Meta SSBU Competitive Ruleset Discussion

[Munomario777]

Stage striking

• Players strike from a list of starter stages (in the case of 5 stages, a 1-2-2-1 format) with the order decided by Rock-Paper-Scissors or some equivalent. First player chooses the stage at the end of the day. This is the standard, typically.

Correction: it’s 1-2-1, not 1-2-2-1

PS you should also consider adding pXp1 to this section IMO

 

[Gunla]

Correction: it’s 1-2-1, not 1-2-2-1

PS you should also consider adding pXp1 to this section IMO

I figure I'd clarify (I will in the OP), but by 1-2-2-1 I mean player/team 1 strikes, then player/team 2 strikes, then strikes again, and lastly player/team 1 strikes. It's down to semantics, at the end of the day.

I'll probably link one of the summaries for pxp1 since you folks have a better explanation of it, I'm fairly simple in liking the striking system.

 

[Justin Allen Goldschmidt]

I think Squad Strike should be taken a bit more seriously in threads like this. Has it been talked about much elsewhere, and if so, why isn't someone bringing some of yhat discussion here? I think it has a ton of merits, though I also think people should be allowed to use the same character for all three stocks if they so choose.

 

[dav3yb]

I think Squad Strike should be taken a bit more seriously in threads like this. Has it been talked about much elsewhere, and if so, why isn't someone bringing some of yhat discussion here? I think it has a ton of merits, though I also think people should be allowed to use the same character for all three stocks if they so choose.

The entire point of squad strike is to have different characters. You can't even pick the same ones within the game anyways, so there would be little to no purpose of it if you could just pick your best character 3 times, since everyone would just do that.

I do want to see squad strike events though. Most of the rules are going to carry over though, so there isn't a ton of reason to discuss it specifically.

 

[popsofctown]

Let's try some proofs by analogy about mii fighter.

If you can't counterpick different custom specials, then you need to ban counterpicking Dark Pit as a Pit player.
Unless you're just super into character identity and backstory, in which case Samus players can't counterpick to Zero Suit Samus, but Mii swordsman boy guest can counterpick to Mii swordsman girl guest.

If it takes too long to load all the plausible sets onto your Switch to get your setup ready for the tournament, then we should ban Sanic or whatever character takes longer to unlock than to load those, because I'm sure it takes longer. (But that's only assuming adding the set on the spot adds enough to the set time to make the Mii fighter surpass, well, Sanic.)



P1PX is pretty cool. Very beginner friendly.

I haven't heard of squad fight, but if it's the Australian "can't win twice with the same character" it's really beginner friendly because it lets the 0-2's get 0.5-2 tournament performances and that can really help incoming players get a foothold. I don't expect it to happen though, too progressive.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm going to dump a bunch of misc. ruleset thoughts here.

When I TO'd for a few years back in St. Louis, like virtually all TOs of the era I ran full RR pools at every event. My events ran ON TIME, without exception, and I made sure that even the worst, newest players who went 0-5 at least had the opportunity to play those 40/30 stocks of Smash. It did feel a little unfair that the top players at the end of the bracket would end up getting 2-3 times the bracket experience (thus staying top players), but we did the best we could to provide an inclusive experience to everyone.

I think one of the most disgusting aspects of modern Smash is the status quo where new players show up and are eliminated after going 0-2. In Smash 4, that was 8 stocks! Meanwhile, we run the upper half of bracket as Best of 5s??? If you do the math, the difference in tourney XP for a 256 man bracket ends up being around 1:10 between the bottom and the top. And yet we tell new players "Oh, tournament experience is SO important, friendlies just aren't the same." What a con!

Shoutouts to TOs everywhere who still do right by new players--especially the Smash N Splash crew, who show us that huge attendance is not an excuse to screw anyone over.



All events should run round robin--or better, swiss--pools for as many tourney rounds as they have setup-hours for. Swiss variations are the ideal format, with the only downside that no one knows how to run them.

Take a step back and recognize that ALL "tournament formats" are just merge-based sorting algorithms. A single elimination bracket is the absolute minimum skeleton of comparisons you need to find the winner. All other formats are just different algorithms that add more matches/comparisons. Adding more rounds adds more fault-tolerance. For example, if you add the absolute minimum number of matches to provide a single layer of fault-tolerance, you get a double-elim bracket. Matches added without increasing the total number of rounds provide more sorting for players beyond the top. For example, a match between those who tied for 5th, or those who tied for 7th.

Round robins are merely adding more comparisons at the beginning, usually with a single extra round or two of fault tolerance. Swiss, similarly, is merely adding more comparisons. The additional comparisons can be dropped at any point--either can transition to a "bare bones" bracket, and Swiss can be set up to arbitrarily eliminate any number of players at a given point. (A bracket is literally identical to swiss that always eliminates the maximum possible. Again, all of these are just different representations of the same mathematical procedure of comparisons.)



People often raise tiebreakers as an objection. "But Round Robin pools and Swiss can have ties! Brackets can't, so that's a fundamental difference/advantage! It's not all the same."

Totally wrong.

It's not that brackets don't have tiebreakers. In fact, they have the worst tiebreaker possible: the arbitrary order that games are played.

Take 3 competitors: Squirtle, Charmander, and Bulbasaur. In our simple example, Squirtle always beats Charmander, and yada yada yada. I hope you can see that in a vacuum, all 3 are truly equal! Any algorithm that tells us they are tied is correct, and any algorithm that tells us otherwise is incorrect.

In a Round Robin pool, all 3 go 1-1 against each other. Maybe they also all lose to Mewtwo, and maybe they also all beat Pichu, so they are all 2-2. Whatever, they are tied. And it's crucial that the structure report this reality correctly. Who wins the tiebreaker? Who advances? Who is eliminated? These are all tough questions the TO must decide in advance. But at least both the players and TO accurately know that these 3 players are tied, correct? And surely you'd agree that no matter the decision, the worst answer would be "randomly", right?

But that's exactly what brackets do. If Bulbasaur beats Squirtle and Squirtle beats Charmander, the bare-bones double-elim bracket's "solution" is to stick its head in the sand and refuse to let Charmander ever play Bulbasaur. The "winner" between the 3 of them is thus whoever got the favorable bracket layout. You could just as easily break ties in a round robin by randomly selecting one of the matches to not count.

This is why we seed brackets, to mitigate this! Seeding is an attempt to replace the random implicit tiebreakers with something more controlled. And of course, any seed applied to a bracket can be just as easily applied to the tiebreaking of any round robin or swiss.

In this era of vast digital records, all skilled competitors have vast competitive footprints--it's very reasonable to make seeding for tiebreakers at any desired granularity. It is very rare to need a tiebreaker between two totally new players (who have never attended an event in recorded human history), but in this absolute worst-case, event signup order is still preferable to randomness.

Long story short, I wish events were all run swiss (with staged cutoffs as needed by setup-hour logistics), and would absolutely do so if I were still TOing.



This is more experimental, but I suspect you could reach unprecedented levels of event efficiency by running early rounds (of swiss, or a RR pool) as best-of-2s instead of best-of-3s. If you are already handling ties sufficiently, there is no algorithmic downside to running 3 Bo2s in place of 2 Bo3s.

You are creating the same number of atomic comparisons for the algorithm, and letting players play more opponents. Rounds take roughly the same amount of time because the worst-case is the same, even though the average-case is more games for most players. This achieves maximum setup saturation.

The only weird byproduct of running best-of-2 is the elimination of the neutral stage question, and the means of deciding who picks their stage first.

By the same line of thought, you could increase the accuracy of any sorting method by feeding it more granular, less-binary result data. (I.e. treating a 3 stock different from a 2 stock.) However, this would be very misguided for a few reasons--no eSports sorting algorithm should consider subatomic data, only what the victory screen says. (I would, I admit, be tempted to secretly look into this data in placement matches online, but in no other context.)



One last radical opinion. I think the best rule solution to ban stalling is simply to say stalling is banned--and think that such a vague rule is actually quite enforceable and reasonable. I would bet a large sum of money that a sufficiently serious and judicially-adjudicated "no stalling" rule would result in 0 major competitive matches going to time, thus in practice requiring zero actual judgments to be made. I may make a dedicated post to this idea later.

 

[Tesh]

I think Squad Strike should be taken a bit more seriously in threads like this. Has it been talked about much elsewhere, and if so, why isn't someone bringing some of yhat discussion here? I think it has a ton of merits, though I also think people should be allowed to use the same character for all three stocks if they so choose.

I don't think there is going to be a great demand for it right now because most people are trying to master 1 character with 70+ matchups. While its less exciting to allow people to use the same character for all 3 stocks, it does make dealing with echo fighters and miis less tricky.

 

[Justin Allen Goldschmidt]

I don't think there is going to be a great demand for it right now because most people are trying to master 1 character with 70+ matchups. While its less exciting to allow people to use the same character for all 3 stocks, it does make dealing with echo fighters and miis less tricky.

I think you're probably right, but imagine instead of pocket or secondary characters used only so you don't throw away a match, people covered their bad match-ups with those characters *in the same match*. I die inside knowing it'll be a while before anyone takes this seriously, if ever at all.

 

[Tesh]

I wouldn't worry about it. Unlike formats like 3v3 or 4v4, or even determining stage legality, its not something that would be hard to adapt to once you know enough character to want to try it. I'm sure we still start to see squad strike promoted as a spectacle at majors and eventually side events. Maybe more eventually?

 

[Scarlet Spyder]

I don't think there is going to be a great demand for it right now because most people are trying to master 1 character with 70+ matchups. While its less exciting to allow people to use the same character for all 3 stocks, it does make dealing with echo fighters and miis less tricky.

Squad Strike is in a pretty interesting place right now. I think most people are focusing on their main, trying to improve and compete in singles. This makes Squad Strike a little less appealing. On the other hand, with a huge roster and plenty of viable characters to choose from, Squad Strike is super appealing for those who like multiple characters and/or haven't decided which character to main yet. My local (MSM) has been doing Squad Strike in ladder format and I've really enjoyed all of the character diversity. It gives you some (though very brief) match-up experience and you get to practice using your "pocket" characters/ secondaries. I think Squad Strike is going to be a very fun side event for now and when the meta settles, it will only become more popular.

 

[DavemanCozy]

This is more experimental, but I suspect you could reach unprecedented levels of event efficiency by running early rounds (of swiss, or a RR pool) as best-of-2s instead of best-of-3s. If you are already handling ties sufficiently, there is no algorithmic downside to running 3 Bo2s in place of 2 Bo3s.

You are creating the same number of atomic comparisons for the algorithm, and letting players play more opponents. Rounds take roughly the same amount of time because the worst-case is the same, even though the average-case is more games for most players. This achieves maximum setup saturation.

The only weird byproduct of running best-of-2 is the elimination of the neutral stage question, and the means of deciding who picks their stage first.

Would you determine the winner of Bo2 like in Futbol (soccer) matches? Although the only difference is instead of goals, it'd be whoever had the most stocks left overall?

 

[Thinkaman]

Would you determine the winner of Bo2 like in Futbol (soccer) matches? Although the only difference is instead of goals, it'd be whoever had the most stocks left overall?

You don't need a "winner". 1-1 is just as valid an outcome as 2-0 and 0-2 for an individual round.

This is very ordinary in Chess, where ties are extremely common. They don't do a tiebreaker for every tied game or set--they just mark it a tie and move on accordingly.

 

[Gunla]

It's probably safe enough/enough time has passed where rulesets are starting to shore up and be more public. As a result, I'm going to begin compiling rulesets in the second post. That being said, I don't think I'm going to be able to find every notable one (I'll be adding some over the next few days), but if you have a ruleset for a noteworthy/major series or region, please send it my way via this thread or PM. I have left an example in the second post with 2GG's ruleset of what I intend to include.

I added PXP1 to the OP (namely Akiak 's post) and a few other things in addition.

 

[Munomario777]

Person X Person 1

Rad to see pXp1 added to the OP though the original, and probably more descriptive, meaning of the name is "pick X, pick 1" – as in, "P1 picks X, P2 picks 1"

 

[Munomario777]

pXp1 is probably the thing I’m most solidly a proponent of when it comes to match procedures in Ultimate. It has a ton of benefits over the current system, and is simple to use. The neat thing is, pXp1 is nothing more than a change in the order of events (see my previous post on the subject).

>> pXp1 shows that swapping the order of events can be beneficial… how about we give that a shot somewhere else, too?



But first, we need to talk about “auto-bans.”

The point of banning (striking) stages in game 2+ is to remove stages that you don’t want to play on. That’s all well and good; in Smash 4, if I’m a Little Mac main, I can ban Duck Hunt, so I have no chance of being memetically camped out by the tree. In a system with 1 ban, the goal is to give the last game’s loser his 2nd best stage. When fighting against Mac, Duck Hunt is probably your best stage in that MU (or close to it), so the system works.

My own character isn’t the only factor that can influence my bans, though. There are certain stages that certain characters excel on, and it’s in my best interest to prevent my opponent from attaining one of those character-stage combinations. For example, if I think my opponent will play as Mario or ZSS (in Smash 4), I will want to ban triplats. Problem is, I don’t know if my opponent will play as one of those characters, because stage is traditionally chosen before characters. If my opponent plays a camping character game 1, I’ll probably ban FD… only for him to pull out a pocket Mario and ladder me on BF. He got his best stage, not his 2nd best stage… the system doesn’t work.

The issue is exacerbated when a character is so good on a stage that the combination breaks the game, such as Meta Knight on Skyloft. If Skyloft is legal in Ultimate, then if you know you’re going up against a Meta Knight, you’ll want to ban Skyloft. But what if you don’t know that you’re going up against a Meta Knight? He’s a pretty meta-relevant character right now, and he has such a huge advantage on Skyloft… so unless you ALWAYS ban Skyloft, there’s always a risk of your opponent picking the stage, pulling out a pocket Meta Knight, and camping you for the whole match.

So Skyloft becomes an “auto-ban,” meaning that players almost always ban it in game 2+ (or in the case of L, they don’t pick it to begin with). You’re kinda forced to ban it, unless you want to run the risk of MK. The stage falls out of relevance, and since you have to waste a ban on insurance against potential camping, the ban system’s balance is thrown all outta whack. It’s in the best interest of the meta to remove such stages from tournament play.

>> Traditionally, we have to remove a stage from tournament play if a particular character is too powerful on it, even if it’s only one character.



But that’s kinda concerning. There’s 70 characters in this game, and many potential stages – lots of interlocking variables. In a game this complex, it seems limiting to use a system which renders a stage unusable should even ONE combination of these variables be problematic. Meta Knight can camp on Skyloft, and maybe a couple of other characters can too – but otherwise, the stage may be perfectly fine. I’m worried we may be hard pressed to find many stages that DON’T excessively benefit a certain character.

There’s also Brawl, where IIRC several stages were banned just because of Meta Knight. I wasn’t around for it, but didn’t banning those stages just make icies even worse because their bad stages were gone? Might wanna avoid that if possible.

pXp1 puts a band-aid on this issue, but doesn’t solve it completely. It’s true that pXp1 helps wasted bans in some cases, primarily the type such as Mac banning Duck Hunt – in other words, stages W would like to ban regardless of his opponent’s character choice. In other cases, though, not so much. L still won’t want to nominate Skyloft out of fear of W picking Meta Knight. Similarly, if L does nominate Skyloft, W will be afraid of picking it out of fear that L is planning to use Meta Knight.

>> Even one character being too good on a stage can spoil it for everyone else, which is concerning when there are so many characters (and thus, chances for any stage to be broken). Even pXp1 doesn’t quite fix this issue.



The fundamental issue here is that character choice is an unknown variable. If I knew my opponent’s choice of character beforehand, I could handle Skyloft accordingly. If my opponent is not using Meta Knight, I’m gonna be a lot more comfortable not striking the stage, because there is no chance that my opponent can break the stage. The problems with the stage are removed, and it can be legal.

Choosing character before stage would be a big change in the way game 2+ is played, but it’s hardly unprecedented. Game 1 already uses the system, in fact, and for this very purpose.

I’ll use Smash 4 for the following examples:

The goal of game 1 striking is to find a stage which is most neutral for that character MU. This requires that both players be informed on what that character MU even IS. For example, if I know that my opponent is using Mario, chances are Battlefield will not be the most neutral stage for this MU. So I ban Battlefield, and after the process ends, we land on a stage that’s probably the most neutral for the MU, out of the 5 starters.

Similarly, in Smash 4 where there is 1 ban, the goal of game 2+ striking is to find a stage which is the previous game’s loser’s 2nd best stage for that character MU. This requires that both players be informed on what that character MU even IS. For example, if I’m the prev. game’s loser and I know that my opponent is using Mario, Battlefield is probably his best stage period, so it will not be his 2nd best stage. So I ban Battlefield, and Mario picks a stage that’s probably his 2nd best stage for the MU, out of the 5 stages.

If either of those two examples were to use stage-first, then there’d be no way to determine the most appropriate stage for the MU, because either player could pick a character that excels on the chosen stage and break the system. The use of such a system in game 2+ is what forces us to remove stages like Skyloft from the ruleset.

>> We use character-first in game 1 because the information it provides is crucial for accurately determining the best stage for the MU. The same arguments apply for game 2+.



In Ultimate, lots of stages would benefit from this system… and I think that generally, it’s a good idea to change the procedure to fit the stage list, rather than the other way around. It’d be a shame to have to ban all these stages just because we traditionally do things in a certain order.



To sum up my stance right now…

Traditional order of events
- W bans a few stages
- L bans a lot of stages
- W selects character
- L selects character

Proposed order of events
- W selects character
- L selects character
- L bans a lot of stages
- W bans a few stages

>> Biggest improvement: each player’s stage bans are, overall, more informed. The goal of finding L’s Xth best stage is more consistently achieved.

 

[popsofctown]

I like your analysis. I definitely see this concern about losing bans to stages over pocket characters that might not even exist between the two players of the set.
But I really don't like how you're watering down the rewards for players who can play a variety of characters. It's already a game that provides dozens and dozens characters with the average player playing 1.2 of them. In the current system, you are rewarded in the stage striking system for playing a variety of characters. If you know at least one character that can abuse low ceilings, you don't have to burn a ban on the low ceiling stage. If you know at least one character that can wall jump maybe that means you don't have to ban WarioWare. Etc. If I can beat you in a Meta Knight ditto I don't have to be the one to ban Skyloft. I make you do that. You're the one that is failing to thrive on Skyloft by not having a good Meta Knight.


The problem is you're not finding L's Xth best stage more consistently, you're finding L's Xth best stage more consistently as though L were required to wed himself to one character. You're consistently finding Elijah's Little Mac's Xth best stage. So now Elijah is the one who has to ban Kongo Jungle even if he has a really good Falco that would go for spikes there (idk if they removed the high floors there but I'm making a point).

 

[Terotrous]

With the faster pace of Smash Ult, I see no reason to do 2-stock. Even in Smash 4, 2 stock was really volatile, if someone got an early gimp or SD that virtually sealed the round, 3 stocks gives a much more consistent outcome where the better player should usually win. I also feel like Bo3 is a better viewing experience than Bo5. Bo5 sets can go on a long time (especially with all the picks / bans if the stagelist is big) and one-sided Bo5s are really boring.

As for time limit, I think it has to be 8 mins. I'm finding a fair number of my games go to time or come close even at 8m, I think you'd see a lot of timeouts at 7m.

 

[Munomario777]

popsofctown I see your point. Ultimately it's a tradeoff between these two things:

- Do you want stage selection to benefit those who excel with more than one character?
- Or do you want it to more accurately find the most appropriate stage for competition?

My response is twofold:

- The first thing isn't necessary
- The second thing is necessary



Multi-main players are already / still rewarded in other parts of the tournament procedure. Primarily, character counterpicking gives those with multiple mains a very effective and naturally-brought-about way to flex their multiple mains. Character CPing is already an incredibly powerful privilege granted exclusively to those who can effectively use more than one character.

Here's a bit of a tangent, which is quite unrelated to char-first vs stage-first:

Spoiler

You might point out that this privilege is imbalanced, since it's granted only to the loser of the previous game. So if the previous game's winner has multiple mains, then he has no way to demonstrate this skill. But it's important to consider the entire set. Let's say P1 wins game 1. There are 2 possible outcomes after that:

- P1 wins game 2, despite P2's character CP
- P1 loses game 2, independently of or because of P2's character CP

If the former, P1 has demonstrated that he does not need a character CP advantage in order to win – in other words, he has demonstrated that he is clearly the more skilled player. Correctly, he wins the set.

If the latter, then P1 has not demonstrated a lack of need for character CP advantage. Thus, he himself is given character CP advantage in game 3. P1 and P2 have each gotten character CP advantage once in the bo3 set, so the advantage balances out.

Again, there are two game 3 possibilities:

- P1 wins game 3, independently of or because of his own character CP
- P1 loses game 3, despite his own character CP

If the former, P1 wins the set. Each player won once on his own character CP advantage, so the "tiebreaker" is the as-neutral-as-possible game 1, which P1 won.

If the latter, P1 loses the set, as he has demonstrated that he is the less skilled player (he lost even when given CP advantage).

The important thing is to reward the more skilled player as best we can. Knowing multiple characters is a form of skill, but not the ONLY form of skill. If multi-character mains are rewarded too heavily, then the emphasis may shift dangerously toward a CP-dependent meta. This is particularly true in Ultimate, where there are so many characters and – potentially – legal stages. If a player has a decent character that can abuse any stage given to him, then that may end up being more advantageous than being truly, deeply skilled with only a couple of characters – probably not healthy for the meta.

My goal isn't to water down anything; really, my goal isn't to affect multi-main players in any particular way (see the second half of this post). However, I do think that, going into Ultimate's environment, keeping the advantage granted to these players in check is a good idea.

>> Multi-maining is already reward by character CPing, which is a balanced, natural, and strong reward for players skilled in this way. Adding to that too much in Ultimate's diverse environment may shift the balance dangerously close to a CP-centered metagame.



Finding the most appropriate stage for competition is important! A tournament is a competition between two players. While the stage chosen does and should affect the match, we also shouldn't let this effect run wild. For game 1, we value this deeply. For the balance of the set to work out, it's important that game 1 be played under quite neutral conditions – double-blind character selection, and very prominently, the most neutral stage possible.

What that "neutral stage" is varies greatly depending on the MU. For this reason, it's important to lock character choices before deciding on the stage. Otherwise, the stage would end up quite imbalanced toward whoever happens to have the right pocket character for the stage.

>> Game 1 is character-first because allowing players to take advantage of stages through on-the-fly character choices is not healthy for balancing the stage selection in a set.

The same thing applies for game 2+, except the goal is to find L's Xth best stage. In the same way that game 1 being on a neutral stage is important for the balance of the set, giving L a particular amount of stage advantage is also important. This is what I'll be referring to when I say a "balanced" stage in the context of game 2+.

Here I'll address a quote from your post:

The problem is you're not finding L's Xth best stage more consistently, you're finding L's Xth best stage more consistently as though L were required to wed himself to one character. You're consistently finding Elijah's Little Mac's Xth best stage.

Yes, that's entirely the point! The goal is to have a balanced matchup between Elijah's Little Mac and Jason's Link (or etc). If Elijah is allowed to switch to Falco after Kongo Jungle is chosen, then the match is imbalanced unless Jason also happens to have a character that can deal with such a stage. And, therefore, the set is imbalanced as a whole.

Here's an explanation of how giving L a CONSISTENT amount of stage advantage balances the set.

Spoiler

P1 wins game 1. There are 2 possibilities:

- P1 wins game 2, despite P2's stage CP
- P2 loses game 2, independently of or because of P2's stage CP

If the former, P1 wins the set because he has demonstrated that he can win without needing a stage CP (and, therefore, is the more skilled player).

If the latter, P1 has not demonstrated this, so he is given a stage CP in game 3 – to match the stage CP given to P2 in game 2.

- P1 wins game 3, because of or independently of his own stage CP
- P1 loses game 3, despite his own stage CP

If the former, P1 wins the set. Game 2 and 3 balance out (each player won on his own stage CP), so the tiebreaker is game 1 – which P1 won.

If the latter, P2 wins the set because, like P1 winning game 2, he has demonstrated that he does not need a stage CP in order to win.

Stage-first makes this advantage extremely volatile and inconsistent. The advantage changes depending on whether or not each player has a character that happens to counter the chosen stage. As a result, it really screws with the balance of the whole bo3 set. (The same applies to bo5)

For example, let's say Kongo Jungle is chosen for game 2. This is meant to be P2's stage CP. However, if P1 happens to have a pocket Falco, then the stage isn't really in P2's favor at all! This helps P1 snowball the set, which means that he can win game 1 and then immediately have an advantage in game 2 before L ever gets to have an advantage. Not good.

With character-first, you can rely on stage CP advantage being reliable and consistent. The advantage is the same, regardless of character choice: L gets his Xth best stage. Character picks are accounted for, and so the flow of the set remains balanced.

Spoiler

Side note: I acknowledge that this "volatile and inconsistent" deal ALSO applies to "W picks character first, then L picks character." Since L might not have a character that counters W's, or he might have an incredibly strong counter. Counterpoints:

- No system really does this better. Double-blind for all games in a set leaves this down to essentially a roll of the dice, on top of being inconvenient. L then W is the same, except it results in snowballing instead of back-and-forth.

- Character CPing effectively rewards those who play multiple characters, which is a form of skill that should be rewarded in some way.

>> Game 2 should be character-first because Smash sets are based on a certain balance of advantages and disadvantages. Character-first makes these advantages consistent. Stage-first allows either player to shift any match's balance to his own advantage if he happens to have a certain character as a pocket.

 

[Thinkaman]

I don't want to get into a big discussion, but I think your entire thesis rests on a platonic ideal of "fairness" that doesn't actually exist, and a sort of assumed consensus that a counter-picking meta 1) exists, 2) is quantitatively measurable/comparable, and 3) is undesirable to increase in magnitude.

It also seems to regard character affinity as the singular factor of stage advantage. If you pick Battlefield against my Little Mac thinking it will get you an advantage, but it turns out Battlefield is secretly my favorite stage, fits my playstyle preferences, and is the stage I have practiced the most on, would we consider this a failure of the counterpick system? How is this at all different from me having a pocket ZSS?

Historically, the ability to force characters to play on their worst stages has has always affected lower tier characters more, and thus hurt character diversity more than helped. In a stage-second system, I cannot possibly pick Little Mac if Duck Hunt is legal, and would be very unwise to pick him if Smashville and/or Unova are legal. Either these stages are banned, or Little Mac is "auto-banned."

In a character-second system, the Little Mac player at least has the option to opt for a secondary if these stages are selected.

Good competitive practices typically boil down to "what gives the players the most agency?" Allowing players the strategic decision of which character is personally best for them on a selected stage is the highest-agency paradigm in all contexts.

 

[Cahalan]

After looking over the thread's OP for a bit, I really want the Mii's to have free reign and to have special swaps count as a character swap. Naming conventions of the special load out are something I can get behind, and maybe gentleman a custom name for their Mii's as long as all players have demonstrated their Mii's Special Load out and the custom name is SFW.

Customs are no longer a thing for every character and are only exclusive to the Mii's, and they have all of them from the get-go.
Heights and weights no longer depend on the Mii's Height and "Thiccness" in the Mii Maker.
Mii's are allowed online (it was an old popular argument from the early Smash 4 days).

I don't see the logic in outright banning the characters when they don't currently centralize the Smash Ultimate meta like Bayonetta did in Smash 4 (who should've been banned in the first place imo).

If, for whatever reason, we find something along the lines of Smash 4 Bayo that is exclusive to the Mii's and can centralize the meta around them, then we should consider banning. Otherwise, let them be frii.

 

[popsofctown]

You could go further than the naming convention and map the mii creation to the custom move selections.
Guest ABCDEF identity maps to what the neutral B selection was, hat maps to what the up B selection was, costume type maps to what the side B selection was, and costume color maps to what the down B selection was.

One could argue that it's distasteful for a "different character" to be able to feign every visual characteristic of a different one, possibly moving from game 1 to game 2 of a set where they played and "conditioned" using that different one, whether or not that was disclosed on the character select screen. There's enough customization options available to placate that complaint.

 

[AmethystEspeon]

Character-second PXP1 at game 2+ definitely sounds like the easiest way to get a large amount of legal stages while each competitor gets as much agency in the process as possible. Easy to understand, fast to work through. As a spectator, I definitely want to see more stage variety in a game where we have tons of possible competitive stages, and it would be sad if we had to ban a ton of stages just to make a tourny run faster.

 

[Munomario777]

It also seems to regard character affinity as the singular factor of stage advantage. If you pick Battlefield against my Little Mac thinking it will get you an advantage, but it turns out Battlefield is secretly my favorite stage, fits my playstyle preferences, and is the stage I have practiced the most on, would we consider this a failure of the counterpick system? How is this at all different from me having a pocket ZSS?

I'd say there are a couple of differences

1) exploiting stages via pocket character is something that we have any chance of finding a method to avoid
2) exploiting via character is a large advantage given by the game itself (if you're playing X char on Y stage, you're at an advantage going in)
2.5) and in the case of certain characters / stages, this can break the game

Historically, the ability to force characters to play on their worst stages has has always affected lower tier characters more, and thus hurt character diversity more than helped. In a stage-second system, I cannot possibly pick Little Mac if Duck Hunt is legal, and would be very unwise to pick him if Smashville and/or Unova are legal. Either these stages are banned, or Little Mac is "auto-banned."

In a character-second system, the Little Mac player at least has the option to opt for a secondary if these stages are selected.

I see your point, but that might be preventable based on the # of bans used. ex. if Mac is bad on 4 stages and there are 4 bans (or p5p1), then Mac can do ok. It also might be a good strategy to use a different character whenever your opponent is CPing the stage (which is basically the same outcome as stage-first: the Mac main uses a different character when his opponent picks a non-Mac-friendly stage)



The biggest reason I think char first could be beneficial is stages that could be legal but have a couple chars that are broken on them. Like, idk how Skyloft works as a legal stage if you can always pick MK or Yoshi or etc to camp on it

 

[teluoborg]

I see your point, but that might be preventable based on the # of bans used. ex. if Mac is bad on 4 stages and there are 4 bans (or p5p1), then Mac can do ok. It also might be a good strategy to use a different character whenever your opponent is CPing the stage (which is basically the same outcome as stage-first: the Mac main uses a different character when his opponent picks a non-Mac-friendly stage)

This quote raises 2 points that I want to repeat as often as possible :
1-the number of bans in a ruleset greatly influences character diversity
2-pXp1 is practically "the winner bans X-1 stages" in a different order

 

[MrGame&Rock]

Similarly to how in Smash 4 we had Dream Land and Battlefield grouped together as triplats, is there any interest in doing the same with Hazardless Pictochat 2 and Wily Castle as FD variations? From what I understand, both hazardless stages amount to "Walled FD," which some characters might really prefer to the hovering-over-the-abyss nature of the existing FD and omega stages. Obviously banning one would ban all 3, but if you're say a Mac or Cloud player who really wants those walljumps, why not have the option open?

 

[Munomario777]

I’m using both of those stages grouped with FD. Notably, pXp1 is kinda necessary for this not to be flawed.

 

[Pizzaguylol]

I’m using both of those stages grouped with FD. Notably, pXp1 is kinda necessary for this not to be flawed.

I really like your pXp1 idea so far. Would there be five or so starters like usual? What's your full stage list?

 

[Munomario777]

I really like your pXp1 idea so far. Would there be five or so starters like usual? What's your full stage list?

pXp1 is only game 2+, so it doesn't affect whether or not there are starters

this is the list i'm working with atm

Spoiler

 

[dav3yb]

pXp1 is only game 2+, so it doesn't affect whether or not there are starters

this is the list i'm working with atm

Spoiler

View attachment 184623

Now this is something I can get behind. Just out of curiosity though, whats with the (Mii Edition) on the starters BF/Omega?

Also a random thought for Game 1, if you wanted to keep the PXP1 style of thing. You could have, say BF be a default, have each players alternate picking 3 each, then strike from the list of 7 stages, although I know that could already lead to an issue of BF being overly represented. Could also do something similar where each presents 3, and any overlap means that stage is chosen or something. This is mainly just thinking out loud btw, feel free to ignore this bit

 

[Munomario777]

“mii edition” is themed BF / FD skins for our monthly-themed tournaments

the thing about that G1 system is, why wouldn’t I just strike all 3 of my opponent’s stages

 

[dav3yb]

“mii edition” is themed BF / FD skins for our monthly-themed tournaments

the thing about that G1 system is, why wouldn’t I just strike all 3 of my opponent’s stages

Yeah, that's where I was thinking whatever 7th "default stage" was picked would be over-represented. Sometimes it's good to think out loud, because something might sound good in your head, then putting out there can reveal more of it's issues.

PS: I'm running a small online tournament for our local group, and I'll probably just link that picture to them.

 

[Pizzaguylol]

pXp1 is only game 2+, so it doesn't affect whether or not there are starters

this is the list i'm working with atm

Spoiler

View attachment 184623

Beautiful. Definitely stealing this for my Smash Meetup tomorrow with my buddies. We like to do friendly competitive **** so this is perfect.

 

[dav3yb]

So far the only thing I think I'd alter or change is some of the selection order. I'd shift the stage/character select order personally I think. Game 1, strike to a stage, then double blind pick. Game 2+, Loser picks X, W picks 1 and decides if they're sticking or switching character, L picks character.

Something like that. I'll be testing it both ways though for sure.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Here's my Mii Fighters post regarding their tourney legality. Where I live, most tourneys have allowed them with whatever moveset, which is a good sign imo. But there's still a few that have restricted them to 1111. What I hope is that they are all used with whatever moveset across every tourney.

Let me start off by saying that in Smash4, I was fine with the default Guest Mii + any moveset, but it was a shame that it came late into the lifetime of the game and not sooner. Despite that, I never blamed TOs and players for not wanting to deal with them even when the default guest Miis were suggested, since Smash 4 banned them from being used in anonymous online matches (only allowed with friends online). So if the devs themselves were treating them as taboo, how could we expect the majority to treat them differently?

Well this is why I'm glad with the changes that Ultimate did with them in regards to their competitive viability. Each type of fighter has static attributes that are unaffected by weight, size or height. That to me is very appealing, both looking as a potential Swordfighter secondary and also as someone who could go up against an opponent using any of the Mii Fighters. I don't have to worry about my Mii being restricted to moves that I don't want to use, I can just choose what I want. Likewise, I can get used to the percentages that KO any of the fighters regardless of what shows up, and I also know that they're not going to be matching Fox in running speed at any point.

In Smash 4 they were just banned in public online play. Not the case anymore. That is the other good thing about Mii Fighters, that they are free to be used in Quick Play and public Arenas with any moveset you want. This lets any player get used to them. Combined with the fact that Brawler, Gunner and Swordfighter each have static attributes that are unaffected by the Mii's size or weight, I can safely say that most of that fear around getting "janked" in tournament is gone. I may have to get used to what all their special moves do and how they may use them, but with the game already having a roster this big, I'm already prepared to learn lots in the coming year.

Logistics-wise, I think any specials combination is fine, no need to have preset movesets or anything like that in consoles. Creating a Mii fighter doesn't take any longer than inputting your name and controls, and if you just use the guest sizes and switch their specials to match what you want, it still only takes a couple seconds.

I will be ok with TOs restricting Mii mains to use the Guest Miis, particularly in massive tourneys. Some compromise has to be made for a tourney to run on time, so I understand that. I mean imagine how ridiculous it would be to see someone on the EVO stream create a detailed Mii that looks like Goku or whatever mid-match LOL "hey this is my counterpick I'm not done!" I've read suggestions that players could just request these Miis to be loaded before the tourney, but even then, I don't know any TO who would want to do that with all the other stuff they have to manage already.

The only real way to get your created Mii in there quickly for a tourney is for you to bring a preloaded Amiibo and put it in there. And yeah it's a pain to do that since it requires having the Amiibo and carrying it in tourney, but at least the pain is for you, the player, not the TO. That would be the only exception to using player created Miis that I could see for tourneys. Even then, I'm not gonna be upset if that's not allowed either and it's only Guest Miis. I'm fine with that.

TL;DR
TOs and players overall can be more comfortable with Mii Fighters, knowing that two key things make them less sporadic and easier to get used to playing as them and fighting against them:
1. They're allowed to be used online with no restrictions in public Quick Play
2. Attributes, size and weight are consistent across the board for each Mii type, leading to more familiarity

I am understanding if the default Guest Miis are the only allowed ones, due to logistics. Giving players the option to preload their Mii with an amiibo would be cool, but not required and not necessary.

 

[Akiak]

this is the list i'm working with atm

Take out Wuhu & Green Greens and you have the kind of ruleset we should be using for competitive IMO.

Pretty close to this list I posted a while ago and recently updated (with 5th starter and Dream Land being up for debate).

At least given what we know now, all these stages have a shot at being competitively viable, and should all be legal to start with until it's proven that they're detrimental (isn't this how we've always done things in the past?).

The most 'borderline' ones would be the semisoft stages, and maybe Frigate & MKU. Everything else has no real reason not to be legal at this point (I don't particularly like TnC and CS but they're not really bannable).

/minirant

 

[Deleted member]

Here are a few of my ideas:


STREETFIGHTER2.0
anything omited isn't important

FS METER
STAMINA BATTLE(300+ recommended)
Omega/Battlefield Only(doesn't matter which)
Hazards Off
3 wins to win(Note: First item in Advanced Options)
ALL ITEMS OFF
0.5 or lower launch power(helpful, but not required)




BACKTHROWBACKTHROWBACKTHROWBACKTHROWBACKTHROWBACKTHROW

Launch Power 2.0





Competetive Ruleset:

Hazards off
FS meter
First to 3 Win(might not be a good idea because your locking into your fighter choice when you start)
Battlefield/Omega Only
3 Stock

Character Balance for low tier characters go Up, inverse is true.

 

[theyellowgreninja]

Let me throw my two cents in here (for torunament play):

Round Style (RR/Double Elimination): As a player who definitely can't get very far in double elimination, I would love for round robin pools, which would allow players like me to play for a bit longer, but also stop the (albeit rare) happenstance of a player getting paired against players who play characters who have really good matchups against the first players character (Although I'm not sure if brackets in double elim actually account for this or not ahead of time). But the final rounds (I'd say 5-6 rounds, for 32-64 people in bracket) it should be double elimination.

Stages: Hazards should be mixed to fit the stage (for example maybe, assuming Duck Hunt is legal, we want to keep the birds and the dog, but we also want minigame-less warioware), but I can't really judge that since there are a LOT of possible legal stages. It would be simpler to just keep hazards off, and I'm not opposed to the idea, but hazards could provide interesting play that could highlight certain lower tier characters, IDK. I also think there could be a big list of counterpick stages, however I like the idea of keeping the neutrals/starters list very small (Probably Battlefield, FD, Town and City, Smashville, maybe one other generally neutral stage).

Miis: Don't ban miis. That sounds really dumb to me. I like the idea of making a few (2-3) miis per type, each with variant viable movesets (like Swordfighter getting one with chakram, one with aerial assault, and one with the reflect instead of counter or something), because making 36 seperate miis seems really boring and quite frankly, most mii moves aren't going to be used anyways.

Other Rules: No FS meter, sadly. As cool as that would be, certain characters (Peach, Daisy, Zelda, Marth) have completely OP final smashes and others (Mario, Spacies, Ness/Lucas) have completely terrible final smashes, and I just don't think that works well for the meta. 1 round matches from in-game, so we can change characters and counterpick effectively. Double eliminations rounds are 3 games (especially if the whole thing is Double Elim)

Stock/Time: I personally prefer 3-stock matches, with probably 8-minute timers (because people camping for 6 minutes is boring and 8 minutes makes time-out startegies harder to use). 2-stock could work, but then you're stuck with a lot more time spent overall with 3 or 5 rounds per game.

Overall: Round Robin for X games, before making a 32 or 64 person double elimination bracket. Each game is 3-stock 8-minute. 3 games per set. Stagelist is narrow for neutral/starters, but broad for counterpicks. Miis are allowed, but only a few variant miis (~3 of each, ~9 total) are made in preparation for the tournament. No FS meter. Hazards mixed based on stage (probably off for neutrals).

 

[Undrdog]

My personal views as someone that's as old as dirt.

3 Stock - 6 Min
5 Neutral Stages
6 Counterpick Stages
2 Stage Strikes (striking FD or BF would also Strike said Omega forms)
Dave's Stupid Rule: On
No Restrictions on Miis (Only Default Costumes)

Round Robin Pools
Double Elim Brackets

There should be a rule from the outset on stalling. Not being allowed to do infinite combos (as hard as they might be) past a certain percentage. There are no easy ones out there yet, but better to make the rule now instead of making those later effected by it feel targeted when the ban comes down.

I also feel it's important to note that a LOT of people have been focusing on stage legality as "is it fair", but we really need to strike a balance between how many of each stage type is allowed. Having three Tri Plat stages for example sort of defeats the purpose of stage strikes. This also applies to stage size. Pokemon Stadium 2 is popular sure but it favoring Zoners doesn't make for a great neutral.

 

[dav3yb]

I think I'm going to drop the daves stupid rule bit from my list. And probably just up the Bans to 3. I really don't see much of a point in it. If a stage is too advantageous for a character, it should be getting a strike anyways.

Here's the stages we're currently running btw, if anyone cares.

Spoiler: Stage List

 

[DavemanCozy]

I would've loved if there was a way to set hazards on or off manually from the stage select screen rather than setting it as a global rule that applies to all stages. We could keep hazardless Pokemon Stadium (1 or 2) with hazards on Smashville that way and there wouldn't be any problem.

In the end though hazardless only is a lot easier to avoid room for error.