Stage Striking/Random Select

[Tero.]

Since this debate came up in the YI Stage discussion topic I'd like to debate the pros and cons for each version.

Don't just post your opinion, this is not a vote.

Discuss or gtfo =)

 

[Blinky]

They both have usefulnesses and downfalls, my thoughts:

Stage bans:
Stage banning is more common I find, it gives the advantage of strategically blocking your opponent chosing a stage which either benefits him, or causes problems for you. While they could always pick another stage which does this, you can pick it effectly. You can also pick neutrals to limit the random stage. Its also more versitile, as you can theoretically have any ammount of neutrals, although, only 4 are really usable as neutrals imo, but that is a matter for another discussion.

Stage Striking:
For stage striking I find 5 "Neutrals" far better than 3, not only does this give more diversity, but it also allows for fairer striking by using the player 1, player 2, player 2, player 1 ordered striking. The advantage is its ability to give a "fair" first stage, as all the other stages are striked for the first round. However, I see too many flaws in this system. Firstly is a matter of practicallilty, what are the "neutral stages"? With stage striking, it is more constrained to a fix number of neutrals. Similarly, while it appears diverse, it actually has some downfalls, as less favoured neutrals like yoshis (save the "this isnt neutral" discussion for another topic) will be striked for more regularly than say smashville.

Personally, while I prefer neither, neither has any major flaws which I can see making it not worthy for tournement play, so I guess in reality it just comes down to the tournement organiser.

 

[Marcbri]

There has to be either stage reset or stage striking, I don't care about which one , but it's a must to have one of them imo.

stage reset reduces that you get randomly your worst starter stagebut it still can get you the same stage twice; while stage striking usually makes both players play in a stage that isn't bad for neither player. As Blinky said, for stage striking we can't use any number of starter stages, 5 sounds good,7 or 9 if we have that many starters ( but I don't think so, 9 is just the number of stages that are starter/cp) is good too, but 3 is unfair.


and stage ban is required too, I don't think anything wrong with it and it avoids having an autowin cp for some characters. ( like you usually ban jungle japes vs falco)

 

[K@0S]

3 isn't unfair, except if both players share the same worst stage, which is quite.. rare.

But it's exactly the same for 5, 7, 9 etc. Even if the 1 2 2 1 system looks good, it doesn't make it better in this case because choices are not always logical; 4th worst stage for a player is not necesarily the 2nd best for the other (if there are 5 stages), and the last one to choose can be advantaged in some cases.

If you aren't convinced, make some tests with numbers.

Edit : here is an example

fav 1 : a b d c e
fav 2 : d e a c b

This means player 1's favourite stage is a, and his worst is e.

In this case, if player 1 starts, the stage is a. If player 2 starts, the stage is d.

With illogical rankings like those and shared least favourite stages, nothing would be fair. And as I said, 3 stages is unfair only if both players share the same worst stage -> illogical in the same extend.

 

[Blad01]

I'm rather neutral on that subject, I like both systems (striking system, and random + stage reset).
Striking system is more tactical, but random system allows more diversity, is funnier, while allowing a player not to play on a stage he dislikes)

I'm going to quote myself :

Actually the best system would be imo :
- 3 stages
- Blink strike (Each player strikes a stage, without telling which one to his opponent)
- Random between the 2 stages that remain, in case they chose the same one

 

[K@0S]

Actually the best system would be imo :
- 3 stages
- Blink strike (Each player strikes a stage, without telling which one to his opponent)
- Random between the 2 stages that remain, in case they chose the same one

I agree with that, since at least it covers the little weakness from the 3 stages rule with randomness; whereas you can't with +5 stages.

But you're right on 5 stages + 1221 choice being the best for the striking system.

But you also said that, now I'm quite confused.

 

[Blad01]

I agree with that, since at least it covers the little weakness from the 3 stages rule with randomness; whereas you can't with +5 stages.



But you also said that, now I'm quite confused.

Sorry, I was answering to Tero, I meant that :

- 3 stages + striking system is better than 4 stages + striking system (the latter being actually... Quite impossible)
- 5 stages + 1221 system however seems obviously better (Basically what Tero said).
- That being said, after having read your thoughts on the 5 stages + 1221 system being as unfair as the 3 stages striking system, and considering we are probably not having 5 starters, I proposed what I think to be the best system :

- 3 stages
- Blink strike (Each player strikes a stage, without telling which one to his opponent)
- Random between the 2 stages that remain, in case they chose the same one

(Is that clearer now ? ._.)

 

[-Jumpman-]

I like random stage select with stage bans. Blad's idea doesn't work because it comes down to random in 33% of the matches. Stage strike with 5 stages doesn't work either because there are only 4 neutral stages.

 

[K@0S]

it comes down to random in 33% of the matches

A lot less, since your worst stage is rarely your opponent's worst stage (mainly because of match-ups).

 

[Charby]

I knew it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEhtWfdEj50
ahaha^^

 

[-Jumpman-]

A lot less, since your worst stage is rarely your opponent's worst stage (mainly because of match-ups).

Your first character pick can't be a CP. So if you pick Falco, I can't pick G&W because I saw you chose Falco, if my original plan was to play MK, I have to play MK. So yeah, a lot of times, (in fact, 33% of the time) it is the same stage.

Charby, .Tero didn't make this topic to post spam.

 

[Gmoney_]

Your first character pick can't be a CP. So if you pick Falco, I can't pick G&W because I saw you chose Falco, if my original plan was to play MK, I have to play MK. So yeah, a lot of times, (in fact, 33% of the time) it is the same stage.

Charby, .Tero didn't make this topic to post spam.

I think what he's trying to say is that you would probably ban a stage based on the two characters that have been chosen for the first match.

The stage striking with 5 starters (1221) isn't bad actually, but there is no 5th neutral and putting a 5th neutral just for the stage striking isn't a good idea either.

- 3 stages
- Blink strike (Each player strikes a stage, without telling which one to his opponent)
- Random between the 2 stages that remain, in case they chose the same one

This isn't a good idea either, because what Jumpman said: "it comes down to random in 33% of the matches" And why use random when people have to ban stages?


I think that random with the following stages is the best option:
Final destination, Smashville, Battlefield, Yoshi Island.

 

[K@0S]

Your first character pick can't be a CP. So if you pick Falco, I can't pick G&W because I saw you chose Falco, if my original plan was to play MK, I have to play MK. So yeah, a lot of times, (in fact, 33% of the time) it is the same stage.

Charby, .Tero didn't make this topic to post spam.

I don't understand. Your first character pick is blind, but they are revealed before you do the stage striking. Thus making the 33% way too high.

- 3 stages
- Blink strike (Each player strikes a stage, without telling which one to his opponent)
- Random between the 2 stages that remain, in case they chose the same one

This isn't a good idea either, because what Jumpman said: "it comes down to random in 33% of the matches" And why use random when people have to ban stages?


I think that random with the following stages is the best option:
Final destination, Smashville, Battlefield, Yoshi Island.

You say that random is a bad thing, then your best solution is a random between 4 stages :/

Stage striking + a random like 10% of the time when you can't be 100% fair because it's impossible with stage striking, I don't know how you can do better/more fair. For the rest, see my first post.

 

[Gmoney_]

I don't understand. Your first character pick is blind, but they are revealed before you do the stage striking. Thus making the 33% way too high.

The 3 stages Blad suggested with the blind stage strike and random are FD, BF and SV. Let's say I striked BF, what is the chance that my opponent also strikes BF? The answer is 1/3 (33.3%)

You say that random is a bad thing, then your best solution is a random between 4 stages :/

When I said random was a bad thing, I was refering to the solution Blad suggested. The stage strike/random with 3 neutrals.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I don't understand. Your first character pick is blind, but they are revealed before you do the stage striking. Thus making the 33% way too high.

Which you clearly stated when we discussed this earlier.

Anyway, it doesn't make picking a stage less random, so it's not a good choice either. And as fair as I know, YI is staying neutral.

 

[Marcbri]

Considering that the most likely number of stage will be 4 ( that's what I expect at least) the best would be random and a stage reset per player. if there was another number of starters then we could do something about the stage striking, but as Gmoney said we shouldn't add a 5th starter just so we can use stage striking.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The two best options are imo:

5 stages + stage striking with either Lylat Cruise or PS1 as 5th starter stage.
This is currently used in US tourneys I think and has one obvious advantage: no randomness. You can strike 2 stages you don't like and prevent yourself from getting CPed. On the other hand it's almost pointless since the first stage is always either Battlefield or Smashville. Using this kind of the stage striking system is fine by me as it works perfectly well. I just think it's a bit boring. Also as Jumpman said: There aren't actually 5 neutral stages. In fact only Battlefield and Smashville are really neutral, which is probably the reason why they're always used to start a set.

3 stages + random
This is the japanese rule and I'm actually quite fond of it. It basically got rid of everything unneeded, which includes Yoshi's Island and Lylat Cruise/PS1 as starter stages. Having FD, BF and SV with random select prevents any kind of pre-match CPs because you won't know which stage you fight on. On the other hand it's not truly random since none of the used stages has any random elements (some consider the events on YI as random...). As a result you have an unpredictable system that doesn't screw anybody over either. It also helps a character like Diddy, who has a 66% chance for an absolute **** stage (either BF or FD) while MK doesn't benefit from it - MKs prever to avoid FD in quite a few match-up (from my experience anyways). So I actually think that this system is not only completely fair but also does a decent job at balancing things without altering the stage selection too much.

 

[-Jumpman-]

The two best options are imo:

5 stages + stage striking with either Lylat Cruise or PS1 as 5th starter stage.
This is currently used in US tourneys I think and has one obvious advantage: no randomness. You can strike 2 stages you don't like and prevent yourself from getting CPed. On the other hand it's almost pointless since the first stage is always either Battlefield or Smashville. Using this kind of the stage striking system is fine by me as it works perfectly well. I just think it's a bit boring. Also as Jumpman said: There aren't actually 5 neutral stages. In fact only Battlefield and Smashville are really neutral, which is probably the reason why they're always used to start a set.

3 stages + random
This is the japanese rule and I'm actually quite fond of it. It basically got rid of everything unneeded, which includes Yoshi's Island and Lylat Cruise/PS1 as starter stages. Having FD, BF and SV with random select prevents any kind of pre-match CPs because you won't know which stage you fight on. On the other hand it's not truly random since none of the used stages has any random elements (some consider the events on YI as random...). As a result you have an unpredictable system that doesn't screw anybody over either. It also helps a character like Diddy, who has a 66% chance for an absolute **** stage (either BF or FD) while MK doesn't benefit from it - MKs prever to avoid FD in quite a few match-up (from my experience anyways). So I actually think that this system is not only completely fair but also does a decent job at balancing things without altering the stage selection too much.

Neither of those are options, as I expect us to have 4 neutral stages.

I think 4 random + stage bans is the best way to go.

 

[K@0S]

The 3 stages Blad suggested with the blind stage strike and random are FD, BF and SV. Let's say I striked BF, what is the chance that my opponent also strikes BF? The answer is 1/3 (33.3%)

Mathematically yes, but you have to take match-ups into account, since you know the characters before you do the stage striking.

For example if I'm MK and I'm playing against Diddy, it's almost impossible that we ban the same stage (except if that Diddy player hates FD for an unknown reason).

The two best options are imo:

5 stages + stage striking with either Lylat Cruise or PS1 as 5th starter stage.
This is currently used in US tourneys I think and has one obvious advantage: no randomness.

See my first post; no randomness, but a mathematical advantage for the player who strikes first, that advantage being "countered" by the random in the 3 stages list. In term of fairness, it's impossible to do better.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm sorry, this is not an option as YI will be neutral.

 

[Blad01]

The 3 stages Blad suggested with the blind stage strike and random are FD, BF and SV. Let's say I striked BF, what is the chance that my opponent also strikes BF? The answer is 1/3 (33.3%)

Let's compare to the striking system :

I'm the first to strike a stage, I strike BF. I can't know which stage my opponent is going to strike. It's completely up to him.
It's like random between 2 stages, in the sense that I don't decide anything. (And that happends every set, that is to say 100% of the time).

Moreover, my opponent, who is second to choose a stage, has a tactical advantage over me.

The 3 stages + Double-blind striking system is better on these two point, I believe.

You can also compare to the 4 stages + Random + Reset.

First, the system you propose is random 100% of the time, not only 33% (which is the max for the Double-Blind Striking System).

There is also the risk that when the opponents want to reset the same stage, the first announcing it will be the only one (Unless the other player is completely honest...), and thus will be disadvantaged.

Finally, the two players can also end up playing on a stage they don't really like. The one they wanted could have been the other one, but they don't have any "reset" left.

 

[-Jumpman-]

It's not viable, YI will be neutral.

 

[Staco]

I prefer stage striking since we try to play this game competitive.
Competitive means that we try to have as less random factors as possible. Thats why we dont play on stage like Wario Ware.
Stage striking erases some random factors.

 

[-Jumpman-]

However, allowing CP stages during stage striking makes the game even less competetive.

 

[Tero.]

What about 3 Neutral Stages with Double Blind Stage Striking (If both players strike the same stage they might agree on one of the two left stages, if they can't it's random between those)?

Or we could have 3 Neutral Stages and the higher seeded player strikes first.

 

[-Jumpman-]

That's rubbish. Giving the lower seeded player an advantage just because he's worse than the good player? That means I could theoretically beat players in the first round because I have an advantage when picking stages.

I still think 4 random stages is the best way to go.

 

[Tero.]

That's rubbish. Giving the lower seeded player an advantage just because he's worse than the good player? That means I could theoretically beat players in the first round because I have an advantage when picking stages.

I still think 4 random stages is the best way to go.

There are only three neutral stages and neither of them is especially broken (giving a major advantage to certain characters), plus you can still strike the worst stage for your character.
You won't beat any better player just because of this, don't be stupid.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I will quote myself:

That's rubbish. Giving the lower seeded player an advantage just because he's worse than the good player? That means I could theoretically beat players in the first round because I have an advantage when picking stages.

See what I bolded?

I'd rather let the advantage given through stages be random than give it to the worse player.

 

[Tero.]

I'm going to quote myself too:

What about 3 Neutral Stages with Double Blind Stage Striking (If both players strike the same stage they might agree on one of the two left stages, if they can't it's random between those)?

Or we could have 3 Neutral Stages and the higher seeded player strikes first.

See what I bolded?

 

[-Jumpman-]

That means there's still random if they can't agree on a stage. That's not better than having 4 random stages at all.

 

[Tero.]

That means there's still random if they can't agree on a stage. That's not better than having 4 random stages at all.

However players will strike different stages or agree on one anyway even if not you can still strike your worst stage.

It's better overall and it doesn't have any negative aspects.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Alright, so not having a neutral stage the majority wants AND the possibility to get a random stage after all means it's better overall?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Alright, so not having a neutral stage the majority wants AND the possibility to get a random stage after all means it's better overall?

"The majority wants"? That's a huge exaggeration. Many stage rulesets have Yoshi's Island as a CP already and use only 3 neutral stages. Personally, I'd prefer to have either 3 or 5 neutral stages as it gives the players the possibility to at least choose between stage striking or random stage select.

Also, you have yet to show me a good argument against my suggestions. Saying "neither of those are options" lacks a fundament/credibility.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm pretty sure we had a topic about neutral stages. It's was clear the majority (which is never an exaggeration if it's true) wanted YI to be a neutral stage.

Honestly, I don't care what you want, the majority wants something else.

 

[Samochan]

I'm not really against this idea of blind striking from 3 neutrals... but for blind pick, every match then would need to have at least one spectator or one TO so they can fairly blind strike from stages, which is awkward and prolly won't always be available. I can also imagine always fightning on FD as people strike DL64 vs my peach and I rather play on FD than pokestadium against top tiers and falcons cause of platforms, so it would get fairly dull (for me at least).

I do like the stage striking in general, no randomizer to mess with. Opponent has fox and then I need to resent pokestadium, only to end up on yoshi cause I've banned corneria/pokefloats to avoid getting camped, or something akin to that. <_< Stage striking with 5 stages also gives more leeway in what stage people want to play on as their first stage as opposed to 3 and no need for TO or spectator to be there so match can actually start. Imo, I think there is also more strategic element on who begins striking when and what stages you strike as opposed to when only 3 stages are available.

The one minus with 5 stages opposed to 3 stages is the fact that TO or/and community need to decide which stage goes to counterpicks, YS, FoD or BF. Imo, YS is the least fair of these stages and not just because I play peach, but there is the cloud, shyguys and there is no doubt this stage clearly favors marth and fox moreso than other characters because of platform placement and being very small stage (bonus points go to bowser though lol). FoD and BF both are bigger sized and have less random going on for them etc.

In any case, people should be always given the option of going straight random or certain neutral stage if both players want it.