Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Kneato]

Its progress, I suppose. The thing that I don't like is that it is incomplete...

Absolutely, which is why I said I'm glad this was made so that we can try to refine it...

I do agree with the fact that there will never be a list that everyone completely agrees on. Especially one made by Bob McRandom on Smashboards. The only way we can hope for a mostly universally accepted stage list is if PMDT has a hand in crafting it (ie whatever stagelist is included in the next version). All we can do is try to influence PMDT to making a list more balanced than what we have currently.

That said, I don't think you are right about your analysis of the stagelist I created on some points.


You, like many others, don't differentiate Mid to BZ and Stage Edge to BZ as two different things. Your point about

Large stages with small blastzones still have larger blastzones than small stages...

doesn't recognize the fact that Mid to BZ is a redundant measure that combines Stage Width with Edge to BZ. Stage Width and Edge to BZ are two separate elements which were independently balanced in this list.


As far as open space goes, I counted an even 5 and 5 for tight and open stages. Bowser's Castle, Battlefield, Wario Land, Fountain, and Castle Siege are rather tight knit while the rest (Green Hill, PS2, Smashville, FD, and Delfino) are more open.


And finally,

If we are going to change the current stages and alter EVERYONE's game with this list, we should make sure we have a good reason to. That we can find game design justifications for the traits we give these stages. I would rather work with the game we have though, because that provides justification for a lack of perfection...

This isn't a list made for everyone to adopt as a universal stage list. The creation of this list was spurred by the hope that PMDT, who have the ability to add and completely modify stages, may take notice and similarly make an attempt at having a more balanced list of stages that we could use.

If we're just posting our own stages now, then I'll do my part...

I read through your thread. I understand you are trying to craft a list that has minimally differing stats and are mostly defined by their platform layout but I don't think that's a good idea in terms of balance. Your stats barely deviate from their mean to the point where they might as well not be different at all (the difference between a Stage to Top of 196 and 204 is surviving 1 or at most 2 percent longer in most situations).

Additionally, the whole point of having a varied list of starters is to avoid homogeneity that favors some characters over others. For example, almost every one of your stages has a High Vertical BZ (about Battlefield high). This inevitably skews the matchup against those characters who rely on vertical kills.

 

[JOE!]

Mid-BZ and Edge-BZ are very different due in part to the situational prowess they present. A stage with small Blastzones (Mid-BZ) but a decent area of Edge-BZ could prove detrimental to more edgeguard-happy characters, whereas the reverse could be true on a stage with large blast zones but small space between the edge and the screen for getting kills at the ledge.

 

[Kneato]

Mid-BZ and Edge-BZ are very different due in part to the situational prowess they present. A stage with small Blastzones (Mid-BZ) but a decent area of Edge-BZ could prove detrimental to more edgeguard-happy characters, whereas the reverse could be true on a stage with large blast zones but small space between the edge and the screen for getting kills at the ledge.

In the example you gave, if the Edge-BZ is "decent" or medium sized, but the Mid-BZ is small, you can only assume that the stage itself is very small. Mid-BZ just measures Edge-BZ plus the width of the stage, which is why I said it is a redundant measure. You can infer Mid-BZ size just by looking at the stage with and Edge-BZ on a chart.

Whether this is another element that should be balanced in a prospective stagelist is a different question. I think it would make things more difficult and give people yet another facet to disagree on. If it truly has a large impact on matchups then perhaps it is worth considering though.

 

[JOE!]

To elaborate since I'm at work, I would differentiate it by say "General Kill-Zone" vs "Optimal Kill-Zone". General would obviously be for netting stocks from anywhere past the midpoint of a stage and optimal is on the edge/off a top platform where you are closest to the borders.

It usually doesn't matter too much, but on certain stages like Distant Planet where there is a very big "general" and small "optimal", it can matter.

 

[4tlas]

I do agree with the fact that there will never be a list that everyone completely agrees on. Especially one made by Bob McRandom on Smashboards. The only way we can hope for a mostly universally accepted stage list is if PMDT has a hand in crafting it (ie whatever stagelist is included in the next version). All we can do is try to influence PMDT to making a list more balanced than what we have currently.

That said, I don't think you are right about your analysis of the stagelist I created on some points.


You, like many others, don't differentiate Mid to BZ and Stage Edge to BZ as two different things. Your point about



doesn't recognize the fact that Mid to BZ is a redundant measure that combines Stage Width with Edge to BZ. Stage Width and Edge to BZ are two separate elements which were independently balanced in this list.


As far as open space goes, I counted an even 5 and 5 for tight and open stages. Bowser's Castle, Battlefield, Wario Land, Fountain, and Castle Siege are rather tight knit while the rest (Green Hill, PS2, Smashville, FD, and Delfino) are more open.


And finally,



This isn't a list made for everyone to adopt as a universal stage list. The creation of this list was spurred by the hope that PMDT, who have the ability to add and completely modify stages, may take notice and similarly make an attempt at having a more balanced list of stages that we could use.

You misunderstood me on every point you brought up, though I suppose I did word it ambiguously intentionally.

I do differentiate mid to BZ and side to BZ. My point was that you did not make it clear what YOU were doing, so I was forced to make assumptions.

It seems that you have balanced with Stage Width and Edge to BZ in mind, but the 2 are not independent elements due to how mid to BZ affects play differently from Edge to BZ. Joe explained further inbetween our posts.

As far as open space goes, we disagree on what qualifies as open space, which was my point. I would classify Bowsers as open due to how high up the platforms are and I would classify Fountain as open due to how the platforms separate/disappear. However Fountain can also be more cramped depending on how the platforms move, so I would understand classifying it as neutral.

My point was not that you are trying to make a universal stage list, my point is that since you are asking PMDT to CHANGE THE GAME using the suggestions they find here, this affects EVERYONE who plays the game whether they want to use your list or not. Thus there has to be very good reason to change the game.

 

[Kneato]

You misunderstood me on every point you brought up, though I suppose I did word it ambiguously intentionally.

I do differentiate mid to BZ and side to BZ. My point was that you did not make it clear what YOU were doing, so I was forced to make assumptions.

To be fair, in most of my posts prior to that final one with the download link, I listed Horizontal BZ's as "Stage to Side". But I didn't do it for that one post so I guess the ambiguity is on me. I also devoted most of a post to explaining the difference at the top of the last page.

It seems that you have balanced with Stage Width and Edge to BZ in mind, but the 2 are not independent elements due to how mid to BZ affects play differently from Edge to BZ. Joe explained further inbetween our posts.

True. If it really has a large impact on matchups (I don't think it does but I could be incorrect) then it could be worth also trying to balance.

As far as open space goes, we disagree on what qualifies as open space, which was my point. I would classify Bowsers as open due to how high up the platforms are and I would classify Fountain as open due to how the platforms separate/disappear. However Fountain can also be more cramped depending on how the platforms move, so I would understand classifying it as neutral.

I agree with Fountain as depending on the platform position. But I specifically mentioned that I lowered the plats on Bowsers.

My point was not that you are trying to make a universal stage list, my point is that since you are asking PMDT to CHANGE THE GAME using the suggestions they find here, this affects EVERYONE who plays the game whether they want to use your list or not. Thus there has to be very good reason to change the game.

PMDT will be changing the game regardless of what we discuss here. My aim is to theorize changes that we can all agree are an improvement over the current stagelist (even if they aren't theoretically "perfect"), and see if we can get those changes implemented.

 

[4tlas]

To be fair, in most of my posts prior to that final one with the download link, I listed Horizontal BZ's as "Stage to Side". But I didn't do it for that one post so I guess the ambiguity is on me. I also devoted most of a post to explaining the difference at the top of the last page.



True. If it really has a large impact on matchups (I don't think it does but I could be incorrect) then it could be worth also trying to balance.



I agree with Fountain as depending on the platform position. But I specifically mentioned that I lowered the plats on Bowsers.



PMDT will be changing the game regardless of what we discuss here. My aim is to theorize changes that we can all agree are an improvement over the current stagelist (even if they aren't theoretically "perfect"), and see if we can get those changes implemented.

Ah, I missed those bits, I apologize.

We may be able to agree to a "perfect" stagelist, but changing the stages themselves also effects every single other person that does not like that stagelist. Furthermore, there will be no way to get everyone (or even most people) to agree on ANY stagelist. I (and most TOs I've talked to) dislike the stagelist used in the OP, and while I like yours better than it I do not think it is an improvement on what I think the best stagelist is. This is bound to happen everywhere, and is why I am against this effort.

 

[Kneato]

Ah, I missed those bits, I apologize.

We may be able to agree to a "perfect" stagelist, but changing the stages themselves also effects every single other person that does not like that stagelist. Furthermore, there will be no way to get everyone (or even most people) to agree on ANY stagelist. I (and most TOs I've talked to) dislike the stagelist used in the OP, and while I like yours better than it I do not think it is an improvement on what I think the best stagelist is. This is bound to happen everywhere, and is why I am against this effort.

I'm sorry if this sounds argumentative but I think frankly that is a terrible mindset.

Imagine for a moment that 3.6 released and all the stages were changed to be variants of FD (ala Omega stages in smash Wii U). Some would have different sized blastzones, some would have different widths, etc, but the would all just be flat. Now this would really suck from a competitive standpoint but people would have to make a staglist out of it anyways. There would probably be very little consensus among TO's regarding which ****ty combination of FD's was best and every region would have it's own list of FD varients they played.

Now in this scenario, imagine someone proposed the stagelist listed in the OP as a potential change for a future version of PM. Now, this list is far from perfect, and not everyone would agree to use it, but the majority of people would realize it is an obvious improvement over the current "All FD" list. Just because it isn't a perfect build, is it not worth trying to make the change from the "All FD" build?

Which brings us back to the current discussion. Saying you are against theorizing a better stagelist is anti-progress. If you don't think what me and others are posting are in the right direction, work on your own list and suggest better alternatives rather than just say we shouldn't make lists because they won't be perfect and universally accepted.

 

[4tlas]

I'm sorry if this sounds argumentative but I think frankly that is a terrible mindset.

Imagine for a moment that 3.6 released and all the stages were changed to be variants of FD (ala Omega stages in smash Wii U). Some would have different sized blastzones, some would have different widths, etc, but the would all just be flat. Now this would really suck from a competitive standpoint but people would have to make a staglist out of it anyways. There would probably be very little consensus among TO's regarding which ****ty combination of FD's was best and every region would have it's own list of FD varients they played.

Now in this scenario, imagine someone proposed the stagelist listed in the OP as a potential change for a future version of PM. Now, this list is far from perfect, and not everyone would agree to use it, but the majority of people would realize it is an obvious improvement over the current "All FD" list. Just because it isn't a perfect build, is it not worth trying to make the change from the "All FD" build?

Which brings us back to the current discussion. Saying you are against theorizing a better stagelist is anti-progress. If you don't think what me and others are posting are in the right direction, work on your own list and suggest better alternatives rather than just say we shouldn't make lists because they won't be perfect and universally accepted.

If we had a game which was made with only FDs, not only would the people who not like FDs not play it, the game mechanics would be balanced around it, and everyone would regard FD-style play as the way to play. So no, it would not make sense to change a game ALL ABOUT FD to one not about FD.

Furthermore, while it may be possible for everyone to agree on something being better than something as extreme as all FD, we currently have stages that are good enough and varied enough that it is not going to be possible to get any sort of consensus. These are not remotely equivalent.


I have a list that I think is better, but I do not care to argue about it until I have tested it. That is not something I can just *do*, and since I have not gotten there yet I have not posted about it. I also am against the idea of a universal stagelist until PM is finalized, so I have no desire to argue about it on Smashboards.

I did not say you should not make the list. I said I am VERY HAPPY you are trying. What I DID say was that it is disingenuous to pass it off as a finished product, a community effort, or a mandate from smashers. Until you discuss what types of things that should be done and why you should do them, proposing solutions involving how is counterproductive.

So you have indicated that your list is "balanced". Balanced in what way? Is that a good way? What are we even looking for? This is what I want to discuss.

 

[Kneato]

If we had a game which was made with only FDs, not only would the people who not like FDs not play it, the game mechanics would be balanced around it, and everyone would regard FD-style play as the way to play. So no, it would not make sense to change a game ALL ABOUT FD to one not about FD.

Furthermore, while it may be possible for everyone to agree on something being better than something as extreme as all FD, we currently have stages that are good enough and varied enough that it is not going to be possible to get any sort of consensus. These are not remotely equivalent.


I have a list that I think is better, but I do not care to argue about it until I have tested it. That is not something I can just *do*, and since I have not gotten there yet I have not posted about it. I also am against the idea of a universal stagelist until PM is finalized, so I have no desire to argue about it on Smashboards.

I did not say you should not make the list. I said I am VERY HAPPY you are trying. What I DID say was that it is disingenuous to pass it off as a finished product, a community effort, or a mandate from smashers. Until you discuss what types of things that should be done and why you should do them, proposing solutions involving how is counterproductive.

So you have indicated that your list is "balanced". Balanced in what way? Is that a good way? What are we even looking for? This is what I want to discuss.

Obviously the FD example was an metaphore to get the point across.

You said yourself you liked the list I created better than the one in the OP. If that is the majority of people's opinion, what is the downside to trying to get that implemented? Yes its not perfect, but it would be an incremental step towards something much better for the game.

When did I say this was a finished project, or a mandate. I posted my build because someone asked me to and wanted to test it. I asked for feedback as I know that it can be improved. And so far this has been a community effort as this build is the culmination of the iterative lists I've been posting for the past few pages based on feedback from others on this board.

As for the question of "balanced" I think it's something we all vaguely have an understanding of but still needs to be explored like you said. The concept behind it is that the list of stages should support the playstyles and attributes of a majority of the cast. So balance would be an equal representation of stage elements that complements any given aspect of characters' overall gameplan.

To elaborate, we already know the following elements have a large impact on gameplay:
Stage Width
Blastzone Size
Number of Platforms
Position of Platforms
Walls

The first two are generally easier to comprehend as decide what combination is "good"

Stage Width: A range from small to large stages with an even distribution of choices inbetween.
Blastzone Size: Also a good range of small to large, but both horizontal and vertical must be covered.

Now there is also some uncertainty with this. Like previously stated, some people think the combination of stage width and edge to side BZ's should be taken into account as well. That is something we should discuss the merit of.

Now the last three are more complex. We have general ideas (a good distribution of platform numbers, varied positions, and some stages with walls and some without) but it is much harder to supply concrete evidence to justify any particular stance on these. Who benefits from certain numbers of platforms? How much does their position impact gameplay? What kind of impact do walls have on matchups and how many/what kind of stages should have them?

Anyways. I think discussing our understanding of good stage design is important. However, I don't think that means we should not try making stagelists with our current understanding. If we make new stagelists now and have them included in the newest releases of PM to be mass tested by players, I think we will have a much stronger understanding of what works and what doesn't by the time PM gets a final release.

 

[4tlas]

Obviously the FD example was an metaphore to get the point across.

You said yourself you liked the list I created better than the one in the OP. If that is the majority of people's opinion, what is the downside to trying to get that implemented? Yes its not perfect, but it would be an incremental step towards something much better for the game.

When did I say this was a finished project, or a mandate. I posted my build because someone asked me to and wanted to test it. I asked for feedback as I know that it can be improved. And so far this has been a community effort as this build is the culmination of the iterative lists I've been posting for the past few pages based on feedback from others on this board.

As for the question of "balanced" I think it's something we all vaguely have an understanding of but still needs to be explored like you said. The concept behind it is that the list of stages should support the playstyles and attributes of a majority of the cast. So balance would be an equal representation of stage elements that complements any given aspect of characters' overall gameplan.

To elaborate, we already know the following elements have a large impact on gameplay:
Stage Width
Blastzone Size
Number of Platforms
Position of Platforms
Walls

The first two are generally easier to comprehend as decide what combination is "good"

Stage Width: A range from small to large stages with an even distribution of choices inbetween.
Blastzone Size: Also a good range of small to large, but both horizontal and vertical must be covered.

Now there is also some uncertainty with this. Like previously stated, some people think the combination of stage width and edge to side BZ's should be taken into account as well. That is something we should discuss the merit of.

Now the last three are more complex. We have general ideas (a good distribution of platform numbers, varied positions, and some stages with walls and some without) but it is much harder to supply concrete evidence to justify any particular stance on these. Who benefits from certain numbers of platforms? How much does their position impact gameplay? What kind of impact do walls have on matchups and how many/what kind of stages should have them?

Anyways. I think discussing our understanding of good stage design is important. However, I don't think that means we should not try making stagelists with our current understanding. If we make new stagelists now and have them included in the newest releases of PM to be mass tested by players, I think we will have a much stronger understanding of what works and what doesn't by the time PM gets a final release.

I still have NEVER said that you should not make the list. I have said MULTIPLE times that I am happy you made the list. I was also responding not to you but to nimigoha when I indicated that this should not be viewed as an end-product.

And how does it affect other people? If you change the blastzones of Battlefield to no longer match those of Smashville, there will be many stagelists that are invalidated and many people will dislike the new Battlefield. And that's all because you want the stage to be balanced in terms of a larger picture.

Why is balanced an equal representation of attributes? What if the characters that are good on big stages are already the best characters in the game? Shouldn't we skew the stagelist toward smaller stages? What if smaller stages are more polarizing for matchups? Should we skew the stagelist toward bigger stages? What constitutes a "medium" stage in the first place?

 

[eideeiit]

Why is balanced an equal representation of attributes? What if the characters that are good on big stages are already the best characters in the game? Shouldn't we skew the stagelist toward smaller stages? What if smaller stages are more polarizing for matchups? Should we skew the stagelist toward bigger stages? What constitutes a "medium" stage in the first place?

There's an argument for why we should come up with the universal stagelist asap here. (Kinda funny it's coming from you who was opposed to the idea in an earlier post.)

 

[Kneato]

I still have NEVER said that you should not make the list. I have said MULTIPLE times that I am happy you made the list. I was also responding not to you but to nimigoha when I indicated that this should not be viewed as an end-product.

And how does it affect other people? If you change the blastzones of Battlefield to no longer match those of Smashville, there will be many stagelists that are invalidated and many people will dislike the new Battlefield. And that's all because you want the stage to be balanced in terms of a larger picture.

Why is balanced an equal representation of attributes? What if the characters that are good on big stages are already the best characters in the game? Shouldn't we skew the stagelist toward smaller stages? What if smaller stages are more polarizing for matchups? Should we skew the stagelist toward bigger stages? What constitutes a "medium" stage in the first place?

"Best characters" in the game is a question of character balance. We are not designing a stage list to level out perceived differences in character viability, we are making a list where we have a wide range of equally distributed attributes that supports the overall style of Project M gameplay. If that is accomplished and there are some characters who dominate on most maps (ie fox) that means the character needs changes, not necessarily the stage list.

 

[nimigoha]

I agree, the stagelist's job isn't to balance out the imbalanced characters in PM, since those characters can be changed.

Brawl's stagelist was tailored to try to mitigate MK's advantages but that's because it was like the only option. PMDT will continue to level out the characters, meaning the best thing we can do is make a stagelist that's balanced inherently, not balanced when the character tier list is applied to it.

The attributes you look at a stage for when picking are walls, vertical and horizontal BZ, stage width, and platform layout. If a stage list can be created that evenly balances these attributes as much as possible, I think it should be done.

The big thing is redundancies. I don't see a reason to have all the small stages with small horizontal blast zones, as they are now.

An example that comes to mind is Bowser on small stages. 10 stages 2 bans lets you eliminate WL and GHZ, but leaves FoD, and they all have small stage size and small horizontal blast zones, meaning you can't really take out the skewing stages. 2 bans means you will always be able to ban 2 out of 3 of the attribute you care about mostly in the matchup, leaving your opponent with the least oppressive one.

So if you don't want a small vertical blast zone against a Fox, you can ban 2 of the small vertical blast zones (WL, BC, FD) and leave them with the option of the stage that gives them the least advantage or you more advantage (in this example, probably FD).

I still think this should be posted on reddit, get more people testing it.

 

[Deleted member]

so i made this thread before i joined the dev team and went to paragon. i think the opening rule set is good enough for now, but ive also realized some things along the way. the first is that paragon showed us that the game is extremely MU heavy. the second is that our tournament system of brackets exacerbates this problem and is essentially defunct because of it. tl;dr tournaments dont necessarily show who the best player in the room is, but is much more about who got lucky in the bracket. this sucks.

to remedy this, we have to decide on a way to balance the nature of the game and not just the characters. my idea is to run pools straight until top 8, and then top 8 is just round robin. however so e people dont like the idea of leaving brackets even though theyre jank. so now we have to ask, so we want to balance our characters instead? can we eliminate all the bad MUs? if TL destroys DK but folds to fox, how do we make that character better vs fox but worse vs dk AND still feel like TL? are we allowed to have 7-3 MUs or worse? do we want characters to be solo viable with roughly even MUs? is that even possible?

these are hard questions, and we must decide what we want from our characters BEFORE we balance them, which must happen BEFORE we can address a solution to the MU issue, which must happen BEFORE we can standardize a rule set. for now, i still see the base ruleset i have listed as the best way to go about a tournament as the game sits. im not sure how to progress forward from here. i also want to make it a point to not derail the thread due to my rant, this is basically just to show you guys why ive stopped working on this for the time being.

 

[nimigoha]

so i made this thread before i joined the dev team and went to paragon. i think the opening rule set is good enough for now, but ive also realized some things along the way. the first is that paragon showed us that the game is extremely MU heavy. the second is that our tournament system of brackets exacerbates this problem and is essentially defunct because of it. tl;dr tournaments dont necessarily show who the best player in the room is, but is much more about who got lucky in the bracket. this sucks.

to remedy this, we have to decide on a way to balance the nature of the game and not just the characters. my idea is to run pools straight until top 8, and then top 8 is just round robin. however so e people dont like the idea of leaving brackets even though theyre jank. so now we have to ask, so we want to balance our characters instead? can we eliminate all the bad MUs? if TL destroys DK but folds to fox, how do we make that character better vs fox but worse vs dk AND still feel like TL? are we allowed to have 7-3 MUs or worse? do we want characters to be solo viable with roughly even MUs? is that even possible?

these are hard questions, and we must decide what we want from our characters BEFORE we balance them, which must happen BEFORE we can address a solution to the MU issue, which must happen BEFORE we can standardize a rule set. for now, i still see the base ruleset i have listed as the best way to go about a tournament as the game sits. im not sure how to progress forward from here. i also want to make it a point to not derail the thread due to my rant, this is basically just to show you guys why ive stopped working on this for the time being.

Paragon was an amazing thing. Of course it was awesome to have such a huge tournament with so many big PM names, but it also gave insight on how a tournament like that works for PM.

I agree that matchups are enormous in this game, and I think that it's impossible to make all matchups 60:40 or better. The nature of the game, with 41 extremely diverse characters, means that there will always be skewed matchups and fixing that would require a lot of the characters to be homogenized.

Pools up to top 8 are interesting, what does that do for time though? What does it do for setups required? I think organization will definitely need to be increased in this case, which is on the TOs.

I honestly think that it's impossible to solo-main at top level. If characters are stabilizing and the PMDT decides to instead encourage a fix in the system like pools or something else, then eventually matchup spreads will stabilize. I think eventually there are going to be pairs or even triplets of character that cover each others' weak matchups and sets will become extremely character-counterpick based. I actually really like that as I think it promotes more understanding of the game and mechanics and less just powering through everything with a single character.

Umbreon, do you have any thoughts on the stage changes that have been proposed? Do you think that standardizing stage attributes and balancing them evenly across the stagelist is a good idea? I know it may not have a big impact on the main problem which is skewed matchups, but it does allow for more balanced counterpicking than the current stagelist.

 

[Kneato]

so i made this thread before i joined the dev team and went to paragon. i think the opening rule set is good enough for now, but ive also realized some things along the way. the first is that paragon showed us that the game is extremely MU heavy. the second is that our tournament system of brackets exacerbates this problem and is essentially defunct because of it. tl;dr tournaments dont necessarily show who the best player in the room is, but is much more about who got lucky in the bracket. this sucks.

to remedy this, we have to decide on a way to balance the nature of the game and not just the characters. my idea is to run pools straight until top 8, and then top 8 is just round robin. however so e people dont like the idea of leaving brackets even though theyre jank. so now we have to ask, so we want to balance our characters instead? can we eliminate all the bad MUs? if TL destroys DK but folds to fox, how do we make that character better vs fox but worse vs dk AND still feel like TL? are we allowed to have 7-3 MUs or worse? do we want characters to be solo viable with roughly even MUs? is that even possible?

these are hard questions, and we must decide what we want from our characters BEFORE we balance them, which must happen BEFORE we can address a solution to the MU issue, which must happen BEFORE we can standardize a rule set. for now, i still see the base ruleset i have listed as the best way to go about a tournament as the game sits. im not sure how to progress forward from here. i also want to make it a point to not derail the thread due to my rant, this is basically just to show you guys why ive stopped working on this for the time being.

With the number of characters in the game, if we are to maintain having distinct playstyles for each character, it is almost impossible to balance them in such a way that no character directly counters another. In fact, if we are trying to make them all equally viable, it is almost guaranteed that every character will have a number of bad matchups.

In theory, pools and round robin are the most fair ways to go about determining "the best" out of a large number of players. In practice, this is completely unfeasible because of the time required.

Pools take longer to create than brackets. Pools are harder for TO's to manage and keep track of than brackets. And pools also take more matches to determine a top player than brackets.

And aside from time, many people would complain that a round robin top 8 is anti-climactic and "un-hype" which is a valid complaint seeing that much of the recent rise in smash's popularity is spurred by its format as a "spectator sport".

I agree with your premise that brackets are currently ineffective as a means of determining top players in a crowd because of matchups, but I don't think pools is a reasonable solution.

Additionally, and I've said it before, I have a theory that the meta of the game will adapt to make up for this. I foresee top players making a shift towards dual maining in order to cover their inevitable weaker matchups. This will make the enforcing of "character first" picking extremely important.

EDIT: nimigoha I wrote my reply before seeing what you wrote and you basically covered most of what I had to say . The only thing I have to add is that as a TO myself, I don't think there is any ungodly amount of organization that would let an all Pools/Round robin tournament finish in any acceptable amount of time.

 

[4tlas]

There's an argument for why we should come up with the universal stagelist asap here. (Kinda funny it's coming from you who was opposed to the idea in an earlier post.)

Its an argument for why there should be a universal stagelist, but when combined with nimigoha's point about wanting to avoid this until gold version (because until then the character should be changed and its better to let their imbalance show rather than shape the meta with a stagelist), then it becomes an argument for what I was saying: no universal stagelist until gold.

"Best characters" in the game is a question of character balance. We are not designing a stage list to level out perceived differences in character viability, we are making a list where we have a wide range of equally distributed attributes that supports the overall style of Project M gameplay. If that is accomplished and there are some characters who dominate on most maps (ie fox) that means the character needs changes, not necessarily the stage list.

The 2 go hand-in-hand. The game mechanics + meta/ruleset determines viability. As nimigoha mentioned, when we can't affect the game mechanics (Brawl MK) then shaping the rules to make for fairer and more interesting competition is necessary. I think this is a good goal of a stagelist. I also think that this is a fundamental issue that we have to discuss: what is the purpose of a stagelist? I am glad we are starting to discuss this topic.

I agree, the stagelist's job isn't to balance out the imbalanced characters in PM, since those characters can be changed.

Brawl's stagelist was tailored to try to mitigate MK's advantages but that's because it was like the only option. PMDT will continue to level out the characters, meaning the best thing we can do is make a stagelist that's balanced inherently, not balanced when the character tier list is applied to it.

The attributes you look at a stage for when picking are walls, vertical and horizontal BZ, stage width, and platform layout. If a stage list can be created that evenly balances these attributes as much as possible, I think it should be done.

The big thing is redundancies. I don't see a reason to have all the small stages with small horizontal blast zones, as they are now.

An example that comes to mind is Bowser on small stages. 10 stages 2 bans lets you eliminate WL and GHZ, but leaves FoD, and they all have small stage size and small horizontal blast zones, meaning you can't really take out the skewing stages. 2 bans means you will always be able to ban 2 out of 3 of the attribute you care about mostly in the matchup, leaving your opponent with the least oppressive one.

So if you don't want a small vertical blast zone against a Fox, you can ban 2 of the small vertical blast zones (WL, BC, FD) and leave them with the option of the stage that gives them the least advantage or you more advantage (in this example, probably FD).

I still think this should be posted on reddit, get more people testing it.

What does "balanced inherently" mean? (I know what it means semantically.) What makes having the same number of each attribute a good thing? What if small stages are more balanced for gameplay (less room for mobility differences to show)? Shouldn't we have more small stages then? And should a stagelist help balance the meta? I absolutely think so, once gold is released.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding Bowser.

 

[nimigoha]

I think analyzing the "best" skew of stage for balanced gameplay would require analyzing every single matchup on every single possible legal stage, something impossible for a long long time even after Gold release, then looking at whether more matchups are made difficult by larger stages or by smaller stages (or even by medium stages).

I don't agree with waiting until Gold to form a stage list. Having the same number of each attribute now will provide the most fair list possible at the moment. Personally I think it's better to fix what we can right now instead of waiting ages for Gold, then taking even longer to sort out a stagelist. If we can set a stagelist that evenly incorporates different sizes of stage and BZ then allow the characters to be balanced as they have been (as everyone has been trending toward the mean since 3.02 IMO) then when Gold does eventually drop we'll have pretty good balance when looking at the stagelist and characters together.

Bowser was just my example of how having 3 of each element and 2 bans allows the banner to get rid of the two most oppressive options of that element, leaving the counterpicker with a smaller advantage but still allowing them to pick a trait they want. Bowser can't be camped as hard on Small stages, so his opponent will likely ban the Small stages with Small/Medium blast zones, giving Bowser the choice between going Medium with Small BZ to get the earlier kills or Small with Large BZ to be less shut down on stage. Just a general example of a possible counterpick scenario.

I think as play becomes better, counterpicks are going to be more and more based on traits you want to play on and less based on stages you like.

The current stage list has stages that are the same or similar in terms of blast zone configuration and stage size so the pool of traits is less evenly distributed. 10 stages with 3 Small, 4 Medium, and 3 Large in every category (walls are tricky but I think they should be standardized across stages as 1 of each stage size has no walls, this requires drastically changing models though, which is going to be strange) and 2 bans allows fair selection of traits during counterpicking.

So like right now 3/3 Small stages have walls, 2/4 Medium stages have walls, and 1/3 for Large stages (if you count FD as non-wall, 2/3 if you consider it as having a wall). Ideally I'd say either WL or GHZ or FoD needs walls taken away. Since GHZ is a PM stage and the others are holdovers from past games, I think it would make the most sense to take its walls away. 2/4 Medium walled stages is fine, and I guess 1.5/3 for Large is okay too.

Just thinking of a matchup example for walls. Ike springs to mind because walls enormously help his recovery. So if there were only 3 stages without walls, he's able to ban the 2 he favours least, forcing his opponent to pick a wall-less stage more suited to Ike or a different walled stage more in his own favour.

I'm viewing the stagelist from a pretty subjective viewpoint, which is that it should have as even as possible trait distribution across it without even thinking of characters.

Platform layout is a balancing nightmare to be honest. On its own you can get a nice diverse set of 10 unique platform layouts, but when considering stage size it gets so tricky. This is all just more problems caused by a bazillion matchups. But I think it makes sense to do our best to standardize our other traits as best we can. Besides, we have 1-3-4 plats for Small, 1-2-3-3 plats for Medium, and 0-2-3 plats for Large stage sizes. Number isn't an all-encompassing category though, because obviously the layout of BF and BC are different despite both being Medium tri-plats.

But yeah. Basically a huge ramble, but I've been playing around with Kneato's stagelist and the changes to the stages aren't anything too drastic, but obviously the changes will matter in counterpick situations.

 

[eideeiit]

About walls and small stages, I don't think GHZ would make for the best wall-less small cause it would resemble SV so much if that were the case.

Tangentially, a case could be made for all starters being no walls, as some characters can use them to great effect and some not at all and that kind of makes them different from other aspects. Anyone can use platforms for easier tech chases or the width of the stage for more wd backs, though some to greater effect naturally, but with walls it can be just nothing.

About the balance things, my initial thought was it would be easier to balance the characters if we could say for sure what stages we'll be playing on. Small changes could naturally be made.

 

[4tlas]

If it is a matter of "this is the best we can do" then I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't think we can agree on what that is enough to justify physically changing the stages. But I'm happy to try and work towards it.

Walls are not such a bizarre element that they should be thrown out of starters entirely. I like the idea of 2/5 starters being walled, but its unfortunate that its currently the 2 smaller ones. Was there any particular reason you chose to give Battlefield large blastzones and shrink Bowser's blastzones+platforms? Perhaps try making Battlefield have smaller blastzones and revert the Bowser changes, making it a largeish starter with walls?

I'm confused why there is no large-large-large stage nor a large-small-small. There's also (theoretically) 2 medium-medium-mediums. I say theoretically because I would like to contest the notion that Castle Siege's stage is medium. While the stage has a medium amount of units from one side to the other, the layout makes it EXTREMELY cramped. There is nowhere to run from your opponent due to how the slope and low platforms keep everything very close together, and its difficult to maneuver around them due to the platforms getting in the way without actually being far enough from the stage to enable movement.

 

[Kneato]

About walls and small stages, I don't think GHZ would make for the best wall-less small cause it would resemble SV so much if that were the case.

Tangentially, a case could be made for all starters being no walls, as some characters can use them to great effect and some not at all and that kind of makes them different from other aspects. Anyone can use platforms for easier tech chases or the width of the stage for more wd backs, though some to greater effect naturally, but with walls it can be just nothing.

About the balance things, my initial thought was it would be easier to balance the characters if we could say for sure what stages we'll be playing on. Small changes could naturally be made.

Walls basically make every character's recoveries easier and safer. No risk of getting caught under the stage, and the option to try and tech in some situations when you are getting edgeguarded. Walls further help characters with wall jumps and wall clings.

I believe walls have a smaller impact on stages with smaller blastzones. There will be less recovery attempts on these stages as characters are more likely to be outright killed by the blastzone.

 

[nimigoha]

Walls basically make every character's recoveries easier and safer. No risk of getting caught under the stage, and the option to try and tech in some situations when you are getting edgeguarded. Walls further help characters with wall jumps and wall clings.

I believe walls have a smaller impact on stages with smaller blastzones. There will be less recovery attempts on these stages as characters are more likely to be outright killed by the blastzone.

That's a really good point I haven't thought about before.

Also if you don't post this on reddit today I will tomorrow, it will seriously get more people thinking about it.

If it is a matter of "this is the best we can do" then I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't think we can agree on what that is enough to justify physically changing the stages. But I'm happy to try and work towards it.

Walls are not such a bizarre element that they should be thrown out of starters entirely. I like the idea of 2/5 starters being walled, but its unfortunate that its currently the 2 smaller ones. Was there any particular reason you chose to give Battlefield large blastzones and shrink Bowser's blastzones+platforms? Perhaps try making Battlefield have smaller blastzones and revert the Bowser changes, making it a largeish starter with walls?

I'm confused why there is no large-large-large stage nor a large-small-small. There's also (theoretically) 2 medium-medium-mediums. I say theoretically because I would like to contest the notion that Castle Siege's stage is medium. While the stage has a medium amount of units from one side to the other, the layout makes it EXTREMELY cramped. There is nowhere to run from your opponent due to how the slope and low platforms keep everything very close together, and its difficult to maneuver around them due to the platforms getting in the way without actually being far enough from the stage to enable movement.

Yeah having FD be Large-Large-Small and Delfina Large-Small-Large is weird, as all the other stages have the same vertical BZ group as horizontal.

I do like the idea of standardizing the BZ over horizontal and vertical.

As far as "best we can do" then I sort of agree. Have you played with the new build? The only stage change is Bowser's and it feels way better, and the rest of the changes just alter when you die. I don't honestly think it needs justification.

In short, Kneato's alterations help more than they hurt (and by hurt I mean they're just different and take getting used to) so I actually see any reason not to change the stages. Outside of "because it's different".

 

[Kneato]

If it is a matter of "this is the best we can do" then I wholeheartedly agree. But I don't think we can agree on what that is enough to justify physically changing the stages. But I'm happy to try and work towards it.

Walls are not such a bizarre element that they should be thrown out of starters entirely. I like the idea of 2/5 starters being walled, but its unfortunate that its currently the 2 smaller ones. Was there any particular reason you chose to give Battlefield large blastzones and shrink Bowser's blastzones+platforms? Perhaps try making Battlefield have smaller blastzones and revert the Bowser changes, making it a largeish starter with walls?

I'm confused why there is no large-large-large stage nor a large-small-small. There's also (theoretically) 2 medium-medium-mediums. I say theoretically because I would like to contest the notion that Castle Siege's stage is medium. While the stage has a medium amount of units from one side to the other, the layout makes it EXTREMELY cramped. There is nowhere to run from your opponent due to how the slope and low platforms keep everything very close together, and its difficult to maneuver around them due to the platforms getting in the way without actually being far enough from the stage to enable movement.

When I was making the stage changes, I was trying to be minimally intrusive and change as little as possible in order to achieve a full spectrum of stage and BZ combinations. When I had the choice, I went with changing a newer/controversial stage (ie BoC or GHZ) over a Melee stage or a tried and true PM stage (ie Battlefield or Smashville). And I didn't change the BZs on Battlefield, they are vanilla. They are just the lowest end of what I categorized as "large" BZs. Therefore a Medium Small Small stage was needed so I made BoC fit that role.

I decided against a Large Large Large stage because the one we used to run (Dreamland) was rather controversial. But it was likely a combination of the wind AND the huge size, not just the size alone. The inclusion of a Large-Large-Large or Large-Small-Small could be just fine, I just don't really know which stages it would be. Changing either Delfino or FD seems questionable.

With 10 stages and only 9 roles to fill (SSS SMM SLL MSS MMM MLL LSS LMM LLL) there was bound to be a repeat, so I tried to make it two stages that could offer vastly different gameplay while having the same general dimensions (Smashville and CS).

I just realized I never posted the stats and categories of the build I put up for download. Here it is:

 

[4tlas]

That's a really good point I haven't thought about before.

Also if you don't post this on reddit today I will tomorrow, it will seriously get more people thinking about it.



Yeah having FD be Large-Large-Small and Delfina Large-Small-Large is weird, as all the other stages have the same vertical BZ group as horizontal.

I do like the idea of standardizing the BZ over horizontal and vertical.

As far as "best we can do" then I sort of agree. Have you played with the new build? The only stage change is Bowser's and it feels way better, and the rest of the changes just alter when you die. I don't honestly think it needs justification.

In short, Kneato's alterations help more than they hurt (and by hurt I mean they're just different and take getting used to) so I actually see any reason not to change the stages. Outside of "because it's different".

I hadn't thought of that point Kneato made regarding the walls before either.

I don't think its a problem to have some blastzones be bigger one way than the other, its just odd that both of the large counterpicks are the ones to do it, leaving no large-large-large (which feels like a critical oversight).

I have not played the build, I am too busy and have nobody to play non-tournament with when I am not busy. Changing the blastzones still affects all other stagelists which means everyone is forced to change their stagelist even if they don't want to use the universal list. While that may still be positive change, that's not something that should be forced upon other people.

With regards to the point Kneato made while typing this, I understand your logic but think you should not be judging stages by the mean/median. I would prefer grouping them into like stages, and that makes Battlefield definitely have medium blastzones.

 

[Kneato]

I hadn't thought of that point Kneato made regarding the walls before either.

I don't think its a problem to have some blastzones be bigger one way than the other, its just odd that both of the large counterpicks are the ones to do it, leaving no large-large-large (which feels like a critical oversight).

I have not played the build, I am too busy and have nobody to play non-tournament with when I am not busy. Changing the blastzones still affects all other stagelists which means everyone is forced to change their stagelist even if they don't want to use the universal list. While that may still be positive change, that's not something that should be forced upon other people.

With regards to the point Kneato made while typing this, I understand your logic but think you should not be judging stages by the mean/median. I would prefer grouping them into like stages, and that makes Battlefield definitely have medium blastzones.

I'll admit my categorization of Small, Medium, and Large was largely based on "eyeballing it" which is unfortunately subjective. It is especially tricky since the distance between the max camera limit and the BZ are not consistent across stages (this is the space where you are offscreen but not dead. I also tried to normalize this space to about 60 units which is what many stages have). For example, did you know that BoC had larger horizontal blastzones than FD? Its hard to tell because the camera was so tight on that stage. The new BZ's I gave it are a better fit to it's current camera.

I drew the line of "large" horizontal BZ's right below Battlefield because BF's BZ width sits right between Yoshi Island Brawl's (which I already consider a pretty large medium) and FD's.

 

[Kneato]

That's a really good point I haven't thought about before.

Also if you don't post this on reddit today I will tomorrow, it will seriously get more people thinking about it.



Yeah having FD be Large-Large-Small and Delfina Large-Small-Large is weird, as all the other stages have the same vertical BZ group as horizontal.

I do like the idea of standardizing the BZ over horizontal and vertical.

As far as "best we can do" then I sort of agree. Have you played with the new build? The only stage change is Bowser's and it feels way better, and the rest of the changes just alter when you die. I don't honestly think it needs justification.

In short, Kneato's alterations help more than they hurt (and by hurt I mean they're just different and take getting used to) so I actually see any reason not to change the stages. Outside of "because it's different".

No offense to the sub, I frequent it, but they seem more concerned about Smash Factoids and Giffys than the nitty gritty about game balance. It may get some exposure, but I'm not sure if that's what we need right now. Like 4tlas said, this isn't a finished product or anything yet. There's still a lot of discussion and tweaking to be done before we have a list worth sharing to the public.

 

[nimigoha]

No offense to the sub, I frequent it, but they seem more concerned about Smash Factoids and Giffys than the nitty gritty about game balance. It may get some exposure, but I'm not sure if that's what we need right now. Like 4tlas said, this isn't a finished product or anything yet. There's still a lot of discussion and tweaking to be done before we have a list worth sharing to the public.

That's fair enough, it's your stuff. When you do find something you're happy with I'd definitely post it, you may be surprised at the response. The content style of reddit makes it more likely to be widely seen than here on smashboards.

I hadn't thought of that point Kneato made regarding the walls before either.

I don't think its a problem to have some blastzones be bigger one way than the other, its just odd that both of the large counterpicks are the ones to do it, leaving no large-large-large (which feels like a critical oversight).

I have not played the build, I am too busy and have nobody to play non-tournament with when I am not busy. Changing the blastzones still affects all other stagelists which means everyone is forced to change their stagelist even if they don't want to use the universal list. While that may still be positive change, that's not something that should be forced upon other people.

I think this is important. Changing these stages affects other stagelists. But I think that a standardized ruleset is something PM should have, and people straying from it should have to deal with the altered stages. Just my opinion, it may sound a little aggressive lol. But I think the idea of standardization is important, especially since people have only recently been doing character-first counterpicks when stage-first is so incredibly atrocious in PM.

Discussion on this stuff is good, which is why I think more people should see it even this early as so far only like 5 of us have commented on it.

 

[Deleted member]

i dislike the idea of homogenizing attributes to stages on the whole, one of the main differentiators for smash is that both players interact with the nuances of the environment and i would prefer to keep it that way since obviously stupid stages are already banned. i would like to see the side blast zones on warioware be less ridiculous, but that might be the only exception.

the real issue to running pools to top 8 isnt time or esports or whatever else, it's that you can go something like 5-1 and still get 3rd seed in your pool because of tie breakers. we still have this problem for using pools to seed a bracket, but no one seems to mind it much for mid level players. i dont see it going over well when someone gets pushed out of a top 8 into 9th. as for time, the whole point of pools is to save time- be at this TV at this time and thats it, no hunting someone down to play bracket match, and pools are already used to save time. i think it would be more than reasonable to run say pools of 6 or 8 where top 2 make it out, repeat to top 8. i also dont care about the esports side of it- if our choices are between being a spectator sport or actually seeing who our best players are, you have to be a rare type of sellout to see that the brackets are defunct and to choose them anyway. you could also make a reasonable argument that having every possible set in the top 8 played out is even more hype.

 

[nimigoha]

i dislike the idea of homogenizing attributes to stages on the whole, one of the main differentiators for smash is that both players interact with the nuances of the environment and i would prefer to keep it that way since obviously stupid stages are already banned. i would like to see the side blast zones on warioware be less ridiculous, but that might be the only exception.

It's less about homogenizing attributes and more coming up with a way to make the spread of attributes across the stagelist more even. The blast zones aren't the same on every Small stage, same with Medium and Large. There's still differences, it's just a more balanced grouping. 4tlas raises a good point when he says that having the same number of everything with a little more on Medium may not actually be the most balanced for the character strengths, but I think it's at least a starting point.

you could also make a reasonable argument that having every possible set in the top 8 played out is even more hype.

This is a great point. I don't think anyone would be against watching the top 8 of Paragon play each other, there would have been some amazing matches.

One problem that could make competitors unhappy is when someone else's match dictates how your placing is, after you've interacted with both players. When it happens in pools right now, it's too bad, but when it happens in top 8 of a national it could mean losing a lot of money. Sort of comparable to the outcome of another set in bracket and you play the winner, and your placing is dependent on whether the stronger or weaker player wins... but you interact with them afterwards whereas in pools it could be before.

But seeing 28 top 8 sets would certainly make up for part of that.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Idk about it. You have the FC Return fiasco where top players demanded it be different. What do our top players have to say of this idea?

 

[Kneato]

i dislike the idea of homogenizing attributes to stages on the whole, one of the main differentiators for smash is that both players interact with the nuances of the environment and i would prefer to keep it that way since obviously stupid stages are already banned. i would like to see the side blast zones on warioware be less ridiculous, but that might be the only exception.

the real issue to running pools to top 8 isnt time or esports or whatever else, it's that you can go something like 5-1 and still get 3rd seed in your pool because of tie breakers. we still have this problem for using pools to seed a bracket, but no one seems to mind it much for mid level players. i dont see it going over well when someone gets pushed out of a top 8 into 9th. as for time, the whole point of pools is to save time- be at this TV at this time and thats it, no hunting someone down to play bracket match, and pools are already used to save time. i think it would be more than reasonable to run say pools of 6 or 8 where top 2 make it out, repeat to top 8. i also dont care about the esports side of it- if our choices are between being a spectator sport or actually seeing who our best players are, you have to be a rare type of sellout to see that the brackets are defunct and to choose them anyway. you could also make a reasonable argument that having every possible set in the top 8 played out is even more hype.

I agree with you that at the very least, the best thing for PM would be to have top 8 be round robin, but in one of my past rants, the idea was shot down mostly by people saying it was not hype to have no culminating "Grand Final" type match. I agree with you and nimigoha that seeing all top 8 playing eachother would be awesome but I think there will be a big rift of opinions on this one.

But it is absolutely about time. Having an 8 way round robin, all matches being best of 5 is a ridiculous amount of time. That's 28 sets each with up to 5 matches in them.

Best case scenario: Assume an average top level match including character picks and bans to be 3 minutes and all sets end in 3 matches. That's 4 hours at absolute best. And worst case you have top 8 lasting up to 9 hours.

As for playing everything up to that point as rounds of pools, I can't stress the amount of time and effort that goes into pool making for large events. Unless there are less rounds than there are nights during the course of the tournament (at most 2 aka not possible for large events), this would eat a huge chunk of time with players just waiting around for them to get done.

 

[nimigoha]

I agree with you that at the very least, the best thing for PM would be to have top 8 be round robin, but in one of my past rants, the idea was shot down mostly by people saying it was not hype to have no culminating "Grand Final" type match. I agree with you and nimigoha that seeing all top 8 playing eachother would be awesome but I think there will be a big rift of opinions on this one.

But it is absolutely about time. Having an 8 way round robin, all matches being best of 5 is a ridiculous amount of time. That's 28 sets each with up to 5 matches in them.

Best case scenario: Assume an average top level match including character picks and bans to be 3 minutes and all sets end in 3 matches. That's 4 hours at absolute best. And worst case you have top 8 lasting up to 9 hours.

As for playing everything up to that point as rounds of pools, I can't stress the amount of time and effort that goes into pool making for large events. Unless there are less rounds than there are nights during the course of the tournament (at most 2 aka not possible for large events), this would eat a huge chunk of time with players just waiting around for them to get done.

Just quickly, that implies that each match is streamed and played one after the other. Each top 8 player only has to play 7 sets. If a best 3/5 takes 15-25 minutes, that's just under 3 hours at the absolute worst. Have 4 stations, each with a recording setup, and stream as many as you can at large tournaments, maybe like 1-2 at your locals. Upload the ones that weren't streamed later.

Yes, this means hype matches will happen off stream. That happens so much already before top 8 with brackets, even with 2 streamers. Top 8 has 10 or 11 matches. Even if you ran with 3 setups in a pool for top 8 you would have 9-9-10, stream the setup with 10 matches and you've basically done the same as selecting matches to equate to a top 8 bracket stream time. The other 18 matches can be streamed on other streams or uploaded later.

Like you're already providing more content than a bracket top 8, and can set it up so the same amount gets streamed. People will whine about missing matches but nationals will likely have TLoc and AZPM or another big streamer, so the hypest hype matches between big names will mostly be streamed, and you'll get more than a bracket top 8. I'm not going to cry about matches not being streamed at a local, and you can set it up so that at least every player gets a match on stream and you could record others.

Fretting about streaming every match is catering too much to the spectators when the whole point of pools is to fix problems for the competitors.

 

[Kneato]

I assumed you guys were implying to have them all played out on stream. This is better, and actually as long as there are 3 setups, would take approximately the same amount of time as top 8 double elim format if each match of it was being streamed. Even more setups would mean less streamed matches but faster progress, similar to the TO decided not to stream all matches in top 8 double elim to save time.

One other issue that comes with this though is player fatigue. I've had top players complain to me when they have had to play upper bracket matches back to back. The time estimates we are throwing out for this assumes no breaks for any players and they have to do 7 matches in a row. Realistically, a 20 minute break or something would have to be planned for mid top 8, at the very least.

EDIT: I was thinking about it and I'm really excited for the possibility of your top 8 idea.

Picture this: the standard tournament format has top 8 played out on 4 setups. That means 7 matches are going to be streamed. For the first 4, the TO can setup stream matches such that each of the top 8 players gets one match on stream. During the short down time in between matches, streamers could have everyone's current score displayed (ie W/L ratio so far). After the first 4 streamed matches are played, everyone takes their 20 minute break while the TO/streamer decides which of the remaining matches would be most hype and should be on stream based on current standing.

Another issue I foresee here though is that ties would be a big issue that could lead to more delays. A tiebreaker system would have to be nailed down universally, because right now method of dealing with ties varies by region (head to head? number of match wins? just replay the sets?)

 

[nimigoha]

I think a head to head would be a good system but I'm open to someone telling me otherwise. Would also provide a pseudo-Grand Finals set.

 

[Kneato]

I think a head to head would be a good system but I'm open to someone telling me otherwise. Would also provide a pseudo-Grand Finals set.

But that would only happen if there was a tie for first place. It would also take even more time

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah more time but as we've demonstrated, we can break it up to pretty much similar time as bracket top 8.

And tiebreakers between 3rd and 4th for example would still be hype, there's a big payout difference.

I think it would be interesting if the pay structure was altered so that it was reflective of how many sets you won. So if 1st and 2nd place go 6-1 and 5-2, the payout reflects that instead of just "he won 1 more set than you against someone else, so he gets like double your money lol".

Or even bring it down to games. If the winner wins 18 games and the second place finisher wins 16 of his games this could be reflected.

Although this is definitely less hype and there's fewer stakes once you start doing well in top 8 pool.

But money is money and people are going to do their best to get more of it so...

Maybe something to watch for would be collusion or splitting? I don't know...

That's definitely one of my most radical ideas though feel free to call me out for being completely bonkers.

 

[Deleted member]

i dont think the top players want to screw themselves in bracket, if you explain to them how a RR mitigates the MU heavy nature of the game i think they will be more open to the idea. as fun as it was to watch hbox 3-0 IPK and then turn around and lose 0-3 to Mr Lz, i dont think that should even remotely decide who walks away with an extra $800.

i also dont necessarily care if the top 8 RR is best of 5, best of 3 is perfectly adequate in any other tournament conditions. we also dont have to run the entire thing on one setup. if i can run an 8 man RR pool at aftershock in about an hour on two setups, i think it would pan out fine on a day 2 of an event where most of the day is dedicated to the top 8 alone.

i'd also want to split the pay out to top 8 and not just top 3 or 4 like usual. again, the game is simply very MU heavy, i dont see the point in unnecessarily punishing players from marginal balance issues.

but this is all just my speculation and ultimately isnt worth a whole lot.

 

[4tlas]

I am very surprised to hear that you feel Round Robin is meant to SAVE time, especially as its foremost attribute. Isn't the point of Round Robin to spend more time to better determine who has the most skill? I thought the whole point of Elimination brackets was to save time.

Player fatigue I think will be a big deal with this, though if you can dedicate a separate day to the RR then it might be ok.

The other big issue I think is having a cutoff, though as long as players know what they're getting into then I think they'll deal with it. Same goes for people having their placing determined by matches they don't play.

There being no Grand Finals is rather sad, but not every Grand Finals is a good one anyway. I don't think this is a concern.

 

[nimigoha]

Pools scales well too, as you can adjust pool sizes and pool cuts to keep the number of rounds low.