Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Cactuar]

From a competitive standpoint, wider stage availability should only expand on what already exists. The current standard is maybe 1 more shift towards being as barebones as possible in stages. Those are the stages we know work competitively. I highly recommend taking a break from normal play and trying all the stages in training/friendlies and feeling them out, but I don't think jumping headfirst into playing them in tournament is a good idea, as much as I appreciate the feedback from that Madison tournament.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I think we should gauge the stages by how far they are from neutral, and categorize them like that. Pokemon Stadium would be ranked CP1; Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar, and Kongo N64 would be ranked CP2; etc. Grouping them like this would make them easier to gradually introduce into competitive play. (The rank could go up to CP5, and banned stages would be CP6.)

 

[BigD!!!]

i think one problem with most of the testing that has been happening is that its been in training and friendlies, and people arent going to push these stages to their limits of viability in those situations

people will need to specifically try to break these stages to see if it can be done, and i just dont see that happening on a large enough scale without use in tournaments. even in tournaments, this is a lot of stages we're talking, put em all on random and play for 3 hours you might get yoshis island 64 only twice

 

[MonkUnit]

Definitely have to test this ruleset or any other variations of this ruleset at more than just the one Madison tournament, lol. Would also help if people from other regions tested the ruleset in a tournament. And if the ruleset turns people off, you can have it as a side event.

 

[Cactuar]

If you guys were to do this again, what would you do differently and how?

- Stages
Not surprised at stages being a complaint, as they are still undergoing evaluation.

- Set Play Time vs Overall Set Time
There is more activity required during the set that causes greater/more frequent lapses in play. Ways to fix this include frontloading all bans into the beginning of the set before the first match, as well as possibly choosing all three CP stages for both sides before play begins, then alternating back and forth with loser first after neutral stage rather than making it loser picks throughout the set. I actually think this would make sets more interesting because you know what matches are going to come up, so you get to spend time thinking about how the two players will use the upcoming stage/stages. It also makes no difference in 7 match sets, though it does remove one counterpick from the loser in a 4-0 set.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I playtested this a lot last week, and overall it was pretty fun but I agree with the major criticisms. However, I think if we fine-tuned it, it can be better than the ruleset we have now.

The first order of business is to minimize the stagelist. I'm a big proponent of more stages, but Flatzone and Fourside are just unplayable. Adding Cruise, Brinstar, Mushroom Kingdom II, Corneria, Japes, KJ64, and Mute worked great though; I think those should be locks for additions. Maybe Floats too...there are a bunch of stages I'm on the fence about but with this ruleset I don't think there is an argument against adding those stages at a minimum.

The best thing about this ruleset is that it reduces stage imbalance but retains the power and strategy behind a counterpick; winning against a Peach in a 2 stock match on Mute isn't super hard like it is in a 4 stock match, but just hard enough to still make counterpicks worth thinking about.

None of us played very campy so I can't say much about the timer...I don't think I had a single timeout lol.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I grouped together stages based upon how close to neutral I think they are. Stages within groups are in no particular order. Any suggestions for changes?

Spoiler

CP0 (Neutral):
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi’s Story
Fountain of Dreams
Dreamland N64

CP1:
Pokemon Stadium

CP2:
Kongo Jungle N64
Rainbow Cruise
Brinstar

CP3:
Mute City
Mushroom Kingdom II
Corneria
Jungle Japes
Poke Floats
Kongo Jungle

CP4:
Green Greens
Icicle Mountain
Mushroom Kingdom
Onett
Princess Peach’s Castle

CP5:
Venom
Yoshi’s Island
Flat Zone
Fourside

CP6 (Banned):
Great Bay
Hyrule Temple
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths
Yoshi's Island N64

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm so glad you put KJ64 where it belongs.

 

[Cactuar]

@CrimsonBlur: That is because of the stacking effect of the stocks. When you look at a stage's influence on a match, you can break it down based on individual stock, and how many of those stock you go through before being reset.

@1 Stock: Each stock, you have a set chance to win.
- On neutrals, the desire is for this to be 50% based on completely even everything.
- Counterpick stage influence changes this percent, so say Mute + Fox vs Peach is 40:60. This makes your odds of winning the match 40%.

@2 Stock: First stock, you have a set chance to win. Assuming you lose your first stock before the opponent, your chance of taking the opponent's second stock is now your original % decreasing in some amount for however much damage you take while dealing with the opponent's first stock remainder. At best, you can only reset the odds of winning the second stock to 50% by first killing the remainder, and then avoiding invulnerability period while keeping some stage control.

- Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus opponent's first stock remainder).

@3 Stock: Same as two stock, same stacking advantage effect.

- Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus opponent's remainder)*(40% minus opponent's remainder)
- Opponent's remainder is expected to increase for each stock, which further reduces your odds of winning that stock.

@4 Stock: Same as 2 and 3 in stacking effect.

-Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus remainder)*(40% minus remainder)*(40% minus remainder)



tl:dr - Actual impact of ANY advantage is amplified based on how many stocks before the outcome is determined.


Note: There is a difference between static advantage and variable advantage. Static advantage is something like character matchup and stage influence. Variable advantage is something like character matchup experience, player skill, etc.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Hm, InternetExplorer I think you are very close. If I'd make a list it'd be:

CP0 (Neutral):
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams
Dreamland N64
Yoshi’s Story
Final Destination

CP1:
Pokemon Stadium

CP2:
Rainbow Cruise
Kongo Jungle N64
Mushroom Kingdom II
Brinstar
Corneria
Mute City
Jungle Japes

CP3:
Poke Floats
Kongo Jungle

CP4:
Green Greens
Yoshi’s Island

CP5:
Icicle Mountain
Mushroom Kingdom
Princess Peach’s Castle
Onett

CP6:
Venom

CP7:
Great Bay
Fourside
Flat Zone
Hyrule Temple
Yoshi's Island N64

CP8:
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths

I tried to order them within each tier as much as possible (the CP2 stages were really hard to order though; they are all extremely close in viability). The biggest question marks are Kongo Jungle (Rock) and Icicle Mountain. I'm not confident in their position at all.

A stage viability tier list is an interesting discussion and in my opinion necessary if we are actually serious about reintroducing stages back into the game.

@CrimsonBlur: That is because of the stacking effect of the stocks. When you look at a stage's influence on a match, you can break it down based on individual stock, and how many of those stock you go through before being reset.

@1 Stock: Each stock, you have a set chance to win.
- On neutrals, the desire is for this to be 50% based on completely even everything.
- Counterpick stage influence changes this percent, so say Mute + Fox vs Peach is 40:60. This makes your odds of winning the match 40%.

@2 Stock: First stock, you have a set chance to win. Assuming you lose your first stock before the opponent, your chance of taking the opponent's second stock is now your original % decreasing in some amount for however much damage you take while dealing with the opponent's first stock remainder. At best, you can only reset the odds of winning the second stock to 50% by first killing the remainder, and then avoiding invulnerability period while keeping some stage control.

- Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus opponent's first stock remainder).

@3 Stock: Same as two stock, same stacking advantage effect.

- Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus opponent's remainder)*(40% minus opponent's remainder)
- Opponent's remainder is expected to increase for each stock, which further reduces your odds of winning that stock.

@4 Stock: Same as 2 and 3 in stacking effect.

-Counterpick stage influence changes the percent to win on Mute to 40%*(40% minus remainder)*(40% minus remainder)*(40% minus remainder)



tl:dr - Actual impact of ANY advantage is amplified based on how many stocks before the outcome is determined.


Note: There is a difference between static advantage and variable advantage. Static advantage is something like character matchup and stage influence. Variable advantage is something like character matchup experience, player skill, etc.

Agreed. Definitely the best part about this ruleset

 

[CanISmash]

I think....Fox should be banned on any stage with a wall.
Then this ruleset will own.

i think we cater to too many characters. FD people cry about chaingrabs.. what about the characters that can't be chaingrabbed or can't do chaingrabbing that are just as important to the game. same goes for banning walk off stages , walled stages because of waveshines.

btw cosign whoever said 3 stocks 5 minutes. the flow of 2 stocks just blows imo. At 4 stocks it was a lot slower but people that weren't a top level player could learn habits and things of similar nature. You can always actively test and see whats going on in a match. Going from bf to pokefloats to mute city with only 2 stocks just makes matches a lot less meaningless imo

 

[Cactuar]

So, I don't remember if this was someone else's idea but I think someone suggested it: Packaging of stages.

Instead of doing your tiers of counterpick influence (CP1 CP2, etc), what do you guys think of packaging stages based on viable matchups? You each ban a package. You can't ban neutral or from neutral.

So for instance, the example stage list would be something like... (Note: These aren't what I would actually use for the packages, I'm just trying to make example. I'd also ideally want like 3-5 CP packages minimum of 2-4 stages each)

Neutral:
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64

Counterpick 1:
Brinstar
Corneria

Counterpick 2:
Mute City
Onett

Counterpick 3:
Pokemon Stadium
Final Destination
Fountain of Dreams

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

You could also have it so there is a set pool of stages per game, with a ban from the losing player.
ex:

Game 1
Battlefield

Game 2
Rainbow Cruise
Brinstar
Yoshis

Game 3
Corneria
Mute City
Fountain

Game 4
Jungle Japes
Mushroom Kingdom II
Dreamland

Game 5
Kongo Jungle N64
Stadium
FD

Fox/Puff
G1: BF
Puff wins G1: Puff bans Cruise, G2 on Yoshis
Fox wins G1: Fox bans Brinstar, G2 on Yoshis
Puff wins G2: Puff bans Corneria, G3 on Fountain
Fox wins G2: Fox bans Mute, G3 on Fountain
Puff wins G3: Puff bans MK II, G4 on Japes
Fox wins G3: Fox bans Dreamland, G4 on Japes
Puff wins G4: Puff bans Stadium, G5 on FD
Fox wins G4: Fox bans Kongo, G5 on FD
BF-Yoshis-Fountain-Japes-FD
not a terrible outcome

Marth/Falco
G1: BF
Falco wins G1: Falco bans Yoshis, G2 on Cruise
Marth wins G1: Marth bans Brinstar, G2 on Cruise
Falco wins G2: Falco bans Mute, G3 on Fountain
Marth wins G2: Marth bans Corneria, G3 on Fountain
Falco wins G3: Falco bans MK II, G4 on Dreamland
Marth wins G3: Marth bans Japes, G4 on Dreamland
Falco wins G4: Falco bans FD, G5 on Stadium
Marth wins G4: Marth bans Kongo, G5 on Stadium
BF-Cruise-Fountain-Dreamland-Stadium
urgh thats pribad for Marth

Peach/Falcon
G1: BF
Peach wins G1: Peach bans Cruise, G2 on Yoshis
Falcon wins G1: Falcon bans Brinstar, G2 on Yoshis
Peach wins G2: Peach bans Corneria, G3 on Fountain
Falcon wins G2: Falcon bans Mute, G3 on Fountain
Peach wins G3: Peach bans MK II, G4 on Dreamland
Falcon wins G3: Falcon bans Japes (I guess?), G4 on Dreamland
Peach wins G4: Peach bans Stadium, G5 on Kongo
Falcon wins G4: Falcon bans FD, G5 on Kongo
BF-Yoshis-Fountain-Dreamland-Kongo
pretty freaking good actually

I personally don't like this idea (even though I brought it up lol) because I feel it would centralize the stagelist too much; the same 5 stages will be played every set for each matchup. I also think its too complicated for a tournament setting.

But if the goal is to take each set to a different, relatively balanced stage each game, then this works.

 

[Dan Salvato]

As a Link player, I can get very specific with stage preference, so I prefer not to package or centralize them. Chances are, I'll hate one stage in a package and love another, and I could get screwed. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one in that scenario.

 

[Cactuar]

As a Link player, I can get very specific with stage preference, so I prefer not to package or centralize them. Chances are, I'll hate one stage in a package and love another, and I could get screwed. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one in that scenario.

Actually, this is the whole point. To ban a stage, you give up a stage you might like as part of the package. The stages get packaged similarly to how I paired stages before. For every stage good for Peach, there is a stage good for Fox. etc

Basically, this forces you to balance how much you like the stage in that package with how much of a disadvantage you think you might have on the other stage in the package.

@Crimson: I would probably do that based on what number counterpick each player is on. Like, first game neutral, then
split between player A and player B

ACP1 and BCP1 use the same pool

ACP2 and BCP2 use the same pool

etc.

 

[Kal]

I think Crimson's idea and Cactus' are identical, save for the fact that Crimson's is asking for a specific ordering of the packages. My issue with this is that there may not be a way to partition the stage list and maintain balance, even only focusing on the top eight characters.

 

[Cactuar]

Crimson's is a list of all the stages based on how "jank" they are. Mine is packaging 2-4 stages in each segment, while trying to keep the average of those packaged stages at 50% odds. Your issue with it is legitimate. A lot more thought would have to go into each of the packages.

 

[Teczer0]

That sounds like a legitimate idea.

Just curious Cactus, do you have a number of stages you're aiming to include?

Also did anyone every try this ruleset in a tournament setting? I think it'd be really interesting to mess with it in tournaments as a side tournament.

 

[Cactuar]

The number of stages I want to include will be whatever the total number of packages I can make while keeping that balance.

It doesn't matter if there are 8 CPs that Fox is good on if every other character only has 3. I would only make 3 packages, or scrap the whole idea and do something else.

 

[MonkUnit]

That sounds like a legitimate idea.

Just curious Cactus, do you have a number of stages you're aiming to include?

Also did anyone every try this ruleset in a tournament setting? I think it'd be really interesting to mess with it in tournaments as a side tournament.

There was a Madison, Wisconsin tournament a week or so ago that used Cactuar's ruleset. It was a slightly changed version of Cactuar's ruleset though.

 

[Kal]

Crimson's is a list of all the stages based on how "jank" they are. Mine is packaging 2-4 stages in each segment, while trying to keep the average of those packaged stages at 50% odds.

Right, I just mean that, while your partitions and justifications behind them are different, the main distinction is that Crimson fixes an order and you don't. Assuming all seven matches are played every time (this is fine, you just play past your fourth win if you haven't hit seven matches yet), nothing will change, assuming the same "packages."

I think one of those silly overlap charts (venn diagram?) might work for this. You would need to create a list of matchups on each stage in order to see how things should be partitioned. This is practical assuming we restrict the roster to the top eight or so.

 

[da K.I.D.]

because of all the work that is going into a cp system like that, i feel its a bit over complicated, and would probably result in ignoring the concept of saving time that was brought up originally with this ruleset.

personally for the sake of just purely saving time, regardless of all other factors, events should either be 3 stock, 2/3 games or 2 stock 3/5 games. 7 possible games just seems too long to implement for everyone through the whole of a tourney.

 

[Cactuar]

It isn't ignoring it. It is removing the banning phase, and thereby saving a huge chunk of time.

And stop trying to theorycraft about time based on "feel". They already ran a tournament using 2 stock 7 match. Just ask them where the biggest time losses were.

To run 2 stock bo5 affects the accuracy of the set output (slightly).

 

[da K.I.D.]

Youre right, I didnt think about that part about taking out bans.

Any change made to pretty much anything alters the outcome of sets, that doesnt make change inherently bad though, or else this thread wouldnt exist.

 

[Cactuar]

When it alters the outcome of the set towards being less accurate, it is an inherently bad change. (There is a threshold for this statement somewhere, but just for practicality's sake I'm going to ignore it.)

This thread did not propose any major change in set accuracy.

 

[Kal]

Also, the idea Cactuar posited seemed more related to balance than saving time. And the proposed ruleset hasn't ever been about saving time. I feel like I have to reiterate this every few pages.

When it alters the outcome of the set towards being less accurate, it is an inherently bad change.

It's not inherently bad. You just have to play more tournaments to properly determine who is better. It's not like Poker players who discover Chess suddenly drop Poker altogether because they find out Chess has greater consistency.

 

[Cactuar]

I don't think that is a good comparison.

A better one would be... Poker players finding a variation of poker that has greater consistency based on player skill in the same number of hands. Their version of poker is now inherently worse than the new version, in terms of consistency only, not in terms of which version is better.

 

[Kal]

I don't think that is a good comparison.

A better one would be... Poker players finding a variation of poker that has greater consistency based on player skill. Their version of poker is now inherently worse than the new version, in terms of consistency only, not in terms of which version is better.

It's not inherently worse. A Texas Hold 'Em variation where both players simply show their cards and announce an approximation of their chances of winning might have a greater consistency based on player skill, but this does not make it better.

The point wasn't that the comparison is great. It's not. The point is that increased consistency alone does not make a game superior. Suppose, for example, that some increased randomness reduces the probability of the better player winning, but increases depth greatly. Is it still the case that the new game is "inherently worse" than the original?

No, not necessarily. And this is further exemplified by the fact that you can compensate for any loss in consistency by playing more games. Heads Up Texas Hold 'Em has huge variance, but people play it and love it because of its depth. This doesn't make Heads Up an inherently worse game than Full Table. And, to compensate for the variance, you play a "best of" set.

At the same time, I'm realizing now that you wrote "in terms of consistency only." So this is largely a reading comprehension fail on my part. It might be clearer if you just substitute "better" with "more consistent." >_>

I'd even settle for "consistenter." teehee

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I like how Kal realizes hes nitpicking like halfway into the post lol <3

But to da KID's point: I think having a simple system should be a goal of any ruleset. I don't think the newly proposed pooling system of stages is that confusing, but just enough to trip new players up. And frankly, for a community which has been routinely criticized, rightly or wrongly, of having overly complex rules and rulemaking processes, thats the last thing we need.

 

[Cactuar]

Lmao. I'll remember consistenter for next time.

 

[Kal]

In my defense, I was only nit-picking after he clarified.

 

[Scar]

I still have no clue why people abandoned the idea of playtesting the 2stock Bo7 on neutrals before testing new stages.

 

[da K.I.D.]

not enough nuetrals for a full set = cpunterpick system is useless...?

 

[Dan Salvato]

not enough nuetrals for a full set = cpunterpick system is useless...?

I agree. Part of the point of a Bo7 is that you can counterpick more stages to suit you or switch strategies. The two go hand-in-hand, so I don't think you can really test them separately.

 

[Cactuar]

For testing purposes only, there is nothing wrong with cycling a few stages over. After an official release, we would make sure that any stage is only played once if we had enough stages to do so.

Don't forget that we are just trying to see how 2stock bo7 affects play. To that end, the stages that are used in the set don't matter a great deal.

I said this before but I want to reiterate:
Time, Stock, and Stage List are three variables. Time and Stock are being adjusted hand in hand. Those are the important variables being changed and the only real care of mine when it comes to this rule set. The stage list is hopefully going to be a positive side effect of the change to the other two, but because we have a competitive position as well as the blank slate position (MBR stage list vs AllStage), it would be optimal to test it from both, even if it requires minor lapses in what would be normal set logic.

I do have to warn neutral-only testers though: You will have a skewed view of average match length from playing on neutrals only. Matches will likely average in the 45 second range, where they usually average at 90 seconds on AllStage. This is a combined effect from playing slightly more reckless before you learn to adjust to 2 stock from 4, and the relatively unobstructed combo paths on neutral stages.

 

[VA]

I still have no clue why people abandoned the idea of playtesting the 2stock Bo7 on neutrals before testing new stages.

I actually reduced the stage list to 3. It's still not a ruleset I particularly enjoy, I haven't played against an equal skilled opponent yet though.

 

[Bones0]

Cactuar: "Yo guys, I got a new rule set. I reduced the stock count and added banned stages back in."

Play Testers: "Yo Cactuar, this rule set is great. Only issues that came up were matches ending too soon and all of the stages sucking balls."

**

 

[Cactuar]

Cool story bones.

 

[Kal]

What's this, a useless post from Bones? That's so unlike him. Usually he just mischaracterizes an argument he disagrees with. This time he's going for some specific form of sharp irony characterized by mocking.

**

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Everyone knows the best theorycrafters are Marth players