Proposed Standardized Ruleset

[Narpas_sword]

^ i said it as a joke before:

Play like paper scissors rock, but indicate 1 2 or 3 fingers (stages numbered left to right)

strike different : play the remainder
strike same: play battlefield.

 

[DMG]

**** u and ur battlefield! I'll strike it every time. JUST DON'T MATCH MY STRIKE!

 

[Player -0]

That was too complex, didn't understand. Skimmed really hard though.

Something trying to match people's ban's? What? No new player will ever understand that as well as needing other people in the area or something?

 

[DMG]

That was too complex, didn't understand. Skimmed really hard though.

Something trying to match people's ban's? What? No new player will ever understand that as well as needing other people in the area or something?

Don't need extra people, could just write it down or type it on your cell phone

Or take a magic marker and write it on your opponent's face

I mean all of those work

 

[Player -0]

Still overly complex compared to the current striking.

 

[DMG]

Didn't say it was preferred, just workable

Now that I solved that amazing riddle, I'm off the save the Polar Bears

 

[blu2grut]

I have not read all of this but the winner of RPS could strike 2nd. This would give them the greater choice in stage. (based on 3 neutrals)

 

[DMG]

I am going to forgive you for this transgression, based on the fact that you have a nice Mewtwo avatar


But I literally wrote an essay on a method where both players strike simultaneously to avoid that RPS advantage.

 

[Deleted member]

i think we are firmly on 5 starters with RPS for striking into 1 2 2 1 order as before. whether we should do stages or characters first is still debatable, although i would prefer to stay on stages first because characters first opens the losing player to being locked out by character counterpicks too harshly imo

 

[Narpas_sword]

although i would prefer to stay on stages first because characters first opens the losing player to being locked out by character counterpicks too harshly imo

How so? How are they locked out when they straight up get their choice after the winner?

And is this more likely than the whole counter-pick process becoming completely redundant after a minute of counter-picking, then we just change characters?

And again: Why does it make sense to have the initial game Characters > Stages, then subsequent games Stages> Characters?

Why don't we strike our starter stage first, then pick characters?




The point is, both ways have their 'this way is bad because of scenario that may happen once in a tourney'
But which makes sense logically?

Just the fact that we do our first match Characters > Stages is a strong enough reason.
And the menus are that way.
its much easier to understand.
It doesn't take a bunch of complex thought behind stage striking, or knowledge of your opponent secondaries.

Characters > Stages is more intuitive for new players to competitive play.

 

[Deleted member]

How so? How are they locked out when they straight up get their choice after the winner?

And is this more likely than the whole counter-pick process becoming completely redundant after a minute of counter-picking, then we just change characters?

And again: Why does it make sense to have the initial game Characters > Stages, then subsequent games Stages> Characters?

Why don't we strike our starter stage first, then pick characters?

i'll try to go in order-

if we play out loser picks character, winner picks character, loser picks stage, the player that won the previous game is then able to straight up CP the other player back on their CP via MU. it's not possible for the winning player to do this if stages are picked first, and we have stage bans to prevent this situation for losing your own CP due to stages. it is unreasonable to implement character bans, so this is the best we got.

i dont see any redundancy personally, just options to consider versus other options. this this case, i think going to traditional slob picks makes more sense than any of the alternatives proposed so far. by all means if something better comes up then we can do that, but i think having slob picks for characters first makes it way too easy to secure a 2-0 and defeats the purpose of counterpicking.

the initial game is played out to be roughly even for both players, we have blind picks to prevent unfair game 1 advantages for either side, and then striking ensures the same situation for stages. we cant fully prevent that (ex. armada can pick YL vs hbox game 1 blind), but its an imperfect system and thats the best we got so far.

striking stages first can be used with asymmetrical information to create a game 1 advantage for one player over another. for an easy example, i play sheik, and you strike dreamland64 with this information, and then game 1 we go to GHZ and i go "blind" marth. suddenly this is a cluster**** situation for you whether it was sincere or not. it is better to have a rule set that can secure a relatively even playing field for both players involved without questionable exploits and without needing some kind of judicial interference from the TO to decide what constitutes fair play during an event.

 

[skellitorman]

It depends on their balance style, and realistically, creating a stagelist for this build,

I am unsure what you are referring to when stating that “it depends on their balance style.” If by this you mean that if the pmdt wanted to have stage selection be just as significant a factor for changing advantages in MUs as character counterpicking, then the style argument is irrelevant.

The pmdt stated that they aren’t creating the ruleset, so it’s up to the community to decide what rules are going to apply regardless of the pmdt’s intentions regarding their balancing style. If the community can come up with a relatively balanced way of counterpicking with the stages that we currently have, which I foresee being able to happen, then the pmdt is likely to continue to balance the game with that in mind. I highly doubt that if we get a good stage list and effective ruleset, that the pmdt will then intentionally “polarize” our existing stages or add more polarizing stages for the sake of making stages have more counterpicking weight.

very few characters have winnable matchups against the cast assuming they choose any stage they want.

And it's the right decision based on what's left every time. Assuming character changes at that screen, when it gets to game 3 likely a different stage will be better in game 3 for the initial winner.

I can understand this argument having some weight (few characters with winnable MUs on all stages) if there was a bad stage list and if one were to ignore the fact that the winner gets the 3 bans that I stated they would be getting. Of the remaining stages, yes the loser will get the “right decision” every time, but the right decision of what’s left is not better for the loser than the “best decision” that could have happened with the previous system. Basically the “right decision” should lead to a relatively fair MU for both players. It doesn’t matter how much information both players have, as long as the counterpicking process leads to having the most fair matches possible.

I understand the argument against a guessing game - that makes sense. The guessing game would still exist, though, for the winner but they would have less information (be in a worse spot potentially) when choosing characters.

The guessing game is completely removed by picking characters first because there is potentially no right answer, given that the loser knows how to play the right set of characters (hence there will be no relevant guessing involved). The loser will, if they can, counterpick the winner’s character. If they counterpick the winner’s character, then the winner limits the loser’s advantage with the stage bans.

In the current system (stage first, then character), there is a “best answer,” and that answer is an advantage gained by guessing. By picking the stage first, the loser can guess what stage will give them the best chance to win against the winner’s potential character choice which is currently unknown. The winner potentially could guess the loser’s thoughts to hopefully strike the “best stages.” The winner can also know or guess correctly the loser’s potential character choice because of the stage chosen, and also get an advantage in guessing the right character to choose to counterpick the loser’s potential counterpick. This leads to having the possible “best decisions” for either player, which can cause too great of an advantage for either player. This is particularly unwanted because aside from having the worst possible situations for either player to arise, it is also a situation that is brought about through guessing.

Just for clarification; even if character selection preceding stage bans cause the next best right answer to be the “best answer” in that situation, it is not an answer that came about due to guessing, nor can it be better than the possible “best answer” with the other system.

Also, I don't agree with it being hard to counterpick with this system. The winner gets some information - they then have to consider what approach the loser is going to take and weigh their odds against it. The loser has a game plan with stage choice, and if the winner chooses a different character unexpectedly, the loser has all information and can then respond accordingly.

It’s not that it’s hard to counterpick with that system, it’s that it’s potentially not possible for the loser to get a good counterpick with that system as opposed to the alternative where it is always possible.

With boikos example, the same issue would happen with both situations.

In Boiko’s example the same issue would not happen in both situations. In Boiko’s example, he is locked into the stage (the stage that gave the huge advantage in the MU) that he would clearly have banned in the current system if able to. With character first, he would have the opportunity to ban the polarizing stage for that MU.

as an aside, i dont think it really affects stages though, since its pretty clear what is acceptable or not in terms of stage legality. we have minor issues with a handful of stages, but relatively speaking these are very trivial disagreements with regards to the stage list at large and we are 95% on the same page, even if it doesnt feel like it sometimes. im pretty okay addressing CP order and moving the stage list argument along in tandem.

The idea mentioned earlier (characters preceding stage) doesn’t directly affect the stage discussion. However, a problem that has been occurring constantly throughout the thread is that people have been arguing for or against certain stages and a certain number of stages for certain reasons such as “having to ban” one set of potentially poor stages for the next MU. Others who are assuming that character selection will eventually precede stage banning are arguing what they believe should be the case but without assuming such problems. It seems that this, among other reasons has lead to some confusion regarding the reasons that should be argued for or against in determining an appropriate stage limit and stage list.

Thus the main reason I asked the question I did earlier (Can someone explain why having only 8-9 of the best stages is worse than having 10-12 stages that include some disagreeable ones?) was to see if people could address the stage limit (leading to a more agreed upon stage list), by at least questioning the reasoning behind the warranted function of the stage list. Having been ignored, I thought it’d be best to at least have some of the other questions answered for which there have been a lot of posts about, so that it would make it easier to answer the question I asked previously.

Essentially, it would be easier to make certain arguments for a stage limit, and ultimately a stage list, if the situation becomes simplified, which I was attempting to make happen. There are many ways to go about this, and I just chose this way since I thought it’d be most effective. Unfortunately I have problems communicating on forums, so I was hoping that others could help me in my endeavor.

i would prefer to stay on stages first because characters first opens the losing player to being locked out by character counterpicks too harshly imo

I would argue the opposite being more harsh for the reasons previously given.

i'll try to go in order-
if we play out loser picks character, winner picks character, loser picks stage, the player that won the previous game is then able to straight up CP the other player back on their CP via MU.

From my understanding the system that is being argued for is that the winner chooses character first, then the loser counterpicks their character. The winner then bans the 2 stages that give the biggest advantages in that MU leading to a more fair stage selection.

 

[Deleted member]

From my understanding the system that is being argued for is that the winner chooses character first, then the loser counterpicks their character. The winner then bans the 2 stages that give the biggest advantages in that MU leading to a more fair stage selection.

i largely agree with the premise of having 10 non-negotiable stages vs 12-13 with red flags. the function of the stage list is that we think we can have a trade-off of competitively acceptable with fun/diversity in a way that is exclusive to the franchise. i don't think it needs to be much more complicated than that. from there it's simply a matter of what is acceptable given that trade-off. i think skyworld and norfair step past that line. i think lylat does as well but its much more debatable imo. i would prefer to cut all 3 personally.

switching character and stages for slob picks seems okay in a vacuum, but the stage bans push it in favor of the old system imo in terms of balancing out advantages. so i beat you and i play bowser, you are free to counterpick to a character like say toon link, and no stage is going to let me leverage any real advantage. you have effectively stolen my counterpick. because there are 2 stage bans, it is very hard to do the opposite. the best example i can think of is you ban WW and GHZ against my perceived bowser, i counterpick to distant planet, you stay TL because TL is good in that MU on large stages, and then i go to sonic or something similar. because you get information in game 1 and can knock off two stages as the winner with that information, it is much harder to use my CP against me. similarly, even if you find a way, you have the tools to do it right back in game 3, and its pretty much guaranteed to be less volatile than a straight up character counterpick ala the proposed system.

 

[Narpas_sword]

i'll try to go in order-

if we play out loser picks character, winner picks character, loser picks stage, the player that won the previous game is then able to straight up CP the other player back on their CP via MU. it's not possible for the winning player to do this if stages are picked first, and we have stage bans to prevent this situation for losing your own CP due to stages. it is unreasonable to implement character bans, so this is the best we got.

i dont see any redundancy personally, just options to consider versus other options. this this case, i think going to traditional slob picks makes more sense than any of the alternatives proposed so far. by all means if something better comes up then we can do that, but i think having slob picks for characters first makes it way too easy to secure a 2-0 and defeats the purpose of counterpicking.

the initial game is played out to be roughly even for both players, we have blind picks to prevent unfair game 1 advantages for either side, and then striking ensures the same situation for stages. we cant fully prevent that (ex. armada can pick YL vs hbox game 1 blind), but its an imperfect system and thats the best we got so far.

striking stages first can be used with asymmetrical information to create a game 1 advantage for one player over another. for an easy example, i play sheik, and you strike dreamland64 with this information, and then game 1 we go to GHZ and i go "blind" marth. suddenly this is a cluster**** situation for you whether it was sincere or not. it is better to have a rule set that can secure a relatively even playing field for both players involved without questionable exploits and without needing some kind of judicial interference from the TO to decide what constitutes fair play during an event.

1) Im still not really following the situation in your first paragraph sorry. What do you mean by “ The player that won the previous game is able to straight up counter-pick the other player back to their counter-pick via matchup”? Can you play this out with examples?

2) I feel the opposite, I feel that having Stages first makes it too easy for the winner to change to a character that does well on that stage, and secure a 2-0 quickly.

3) Here I was more making comment in that having game 1 one way, then having game 2 the other way is confusing. They should be consistent.

4) This is exactly what I think, and why stages should be chosen after characters for subsequent games too. You could have won first game as sheik, so I counterpick and go to GHZ, then you change to Marth, making the CP stage in your favour.

switching character and stages for slob picks seems okay in a vacuum, but the stage bans push it in favor of the old system imo in terms of balancing out advantages. so i beat you and i play bowser, you are free to counterpick to a character like say toon link, and no stage is going to let me leverage any real advantage. you have effectively stolen my counterpick. because there are 2 stage bans, it is very hard to do the opposite. the best example i can think of is you ban WW and GHZ against my perceived bowser, i counterpick to distant planet, you stay TL because TL is good in that MU on large stages, and then i go to sonic or something similar. because you get information in game 1 and can knock off two stages as the winner with that information, it is much harder to use my CP against me. similarly, even if you find a way, you have the tools to do it right back in game 3, and its pretty much guaranteed to be less volatile than a straight up character counterpick ala the proposed system.

What’s going on here?

If you win as bowser, why am I striking stages?

 

[Rhubarbo]

What about this:

-Winner picks character.
-Winner bans one stage.
-Loser picks character.
-Winner bans one more stage.

 

[Narpas_sword]

What about this:

-Winner picks character.
-Winner bans one stage.
-Loser picks character.
-Winner bans one more stage.

Involves too much back and forth through menus.

The thing i want to see most of all is simplicity. In menu navigation, understanding the process, and consistency between first game and subsequent.

The less time wasted between games, the better.
And the less of a barrier the rules are to newer players, the more likely they'll keep coming to tournies.

 

[skellitorman]

i largely agree with the premise of having 10 non-negotiable stages vs 12-13 with red flags. the function of the stage list is that we think we can have a trade-off of competitively acceptable with fun/diversity in a way that is exclusive to the franchise. i don't think it needs to be much more complicated than that. from there it's simply a matter of what is acceptable given that trade-off. i think skyworld and norfair step past that line. i think lylat does as well but its much more debatable imo. i would prefer to cut all 3 personally.

The complication comes in when deciding on an actual limit and the practical stage list. Based on the information I have gathered in this thread, there are actually only 7 stages that people have agreed on (8 if you include FoD which there has been some disagreement on).

1. SV

2. BF

3. GHZ

4. PS2

5. YI

6. FD

7. WW

8. FoD (which there has been some disagreement)


These other 6 stages have seen larger amounts of varying disagreement:

1. Norfair

2. Lylat

3. DP

4. Skyworld

5. YS

6. Dreamland

Hence when I asked my question, I asked 8-9 (supposing we do get a new stage in the future such as that new training room) instead of 10-12. Given that FoD makes it which it seems that it will, what would the last 2 be for now? Why does there need to be 10 instead of 8? How is 8 less “competitively acceptable” than 10? If it isn’t, then is it that much less fun/diverse than 10 that it warrants the use of 2 more stages that are largely disagreed upon?

Do we not want the stage limit and stage list to compliment the counterpicking process in way that allows MUs to be played on fair stages? What is valued most here?

switching character and stages for slob picks seems okay in a vacuum, but the stage bans push it in favor of the old system imo in terms of balancing out advantages.

Can you explain what a slob pick is?

As I explained in my previous post above when arguing against Rizner’s points, the current system actually has the potential to cause the extremes in advantages as opposed to the proposed system. If the goal is to remove such extremes in advantages then I don’t see why the proposed system isn’t being considered. Furthermore the proposed system removes the guessing element from the equation which I deem to be something very important in competitive play.

so i beat you and i play bowser, you are free to counterpick to a character like say toon link, and no stage is going to let me leverage any real advantage. you have effectively stolen my counterpick. because there are 2 stage bans, it is very hard to do the opposite. the best example i can think of is you ban WW and GHZ against my perceived bowser, i counterpick to distant planet, you stay TL because TL is good in that MU on large stages, and then i go to sonic or something similar.

This example is breaking the rules of both counterpicking systems. The loser doesn’t ban stages, and the winner doesn’t counterpick the stage in both systems. It is the opposite.

If I am supposed to be the winner in this example against the loser’s perceived Bowser, then the counterpick to distant planet causing a potentially huge advantage (supposing it did) for the Bowser/Sonic player only occurs in the current system. In the proposed system where the character is chosen first, I would then remove the polarizing or best stages for the Sonic counterpick and proceed to play against the Sonic on a more fair stage for that MU. If the Bowser player decides to stay as Bowser, then after banning the two best Bowser stages, I would then proceed to fight Bowser on a more fair stage such as Battlefield or FoD as opposed to WW.

because you get information in game 1 and can knock off two stages as the winner with that information, it is much harder to use my CP against me.

By this do you mean using the counterpicking stage against the loser? If this is what you mean, then it is only possible for the winner to use the CP stage against the loser in the current system. It is not possible to do so in the proposed system.

similarly, even if you find a way, you have the tools to do it right back in game 3, and its pretty much guaranteed to be less volatile than a straight up character counterpick ala the proposed system.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that it is “guaranteed to be less volatile” than the straight up character counterpick. I think this is a point that needs further explanation. Though I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.

Even if the loser does lose the counterpick via this situation, they only have a possibility rather than a guarantee to be able to do it back in game 3, and in a Bo3 they are out after they lose game 2. In a Bo5, the losing player has cost themselves a complete game significantly influenced by “guessing incorrectly” and could possibly lose game 3 for the same reason.

The proposed system forces all 3 games to be played on fair stages of any MU without having the “guessing game” ever being a factor.

What about this:

-Winner picks character.

-Winner bans one stage.

-Loser picks character.

-Winner bans one more stage.

Functionally all this succeeds in doing is making the loser have more of an advantage counterpicking than the proposed system which unbalances the system. The key here being whether the winner’s character is selected before stage is selected. The extra advantage for the loser exists because the first stage ban effectively becomes useless. Imagine if the loser plays both Bowser and Sonic. The winner can ban 1 small stage, but then the winner can’t ban the 2 best Sonic stages when the loser picks Sonic.

 

[Bazkip]

I don't see why Yoshi's Island is more accepted over Lylat. They're rather similar in that they're wide stages with low platform(s) and average blastzones. However, it seems to me at least that the "Issues" with Lylat are a lot less problematic than Yoshi Island.

Lylat has the slanted ledges, which YI's also has in addition to more uneven terrain. Lylat has the "distracting" background, but since that's not an actual direct influence on gameplay it's inherently less of an issue. There's the Melee Battlefield-like edges...are we even considering that an actual problem? It causes some changes to the recovery game but not enough that be considered polarizing. Yoshi's has the rising platforms which change recovering to the benefit of the person offstage, and personally I think in a game where characters tend to live longer a stage that makes recovery slightly more difficult is a better pick than one that slightly aids it. And then there's the platform layout, where Lylat's give more movement options with wavelanding off/around them. Navigating around Yoshi's Island feels clunky to me. Not to mention how the platform tilts, and while that's not a major amount of movement it still interferes with gameplay.

For these reasons I think Lylat's a much better choice as a legal stage over Yoshi's Island.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I definitely like Lylat more than YI. i think the main problem is a combination of the slant and melee bf edges.
It makes edge guarding really easy.
Though i don't see how that's a problem. Seems like a good counter-pick for someone who is used to easy recovery with walls.

@ S skellitorman

Did you exclude Dreamland64 from your lists intentionally?

 

[Scatz]

I've could've sworn I just explained that almost all recoveries can come from under the main stage and instantly sweetspot without worrying about being edgeguarded normally. The only characters that can stop this is Ike, D3, and Snake. D3 and Snake's methods can be teched. Ike's cannot be teched, but at the same time, he can't utilize the recovery method. Lylat is entirely fine if you learn how to do that.

 

[Narpas_sword]

just because recoveries can, doesnt necessary mean you can get to that position easily.

 

[Scatz]

All I did was provide an answer to people complaining about the edges. If you can't reach the spot, then there's a reason why you can't. If an opponent knows that you're going for it, they can either drop down early to stop you or let you have it free and attempt to force you to tech the stage.

IMO, it does what a CP should do without making things entirely useless.

 

[Narpas_sword]

yea, i agree, it serves well as a counter pick.

 

[Deleted member]

my issue with LC is that the slants on the sides really reduce interaction with some characters past an invisible line in the sand, mainly low crouching chars like GAW, kirby, etc. make no mistake, what we consider "fair" is fairly arbitrary by any metric and you could reasonably debate LC to be a fine CP stage. i think it just steps over that line a little bit. i have no issue with its edges.

the issue of picking character before stage is that its much more common for a character to lose to another (set of) characters than it is for a character to lose to a stage. marth might lose to DL64 or falco might lose to FD more than any MUs (again, debatable even as my go-to examples) but its much, much more common for a character to lose to a character MU like say DK vs falco. choosing DK as the loser of match 1 under your system means i can go falco and simply 2-0 you blind and effectively renders DK non-viable immediately. there is no such problem with stages since you can simply ban the stages your character loses to before picking them.

imo the old system of slob picks stays until something better comes up if anything, but that isnt it.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Players would still pick characters in the same order. The loser choosing DK implies the winner already chose not-Falco, same as the current system. Now that they know what they're up against, the winner can make more informed bans and the loser a more informed pick.

The stages that are disadvantageous for a character often depend on the opponent's character, so it's unreasonable to expect someone to ban them without first knowing what the opponent's character will be (or even being certain of which character they'll pick themselves).

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I surprised nobody from smashing grounds like the NZA has seen this thread and commented. There weeklies run a new stage list every "season". They have tried plenty of lists, maybe somebody needs to tag someone and see what they think.

 

[Narpas_sword]

the issue of picking character before stage is that its much more common for a character to lose to another (set of) characters than it is for a character to lose to a stage. marth might lose to DL64 or falco might lose to FD more than any MUs (again, debatable even as my go-to examples) but its much, much more common for a character to lose to a character MU like say DK vs falco. choosing DK as the loser of match 1 under your system means i can go falco and simply 2-0 you blind and effectively renders DK non-viable immediately. there is no such problem with stages since you can simply ban the stages your character loses to before picking them.

imo the old system of slob picks stays until something better comes up if anything, but that isnt it.

Dude,

This situation you just describes (winner counter picking falco to the losers change to DK) again breaks the rules of order for both the current rules and the proposed rules.

First you came up with an example where the loser was striking stages, and now you're saying the winner is picking character second.

This is certainly illustrating the point that the current rules are too confusing for a seasoned smashboards poster, let alone a beginner coming to tournaments.

On the other hand, lets say the Winner chose DK and the Loser counter-picked Falco, this could still happen in the current system.
Except with the proposed change (stages being selected after characters), the DK player knows he'll be fighting a Falco and be able to ban Falco levels, making it not so bad.
In the current rules, he could have struck levels for the previous match, Then be taken to a Falco strong level against Falco.

 

[DMG]

I don't think Umbreon properly conveyed what his scenario was. I can't imagine he actually means Winner picks his character last and gets to character CP the loser, or that anyone here is advocating for it and needs a counter argument against it? Not really sure

 

[SunJester]

I win a match with Roy, my opponent is Fox.

If stage bans happen first, I ban the stages Fox is good on, and I obviously don't ban Final Destination, my opponent chooses Final Destination. I'm aware at this point that he's switching characters which sucks, because I banned stages that would benefit Fox in the matchup. I don't have any characters other than Roy, and my opponent counterpicks DK, and not only has he chosen one of my bad character matchups, but he's also chosen the best stage for the matchup.

This isn't good.

I think it should go.

I won the match, I stay with Roy. My opponent lost the match, he switches from Fox to Donkey Kong. I then, knowing the character he chose, ban the stages that are bad for me, given the current match up. My opponent then chooses the stages from the remaining non-banned ones.

So to recap. Winner picks character -> Loser Picks Character -> Winner Bans Stages -> Loser Picks Stage.


Character counterpicks are going to be more common in this game, especially with a more homogenized (non-extreme) stage list. I think its more important to pick your characters first so at least you're not fighting the stage and the character in the matchup.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I don't think Umbreon properly conveyed what his scenario was. I can't imagine he actually means Winner picks his character last and gets to character CP the loser, or that anyone here is advocating for it and needs a counter argument against it? Not really sure

His exact words were "choosing DK as the loser of match 1 under your system means i can go falco and simply 2-0 you blind and effectively renders DK non-viable immediately"

I understand he probably didn't mean to get it in the wrong order. But it is the second time he's done it trying to find a fault in 'character before stage' selection

Certainly not meant to be a personal attack, and i apologise if it came off that way.
Though i do stand by it illustrating the point that the rules are convoluted.

 

[mimgrim]

So today in my second round in a tourney, in losers bracket, I got paired up against someone who likes to switch characters a rather lot (and he switches between a bunch of them to lol), while I pretty much just stay Toon Link when I play tourney because I don't feel comfortable with anyone else in a serious match like that. Game 1 goes fine with it being mostly even between us with him having the slight edge with Pikachu on PS2 and winning it out in the. Game 2 I cp to FoD and he switched to Falcon, and I ended up winning pretty convincingly (3 stocked him). Game 3 he CPs to WW, asks me if I change character, and ofc I say no, and then he changes to Ganon and he proceeds to win pretty convincingly (3 stocked me).

I found it to be on the silly side.

 

[Narpas_sword]

So,

I'm yet to see any supporting reasons outside of 'this might happen' for the current system.
Like, literally nothing.

The only person still arguing it is Umbreon, who is the OP.

What do we need to do to write the change in pen, as opposed to pencilling it in as an idea?

 

[Soft Serve]

I don't see why it's a problem that the person who's counter pick it is has the advantage. Thats generally why we have counters.

I get that with characters and stages being diverse it can get silly, but these seem like much more outliers and extreme examples than the regular way sets go. It may reward people who play more than one character to cover matchups, but again I don't see why that's bad.

The current system is still the best imo. The only situation where it is bad is when the winner is the one who has the multiple characters, and who's counter pick it is takes player 1 to a stage where they would be advantaged if he stayed on character a, but the advantage flips because player 1 switches to character b.

I don't think that diminishing the value of a cp by having characters being picked first, in most situations is worth avoiding the few out lier cases where cps can get flipped due to someone having a pocket character for certain situations.

The current system isnt perfect but it's better than any alternatives.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Yeah I'm confused too, @Umbreon, their proposition isn't that loser picks character first like you keep suggesting, it's that the winner-then-loser character pick happens before the winner-then-loser stage ban/selection, instead of the other way around from how we do it.

As for my position I think the current system of stages first is better. Character before stage allows the loser to counterpick the winner twice, once on the character to character basis and once on the stage basis. It effectively negates the advantage a multi-main player has over a dual-main player (or change mains to seconds in this example, doesn't matter), and in some cases, negates advantage of a dual main over a singular main. Players who play multiple characters at a high level (or even higher than the other player, consider this person won the first game) to cover counterpick weaknesses effectively lose that strength, because the opponent (loser of the last match) knows exactly what character to select a stage for, instead of having to decide between best/worst stages for a range of characters that the multi-main has and might use.

Stages first, however, ask the losing player to either have a direct character-to-character counterpick, or be better on a decent stage for your opponents character than he is, or lose. Given that they lost the first match, the loser should be at an INHERENT disadvantage due to the skill gap between the players. If the winning player ALSO has additional characters that can play at or above the opponent's level, it's up to the loser to either have secondaries as well so they can counterpick the winner's character change, or they must simply pick a stage because they think they will win there regardless of who the opponent picks. And if they can't do either of those, then a 2-0 is in order because their main is worse/less developed than the winner of the first match AND the winner still has yet more characters capable of beating the loser.

So really, long term, this is about deciding how strong we want counterpicking to be. Do we want it to HEAVILY favor the loser of the last match? If so we have them pick characters first. Do we want it to be SLIGHTLY in favor of the loser? Then stages should come first. If the first game is close, then ideally the slight advantage made available by the current system works fine; if they both have only one high-level character then the loser should have significant enough advantage through stage counterpick to win, but if the winner has a well developed back-up character that's good on the loser's stage counterpick, and the loser has no way to deal with that, they deserve to lose again. Alternatively, if the first game isn't close, chances are the counterpick system won't make up the difference unless we give the loser a HEAVY advantage, which in the end ends up testing stage/character selection skills more than I would prefer.

 

[Deleted member]

counterpicking is supposed to be a slight advantage for the player with the CP.

maybe i'm just being ******** but here's what i think we're comparing-

traditional slob picks-
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage
winner of game 1 picks character
loser of game 1 picks character

what i think is being proposed...?-
loser of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage

which is pretty obviously a terrible idea. what are we actually going for here?

 

[mimgrim]

counterpicking is supposed to be a slight advantage for the player with the CP.

maybe i'm just being ******** but here's what i think we're comparing-

traditional slob picks-
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage
winner of game 1 picks character
loser of game 1 picks character

what i think is being proposed...?-
loser of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage

which is pretty obviously a terrible idea. what are we actually going for here?

What is actually being proposed-
Winner of game 1 picks character
Loser of game 1 picks character
Winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
Loser of game 1 picks stage

 

[Rhubarbo]

Please correct me if I'm wrong -

In Melee, striking stages before character selection is a non-issue because the meta is relatively predictable. 6 legal stages and a short list of perceived viable characters means a winning player can reliably eliminate the stages that hurt his character and help his opponent's probable character choice at once with only two bans.

Since Project M should probably have more than 6 legal stages, and since the range of perceived viable characters is more or less the entire roster, striking two stages before character selection confers too much of an advantage to the losing player. If we go with 9 legal stages, that means the losing player, after bans, has 7 CP options and he may theoretically pick any character based on the 7 remaining stages. So, it looks like fairness favours having stage bans occur after character selection.

The dilemma some have brought up: What if this system forces players to pick their character conservatively?

I reckon that's not an issue thanks to Project M's larger stage variety. After second game bans, Melee permits the loser a choice of 4 stages after 2 bans whereas Project M could feasibly permit the loser up to 9 stages after 3 bans. In Project M, we can craft a stage list that permits the loser a favourable yet compromising CP.

As for bans lasting between games; I don't see the point. To me, this rule seems like it was designed to deepen the stage selection process, which by all accounts should be ancillary to the actual game play.

 

[DrinkingFood]

counterpicking is supposed to be a slight advantage for the player with the CP.

maybe i'm just being ******** but here's what i think we're comparing-

traditional slob picks-
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage
winner of game 1 picks character
loser of game 1 picks character

what i think is being proposed...?-
loser of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage

which is pretty obviously a terrible idea. what are we actually going for here?

The second one is wrong, what is being proposed is:
Winner of game 1 picks character
Loser of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage

****, ninja'd

 

[Deleted member]

The second one is wrong, what is being proposed is:
Winner of game 1 picks character
Loser of game 1 picks character
winner of game 1 bans 2 stages
loser of game 1 picks stage

****, ninja'd

oh yeah that seems legit, lets playtest it and look for flaws.

 

[Narpas_sword]

oh yeah that seems legit, lets playtest it and look for flaws.

For the record, i play-tested it a bit amongst a local group.

The main difference was that the time spent between games moved a lot faster.

There was no long period of guessing stage strikes, trying to think of all the characters that could be chosen.
there were no accidental games started before going backwards to the character select screen.