Respect38
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 159
[Terms Used: GOW = Game One's winner, GOL = Game One's loser]
As I was thinking over the system that currently dictates the system that all Smash games use to determine the next stage, an observation hit me--if we were to simply switch player spots for all of them [i.e. winner picks stage, loser picks character, winner picks character] then the set simply plays out the same way, except without the extraneous game where G1L counterpicks the stage.
For comparing the current system to the reverse system:
(1) A 2-1 in GOW's favor would become a 2-0 due to GOW's counterpick [what used to be game 3] now being game 2.
(2) A 2-0 in GOW's favor would still be a 2-0, because this requires winning on the GOL's counterpick--and a player that could beat another player on their [GOL's] countpick is, in the vast majority of cases, also able to win on their own [GOW's] counterpick as well.
(3) A 2-1 in GOL's favor doesn't change, as making that comeback requires beating GOW on his counterpick, which is the same as this system demands--except this system demands this win come on Game 2, not on Game 3.
So, obviously, due to (1) and (2) both resulting in the average individual set taking much less time. [(1) is obviously quicker, while (2) would also be an impact, since a player who could achieve (2) would have likely done so even quicker on their counterpick rather than the other player's counterpick] This system would also work for Bo5 sets, but making a tree for them would be significantly more complicated than the Bo3 equivalents. So, the question is, what's the downsides?
Well, the first response would be: "Isn't that unfair to GOL? They might never get to play on their counterpick."
However, I ask: what advantage is given to GOW that didn't already exist? GOW's counterpick still will decide the match in the end, but at least this system moves the deciding match up to game 2 rather than sticking it back at game 3.
Not to mention, I would wager to theorize that this is actually a disadvantage to GOW, as he is no longer able to use any information that he could have gained from game two to decide his counterpick and how to play his counterpick to maximum efficiency. [There could still be such situations where this system is more of a disadvantage for GOL, but I honestly think that, in more cases than not, this will either be equal disadvantage for GOL, or less of a disadvantage for GOL]
Another response might be: "Doesn't this take away from the hype of a game 5 in a Bo5 set?"
In which case, I'm not 100% sure how big of an impact this would have, but I would like to point out that game 2 and game 3 would both have quite a bit of hype behind them, since on either of these matches, GOL could gain the exact same advantage that GOW had after game 1: namely, that you only have to chain two back-to-back wins on your counterpicks in order to make the comeback--albeit, winning those games might be a little more difficult than they would have been, but fulfilling the comeback gains you a lot of ground, and a lot of momentum going forward.
So, is there stuff that I haven't considered about this yet? I'm sure there is--while the system is, in terms of the mathematics as far as I can tell, identical to the old system [just with its game mixed around to eliminate extraneous games], the psychological elements of this system would likely be a bit different, and so there may be a reason deep down in there to make it not worth to do this system. But perhaps the psychological elements of this system could work in its favor in other ways as well...
While this system might not make it into any major tournaments, I do think such a system is notable as being a possibly preferable way to shorten the time it takes to get through an entire tourney bracket, if that is something that would be preferable for an individual TO. Also, it's possible that such a concept could be something that is only applied to the Bo3 bracket matches [if the "Grand Finals Game 5 hype" issue is too much to overcome, and the Game 2 hype and Game 3 hype "solution" isn't acceptable] or, perhaps, only applied to the pool matches. [if the psychological impacts of this system aren't acceptable for bracket, but the speedup for pools would be appreciated] As it stands, I think this system might be preferable to other forms of shortening tournaments, and the extra time could have several different uses. Perhaps it could be used to have all the matches in Top 4, Top 6, or Top 8 all happen Bo5, or perhaps it could be used to have legitimate 5th Place and 7th Place matches in a Bo5 format. [which would, of course, take place between the two people who tied for 5th and 7th, respectively, in the system that I see most tournaments use] Or perhaps it would simply be used to shorten tournament times, and make them run through much quicker, with effectively the same results that they would have had if we would have extended them with extraneous GOL counterpicks.
As I was thinking over the system that currently dictates the system that all Smash games use to determine the next stage, an observation hit me--if we were to simply switch player spots for all of them [i.e. winner picks stage, loser picks character, winner picks character] then the set simply plays out the same way, except without the extraneous game where G1L counterpicks the stage.
For comparing the current system to the reverse system:
(1) A 2-1 in GOW's favor would become a 2-0 due to GOW's counterpick [what used to be game 3] now being game 2.
(2) A 2-0 in GOW's favor would still be a 2-0, because this requires winning on the GOL's counterpick--and a player that could beat another player on their [GOL's] countpick is, in the vast majority of cases, also able to win on their own [GOW's] counterpick as well.
(3) A 2-1 in GOL's favor doesn't change, as making that comeback requires beating GOW on his counterpick, which is the same as this system demands--except this system demands this win come on Game 2, not on Game 3.
So, obviously, due to (1) and (2) both resulting in the average individual set taking much less time. [(1) is obviously quicker, while (2) would also be an impact, since a player who could achieve (2) would have likely done so even quicker on their counterpick rather than the other player's counterpick] This system would also work for Bo5 sets, but making a tree for them would be significantly more complicated than the Bo3 equivalents. So, the question is, what's the downsides?
Well, the first response would be: "Isn't that unfair to GOL? They might never get to play on their counterpick."
However, I ask: what advantage is given to GOW that didn't already exist? GOW's counterpick still will decide the match in the end, but at least this system moves the deciding match up to game 2 rather than sticking it back at game 3.
Not to mention, I would wager to theorize that this is actually a disadvantage to GOW, as he is no longer able to use any information that he could have gained from game two to decide his counterpick and how to play his counterpick to maximum efficiency. [There could still be such situations where this system is more of a disadvantage for GOL, but I honestly think that, in more cases than not, this will either be equal disadvantage for GOL, or less of a disadvantage for GOL]
Another response might be: "Doesn't this take away from the hype of a game 5 in a Bo5 set?"
In which case, I'm not 100% sure how big of an impact this would have, but I would like to point out that game 2 and game 3 would both have quite a bit of hype behind them, since on either of these matches, GOL could gain the exact same advantage that GOW had after game 1: namely, that you only have to chain two back-to-back wins on your counterpicks in order to make the comeback--albeit, winning those games might be a little more difficult than they would have been, but fulfilling the comeback gains you a lot of ground, and a lot of momentum going forward.
So, is there stuff that I haven't considered about this yet? I'm sure there is--while the system is, in terms of the mathematics as far as I can tell, identical to the old system [just with its game mixed around to eliminate extraneous games], the psychological elements of this system would likely be a bit different, and so there may be a reason deep down in there to make it not worth to do this system. But perhaps the psychological elements of this system could work in its favor in other ways as well...
While this system might not make it into any major tournaments, I do think such a system is notable as being a possibly preferable way to shorten the time it takes to get through an entire tourney bracket, if that is something that would be preferable for an individual TO. Also, it's possible that such a concept could be something that is only applied to the Bo3 bracket matches [if the "Grand Finals Game 5 hype" issue is too much to overcome, and the Game 2 hype and Game 3 hype "solution" isn't acceptable] or, perhaps, only applied to the pool matches. [if the psychological impacts of this system aren't acceptable for bracket, but the speedup for pools would be appreciated] As it stands, I think this system might be preferable to other forms of shortening tournaments, and the extra time could have several different uses. Perhaps it could be used to have all the matches in Top 4, Top 6, or Top 8 all happen Bo5, or perhaps it could be used to have legitimate 5th Place and 7th Place matches in a Bo5 format. [which would, of course, take place between the two people who tied for 5th and 7th, respectively, in the system that I see most tournaments use] Or perhaps it would simply be used to shorten tournament times, and make them run through much quicker, with effectively the same results that they would have had if we would have extended them with extraneous GOL counterpicks.