Smash Teams League

[Theftz22]

I was just listening to MioM episode 12, and heard Scar proposing a continuous something like a month and a half long tournament with a format borrowed from starcraft (I'm not sure what exactly the name was, "GL" maybe?). Anyway, the idea was to give the community hype, high-level play to watch on a consistent, repetitive basis. While everyone agreed that that is a good goal, the specifics of the format were called into question.

With that in mind, I had an idea to borrow from a format with which I'm familiar used by high school tennis. In this format, two teams of 7 players face off. You a first singles player (best player), second singles, third singles, first doubles, and second doubles. Winning any set (ex winning the set at first singles), gives the team one point. With 5 points total, the team that wins at least 3 of the sets wins the entire match.

This format transfers excellently to melee and showcases both singles and doubles events. It borrows the hype of crew battles but also adds in doubles and there is a certain extra element of hype in the way that the top players must play a set together. Also, there will probably be less of a chance of watching weaker players get beat up since the players are paired against their equivalents on other teams.

In context of the MioM discussion, I think an amazing thing to do would be to set up these teams of 7 players by regions/states and set up a league schedule on a consistent basis. There could be a WC league with socal, norcal, AZ, the northwest, etc. and an EC league with NJ, NY, PA, MD/VA, the Northeast etc. Each of these teams would play each other perhaps one match feaured every other weak. With a total of 14 players involved in any match, it's a manageable enough size to be played at a smasher's house (...large house) and not have to rent a venue. This idea also increases regional competition, and it encourages up and coming players to get better to make their team and to represent (in tennis, players can challenge onto the line-up if they think they are better than someone on the team).

Anyway, I know this all would take a huge amount of work and is just a pipe-dream, but I think this format just has so many things going for it and works so well with smash, and it helps fill a few things that I think we are lacking right now. Thoughts?

 

[Insom]

#basedscar is a genius. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best idea ever and 1 being eating paste, this idea is an 8.

 

[Theftz22]

C'mon...thoughts anybody? It's at least a better idea than that stupid "A Fun Thing that Should be Done" thread. Seriously, don't character crew battles get proposed like all the time? Anyway, even if the whole doing it on a regional basis thing is a bit implausible, I do honestly believe that this teams tennis format has a lot to offer for smash, even if it is just done at a tourney with 14 random people.

 

[Uranium235]

C'mon...thoughts anybody? It's at least a better idea than that stupid "A Fun Thing that Should be Done" thread. Seriously, don't character crew battles get proposed like all the time? Anyway, even if the whole doing it on a regional basis thing is a bit implausible, I do honestly believe that this teams tennis format has a lot to offer for smash, even if it is just done at a tourney with 14 random people.

Dont get me wrong, your idea (or scars idea) is great, and i really like your format, but a fun thing that should be done was an excellent idea too.

 

[DCScribZ]

The problem with this format is that, in the event of a sweep or 3-1 win, potentially the best two to four players in the matchups never even play. It would be difficult to get people hyped for these when it's a fairly likely scenario that the "Singles 1" slot game statistically would be the least played event.

Personally, I thought Scar's idea had potential if it was run similar to LoL's LCS. Referring to NorCal, since this was Scar's idea for that region, pick the top 16 singles players in the region and hold weekly or bi-weekly scheduled sets between the 16, while keeping track of the aggregate score of the sets for tiebreakers. After at least one wave of everyone having played (hopefully at least twice, in order to generate more narrative and excitement for rematches) eliminate the bottom 8 of the standings and have a tourney with the remaining 8, or hold a tourney with the 16 using the standings for seeding. Or, if this wanted to get regional, do this for NorCal and SoCal separately and run the same process for both to have a tourney of 16 between the two regions using the standings for seeding for state supremacy. As for incentive, I don't know - have everyone pool money - or get it sponsored or something, maybe even get a bitchin trophy. Either way, having a consistently streamed Melee event would probably be the most helpful thing for the scene and something like this would probably work as long as people were into it, plus it would present the perfect opportunity to utilize the stream content prog's production team has been working on in order to strengthen the reach of the community and pump out superior product. You could even run promos like the fight night stuff and play around with interviews between guys to run between matches, and use it to advertise upcoming majors, and other streamed events.

(I understand that LoL LCS players are literally sponsored, paid gamers that have the time and money to waste away playing a game every week, and that it's an unrealistic standard to expect other sane people to maintain, and that the LCS is run by the guys who created LoL.)

 

[Theftz22]

The problem with this format is that, in the event of a sweep or 3-1 win, potentially the best two to four players in the matchups never even play. It would be difficult to get people hyped for these when it's a fairly likely scenario that the "Singles 1" slot game statistically would be the least played event.

This generally only happens when one team is significantly better than the other, in which case the format doesn't even matter, no format is going to make that hype. And in that scenario, there's no reason to assume first singles is the hypest match. That would only be the case if both first singles players were high level. But moreover you're assuming that games get played chronologically from lowest to highest. For the purpose of spectatorship, if we wanted to stream every match, we could set the order we wanted to try to get the best matches played and maybe avoid a quick 3-0.

 

[Uranium235]

The problem with this format is that, in the event of a sweep or 3-1 win, potentially the best two to four players in the matchups never even play. It would be difficult to get people hyped for these when it's a fairly likely scenario that the "Singles 1" slot game statistically would be the least played event.

It makes sense to think that but this can happen in any format. For example in the USA vs. the world event at apex USA won without using m2k, and USAs second last player barely got in because europes last player had 1 more stock

 

[DCScribZ]

pick the top 16 singles players in the region and hold weekly or bi-weekly scheduled sets between the 16

I was really referring to just individuals when outlining this format. I hope there isn't any misunderstanding about that. Using Scar's initial idea, I still feel that an LCS-esque format is the best template for that.

This generally only happens when one team is significantly better than the other, in which case the format doesn't even matter, no format is going to make that hype.

Team/crew type formats have no way of ensuring everyone plays or that the most hype, ideal matchups occur. Character matchups have the potential to swing a match when player skill is equal. And even though they can still be overcome, in a short five set interval, one matchup presents a huge swing, especially depending on the order of the sets. Since the results of matches are mutually exclusive, losing a match has no carry over to the next game other than pressure and onus, thus sweeps and 3-1 victories would all be highly possible, even with teams that had comparable rosters. These are factors that would contribute to sets finishing before "singles 1".

And in that scenario, there's no reason to assume first singles is the hypest match. That would only be the case if both first singles players were high level. But moreover you're assuming that games get played chronologically from lowest to highest.

I would naturally assume that the games get played chronologically from lowest to highest. It's why we bother to seed brackets - so the moments where the stakes are highest are played by the most talented players. And actually having the best player on a team potentially play the worst player on another team just to body them for an easy win makes sweeps and 3-1 matches more possible if a team wasn't prepared for that in their roster order (assuming it's blind pick, with locked rosters). This is why if you were dead set on having teams of 4-7 guys, they should just do crews. Since each stock carries value, each match has an inherent carryover to the following games. Also, when a team's premier player is used, no matter what level that other team's players is, when that person takes any of the best player's stocks, it's a huge win for the rest of the crew battle. Also, if it was about gaining exposing on streams and expanding our audience, crew battles are probably one of the most unique things Melee has in the FGC.

For the purpose of spectatorship, if we wanted to stream every match, we could set the order we wanted to try to get the best matches played and maybe avoid a quick 3-0.

This would be a really bad idea. It would be taking control of the matchups out of the players' hands and defeat the purpose of having people compete at all. Just like he said...

It makes sense to think that but this can happen in any format. For example in the USA vs. the world event at apex USA won without using m2k, and USAs second last player barely got in because europes last player had 1 more stock

... sometimes the best players don't compete in team formats. It's an inherent flaw in the team/crew format. Even when teams get junked, it has to all be part of it because that's what it means to compete. Even our beloved crew battles can be anti-climatic when there are blowouts, or star players are still in reserves while the other team is almost finished.

tl;dr That's why team/crew formats have really volatile excitement potential, and I think just having singles players compete as individuals would be the safest, most reliable option. (I was burning off a Red Bull and couldn't stop typing, sorry)

 

[Theftz22]

Team/crew type formats have no way of ensuring everyone plays or that the most hype, ideal matchups occur. Character matchups have the potential to swing a match when player skill is equal. And even though they can still be overcome, in a short five set interval, one matchup presents a huge swing, especially depending on the order of the sets. Since the results of matches are mutually exclusive, losing a match has no carry over to the next game other than pressure and onus, thus sweeps and 3-1 victories would all be highly possible, even with teams that had comparable rosters. These are factors that would contribute to sets finishing before "singles 1".

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. Like you acknowledge, there is no real way in any teams format to guarantee that the most high level matches get played at the optimal time (except for arranging the order of the matches in such a way, which only this format allows because crews can't guarantee how many stocks a player will take). So I do agree that this format can't really solve that problem "organically" (more on that later), but is only as good as any other. Also I will say that the probability that closely matched teams will play a 5-0 is 2.5%, not very likely (assuming each match is perfectly even, and each match is independent).

I would naturally assume that the games get played chronologically from lowest to highest. It's why we bother to seed brackets - so the moments where the stakes are highest are played by the most talented players.

But the point is that the moment where the stakes are highest is not necessarily on the 5th match. It could be on the third if a team is down 0-2. Or the fourth if 1-2. You get the point. Trying to put top players in when the stakes are highest, in this format, means the games do not have to be played from lowest to highest.

And actually having the best player on a team potentially play the worst player on another team just to body them for an easy win makes sweeps and 3-1 matches more possible if a team wasn't prepared for that in their roster order (assuming it's blind pick, with locked rosters).

I think you have misunderstood me here. Both of the first singles players would always play each other. You would never have two players mismatched (only happens in crews). What could happen is that both first singles players play before second singles, if you see what I mean.

This is why if you were dead set on having teams of 4-7 guys, they should just do crews. Since each stock carries value, each match has an inherent carryover to the following games. Also, when a team's premier player is used, no matter what level that other team's players is, when that person takes any of the best player's stocks, it's a huge win for the rest of the crew battle. Also, if it was about gaining exposing on streams and expanding our audience, crew battles are probably one of the most unique things Melee has in the FGC.

I'm not sure that the fact that in crews each prior match affects the outcome of the next match is a benefit. It's different sure, but why better? And I disagree that crew battles are something that melee inherently is unique in. It's merely a contingent fact that the FGC doesn't do them, but they could. Consider SSF4, you could do a crew battle where instead of four stocks, each player has three rounds. By contrast, doubles is something that melee inherently has that these games don't, and this format takes advantage of that.

This would be a really bad idea. It would be taking control of the matchups out of the players' hands and defeat the purpose of having people compete at all. Just like he said...

This again stems from your misunderstanding. We would be changing the order of the matches, not the players involved in each match. And if it is as you say (which I think it largely is), that the matches are independent, then changing the order in which the sets occur does not at all effect the outcome of the entire match. Who plays who is still entirely up to the players and their skill levels.

... sometimes the best players don't compete in team formats. It's an inherent flaw in the team/crew format. Even when teams get junked, it has to all be part of it because that's what it means to compete. Even our beloved crew battles can be anti-climatic when there are blowouts, or star players are still in reserves while the other team is almost finished.

I generally agree. The only way to avoid this (in any formats currently proposed at least), is this format with my match ordering suggestion. That way guarantees the highest level player will play.

tl;dr That's why team/crew formats have really volatile excitement potential, and I think just having singles players compete as individuals would be the safest, most reliable option. (I was burning off a Red Bull and couldn't stop typing, sorry)

tl;dr I agree with the point about volatility but in fact this format+match ordering yields the safest option (I don't need red bull to type way too much).

 

[DCScribZ]

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. Like you acknowledge, there is no real way in any teams format to guarantee that the most high level matches get played at the optimal time (except for arranging the order of the matches in such a way, which only this format allows because crews can't guarantee how many stocks a player will take). So I do agree that this format can't really solve that problem "organically" (more on that later), but is only as good as any other. Also I will say that the probability that closely matched teams will play a 5-0 is 2.5%, not very likely (assuming each match is perfectly even, and each match is independent).



But the point is that the moment where the stakes are highest is not necessarily on the 5th match. It could be on the third if a team is down 0-2. Or the fourth if 1-2. You get the point. Trying to put top players in when the stakes are highest, in this format, means the games do not have to be played from lowest to highest.



I think you have misunderstood me here. Both of the first singles players would always play each other. You would never have two players mismatched (only happens in crews). What could happen is that both first singles players play before second singles, if you see what I mean.



I'm not sure that the fact that in crews each prior match affects the outcome of the next match is a benefit. It's different sure, but why better? And I disagree that crew battles are something that melee inherently is unique in. It's merely a contingent fact that the FGC doesn't do them, but they could. Consider SSF4, you could do a crew battle where instead of four stocks, each player has three rounds. By contrast, doubles is something that melee inherently has that these games don't, and this format takes advantage of that.



This again stems from your misunderstanding. We would be changing the order of the matches, not the players involved in each match. And if it is as you say (which I think it largely is), that the matches are independent, then changing the order in which the sets occur does not at all effect the outcome of the entire match. Who plays who is still entirely up to the players and their skill levels.



I generally agree. The only way to avoid this (in any formats currently proposed at least), is this format with my match ordering suggestion. That way guarantees the highest level player will play.



tl;dr I agree with the point about volatility but in fact this format+match ordering yields the safest option (I don't need red bull to type way too much).

When you said your suggestion is "as good as any other" is what I meant by suggesting that a singles format, where everyone representing themselves as individual players, would be better suited for the suggestion from MioM because I feel like for a stream, consistent quality and hype is the best approach. It probably sounds like I hate your idea, which isn't really true at all. I actually think it would be about 15 times more fun to watch your tennis sets live at a tourney then on a stream, because the hype and stakes would need to be experienced rather than simply watched. One of the perks to your suggestion are in the team's needing to avoid elimination by winning sets, at some times even consecutively in order to have a chance to win in the end, which would create hype in itself, but only if the environment is at a tourney, or at least largely populated event (need spectators going crazy, which they probably would when watching.)

If I had a suggestion about the match ordering, it would probably be that the losing team should get to pick which of the pairings they would prefer to play next. i.e. Team A beats Team B in Singles 3 to open the match and leads 1-0. Team B chooses to have the Doubles 1 pairings play (meaning their Doubles 1 versus Team A Doubles 1) because they feel best about them in that situation. This at least puts the decision in the competitors' hands, where they can determine their level of desperation by deciding which player(s) they want playing in more or less stressful, dire situations.

Also, the reason Melee crew battles are actually unique compared to an SSF4 crew battle is because of the stock mechanic. No matter what, even the most brolic combo is taking away only a set amount of hp, but in Melee, gimps can occur at any percent and take whole stocks away or tremendous DI and clever recovery can keep someone's precious stock in play just long enough to take more enemy stocks. SF matches have health bars that reset as soon as matches end making multiple matches in a set entirely independent. If Melee played crew battles with only 1 stock matches, it would be like this, and it would be terrible. In Melee even though the percent resets on the first remaining stock the winning player has the next game, the match is played out with the subsequent stocks having percentage that carries over (just a really wordy way of saying just like a normal game.)

tl;dr Not hating, I actually like the idea a lot, but more for live play at tourneys than on streams. Let the teams counterpick the match order. And Melee crews are definitely nothing like SSF4 crews.

 

[Theftz22]

Well I can agree with most of that. Having players represent themselves as individuals is maybe the best idea in context of what was brought up in MioM. On the other hand, that wouldn't guarantee consistent quality play, simply because there just aren't enough high-quality players in one area to last very long (okay, maybe cali could do something with all their good players that could last for a few weeks of consistent streams). A teams format can better in this sense because even lower-level play is hype if it matters in the context of something larger (whereas playing as an individual, both players involved are going to be eliminated eventually anyway).

That's an interesting idea about match ordering. Also, I didn't even consider the matches being played sequentially at a tourney, since in tennis they all happen at the same time. The only reason I thought about it was for streaming purposes. But I think that melee is way too fast for them all to be played at the same time, whereas tennis matches can last for hours. I definitely think sequencing is the way to go.

I slightly disagree about SF crews. An SF player could start a match with one round (health bar) to his opponents two. In that way, rounds are independent only in the same sense that stocks are, since in melee we never have one percent start with extra percent, only extra stock. It's the same way with SF. One player starts with more bars, but damage is always reset, like percent.