game 3, and KTLT always has game 3 stage struck from starters.

In Bo5, you aren't allowed to choose the same stage for your second counterpick. In retrospect, I guess this is a modified version of DSR. But it is intended to ensure that your second counterpick is weaker than your first.

Bo5 in KTLT has something akin to "phases" where if players are more evenly matched and reach later phases, the outcome of each match is more based on player skill and less based on stage advantage.
Phase 1: P1 gets a strong counterpick, then P2 gets a strong counterpick
Phase 2: P2 gets a weaker counterpick, then P1 gets a weaker counterpick
Phase 3: Neutral stage struck from starters.



Also, even in a situation where players are evenly matched, sets finish in fewer matches. Not just when there is a large difference in skill.

It took me a bit to wrap my head around it but it comes down to statistics.

For the two different methods, here are the requirements for a set to end in two games for equally matched players. The % chances are estimates.

- Classic: One player must win a match on a neutral stage (50% chance) then win a match on the opponents counterpick (40% chance)

- KTLT: One player must win a match on their counterpick (60% chance) then win a match on the opponents counterpick (40% chance)

The chance of a 2 game set is therefore higher in KTLT across not only big skill differences, but evenly matches players as well.

I would call winning on the opponent's counterpick a huge gap in skill, but I see what you're saying.

I didn't realize that DSR was partially included in the Bo5. Remember that your "starter" round at the end allows players to pick stages they already won on though (which isn't necessarily bad, I just prefer DSR).

I'm still not sure if you've answered my question. Why these changes? What problems are you aiming to fix? This system has its own, different problems (all systems will), so which ones do you value and by how much?

 

[Kneato]

I didn't realize that DSR was partially included in the Bo5. Remember that your "starter" round at the end allows players to pick stages they already won on though (which isn't necessarily bad, I just prefer DSR).

In the event that someone picked a starter stage as their counterpick and the set went to round 5, technically yes that stage is still available, but if that player had an advantage on that stage, there is no reason why an opponent wouldn't strike it.

I'm still not sure if you've answered my question. Why these changes? What problems are you aiming to fix? This system has its own, different problems (all systems will), so which ones do you value and by how much?

I guess the best way I can answer that is that I believe KTLT is a strict improvement over the current system. It's not that there are major issues with the current system, but KTLT accomplishes the same result better in my opinion.

The advantages I already listed. The two biggest being that it helps eliminate the variable power between the two player's counterpicks, and that in every situation, sets are statistically more likely to finish faster which should be a huge reason to employ it at national sized events.

The disadvantages...I don't know. I personally don't see any downsides to KTLT over the classic system and no one has brought any up yet. That's the reason I originally shared KTLT here though. I am just one person and I want more opinions on what could potentially go wrong with this system. If the positives outweigh the negatives, why continue using a worse system?

Like I said, I'll be testing it out at the monthlies, first one being this Sunday. Theory is one thing and seeing it in practice is another.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Seems complicated.

Remember were trying to get new players into the scene too.

Complex rule systems put players off moving from casual competers to tournament regulars.

 

[4tlas]

In the event that someone picked a starter stage as their counterpick and the set went to round 5, technically yes that stage is still available, but if that player had an advantage on that stage, there is no reason why an opponent wouldn't strike it.



I guess the best way I can answer that is that I believe KTLT is a strict improvement over the current system. It's not that there are major issues with the current system, but KTLT accomplishes the same result better in my opinion.

The advantages I already listed. The two biggest being that it helps eliminate the variable power between the two player's counterpicks, and that in every situation, sets are statistically more likely to finish faster which should be a huge reason to employ it at national sized events.

The disadvantages...I don't know. I personally don't see any downsides to KTLT over the classic system and no one has brought any up yet. That's the reason I originally shared KTLT here though. I am just one person and I want more opinions on what could potentially go wrong with this system. If the positives outweigh the negatives, why continue using a worse system?

Like I said, I'll be testing it out at the monthlies, first one being this Sunday. Theory is one thing and seeing it in practice is another.

Ah. Sets finishing faster is wonderful, I agree. Making the counterpicks equal strength I don't understand. How are they more equal than before? DSR wouldn't apply either way. In both systems, players have the same number of stages to counterpick from as their opponent did.

Disadvantage: the first match is in one players favor due to it being a counterpick, so strategies and adaptations are biased in their favor. The current system has 2 players play on a "neutral" stage (whatever that means) so they can see how the opponent plays. Whoever wins in "neutral" play has advantage through the remainder of the counterpick process. Then the players take turns attempting to counter their opponent's play by augmenting their counterplay (or hampering the originial play) with a stage choice. The system you are proposing would have players countering non-normal play until they get to the "neutral" stage last and don't know how their opponent plays "normally". I think that is a very big problem.

Disadvantage: different rules for sets of different lengths. This isn't a huge problem in my opinion, but it certainly isn't negligible.

Disadvantage: change bothers people. The hell I've gone through just to implement character first, let alone an entirely different stage system, is a huge downside. I don't think this system is enough of a positive, if at all, to bother pushing it through. I'm happy to talk about it, but I think it needs to prove itself undeniably better before any real change is feasible, sadly.

 

[Kneato]

Seems complicated.

Remember were trying to get new players into the scene too.

Complex rule systems put players off moving from casual competers to tournament regulars.

I don't know if it is more complicated than the current system. Before I played tournament matches, the current system seemed confusing too, even when I tried researching it.

I think the easiest way to explain KTLT is that it is like the current system, but counterpicks are played first and a neutral stage is played at the end to break a tie if there is one. Order of who's counterpick is played first or second, and who strikes first for the final match, is just Rock Paper Scissors.

Ah. Sets finishing faster is wonderful, I agree. Making the counterpicks equal strength I don't understand. How are they more equal than before? DSR wouldn't apply either way. In both systems, players have the same number of stages to counterpick from as their opponent did.
...
Whoever wins in "neutral" play has advantage through the remainder of the counterpick process.

In Bo3, DSR means that the winner of the first match can't pick the starter stage for the third match, while the loser can for the second. The winner therefor has one less stage to choose from.

And it's this augmenting of the advantage/balance of the set based on who wins or loses the first match that I don't agree with and is eliminated with KTLT.

Disadvantage: the first match is in one players favor due to it being a counterpick, so strategies and adaptations are biased in their favor. The current system has 2 players play on a "neutral" stage (whatever that means) so they can see how the opponent plays. Whoever wins in "neutral" play has advantage through the remainder of the counterpick process. Then the players take turns attempting to counter their opponent's play by augmenting their counterplay (or hampering the originial play) with a stage choice. The system you are proposing would have players countering non-normal play until they get to the "neutral" stage last and don't know how their opponent plays "normally". I think that is a very big problem.

I don't really know what you mean by "normal" play. Everyone has a base playstyle yes, but it is adjusted no matter what stage is being played, neutral or counterpick. I'll have to adjust my style of play just as much going from smashville to battlefield as I would going from green hill zone to FoD.

And I don't know if I'd say player 1 has a clear cut advantage for playing his match first. Yes, he gets to play his counterpick before the opponent knows how to adapt, but the opponent has the advantage of being able to choose his counterpick stage with adaptation in mind.

So far this is the biggest valid issue I see with KTLT, but the same issue is present in the classic system. The loser of the first match has only one game's worth of data to base his counterpick off of, which is barely enough to adapt with anyways, while player two has two games worth of data to base his counterpick off of, which is actually starting to be an advantage. In KTLT, when both players have two games in and may actually have a plan to adapt, the match is played on a neutral so that it's purely player's skill and adaptation that breaks the tie.

 

[DMG]

Your setup is flawed because it hinges on the presumption that sets always go on to the final game. If a 3/5 set ends 3-0 or 3-1, every game played would likely be a CP. (If I play Lunchables on 4 CP's in a row, our set will be much more lopsided in gameplay extremes, than if we had 1 starter + 3 CP games)

Putting the starter tiebreaker at the end only gives balance when the players will reach final game. A lot of sets would not reach final game, and therefore you would be crafting a more imbalanced setup for anyone that doesn't make it to final game.

Classic method always starts off on even foot (relatively speaking), so your chance to play on a starter is not tied to making it all the way. This might be an OK idea for 2/3 sets since more of those end up 2-1, however it would be kind of strange to use different rules for 2/3 and 3/5 (this doesn't seem like a good idea past 2/3 so it would likely only pertain to smaller sets if it were implemented nationally)

 

[4tlas]

In Bo3, DSR means that the winner of the first match can't pick the starter stage for the third match, while the loser can for the second. The winner therefor has one less stage to choose from.

And it's this augmenting of the advantage/balance of the set based on who wins or loses the first match that I don't agree with and is eliminated with KTLT.



I don't really know what you mean by "normal" play. Everyone has a base playstyle yes, but it is adjusted no matter what stage is being played, neutral or counterpick. I'll have to adjust my style of play just as much going from smashville to battlefield as I would going from green hill zone to FoD.

And I don't know if I'd say player 1 has a clear cut advantage for playing his match first. Yes, he gets to play his counterpick before the opponent knows how to adapt, but the opponent has the advantage of being able to choose his counterpick stage with adaptation in mind.

So far this is the biggest valid issue I see with KTLT, but the same issue is present in the classic system. The loser of the first match has only one game's worth of data to base his counterpick off of, which is barely enough to adapt with anyways, while player two has two games worth of data to base his counterpick off of, which is actually starting to be an advantage. In KTLT, when both players have two games in and may actually have a plan to adapt, the match is played on a neutral so that it's purely player's skill and adaptation that breaks the tie.

Winning the neutral game gives you an advantage by letting you have the final counterpick with the most data. This does not seem to be a problem.

The match played on the neutral is the one that breaks the tie in both cases as it is assumed you win your own counterpicks, and the neutral stage is supposed to make it all about skill and adaptation because it is selected by agreement and is a vaguely even stage. Nothing changes in your system.

My point is, in your system, the player who gets the 2nd counterpick has nothing to base his adaptation on. He might not have been defeated by his opponent at all, but by his opponent using the stage.

I also don't see a problem in the classic method as you described. While the player who won the starter stage cannot repick that stage for their own counterpick, why would they? Not only did both players agree its a neutral stage for them, but they have the whole stagelist to choose from. I don't think its a concern.

 

[Kneato]

Your setup is flawed because it hinges on the presumption that sets always go on to the final game. If a 3/5 set ends 3-0 or 3-1, every game played would likely be a CP. (If I play Lunchables on 4 CP's in a row, our set will be much more lopsided in gameplay extremes, than if we had 1 starter + 3 CP games)

Putting the starter tiebreaker at the end only gives balance when the players will reach final game. A lot of sets would not reach final game, and therefore you would be crafting a more imbalanced setup for anyone that doesn't make it to final game.

Not true. I know I'm long winded and I post a lot to read through and I'm sorry for that, but I already posted statistics proving that theoretical win rates are unaltered with the new method.

Winning the neutral game gives you an advantage by letting you have the final counterpick with the most data. This does not seem to be a problem.

The match played on the neutral is the one that breaks the tie in both cases as it is assumed you win your own counterpicks, and the neutral stage is supposed to make it all about skill and adaptation because it is selected by agreement and is a vaguely even stage. Nothing changes in your system.

My point is, in your system, the player who gets the 2nd counterpick has nothing to base his adaptation on. He might not have been defeated by his opponent at all, but by his opponent using the stage.

I also don't see a problem in the classic method as you described. While the player who won the starter stage cannot repick that stage for their own counterpick, why would they? Not only did both players agree its a neutral stage for them, but they have the whole stagelist to choose from. I don't think its a concern.

But I DO see a problem with the classic method.

The purpose of a set is to determine the better of two players. In a perfect world, the better player should always win. However this isn't always the case and the classic method aggravates the problem.

Say there are two players who have never played before. One is a bit better than the other.

In the classic method, they would play the starter match. But even though one player is better than the other, there is still a decent likelihood that he might not win the match. That is why we have Bo3 and Bo5 in the first place, to give the better player a better chance at winning the set, even if he loses a match.

But with the classic system, say the slightly worse player wins the starter. Now the set is mostly decided. Neither player is good enough to beat the opponent on their counterpick, so the worse player ends up winning the set.

With KTLT, in this situation, both players play their counterpicks and it ends up 1-1. But this time, both players have had the chance to adapt for the neutral match. Because the better player is better, he is more likely to adapt well than the worse player. This gives him a better chance at winning the match, and therefore the set, like he should because he is the better player.

I guess I never explicitly explained why there are issues with the first match deciding a set so that is my fault.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I'd argue that if the 'worse' the player won, it's hard to consider them the worst.

 

[Kneato]

I'd argue that if the 'worse' the player won, it's hard to consider them the worst.

If that was true, why even do Bo3 or Bo5 if we know that the better player will always win on a neutral stage?

You may be better at the game than someone, by any amount, but they may still take some games off of you. Especially if you've never played them before.

 

[4tlas]

You put both players on an even stage. One of them wins. Then if neither player was good enough to win the counterpick, the player who won the unbiased game is deemed better. Why is this a problem?

If neither player wins their counterpick, you put them on an even stage. Whichever one wins is deemed better.

If either player wins their opponents counterpick and either the unbiased game or the game in their favor, they are deemed better, in both rulesets.

Ok so the principles are exactly the same. You say the better player will win more often because they adapt better. Unfortunately, the better player is not always the one who adapts better. There are other skills to be tested, and some of them are hurt by trying to further bolster adaptation as a valued skill. For example, crazy surprise options or consistent tech skill. Furthermore, what are you going to do about character counterpicks?