Smash Ultimate Ruleset Philosophy

[DeLux]

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.

It's hard to really make this point objectively of "what we want it to look like" when that "we" assumes some level of consensus. By virtue of having debate on the topic, there's at least some opposition; so "we" could mean anywhere from "you and the entire world minus myself" or "you and your best friend". On a normative level, one preference isn't inherently more valid than the other minus situations of clear overcentralization or degeneration into random chance, so better to be as judicious as possible in making changes and preserve as much of the game as possible. Given that the game isn't even out yet and we don't know to the extent at which various elements will impact the game, it's hard to make the argument for a variety of reasons on anything being overcentralizing or degenerating into random chance.

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.

Mathematical probability doesn't support this, assuming equally skilled players. Let's take this and put it to a hypothetical test assuming the following:
1. Player 1 has won game 1
2. Counter pick stages have a 75% win rate and the opponent has a 25% win rate (note, this number is arbitrary and used as a filler to prove a point, the same principle would hold true mathematically with degree being determined by how much you deviate from 50/50)
3. Game 2 is played on Player 2's counter pick, meaning Player 1 has 25% win rate and a 75% loss rate

If Game 3 is played on Player 1's counterpick as would happen in the current counterpicking system, Player 1's expected set win rate would be approximately 81.25%. If Game 3 is played on the neutral stage as I'm suggesting, Player 1's expected set win rate would be approximately 62.5%.

I agree with you that winning game 1 is a huge advantage (side note: I've written a thread or two on discussing how to combat the overcentralization of winning game 1 as a prerequisite to winning a set), but the proposal actually helps mitigate the issue, not make it worse. I actually find it ironic that I've seen two respected opinions look at the system and come out with different conclusions on who has the advantage in the proposed sytem.

(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)

This is a fair point, and I agree that removing the character counter picking nature would come at the cost of some diversity in terms of having guaranteed positive match ups for the counterpicking player. However, curtailing counterpick advantages has the advantage of decentralizing the need to win the neutral game in the match. Definitely a trade-off, but the beauty is that the system I'm proposing would function nearly as well assuming we retain the character counterpicking.

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.

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.

Point taken, and don't get me wrong, I agree that "removing redundancy" as a value to adhere to has its merits (eg: a good reason to not counter every iteration of For Glory Stages as final destination in Smash). Apologies if it didn't come across in translation, but what I was more getting at was that we're not really able to predict the exact ramifications of say, having 1 triplat vs. 2 triplats vs. 3 triplats vs. 4 triplats the same way we can predict the ramification of having 1 triplat vs. 50 triplats. That doesn't even start getting into how could we determine which triplat stage is more valid as the platonic form of triplats without proper testing of having them all legal. Is Yoshi's Story more pure than Battlefield, even though it's tiny? Is Dreamland less Battlefield, even though it's been a legal stage in just as many games as Battlefield? If picking "the other battlefield" overcentralizes, there are a variety of tactics that we could use to curtail that, but all I'm saying is I'm not sure it's warranted to outright just ban them from out of the box. All of this is also predicated on the fact that picking a tri-plat becomes an overly dominant strategy if not a strictly dominant one, and also asssumes playing on said stages would be bad for the game as a whole. Especially given we're getting whole new knockback systems and mechanics, for all we know some other "criteria/group" of stages could end up being even worse.

The overarching point, I agree that we should sift through that quagmire if we HAVE to. But if we don't, we probably shouldn't. All I'm suggesting is that without any clear results pointing the way , I don't think we have to YET.

 

[Yikarur]

I really liked the approach of "Loser picks 3 stages, winner bans 2 (or 1) of them"
This allows to legalize way more stages without the common problems a huge stage list typically has. This also makes hard-counterpicking a lot harder. A concept that irks me since Brawl.

With this rule the loser provides the basic framework of the next game, while the winner can pick the least evil of the selection. This is brilliant and seems balanced to me.

 

[Scribe]

Since it's relevant again, here's a question:

So, early on we brought up the idea of having a code of conduct in place, and potentially using PGR status as an enforcement mechanism (e.g. having events that ignore code of conduct violations not count towards PGR), which in turn leads me to ask: however we handle having a code of conduct, would we be using the Melee community's code of conduct or putting together our own? I'm personally in favor of the former, at least for the sake of transference - e.g. working with Melee TOs to ensure anyone who's banned in one game is banned in the other as well to make sure they can't just jump ship from one title to another.

Of course, using the Melee community's code of conduct leads to the elephant in the room: the Task Force behind the code of conduct is, at least to my knowledge, made up entirely of Melee community figures. We'd probably want to open up discussion between them and our segment of the community. (Paging roboticphish )

 

[roboticphish]

Hey. We definitely want Ult representation, I was looking to reach out to Vayseth this week to get a shortlist of names to add into the conversation. We really, really want to involve PG Stats, but they have a better relationship with the 4/Ult TOs than they do with us, so it's a necessity for us to work together. And yeah, while the panel was mostly Melee figures, it's backed by the Twitch guys and is intended for the wider smash scene. Vayseth has been looped in, we will definitely be looking for more of you guys to have a hand in the process moving forward.

 

[Scribe]

Awesome. That also brings another question to mind, especially with the current goings-on with Nightmare and his local scene.

feels really shitty to not be welcomed / banned from a 80+ man tourney so that nightmare and the hyenas can compete and not feel 'uncomfortable'

playing melee in Toronto has felt more cold and cliquey than any region I've visited

— andrew tran (@ATranimal) October 14, 2018

For any code of conduct stuff, we're gonna need some sort of infrastructure in place for enforcing punishments for code of conduct violations not just for majors, but on a local/regional level as well. While having having organizers for majors be on the same page is a great way to start, there's currently nothing really stopping smaller tournaments from outright disregarding harassment task force rulings and allowing known harassers, abusers, sexual predators, etc. at their events, or even banning people who speak out against their presence, as is the case with the Melee event in Toronto.

(though this may be better suited for the harassment task force thread, in which case we might want to move discussion about this topic over there)

 

[DeLux]

Maybe this will sound super Machiavellian, but one viable method that I could see being able to enforce some sort of code of conduct to the extent at which is being suggested would be to wield the full weight of social capital the community possesses by targeting the business interests involved and forcing the issue into one of liability for them. That would mean the task force contacting the venue that's contracted directly and asking loaded questions, "Why are you hosting an event that is specifically being targeted toward people in favor of supporting sexual predators?" Most prudent businesses will exercise escape clauses if they knew the truth, but we'd still have the ability of putting the business on blast for supporting such an event and let them get eviscerated in the court of public opinion. It seems obvious to me that these events only exist out of complacency by the community at large to issues that ought to be a priority (ie 80 people are attending this event), and by turning it into a liability that threatens the continued existence of the event we can activate the community into reassessing their priorities.

TLDR: Confront businesses involved with event about issue of harassment/assault/sexual misconduct/etc, those business won't want to accept the liability and will threaten to cancel event, threat to cancel event will cause community to confront issue of harassment/assault/sexual misconduct/etc.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Private events be private events. The guy in the tweet above got refused entry in the same vein that any other tournament can refuse entry to Nightmare (I haven't kept up with the whole Nightmare situation outside of knowing he's an asshat, so I'm not sure what the go is there).

That said, I don't think it's really possible to force smaller tournaments to refuse certain players entry.

Clarification edit: I'm not saying effort put into getting him (or anyone else) banned in local scenes is bad, just that it would likely be time and effort better spent elsewhere since he has the support of his local scene and they aren't changing their mind any time soon.

 

[Scribe]

TLDR: Confront businesses involved with event about issue of harassment/assault/sexual misconduct/etc, those business won't want to accept the liability and will threaten to cancel event, threat to cancel event will cause community to confront issue of harassment/assault/sexual misconduct/etc.

I'd actually been considering the same thing, alongside a few other possibilities.

Private events be private events. The guy in the tweet above got refused entry in the same vein that any other tournament can refuse entry to Nightmare (I haven't kept up with the whole Nightmare situation outside of knowing he's an ******, so I'm not sure what the go is there).

That said, I don't think it's really possible to force smaller tournaments to refuse certain players entry.

Clarification edit: I'm not saying effort put into getting him (or anyone else) banned in local scenes is bad, just that it would likely be time and effort better spent elsewhere since he has the support of his local scene and they aren't changing their mind any time soon.

the thing with Nightmare is that he was convicted of having sexual conduct with a minor. He'd repeatedly denied it, even going as far as threatening to sue any events that banned him for it and having a legal document drafted up saying he was never convicted for the act, only for one of his friends to reveal during a stream that yes, he did do it and he was convicted.

And, like, I get that you can't really force local scenes to ban people, but I think there's certainly ways to disincentivize them from ignoring what's supposed to be a scene-wide ban.

Plus much of the toxicity you see at in-person events usually doesn't start the top-level major events, but rather starts at the local level and works its way up. I think if we want to curb it, we're going to have to find a way to deal with it at a local level, especially since some TOs simply won't address it unprompted.

Also, since I think Vayseth is putting together a backroom-type thing for Ultimate, and he's working with the harassment task force, maybe those could work in tandem for that sort of thing?

 

[Yikarur]

There is no rage toggle!

One more thing we don't have to worry about 8)

 

[falln]

there's more info on hazardless stage which has been compiled here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/9u2zio/compilation_of_information_about_hazardless/

it's not my post, and i don't cosign many of the bolded stages (green greens and kongo jungle as striking examples).


but here's something to try and hash out: mii customs. it looks like they can freely mix and max their specials the same way as smash 4, the only difference now is that they are the only 3 characters with this option available. to me, this changes the dynamic pretty significantly. i was onboard in s4 with locking miis into only their 1111 sets to keep it uniform with the rest of the characters after customs were banned, but it is now distinctly a "mii" feature. so from my perspective it seems fine to let them mix and match in ultimate

 

[DeLux]

there's more info on hazardless stage which has been compiled here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/9u2zio/compilation_of_information_about_hazardless/

it's not my post, and i don't cosign many of the bolded stages (green greens and kongo jungle as striking examples).

A couple of thoughts on the hazardless stage discussion:
- Does this mean one can claim Nintendo views any moving platforms as a "hazard"? (ie Smashville)
- Does this mean one could claim Yoshi's Island (Brawl) and Smashville are redundant stages with hazards set to "off"? Is Wuhu Island also redundant?
- Are Pokemon Stadium, Pokemon Stadium 2, close enough to be redundnat? Is Unova also redundant? Is Kalos redundant? Is Skyloft?
- Are Battlefield, Dreamland, and Fountain of Dreams redundant?

I'll keep looking for more, examples to ponder, like Wily and FD being redundant

 

[Cyrrona]

The only stage point that I’m confident about right now is that we should aim for either 100% hazards on or 100% hazards off. Flipping back and forth is needlessly complicated for new players and difficult to remember mid-set. I’ll try to hash out some thoughts about each option soon.

Also, I agree with allowing all Mii moves this time around. I’ll report back if we run into problems with them at my events, but I’m not expecting any.

 

[Myran]

I disagree with it being complicated for newer players. If your properly explain rules people will more than likely be able to do it. I know we're leaning towards using the hazard switch on a stage by stage basis for my local scene at first. However I could see why that wouldn't want to be ran at a major where something can **** up. That said I do feel by going all in or out on it doesn't really do this stage list justice. Feels like we're once again having to make compromises on stages when I don't think it's necessary.

 

[Scribe]

So I've heard stuff about some scenes testing out Hazards On early on, so we'll see how that goes.

And with alternating between hazards on and off, there's too much potential for players having to restart a match because they forgot to turn it on/off for a certain stage. There's a ton of things that need to be balanced with a ruleset, and the logistical factor of making sure that events run smoothly without having to restart games is one of them (especially stages whose hazards take a little bit to kick in), and that's not something that I'd be willing to sacrifice for the sake of adding more stages.

Going from there, alongside using tournaments as a test bed, maybe for regions that are home to top players and TOs, it might be a good idea to hold smashfests with playtesting different rulesets in mind, much like how the TF2 community runs occasional playtest matches to see how banning/allowing certain weapons would impact the meta.

On an unrelated note, something worth noting not for ruleset purposes but as a thing with setups: the Switch only has three USB ports, unlike the Wii U's four (two in back, two in front), and one of those three ports requires opening the rear panel. Any setups that use lockboxes or that one modified dock that lets you lock up the Switch itself won't have access to that rear port. This is gonna be a huge problem for Pro Controller players, especially those who use the wired ones from Power-A. I'd highly recommend getting USB hubs for setups - just some cheap portable four or eight-port ones. Not having access to the USB ports will basically put a soft ban on anything that doesn't plug in through the GCC adapter.

Alternatively if y'all are down for some big brain moves we could make this a ruleset thing and ban GCCs/make people bring their own adapter but I'm pretty sure that even people who'd be down with that wouldn't be willing to die on that hill.

 

[Hylian]

That would only be a problem in doubles if you have 3 people with pro controllers and 1 with GCC, but yes a USB hub is an easy fix. I almost can't believe you would even suggest banning GCCs, I wouldn't even play smash if I couldn't use a GCC, and the vast majority of the competitive scene uses GCCs.

 

[DeLux]

From the 2GG event in January:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e9G9jlUrx3G8TNlwr7LeD118P5O9R_GggUJi4YLqHRc/edit?usp=sharing
It looks like the tradition of Battlefield 1-4 dominating the metagame is going to be a thing unless we make some concrete steps.

 

[Scribe]

That would only be a problem in doubles if you have 3 people with pro controllers and 1 with GCC, but yes a USB hub is an easy fix. I almost can't believe you would even suggest banning GCCs, I wouldn't even play smash if I couldn't use a GCC, and the vast majority of the competitive scene uses GCCs.

I mean, the "big brain plays" thing implies that it's supposed to be an absurd proposition.

As for the need for USB hubs, it's not just doubles matches with 3 or 4 people using pro controllers. Like I mentioned before, there's the issue of events where the Switch is kept in a lock box/a dock that locks the Switch in place to prevent theft - access to the rear port is lost, and the GCC adapter takes up the other two. The GCC adapter will likely function with just the black plug inserted but not having the gray plug inserted means you lose rumble, and I know a few people who refuse to play with it disabled. Plus Smashbox needs that plug to be inserted for third party adapters, since for those it draws power through the line that normally powers the rumble motor.

also having to plug the pro controller in the rear port then unplug it at the end of the game is a pain in the ass, especially since the position means you risk accidentally unplugging stuff, and if you have a short cord, it'll limit how far from the console you can sit (tho imho that's on them for not springing for a 6ft or 10ft cord like I did)

(For the remainder of Smash 4's lifespan, please, for the sake of any pro controller players who attend your locals, plug your GCC adapters into the rear ports. It makes our lives so much easier.)

 

[falln]

From the 2GG event in January:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e9G9jlUrx3G8TNlwr7LeD118P5O9R_GggUJi4YLqHRc/edit?usp=sharing
It looks like the tradition of Battlefield 1-4 dominating the metagame is going to be a thing unless we make some concrete steps.

i wouldn't read too much into the 2gg list until game launches. as part of the socal panel i can assure you it's exactly what it is described in the link - a placeholder.

 

[DeLux]

i wouldn't read too much into the 2gg list until game launches. as part of the socal panel i can assure you it's exactly what it is described in the link - a placeholder.

Should probably not bother with a place holder or else people are just going to say "2GG is running X ruleset" and all of a sudden the placeholder becomes the standard.

 

[Hylian]

I mean, the "big brain plays" thing implies that it's supposed to be an absurd proposition.

As for the need for USB hubs, it's not just doubles matches with 3 or 4 people using pro controllers. Like I mentioned before, there's the issue of events where the Switch is kept in a lock box/a dock that locks the Switch in place to prevent theft - access to the rear port is lost, and the GCC adapter takes up the other two. The GCC adapter will likely function with just the black plug inserted but not having the gray plug inserted means you lose rumble, and I know a few people who refuse to play with it disabled. Plus Smashbox needs that plug to be inserted for third party adapters, since for those it draws power through the line that normally powers the rumble motor.

also having to plug the pro controller in the rear port then unplug it at the end of the game is a pain in the ***, especially since the position means you risk accidentally unplugging stuff, and if you have a short cord, it'll limit how far from the console you can sit (tho imho that's on them for not springing for a 6ft or 10ft cord like I did)

(For the remainder of Smash 4's lifespan, please, for the sake of any pro controller players who attend your locals, plug your GCC adapters into the rear ports. It makes our lives so much easier.)

I don't think I would describe alienating 90% of the scene as "Big brain plays". Tournament consoles being accessible is something T.O.s need to worry about, not people making rulesets. Controlling every facet of a tournament is NOT something we should be trying to do or even considering, this is just about making a ruleset, or at least putting ideas out for one. You understand this room is viewable to the public right? We are not controlling anyone nor are we ever going to.

 

[DeLux]

I mean, the "big brain plays" thing implies that it's supposed to be an absurd proposition.

As for the need for USB hubs, it's not just doubles matches with 3 or 4 people using pro controllers. Like I mentioned before, there's the issue of events where the Switch is kept in a lock box/a dock that locks the Switch in place to prevent theft - access to the rear port is lost, and the GCC adapter takes up the other two. The GCC adapter will likely function with just the black plug inserted but not having the gray plug inserted means you lose rumble, and I know a few people who refuse to play with it disabled. Plus Smashbox needs that plug to be inserted for third party adapters, since for those it draws power through the line that normally powers the rumble motor.

also having to plug the pro controller in the rear port then unplug it at the end of the game is a pain in the ***, especially since the position means you risk accidentally unplugging stuff, and if you have a short cord, it'll limit how far from the console you can sit (tho imho that's on them for not springing for a 6ft or 10ft cord like I did)

(For the remainder of Smash 4's lifespan, please, for the sake of any pro controller players who attend your locals, plug your GCC adapters into the rear ports. It makes our lives so much easier.)

I don't think I would describe alienating 90% of the scene as "Big brain plays". Tournament consoles being accessible is something T.O.s need to worry about, not people making rulesets. Controlling every facet of a tournament is NOT something we should be trying to do or even considering, this is just about making a ruleset, or at least putting ideas out for one. You understand this room is viewable to the public right? We are not controlling anyone nor are we ever going to.

Come on Scribe, nomenclature is of the utmost importance. Please use the correct term, "Galaxy Brain Plays", like a refined gentleman ought to so we don't descend into savagery.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

I don't have much to say outside that I don't mind having a stagelist consisting of hazards on and off but apparently that's too complicated. I don't care all that much, I just want fountain of dreams lolol.

Also WarioWare is doing the rounds of a neat stage layout but I saw Ganondorf die at 62% to a move that isn't particularly strong here so that stage is dead to me.

 

[Hylian]

I saw a thing which I didn't watch, but gave me the idea of grouping stages together for stage striking which could help with a larger stagelist.

For example say you have 4 sets of stages. Each player chooses two sets and then both strike from those stages. This isn't complicated and would make things pretty fast. How the groups would be decided would be the hard part, they could be diversified or similar stages idk. This also avoids the problem of two players picking stages specifically and striking from those as you would just strike all your opponents stages. Having the stages be diverse within the groups would make it so that whatever group your opponent picks you probably like some stages from.

Just a random idea that could be refined a lot but worth thinking about. If we end up with a small stagelist anyways this doesn't really matter, but if a ton of the community wants a lot of stages and no one is sure if they should do like seasons or mass striking or w/e, this could be a solution for that situation.

 

[Yikarur]

From the discussions and analyses done in the PGstats discord server the past days, we will probably end with a minimum of 8 stages and a maximum of 11

This assumes the settings will be pre-determined and not changed midset (hazards: off)

Starter:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Smashville
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1/2

Counterpick:
Yoshis Island (Brawl)
Wario Ware, Inc.
Kalos Pokémon League


Those stages are basically agreed on. You could swap Wario Ware with Lylat but I'm sure most people agree on Wario Ware being CP (Wall and Blastzones)

Under suspicion are

Fregate Orpheon - Asymmetrical and temporary wall and temporary lower-than-main-stage area.

Arena Ferox - Might be to large and too high. Aerial Circle Camping might be a problem. Needs testing + it's asymmetrical.

Brinstar - Off-Stage plattforms should be an auto-ban imo but this still might need discussion

Skyloft - Question: Is sharking a degenerate strategy on this stage? It would otherwise add a very unique aspect to the game.

Castle Siege - is 95% banned for having a lower half which makes spawn points imbalanced and skews with the concept of stage control

Redundant Stages:
Umbra Clock Tower (Final Destination)
Wily's Castle (Final Destination)
Yoshi's Story (Battlefield)
Fountain of Dreams (Battlefield)
Dreamland (Battlefield)
Unova Pokémon League (PS1/2)
Pokémon Stadium 1/2 (whichever gets not chosen)
Town & City (if this is the E3 version it will be banned for having an unplayable transformation - the one with 2 off-stage plattforms)
Halberd ("Sharking SV" with historically degenerate ceiling)
Wuhu Island ("Sharking SV" and it's probably too large)

I think this is very solid selection and should be the base of future discussions.

 

[Scribe]

Come on Scribe, nomenclature is of the utmost importance. Please use the correct term, "Galaxy Brain Plays", like a refined gentleman ought to so we don't descend into savagery.

right, right, my bad

and tbh I just posted the thing about the USB hubs here because I didn't know where else I could post it that a lot of prominent TOs would see it.

 

[Myran]

Yoshi's Island Brawl feels better as a starter than Lylat imo. However I prefer doing away with the current method of starters and counterpick stages. I have a google doc here that is what I thought up for my stagelist. I have a few triplat variants in there for a total of 3 however I wouldn't be opposed to taking 1 out for say something like hazardless frigate. This ruleset also pushes for the hazard switch being used on a stage by stage basis though so I won't be surprised if people aren't for that.

Overall I'm just try to not compromise into the same stagelist we've had before. I feel like if we can really use these stages then we should. Also keep in mind this was made for my local scene to further discussion so things like Omegas and BF mode don't really hold any value on the national stage. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hgleqg-fjdCEwL2_K_FpPsnpNrlggyjk3acZEBNjvfg/edit?usp=sharing

Edit: Also where does the smashboards thread and the PGR discord meet? Seems like two entirely different groups are doing their own thing. Why is there no unified body? Unless there is and I've missed it.

 

[DeLux]

Yoshi's Island Brawl feels better as a starter than Lylat imo. However I prefer doing away with the current method of starters and counterpick stages. I have a google doc here that is what I thought up for my stagelist. I have a few triplat variants in there for a total of 3 however I wouldn't be opposed to taking 1 out for say something like hazardless frigate. This ruleset also pushes for the hazard switch being used on a stage by stage basis though so I won't be surprised if people aren't for that.

Overall I'm just try to not compromise into the same stagelist we've had before. I feel like if we can really use these stages then we should. Also keep in mind this was made for my local scene to further discussion so things like Omegas and BF mode don't really hold any value on the national stage. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hgleqg-fjdCEwL2_K_FpPsnpNrlggyjk3acZEBNjvfg/edit?usp=sharing

Edit: Also where does the smashboards thread and the PGR discord meet? Seems like two entirely different groups are doing their own thing. Why is there no unified body? Unless there is and I've missed it.

1-3-3-1 is not a good striking format
It favors player 1 mathematically in terms of access to information.
You should do the competitively balanced 1-2-2-2-1 instead.

 

[Hylian]

My idea for the stage striking process in Ultimate: Bundle striking. Allows for a large stagelist while not being time consuming or overly confusing. Easy to implement and change the stages. Super rough draft but here is the concept:

 

[DeLux]

My idea for the stage striking process in Ultimate: Bundle striking. Allows for a large stagelist while not being time consuming or overly confusing. Easy to implement and change the stages. Super rough draft but here is the concept:

View attachment 176267

Both 1-1 when striking from 3 groups and striking 1 - 2 - 2 - 1 from 7 stages are not good striking formats.
Both favor player 2 mathematically in terms of access to information when striking.
Maybe try increasing to 5 groups of 5 stages?

 

[Hylian]

The number of groups or stages could be changed pretty easily, it's just a concept. I think 3 groups is simple and easy and one player striking a group should not hold a significant advantage if they strike first or second. They do mathematically because they have more options but practically it shouldn't influence the set at all as you end up striking from one group regardless, and neither player has more influence over the other in regards to that.

Edit: Also if you're worried about mathematical fairness, the person who wins RPS and strikes the group first could have to strike 2nd in the 7 stage strike. Since the 7 stage strike isn't mathematically fair either, it balances out.

 

[Myran]

1-3-3-1 is not a good striking format
It favors player 1 mathematically in terms of access to information.
You should do the competitively balanced 1-2-2-2-1 instead.

How do you feel about the list and method there otherwise? I updated it to your method for fairness.

 

[DeLux]

The number of groups or stages could be changed pretty easily, it's just a concept. I think 3 groups is simple and easy and one player striking a group should not hold a significant advantage if they strike first or second. They do mathematically because they have more options but practically it shouldn't influence the set at all as you end up striking from one group regardless, and neither player has more influence over the other in regards to that.

Edit: Also if you're worried about mathematical fairness, the person who wins RPS and strikes the group first could have to strike 2nd in the 7 stage strike. Since the 7 stage strike isn't mathematically fair either, it balances out.

While it would mitigate the imbalance, there isn't really any reason to believe the imbalances are exactly the same size to neutralize each other.

It isn't going to be a huge deal either way, but we might as well start with a balanced system rather than an imbalanced in one.

How do you feel about the list and method there otherwise? I updated it to your method for fairness.

I think it looks fairly solid for a 9 stagelist. I imagine like you said it might catch some flack for forcing bouncing back and forth between hazards set to on or off.

As the (unofficial?) spokesperson for the liberal wing of the ruleset coalition, I would question the need to shrink the stage list below a 13 or 17 prior to testing the game out of both skepticism and my tendency towards finding more game mechanics competetively viable than other more conservative members posting. But we all have our roles to play

 

[Myran]

I have fully accepted my stance as a conservative stage list person for the beginning of the game. 9 stages is nice and simple while being bigger than Smash 4. I appreciate the response though.

 

[Yikarur]

Explain bundle striking to a newcomer…

This is really not applicable tbh

 

[Hylian]

While it would mitigate the imbalance, there isn't really any reason to believe the imbalances are exactly the same size to neutralize each other.

It isn't going to be a huge deal either way, but we might as well start with a balanced system rather than an imbalanced in one.

Sorry, you can't use math to say what is balanced/fair in terms of stage selection in the striking process. There are too many variables. You would have to consider the match-ups, what percentage of the stages your character is amazing on/bad on, and various other things. Plenty of people prefer striking second because they feel the importance of choosing the last stage is greater than other offsets as well. Looking at stage striking mathematically is a huge mistake and ignores logic and practicality.

Explain bundle striking to a newcomer…

This is really not applicable tbh

Half the idea behind bundle striking is that it's so easy to explain. People aren't stupid, this is no harder to explain then stage striking is. "Here, strike one of these three groups. Cool, now do stage striking with the group your opponent picks". It adds almost no time to the stage striking process while allowing for many more stages to be legal. Having a large stagelist is better for spectators, testing more skillsets/game knowledge, longevity, etc. The problem that comes with them is the logistics of the striking process. People love stages, telling someone they can't play on Fountain of Dreams despite it being their favorite stage and perfectly tournament viable leaves a bad taste in their mouth about the scene. Making attempts to solve issues like this should not just be dismissed.

 

[DeLux]

Sorry, you can't use math to say what is balanced/fair in terms of stage selection in the striking process. There are too many variables. You would have to consider the match-ups, what percentage of the stages your character is amazing on/bad on, and various other things. Plenty of people prefer striking second because they feel the importance of choosing the last stage is greater than other offsets as well. Looking at stage striking mathematically is a huge mistake and ignores logic and practicality.

The ruleset isn't and shouldn't be designed to balance for every variable that you're saying. It's only meant to balance in the context of not having an impact on the very variables that you're talking about, which is what I'm helping your proposal address. It's completely legitimate to critique, "The system you're proposing has an access of information skew favoring a player regardless of what character or stage or (insert variable here) is being used by each player. With only a minor fix, we can retain all the positives of your proposal while removing a procedural negative."

 

[Hylian]

The ruleset isn't and shouldn't be designed to balance for every variable that you're saying. It's only meant to balance in the context of not having an impact on the very variables that you're talking about, which is what I'm helping your proposal address. It's completely legitimate to critique, "The system you're proposing has an access of information skew favoring a player regardless of what character or stage or (insert variable here) is being used by each player. With only a minor fix, we can retain all the positives of your proposal while removing a procedural negative."

I'm not saying it needs to be designed to balance for all of those variables, I'm saying there are too many variables to consider weather the information skew of "unbalanced" striking methods actually provides an advantage at all in the set. There is no data on this. It's much more practical to just go with a method that is simple, rather than expanding options and time for a contrived idea of fairness that has no base in reality. I'm fine with having a small stagelist and just using traditional striking from that, but if there is a large stagelist it needs to be simple and fast to strike from, or there won't be a large stagelist. Looking at three groupings and each striking one is much easier and faster than looking at 5 groupings, and then trying to distribute stages evenly through those 5 groupings(as in one battlefield like stage in each for example). The idea is to not have to ban stages because of redundancy while it not affecting tournament logistics in a negative way.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

 

[DeLux]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

By in large there's a lot to agree with in this video. I am skeptical that a game without brawl mechanics on the ledge is really going to have issues with game breaking sharking. Especially when it appears the designers have taken steps to make the invincible ledge reset option no longer invincible.

Will edit/reply tp Hylian when I get to a computer

 

[Hylian]

I also like Fallns video and would be perfectly fine with it as a stagelist. Keep in mind my idea is entirely for the purpose of a large stagelist, as I think having a large stagelist requires a simple and fast way to strike or it won't exist. I'm also fine with a smaller one that follows stricter logic.

One thing about redundancy though, platform height can matter quite a bit and make it so that stages aren't really redundant. For example Battlefield in melee is not great for ICs because they cannot reach the top platform with uair without double jumping, and yoshis/dreamland are fine for them because they can(very simplified but just an example). If stages like yoshi's and fountain provide different platform heights that have a noticeable effect on gameplay they could be worth considering despite a redundant layout. If they don't there is no reason for them and you could just use omega or battlefield versions of them as Falln mentioned.