Smash Ultimate Ruleset Philosophy

[KuroganeHammer]

Typically the most consistent argument against items is the RNG element that is introduced into the game. Although some items are tame, others such as the Gust Bellows and Master Ball are obscenely good at killing people at 0%.

It isn't interesting or fun when a Master Ball spawns in front of the opponent because that potentially could be the loss of a stock for no reason other than "because the RNG Goddess willed it".

Conversely when I've played with items I've had capsules with bombs in them spawn in front of my attacks, and even food spawn on top of me while trying to perform a wake up attack (Zelda ate the cake while laying on the ground and got fsmashed by Ike, I tell you what, I was not happy).

Ultimately one of the biggest reasons I guess is that you simply cannot plan or prepare ahead when items are in the game and 70% of the time the game degenerates into "capture the hill" where you chain item combos together to keep the opponent offstage or dead, turning the game into a battle of items rather than characters.

 

[Scribe]

The philosophy of banning items is very interesting to me because you have to try really, really hard to make your explanation not just boil down to "cause we don't like them". I'd really like to see what you come up with.

Yeah, like, that's the thing. The original ban in Melee happened long enough ago that I wouldn't be surprised if that actually was the reason why they were banned at first. But I think now, with a better understanding of the design philosophy behind Smash, how competitive Smash works, and items' impact on gameplay, I think it might be possible to work backwards and figure out a good reason to keep them legal across iterations.

Typically the most consistent argument against items is the RNG element that is introduced into the game. Although some items are tame, others such as the Gust Bellows and Master Ball are obscenely good at killing people at 0%.

It isn't interesting or fun when a Master Ball spawns in front of the opponent because that potentially could be the loss of a stock for no reason other than "because the RNG Goddess willed it".

Conversely when I've played with items I've had capsules with bombs in them spawn in front of my attacks, and even food spawn on top of me while trying to perform a wake up attack (Zelda ate the cake while laying on the ground and got fsmashed by Ike, I tell you what, I was not happy).

Ultimately one of the biggest reasons I guess is that you simply cannot plan or prepare ahead when items are in the game and 70% of the time the game degenerates into "capture the hill" where you chain item combos together to keep the opponent offstage or dead, turning the game into a battle of items rather than characters.

That's the argument I've seen the most, and I think that only scratches the surface. For the thing with some items being obscenely good at killing at 0%, or with items sometimes interfering with your ability to perform a basic attack, I was once asked "why don't you just ban the problematic items" and there really wasn't much I could say in response aside from "pretty much every item is degenerate in some way or another." Over the past couple of years, I've started to realize that talking about the problems with individual items misses the forest for the trees. It overlooks the fact that the problem isn't just because of items individually, it's because of items as a whole.

This is an idea I've been turning over in my head for years now, and one I'll probably be coming back to and tweaking quite a bit for years to come as my understanding of Smash improves. I can explain in the abstract that items generally have a net-negative effect on the health of the meta, but I have a hard time giving concrete answers as to why - though anecdotes like yours are certainly helpful. What I have in mind - which I pretty much outlined in the final paragraph of my previous post - is built on two ideas.

First, that the main goal of a tournament is to comparatively measure its entrants' skill at an activity - in layman's terms, to determine, roughly, who's the most skilled at something, and who's more skilled than who. The main goal of a ruleset for a tournament is to outline how the skill will be tested. There are many factors that go into designing one, though the one we'll be focusing on here is the need to keep the metagame relatively healthy, and the need to ensure the results are valid.

Second, there's the idea of a game's skill floor and skill ceiling - the basic level of competency needed to engage with it in any meaningful way, and the point where you're so good at the game that any improvements won't make any difference. The lower either of these is, the easier it is to reach that point, and the higher they are, the harder it is to reach. These are also independent of each other - raising or lowering one won't necessarily raise or lower the other, and it's possible to raise one while lowering the other.

Items, by their very design, create an environment where factors outside of either player's control can have a larger impact on the results of the match than player skill. While there is skill to be had in effectively utilizing items, they act as such a strong centralizing force that they invalidate a lot of the other skills that go into the game. Playing with items enabled may raise the skill floor compared to playing with them disabled, but it also lowers the skill ceiling by a far greater degree, making the game more shallow overall.

 

[PracticalTAS]

The Melee item ban in particular is airtight because there's no possible way to turn off exploding containers. With even one item on, you can always have an exploding container spawn on top of you right as you're about to hit a big smash attack, and KO you unreactably with its explosion. But that's not the case in the later games. You technically can turn off everything "gamebreaking" from the item menu.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Too bad no one agrees on stages let alone deciding what would be gamebreaking with like 60 items lol.

 

[Myran]

Hey everyone, Myran here. I'm an ex-PGR Smash 4 Olimar player. I started competing with Brawl back in April of 2013.

So with the new information surrounding Squad Strike I have seen some buzz on social media sites about trying to make it the primary format for Ultimate moving forward. I'm personally against this because I don't think our current format needs to be changed, but also because forcing players into playing characters they don't like isn't something I personally agree with.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this though. I've seen some counter arguments from people, but they're primarily speculation based or just an opinion about how they like it better.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

For those who don't know, Squad Strike works like Subspace Emissary where you pick characters which rotate per stock.

Personally I'd like to try it first before passing judgement but at the same time Smash isn't a traditional fighting game; characters are relatively simple and don't have long muscle memory combos. If you can't competently play more than 1 character I feel like that's on you.

 

[Hylian]

I think it's certainly worth testing at events. If it's more fun for the players, more enjoyable for the viewers, and has a higher level of competency for the top players I don't see why it couldn't become a main format.

 

[Scribe]

Too bad no one agrees on stages let alone deciding what would be gamebreaking with like 60 items lol.

That's exactly why I wanted to focus on items as a whole and explain why the random item spawning mechanic as a whole is unsuitable for competitive play rather than going through individual items and explaining what's wrong with each one.

For those who don't know, Squad Strike works like Subspace Emissary where you pick characters which rotate per stock.

Personally I'd like to try it first before passing judgement but at the same time Smash isn't a traditional fighting game; characters are relatively simple and don't have long muscle memory combos. If you can't competently play more than 1 character I feel like that's on you.

On top of that, I could see Ultimate ending up relatively counterpick-based anyways with how big the roster is. That said, my prediction is that while it probably won't usurp regular singles as the definitive format, I could definitely see Squad Strike Singles ending up on the same level as doubles. Could even end up bigger since it doesn't have the same logistical issue for practice sessions (i.e. needing an even number of people)

Actually, that has me wondering why All Star Vs. never seemed to have caught on as a tournament format for PM. Is it because 4 stocks is an awkward number for that sort of team-style format and 3 stocks would've gone by too quickly? Is it because it lets you have the same character for more than one stock? Is it the lack of a proper UI to show which characters someone chose? Or was it just something else entirely?

 

[Myran]

I just don't understand why people are pushing for it to replace singles as the primary format. It's not like we're tired of standard singles. I don't think replacing the most accessible way of the game is smart.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Oh I think you're being meme'd on bro. The only thing it may replace is crew battles. Don't think people seriously want it to replace singles format.

 

[falln]

i (and i dont think anyone else) would push for squad strike to replace singles this early. but if i were to be completely honest i could easily see myself enjoying such a mode over regular singles. there's definitely enough merit to the format competitively speaking that i would encourage TOs to attempt it as a separate event.

i understand there are concerns to barrier of entry (which is one of the main things smash has over traditional fighting games, so im sympathetic to this). and i understand character specialists / dedicated solo mains will obviously feel disadvantaged, although i'm not sure how much there really is to that argument besides a general resistance to change.

from more of an esports/infrastructural perspective, there are a variety of benefits to the inclusion/legitimacy of this type of event:

-an absurd amount of viewers are strictly superfans of X character and will support a player just because they play that character. by giving players the ability to field 3 characters at once, they get access to those fanbases. a rising tide lifts all boats

-both the melee and smash 4 scenes have been struggling to address character-based toxicity among the community. currently, i don't know if there's a clean solution to this, as from my perspective it's only been getting worse. i know for a fact that smash ultimate will not fix this on its own. i do think however that by fielding 3 characters, you are loosening that player's connection to an individual char (even if its their main), and that should help deter a lot of that baseline toxicity.

-you get an exponential amount of new scenarios that players/viewers can think through. all of a sudden you might be in a favorable MU but it's important to take the stock first because you may have drafted an unfavorable MU right after. maybe you lead with a char like sheik that racks up damage very easily but struggles with killing, but you draft a character like ness as the followup who has a variety of reliable kill options, so you have a sort of fail-safe. there can be a lot of fun strategies to explore/theorize. and of course, the execution aspect is so critical for a fighting game that it would be incredibly impressive for a player to emerge who could field so many different drafts and perform on them.

again, i understand that the bulk of the concern comes from potentially alienating the casual playerbase. but that's also just a "potential", we don't really have any way of knowing just how much of a turn-off it may be, so this is a format that should definitely be finding its way into tournaments for testing. probably at a higher priority than doubles or other events, if i were being completely honest

 

[Scribe]

I know Vayseth said something on twitter about using it mostly for exhibitions and invitationals and that it shouldn't be used for open entry tournaments but, like, I think it has too much potential to not use it for open-entry events. The main reason why you wouldn't want to run it alongside traditional singles and doubles is the issue with bracket conflicts (imagine M2K holding up 4-5 brackets at once), but at that point it may be worth considering limiting how many brackets a given player can enter (or at least how many per game). I also wouldn't be averse to some events running it instead of doubles.

As for the idea that Squad Strike would be intimidating to casual players, I'm gonna be pedantic here and say it's not casual players who'd be intimidated by the format, it's people who're already invested in the competitive scene, but just hit the point where they've realized how bad they are. The sort of people we think of when we say "casual" - the sort of people who're into the game more as a creative outlet or for the raw feel of the game? They'd love Squad Strike. They're the exact sort of people who'll bounce back and forth between a large stable of characters, who're absolutely baffled by the idea of someone dedicating themselves to just one character. It's the low-level tournament player - the one who's trying to just focus on one character to build up their fundamentals with before moving onto others - that we should be worried about getting turned off by the format.

 

[Myran]

I would most definitely quit competing if it was the primary format. Not a fan of it being forced on me when I've been playing standard singles for years. Tbh the whole argument for or against it really just feels like it boils down to I want it or don't. You can bring up points for why it does or doesn't work. Overall they feel rather shallow to me. Not saying that's a bad thing per say. It just doesn't feel like this format is any different from some other wild ruleset recommendation.

 

[Remzi]

I'm definitely open to the idea of Squad Strike as a primary tournament format if it works the way we understand. We've dealt with dominant characters in pretty much every iteration of Smash and I can't think of a better way to deal with them than a format like this.

If you consider Smash 4 with a Squad Strike system, I think it would have created an almost certainly healthier meta. We're reaching a point where Bayo is becoming more and more common and is approaching something that resembles a dominance of the meta. Her impact on any single game would automatically be reduced in theory by 1/3rd by having a 3v3 Squad Strike format. I think that would pretty significantly lower the frustration that competitors/viewers experience with these types of characters.

It also could help some of worse characters find a niche since they could be plugged into certain matchups without the risk of having to be hard-countered for the duration of an entire game.

Obviously some people want to solo-main and this would kind of suck for them. But with a cast this large, I think its a cool idea to incentivize people to explore a larger portion of the cast without feeling guilty that they aren't maximizing time on a single main.


Also -

A few talking points when it comes to that format:

Would you guys be in favor of some sort of draft picking system? How would you like that to go and why? No duplicate characters?

Also - should people be disallowed from using echoes of the same character on a single team? It might be kind of lame for a dedicated Marth main to get to use him and Lucina as two out of their three character slots.

Would love to hear thoughts.

 

[Myran]

What's to stop a team from having 1 or 2 top tiers as the backbone of their team. If Smash 4 had this I would bet most teams would be running Cloud and Bayo or some other top tier. As long as strong characters are present they're gonna be used. Making the player base conform to your (read as anyone pushing for this) need for a healthy meta seems unrealistic. Banning characters because they're problematic is one thing. Telling player's they have to pick other characters they don't care for is another. I don't really think it should fall on us or any rule maker to tell someone how many characters they have to play.

 

[Hylian]

What's to stop a team from having 1 or 2 top tiers as the backbone of their team. If Smash 4 had this I would bet most teams would be running Cloud and Bayo or some other top tier. As long as strong characters are present they're gonna be used. Making the player base conform to your (read as anyone pushing for this) need for a healthy meta seems unrealistic. Banning characters because they're problematic is one thing. Telling player's they have to pick other characters they don't care for is another. I don't really think it should fall on us or any rule maker to tell someone how many characters they have to play.

Nothing is stopping that, but even if it was the case, you would have far less top tier dittos in top 8 and more diverse match-ups for viewers/players. It also allows lower tiered players to actually preform better, as they can use two good characters and then the character they are famous for, which could push players like that to winning tournaments rather than placing around top 16-32. Having a high mastery of more than one characters just straight up takes more skill and rewards skill more as well.

I don't think singles is going anywhere, but it's really up to the playerbase. If players and spectators enjoy something like a 3v3 format more, then there really is no reason to make it a main event. You could even have different types of tournaments, potentially things like "3v3 season" where a lot of tournaments run 3v3 and then singles season where a lot run singles, etc(just examples with no thought please don't argue lol). There could be ways to have both singles and 3v3 as main events. It could be a side event. It could not be popular and just die off..really we don't know it's just up to the enjoyment of players and viewers. It's certainly worth testing though, there is no reason to not be open minded about these things.

 

[falln]

What's to stop a team from having 1 or 2 top tiers as the backbone of their team. If Smash 4 had this I would bet most teams would be running Cloud and Bayo or some other top tier. As long as strong characters are present they're gonna be used.

what is the argument here? people who are primarily trying to win will play the best characters in any format. people who aren't primarily trying to win will pick the characters they enjoy the most. this is going to hold true for any format in any game.

Making the player base conform to your (read as anyone pushing for this) need for a healthy meta seems unrealistic. Banning characters because they're problematic is one thing. Telling player's they have to pick other characters they don't care for is another. I don't really think it should fall on us or any rule maker to tell someone how many characters they have to play.

a couple issues here:

1 - the idea of "forcing" the player-base to conform a certain way is misleading. all the proposals have been to run it alongside singles and see how people like it. no one's going to force squad strike if the community doesn't like it. additionally, there are going to be way more tournaments than what the average player can feasibly go to. even in the event where some TOs run squad strike only tournaments in the beginning stages of the game, you could easily skip those and just go to events that run singles.

2- i can count within single digits the number of people i know in the scene that outright refuse to play any other character even on a casual level. ultimately, competitive smashers find smash as a game fun. the players that truly feel "i only enjoy this one character out of a game of almost 60" do exist, but they are so few and far between from my experience that i can't entertain a good faith argument on how the community "will feel" until the format exists and people have been able to play in it.

Also -

A few talking points when it comes to that format:

Would you guys be in favor of some sort of draft picking system? How would you like that to go and why? No duplicate characters?

Also - should people be disallowed from using echoes of the same character on a single team? It might be kind of lame for a dedicated Marth main to get to use him and Lucina as two out of their three character slots.

Would love to hear thoughts.

especially since echo fighters are clearly differentiated within the game itself, i think it would only be fair to limit someone to pick one character or their echo. it should be pretty self evident that there is a clear advantage if your main character is taking up multiple slots on the roster.

there will need to be some time spent on figuring out how to draft pick for character selection. there's a couple of options. as of now, i think the cleanest is 3 layers of blind pick for game 1, then subsequent games you proceed in a A-BB-AA-B fashion, and loser gets selection of whether they want to be A or B.

"duplicate character restrictions" fall apart once you start to think about it. if im about to play dabuz and only one of us can go rosa, whoever gets dibs on rosalina has a massive advantage. the only work around to this would be to implement a ban system but banning out people's mains will be very very unpopular, and even less forgiving to new-mid level players.


EDIT: sorry, i thought smashboards auto merged double posts lol

 

[Scribe]

I think the problem there is that, with the Marth or Lucina example, there's nothing to stop you from using Chrom. Likewise, if the goal is to force players to not stack their team with more than one character with the same basic kit, it wouldn't stop them from running a team of all Links - a more drastic difference, but still a full team with a very similar function between each character. If you really want to deter that as well, you'd have to have the same restriction on non-echo clones, and honestly feels too weird and surgical of a rule to be worth implementing.

The most elegant solution would be to ban echoes entirely in squad strike but even then, I don't think such a ban would actually be warranted. In team-based fighting games, having characters with very similar movesets on the same team is a double-edged sword. While it does mean you don't have to learn as many characters, it also means that your options and matchup coverage will be more limited than those of a player using all different characters. If someone wants to take that risk, I don't see any reason to stop them.

And honestly I'm not entirely sure that a draft pick for character selection is necessary. Just pick teams simultaneously game 1, allow blind pick if someone requests it, and make the winner of the previous game change their team before the loser if they choose to do so.

This may be new territory for us, but other communities have tackled the same questions before, and pretty much always come out of it realizing this stuff isn't really a problem.

 

[Myran]

Nothing is stopping that, but even if it was the case, you would have far less top tier dittos in top 8 and more diverse match-ups for viewers/players. It also allows lower tiered players to actually preform better, as they can use two good characters and then the character they are famous for, which could push players like that to winning tournaments rather than placing around top 16-32. Having a high mastery of more than one characters just straight up takes more skill and rewards skill more as well.

My issue is that where do we draw the line? Sure it takes more skill, but we could alter the ruleset even more to push an even more skill based meta. I personally don't care for adjusting the game mode to account for that. Feels like we're taking more control then I'd prefer.

what is the argument here? people who are primarily trying to win will play the best characters in any format. people who aren't primarily trying to win will pick the characters they enjoy the most. this is going to hold true for any format in any game.

My post was in response to saying that it'll give more characters screen time and allow lower tiers to flourish. Sure it'll make worse characters more viable since they have a team to back them up. However it's also likely that we'll see even more people use these same top tiers compared to what we see now. Of course people will play top tiers. I just think the character diversity argument isn't a good one since there will be more top tiers present as well.

I'm not against this as a side mode as long as singles is still run. I am however against those who recommend it outright replace singles. So my arguments are mainly directed towards them.

 

[falln]

I think the problem there is that, with the Marth or Lucina example, there's nothing to stop you from using Chrom. Likewise, if the goal is to force players to not stack their team with more than one character with the same basic kit, it wouldn't stop them from running a team of all Links - a more drastic difference, but still a full team with a very similar function between each character. If you really want to deter that as well, you'd have to have the same restriction on non-echo clones, and honestly feels too weird and surgical of a rule to be worth implementing.

The most elegant solution would be to ban echoes entirely in squad strike but even then, I don't think such a ban would actually be warranted. In team-based fighting games, having characters with very similar movesets on the same team is a double-edged sword. While it does mean you don't have to learn as many characters, it also means that your options and matchup coverage will be more limited than those of a player using all different characters. If someone wants to take that risk, I don't see any reason to stop them.

And honestly I'm not entirely sure that a draft pick for character selection is necessary. Just pick teams simultaneously game 1, allow blind pick if someone requests it, and make the winner of the previous game change their team before the loser if they choose to do so.

This may be new territory for us, but other communities have tackled the same questions before, and pretty much always come out of it realizing this stuff isn't really a problem.

i dont see an issue with allowing link + young link + toon link. if someone wants to pick all zoners or all sword users then that's their prerogative. but echo fighters are distinctly advertised as near-clones of each other. seems like an easy line to draw to me.

keeping in mind that this event is still going to play second fiddle to singles for the foreseeable future, the risks and rewards of stacking your team with echoes isn't really as double-edged as it sounds. players are still going to primarily practice their main, and people whose mains come with an echo are going to have a sizable advantage from the double value in their practice.

with regards to counterpicking, i recognize theres a variety of ways to approach this, but i do think we can do something a bit more elegant than having someone pick their entire squad and then giving the loser the ability to counterpick their entire squad back. keeping in mind it's not like other games where you can swap out your fighter as you please, you play out one stock and when you die you go to your next in a given order. seems like that approach would make every game after 1 pretty wack.

there's no intrinsic reason why the loser of a given game should be conferred such an advantage as 3 straight character counterpicks.

 

[Hylian]

My issue is that where do we draw the line? Sure it takes more skill, but we could alter the ruleset even more to push an even more skill based meta. I personally don't care for adjusting the game mode to account for that. Feels like we're taking more control then I'd prefer.

The entire reason this format is being brought up so much is because it's a game mode within the game(squad strike). It's not taking more or less control, it's just about finding what is most enjoyable and competitive for players and viewers. If squad strike is just singles but with way more character variance less dittos and is easy to run then it might just be more popular than singles. Think of King of Fighters type gameplay and compare it to say..street fighter for example. Similar concepts, both 1v1s but KoF uses 3v3s in the singles format unlike other 3 character fighters which are tag fighters basically. One isn't necessarily better than the other and both test similar skillsets, it's just a matter of what is more enjoyable for most. It could be good to differentiate from the standard competitive format for viewership and players. Really we won't know for awhile, but I don't think it's something to be worried about, I can't imagine singles not having a place as a main format ever.

 

[Remzi]

I think the problem there is that, with the Marth or Lucina example, there's nothing to stop you from using Chrom.

We know at this point that Chrom is a Roy echo with an Ike-ish up special. Roy is definitely different enough from Marth/Lucina to where the same issue doesn't apply

 

[NickRiddle]

The main issue I have with Squad Strike being the primary tournament format is just that it makes the entry barrier into the game much higher since you need to have a basic understanding of at least 3 characters, people already have problems finding a main and now they have to find 3?

 

[Scribe]

I think at this point very few people are actually seriously discussing the idea of making it the main format, just a main stage format - kinda like how doubles isn't the main format, but still has a main stage presence at majors.

 

[Myran]

I think for many that's the important distinction to make. I have no issues with it being an added format. Replacing singles is where my and some others concerns come from, for good reason. Not saying you guys here haven't done a good job, but other public's discussions have done a terrible job of conveying the same. From my experience many others online who support it want the outright replacement of singles.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

From my experience many others online who support it want the outright replacement of singles.

And that's why they aren't in here. =)

 

[NickRiddle]

I think at this point very few people are actually seriously discussing the idea of making it the main format, just a main stage format - kinda like how doubles isn't the main format, but still has a main stage presence at majors.

I would much prefer this over doubles so I am now all for it.

 

[DeLux]

Sorry to shift gears on yall from the squad strike back to the older topic on the connection between stages and procedure, but it's definitely an important topic that merits fleshing out as best as possible for a few reasons. The biggest reason that I'm bringing it up is that people are using "there will be too many stages to run an efficient tournament procedure" as a reason to ban elements of the game, rather than a good reason to ban elements of the game (ie: element is overcentralizing, element degenerates the game to random chance, etc.).

Now because of the former argument of "there will be too many stages to run an efficient tournament procedure", I'd like to make a suggestion that I think can accommodate the ability to retain as many stages as we can manage while not unnecessarily slowing every tournament down. The suggestion has actually a pretty long history of success in sports (see turn based serving rules in Tennis/Volleyball).

My suggestion is to flip the procedure to where players take turns picking the stage and must win by 2 games, until a sudden death game is required which would require stage striking. It would be ordered as follows:
1. Draw lots/Flip a Coin/ Game n Watch Judgement
2. Winner of Step 1 picks which player will choose the stage for game 1, we'll call them Player A
3. Player A Chooses the Stage for Game
4. Both players blind pick characters
5. Game is played
6. Player B Chooses the Stage for Game
7. Both Players blind pick characters
6. Game is played
7a. Repeat 3- 6 as needed for place in bracket
7b1. If set is tied at a cutoff point, both players Stage Strike
7b2. Both players blind pick characters
7b3. Final Game is played

Assuming the set is supposed to be a "First to 2/Best of 3" and a player wins both games, sets that end in a 2-0 would never stage strike and require winning on an opponent's stage pick to be possible. Sets that end in 2-1 will have stage striking on game 3. Likewise if the game is supposed to a "First to 3/Best of 5", if a set is 3-0, or 3-1, there would be no need to ever stage strike and would require someone winning on their opponent's pick to be possible. If it ends up going 3-2, then game 5 would be the only game requiring stage striking. The point being, there is a fairly good chance that stage striking is avoided all together.

Hypothetically this solution would provide the following benefits:
1. Retain a larger stage legal stage list for the purposes of stage striking, while avoiding many sets needing to stage strike.
2. Protect the element of counterpicking stages which promotes stage diversity, while ensuring that the most pivotal game in the set (ie: the last one) is won on a decision neutral stage.
3. Kind of an auxiliary benefit, from a production standpoint, there is more tension built as players carefully decide where to play for the final deciding game. As a commentator, I'd salivate explaining how players can stage strike intelligently with more information from games 1-4 rather than going into it blind.
4. *cringes* It wouldn't necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of a starter/cp stage list distinction. Instead though, the starter list would be more appropriately named "sudden death list"


Edit amendment: I guess it would be hypothetically possible in the 3-0 situation for a player to win on two of their choices and one of their opponents choices instead of the reverse where they win on one of their choices and two of their opponents, increasing the number of 3-0's we see. This is easily fixed in 7a where if a player is losing in game count at this phase, the player that is losing takes their turn picking the stage first in that specific repeat of steps 3-6.

 

[Myran]

I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't that also enable the winner of the initial stage deciding game be able to potentially pick a massively polarizing stage if they exist? I'm thinking something like Bayo on Duck Hunt or something similar.

 

[DeLux]

I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't that also enable the winner of the initial stage deciding game be able to potentially pick a massively polarizing stage if they exist? I'm thinking something like Bayo on Duck Hunt or something similar.

In terms of "polarizing" stages, we have two procedural tactics to combat this, depending on the definition of polarizing you're using:
1. Making the stage illegal if it's unfit for competitive play because it creates an overcentralization via a strictly dominant strategy that isn't necessitated by the standard win condition or degenerates the game to random chance.
2. Give players "stage ban(s)" during the counter picking phase so that there is a safe guard against a player picking the stage that would favor them the most

If that's a real concern (which it should be on a normative level since it's been a thing in EVERY smash, just not sure on specifics and degree without proper testing), we could continue the tradition of doing either of those options, but that's really just minor nuances there on how much deviation from the competitively struck neutral is acceptable. The main point I'm getting at is there is a way to maintain a rather large legal stage list, without falling into the mental trap of "we have to ban things or else tournaments will take forever"

 

[Myran]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I assume the method you listed above is also to combat the idea's of a seasonal stage list that would change with every set period of time?

 

[DeLux]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I assume the method you listed above is also to combat the idea's of a seasonal stage list that would change with every set period of time?

In a perfect world

Also if we wanted to get more nuanced and wanted to avoid the tie-breaker/stage striking / sudden death games in the model I proposed, it would likely be good to investigate many stages bans to curtail deviation from the struck neutral, as shown by the model I created here, percentages of those games happening in bold depending on the hypothetical "polarity": https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16pyvlOEX-8GNGLhqS9TcySyJi4bW5KpQH0D1tgrTLik/edit?usp=sharing

Apologies in advance if the model is too ugly lol

 

[NickRiddle]

Sorry to shift gears on yall from the squad strike back to the older topic on the connection between stages and procedure, but it's definitely an important topic that merits fleshing out as best as possible for a few reasons. The biggest reason that I'm bringing it up is that people are using "there will be too many stages to run an efficient tournament procedure" as a reason to ban elements of the game, rather than a good reason to ban elements of the game (ie: element is overcentralizing, element degenerates the game to random chance, etc.).

Now because of the former argument of "there will be too many stages to run an efficient tournament procedure", I'd like to make a suggestion that I think can accommodate the ability to retain as many stages as we can manage while not unnecessarily slowing every tournament down. The suggestion has actually a pretty long history of success in sports (see turn based serving rules in Tennis/Volleyball).

My suggestion is to flip the procedure to where players take turns picking the stage and must win by 2 games, until a sudden death game is required which would require stage striking. It would be ordered as follows:
1. Draw lots/Flip a Coin/ Game n Watch Judgement
2. Winner of Step 1 picks which player will choose the stage for game 1, we'll call them Player A
3. Player A Chooses the Stage for Game
4. Both players blind pick characters
5. Game is played
6. Player B Chooses the Stage for Game
7. Both Players blind pick characters
6. Game is played
7a. Repeat 3- 6 as needed for place in bracket
7b1. If set is tied at a cutoff point, both players Stage Strike
7b2. Both players blind pick characters
7b3. Final Game is played

Assuming the set is supposed to be a "First to 2/Best of 3" and a player wins both games, sets that end in a 2-0 would never stage strike and require winning on an opponent's stage pick to be possible. Sets that end in 2-1 will have stage striking on game 3. Likewise if the game is supposed to a "First to 3/Best of 5", if a set is 3-0, or 3-1, there would be no need to ever stage strike and would require someone winning on their opponent's pick to be possible. If it ends up going 3-2, then game 5 would be the only game requiring stage striking. The point being, there is a fairly good chance that stage striking is avoided all together.

Hypothetically this solution would provide the following benefits:
1. Retain a larger stage legal stage list for the purposes of stage striking, while avoiding many sets needing to stage strike.
2. Protect the element of counterpicking stages which promotes stage diversity, while ensuring that the most pivotal game in the set (ie: the last one) is won on a decision neutral stage.
3. Kind of an auxiliary benefit, from a production standpoint, there is more tension built as players carefully decide where to play for the final deciding game. As a commentator, I'd salivate explaining how players can stage strike intelligently with more information from games 1-4 rather than going into it blind.
4. *cringes* It wouldn't necessarily mean we'd have to get rid of a starter/cp stage list distinction. Instead though, the starter list would be more appropriately named "sudden death list"


Edit amendment: I guess it would be hypothetically possible in the 3-0 situation for a player to win on two of their choices and one of their opponents choices instead of the reverse where they win on one of their choices and two of their opponents, increasing the number of 3-0's we see. This is easily fixed in 7a where if a player is losing in game count at this phase, the player that is losing takes their turn picking the stage first in that specific repeat of steps 3-6.

I always thought stage-striking was important to not only select G1 but to also glean I formation from your opponent's decisions to better suit your counterpicking; this nuance goes away via this method and I feel it would make G3s more swingy than even our current system. Also, while this absolutely would be the fastest method short or random select I feel the negative of G1/G2 potentially being auto wins/auto losses in certain MUs would make this only enjoyed by TOs.

Edit: The more I think about this the more I like it, but I feel it gives P1 a disadvantage because they are going in blind with their pick and P2 has character knowledge from G1... What about a short FLiPS (full-list partial-strike) to get rid of 2-4 stages per person (assuming a big list) before the pick G1 and then keep the list until the final game where you would then do a second round of striking? I know MOBAs have multiple pick/ban phases before each game so it has precedent.

 

[DeLux]

I always thought stage-striking was important to not only select G1 but to also glean I formation from your opponent's decisions to better suit your counterpicking; this nuance goes away via this method and I feel it would make G3s more swingy than even our current system. Also, while this absolutely would be the fastest method short or random select I feel the negative of G1/G2 potentially being auto wins/auto losses in certain MUs would make this only enjoyed by TOs.

I think the major rebuttal to the "information loss in counterpicking" is offset by "information gained during stage striking/blind picks in the final game". While your criticism is valid, I'm not sure if it's a "better / worse" situation, or if it's just a "different" situation in terms of nuance. Although admittedly I don't fully follow what you mean by "swingy". I'm sure it's nothing that a few player stage bans in the CP process couldn't help address.

Edit: The more I think about this the more I like it, but I feel it gives P1 a disadvantage because they are going in blind with their pick and P2 has character knowledge from G1... What about a short FLiPS (full-list partial-strike) to get rid of 2-4 stages per person (assuming a big list) before the pick G1 and then keep the list until the final game where you would then do a second round of striking? I know MOBAs have multiple pick/ban phases before each game so it has precedent.

I was gonna say. When I originally made my post, I was a bit sad because as I hit enter I thought to myself, "Nick Riddle is gonna love this." That being said, the information access disparity in the method I'm proposing can be addressed in a couple ways:
1. Players can announce there stage picks each round simultaneously
2. We accept that there will always be some information disparity, since as the current counter picking system stands, the person that has a later counterpick would have an information advantage in the same way.

 

[Scribe]

The problem of stage striking with a large stage list has mostly been addressed earlier in the thread - there's either PracticalTAS 's 3-2-1 stage striking method, or lumping similar stages into categories and banning those categories. Of course, this is also based on the assumption that a large stage list would make stage striking as we've done it problematic, but honestly I'm starting to wonder if that's even the case - if we shift our gaze over to other platform fighters, Rivals of Aether just received a new patch that adds 3 new stages, bringing the total up to 15, all of which are tournament legal. We have yet to see how Rivals' metagame is affected by this, but it'd something that we should definitely take into account with rulesets for Ultimate.

Based on the stages we've seen so far for Ultimate, I think the number of legal stages will probably be in the range of 12-20 stages, no more than 25 (and that's probably if, like, all 5 unrevealed stages that CoroCoro teased are tournament viable, as are all of the flyaround stages with hazards disabled). It's more than we've seen with any official Smash titles, but we've got more than official Smash titles to look at - there's also fan games and other platform fighters.

 

[DeLux]

The problem of stage striking with a large stage list has mostly been addressed earlier in the thread - there's either PracticalTAS 's 3-2-1 stage striking method, or lumping similar stages into categories and banning those categories. Of course, this is also based on the assumption that a large stage list would make stage striking as we've done it problematic, but honestly I'm starting to wonder if that's even the case - if we shift our gaze over to other platform fighters, Rivals of Aether just received a new patch that adds 3 new stages, bringing the total up to 15, all of which are tournament legal. We have yet to see how Rivals' metagame is affected by this, but it'd something that we should definitely take into account with rulesets for Ultimate.

Based on the stages we've seen so far for Ultimate, I think the number of legal stages will probably be in the range of 12-20 stages, no more than 25 (and that's probably if, like, all 5 unrevealed stages that CoroCoro teased are tournament viable, as are all of the flyaround stages with hazards disabled). It's more than we've seen with any official Smash titles, but we've got more than official Smash titles to look at - there's also fan games and other platform fighters.

If I am not mistaken, both the suggestions that "take care of" large list striking are revolving around removing "redundant platform layout stages" in some form for the sake of saving time in striking down. If we look at Melee, we see that said "redudant platform layout stages" have tremendous ramifications on MU and the metagame.

The point I am making is with a reshuffle of our match order, we can bypass the need to make such arbitrary redudancy groupings/cuts that could have wide unintentional consequences on the metagame, since we can achieve the time save by virtue of bypassing striking in statistically most scenarios.

It's one of those, why would we cut out all kinds of stages game 1 if we have way that doesn't force us to do so?

 

[PracticalTAS]

Anything we do will have wide-ranging effects on the metagame. it doesn't mean anything to say that something would change the game too much, because we're already creating the competitive scene to look like what we want it to look in the first place.

Last-Game Stage Striking

I think you'll find that the player who wins the set-starting RPS for first stage choice will have an alarmingly high win rate under these rules; there's no bigger advantage in a set than going up 1-0. The issue with the tennis/volleyball comparison is, of course, that you're still you and the court is still the court, no matter who serves first.

(Side note, one player picking a stage followed by a blind pick is bound to bring up all sorts of scenarios where you counterpick yourself into a bad matchup when you're supposed to have the advantage. There's a reason why we use 1. loser picks stage 2. winner picks character 3. loser picks character)

If I am not mistaken, both the suggestions that "take care of" large list striking are revolving around removing "redundant platform layout stages" in some form for the sake of saving time in striking down. If we look at Melee, we see that said "redudant platform layout stages" have tremendous ramifications on MU and the metagame.

The point I am making is with a reshuffle of our match order, we can bypass the need to make such arbitrary redudancy groupings/cuts that could have wide unintentional consequences on the metagame, since we can achieve the time save by virtue of bypassing striking in statistically most scenarios.

It's one of those, why would we cut out all kinds of stages game 1 if we have way that doesn't force us to do so?

Removing redundant platform layouts lets us use our existing system without centralizing the game around characters that are good on triplats. Why fix what isn't broken when we can fix what is?

And "all of these stages function identically to Battlefield" is not arbitrary lmao. You can't really compare with Melee either, stage legality is dependent on both the other stages available and their potential for characters to abuse them. If WiiU had Melee's stages and nothing else, I bet they'd cut FoD/YS/DL and go down to 3 stages rather than have 4 triplats for ladder combos in a 6 stage list.

The biggest reason that I'm bringing it up is that people are using "there will be too many stages to run an efficient tournament procedure" as a reason to ban elements of the game, rather than a good reason to ban elements of the game (ie: element is overcentralizing, element degenerates the game to random chance, etc.).

Going back to this, "there are too many legal stages that play extremely similarly and give you a huge advantage" is another way of saying "element is overcentralizing". Full List Partial Striking has a whole host of problems, but one of the worst is this: "we have 6 triplats" means either a) we're wasting time banning 6 stages just so a triplat isn't guaranteed to anyone who wants one, or b) a triplat is guaranteed to anyone who wants one.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

In principle if you adjust Lux's suggestion to make the g1/g2 stage pick a double blind pick announced before any games are played to remove the rather large information advantage of going second, the win rate for the winner of g1 should be pretty close to the win rate currently. Current rules make g1 a "neutral" outcome, g2 gives the loser of g1 a character + stage cp advantage, and g3 gives the winner of g1 both of those things. Lux's suggestion maintains the stage aspect of this completely but simply shifts the order to put g2/g3 up front (randomly ordered but guaranteed both always present) followed by g1. From simply the stage angle, all this does is make any set that would have been a 2-0 anyway end before striking occurs; the total amount of stage advantage either player gets doesn't really change other than that the counterpicks are I suppose a bit weaker because they're less tuned to the opponent, but that's similar to my next point anyway.

The difference is removing character counterpicking completely, but honestly, I think this is one of the best features if you look into how it really plays out. Character counterpicking exists to save time largely (it's faster to do a character counterpick than to do a double blind) and because it's acceptable to give small advantages in those situations, but you don't really want huge character cp swings and this is why it doesn't even matter much for the win rate. If a character counterpick's advantage trends toward 100% advantage (counterpicking always makes you win), then winning g1 in the current ruleset would be expected to have a 100% win rate because they would then always lose g2 and always win g3 making only g1 relevant to the outcome. If it goes the other way to 0% and if any individual game is a coinflip (equally skilled opponents), we expect a g1 winner's overall win rate of 75% since they can only lose by losing two 50-50 outcomes in a row, but g1 was also a 50-50 so it was perfectly fair at every stage. Mathematically, all middle points will fall into this range; character counterpicks giving an advantage actually decreases the odds of the g1 loser winning the set from the high point of 25%. If a counterpick advantage is 75 - 25 this means that the overall odds of the g1 winner winning the set are 1 - (.75 * .25) which comes to 81.25% which is somewhat of a better win rate than the 75% from before. Of course a greater percentage of these set wins will be 2-1s instead of 2-0s which is a real practical disadvantage since you have less variation in outcome after g1 (less exciting) but also take a lot longer to actually finish deciding the winner. This is also a bit of a simplification from reality in which some players can milk far more juice out of cp situations than others since some players use strategies optimized to win on g1 and others have the pocket Little Mac, but the net effect of all of those systems is metagame polarization which is a negative as well. Character counterpicking is not unacceptable as a compromise system, but it's a negative for fairness which actually applies to the stage picks being optimized via information from above too.

I rather like, from a time saving perspective, the idea of running a shallow FLiPS which is basically the same thing as doing some rounds of stage bans, double blind g1/g2 stage, play those stages with blind characters, and then strike for the final game if necessary with possibly still using a FLiPS style random after further striking if the stage list is sufficiently large to warrant it. It's equal in fairness but significantly faster in terms of time; it's basically a strictly better system than our current one for any size stage list with the advantage that it scales way better to those higher sizes. A few of us were talking about the pros-cons of this last night, the biggest worry was in the extra time double blinds take over advantaged picks, but then a really good and obvious solution was suggested by Nick Riddle which I'd never thought of but is brilliant and I don't know why everyone doesn't do it already.

If you're doing a double blind, instead of calling someone over, just pull our your phone, type your pick, have your opponent do their pick, and show off your phone to reveal your pick. It's fast, and since most people have phones, the number of sets that will occur between two players who both don't have phones (and thus require someone to be called over) will be very low. Pulling up a text prompt and typing "BF" takes an amount of time we could fairly measure in frames so it's not any slower than advantaged picks if you just know this method exists.

I'm not going to get into the identical/near identical stage issue here other than to say that, whichever way you take it, I don't think it impacts the value of the procedure itself, merely which stages will ultimately serve as input to said procedure.

Also apparently I can post here and didn't know it. Hi Lux!

 

[Scribe]

Removing redundant platform layouts lets us use our existing system without centralizing the game around characters that are good on triplats. Why fix what isn't broken when we can fix what is?

And "all of these stages function identically to Battlefield" is not arbitrary lmao. You can't really compare with Melee either, stage legality is dependent on both the other stages available and their potential for characters to abuse them. If WiiU had Melee's stages and nothing else, I bet they'd cut FoD/YS/DL and go down to 3 stages rather than have 4 triplats for ladder combos in a 6 stage list.

To build on this, it's not just about the layouts, but the layouts in the context of the game as a whole - Melee and Smash 4 have very different punish game, and more importantly platforms play a different role in their punish games, so in Melee, the size of the stage - both its platforms and its blast zones - matters more, while in Smash 4, the layout and position of platforms matters more. It's also worth noting that there's a much larger difference in blast zones between the Melee incarnations of these stages than between the Smash 4 incarnations.

Going back to this, "there are too many legal stages that play extremely similarly and give you a huge advantage" is another way of saying "element is overcentralizing". Full List Partial Striking has a whole host of problems, but one of the worst is this: "we have 6 triplats" means either a) we're wasting time banning 6 stages just so a triplat isn't guaranteed to anyone who wants one, or b) a triplat is guaranteed to anyone who wants one.

To point to a more concrete example, this is also why banning Battlefield also counts as banning Dreamland in Smash 4 - If you decided to keep Dreamland separate, then no matter how many bans you have in counterpicks, you have to waste a ban if you're playing against a character who benefits from tri-plats. They're so similar in the context of Smash 4 that you'd effectively have a stage that it takes two bans to get rid of instead of one.

Of course, a lot of this depends on Ultimate's punish game - if it's not nearly as ladder-based, or if tri-plats are otherwise not nearly as functionally similar, it might not even matter.

 

[Cyrrona]

Hi! I'm Cyrrona, one of the head TOs for Smash 4 in Washington State. First, I have to say that I'm really heartened by the approach suar and others have championed so far for Ultimate--openness, inclusiveness, and transparency are three things we definitely needed more of in Smash 4 governance, and I'm looking forward to helping with all of that however I can.

I don't have much to contribute to the striking conversation right now, but I'd like to echo Scribe's last point. It's great that we're trying to nail down processes ahead of time, but we should be careful not to view Ultimate solely through the lens of Smash 4. Laddering as we know it could change or largely disappear in the new game, and we've yet to see how hazard toggle interacts with plenty of transforming stages. Of course, there are other reasons characters would prefer to avoid/select tri-plats and other reasons to trim certain stages. But with so many new things on the horizon and so much we won't know without testing, I encourage us to draw lines as lightly and flexibly as possible!