Tourney Pools could be more casual

[Bolshoi]

At first thought it might seem like a dumb idea, but I think the scene, and probably others, could benefit from a more casual rule set in pools. Something like 4 player vs, low items, all (or most) stages, and FS meter on.

I first came upon this thought when watching a Splatoon 2 tournament. The tourney ran their pools with the Turf War rules, which is not featured in the brackets at all. It's definitely the more casual game mode, but it made pools interesting to watch, and was a fun way to showcase more of the game. And it got me thinking. Pools are really just a way to place people for brackets. I know the idea is to pair the highest performer with the lowest performer, but I can't help but think it might be more fun to watch and play if they were taken less seriously. Generally speaking, the top performers would regularly get high placements in brackets, especially in double elimination, so why not get a little crazy with the less important part?

I don't expect the idea to get much traction, but I thought I'd throw it out there and at least see what people thought.

 

[S_B]

Not trying to be a jerk, but unless you organize tournaments yourself or are the close friend of someone who does, discussing it here doesn't accomplish much.

As a tournament player, I wouldn't like to see items in pools for the same reasons I wouldn't want to see them anywhere else: win or lose, I want the reason for the outcome to be as purely skill-based as possible.

I absolutely loathe when my opponent SDs because it means I didn't earn that victory. I'd hate it even more if an item happened to spawn at the right time that allowed me to win when I should've lost or vice versa.

 

[Orlando BCN]

That horrible feeling when you drown in pools because someone picked up a hammer.

 

[Jexulus]

The point of a tournament is a test of skill at all stages. Having wildly different rulesets at various points in the tournament would not work well as it is, and that's not even accounting for items. Imagine if pools were Stamina but farther up it was still traditional Stock. Same issue.

 

[Fell God]

That horrible feeling when you drown in pools because someone picked up a hammer.

That horrible feeling when you drown in pools because you picked up a hammer (and got knocked offstage)

Seriously though why can't you drop those things?

 

[Bolshoi]

Not trying to be a jerk, but unless you organize tournaments yourself or are the close friend of someone who does, discussing it here doesn't accomplish much.

Well I'm not really trying to accomplish much. More so just getting the idea out of my brain and seeing what the consensus is.

 

[Luigifan18]

The point of a tournament is a test of skill at all stages. Having wildly different rulesets at various points in the tournament would not work well as it is, and that's not even accounting for items. Imagine if pools were Stamina but farther up it was still traditional Stock. Same issue.

I have to disagree here. Playing with items and hazards definitely takes a different type of skill than playing without them — items and hazards force players to respond to what the stage itself is doing (including items spawning) as well as to their opponent. And playing in free-for-alls requires a different skillset than playing 1v1 or 2v2 — with several players all directly competing with each other, each player needs to divide their attention between all of their opponents, making it easier to be caught off-guard. The same fundamentals apply in any ruleset, but tweaking the rules will by necessity alter the strategies needed to succeed. By utilizing different rulesets at different stages of a tournament, we can ensure that the overall winner will be the player who has the most skill at all aspects of the game, rather than a narrow subset of it.

 

[DJ3DS]

I have to disagree here. Playing with items and hazards definitely takes a different type of skill than playing without them — reacting to the environment as well as the opponent. And playing in free-for-alls requires a different skillset than playing 1v1 or 2v2. By utilizing different rule sets at different stages of a tournament, we can ensure that the overall winner will be the player who has the most skill at all aspects of the game, rather than a narrow subset of it.

Then why not make grand finals a home run contest?

Ultimately a tournament needs a standardised ruleset to function and people have decided itemless singles is the way they want to do that. Using a different ruleset at different stages will just mess things up for everyone and result in a mass exodus from your tournament to another.

This isn't exclusive to this, either. An items tournament shouldn't suddenly turn them off halfway through, and people shouldn't have to swim instead of run during the Olympics 100m sprint quarter finals.

 

[Jexulus]

I have to disagree here. Playing with items and hazards definitely takes a different type of skill than playing without them — reacting to the environment as well as the opponent. And playing in free-for-alls requires a different skillset than playing 1v1 or 2v2. By utilizing different rule sets at different stages of a tournament, we can ensure that the overall winner will be the player who has the most skill at all aspects of the game, rather than a narrow subset of it.

If that is the objective of the tournament, to test who is most adaptable at various conditions that the game can be set to, then I agree. The issue is what Smash competition has been defined as, both as how the series has evolved competitively over time as well as other fighting games releasing alongside them. The ruleset that has developed is intended to distill the game's core elements and attempt to determine who is more skilled at fighting a single opponent with as little outside interference as possible. To change rulesets in the middle of the tournament meant for this kind of competition would be to undermine the objective of the tournament. Now, a tournament designed around an ever-changing ruleset sounds like a lot of fun as a test of adaptability, but it ultimately does not serve as a metric of skill when facing a single opponent once it loses focus like this.

Also that would be hell to practice for if that ever became a circuit of its own.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

That horrible feeling when you drown in pools because someone picked up a hammer.

That moment when your oppponent kills you with a hammer and says “Should have Countered”.

 

[ZephyrZ]

I have to disagree here. Playing with items and hazards definitely takes a different type of skill than playing without them — items and hazards force players to respond to what the stage itself is doing (including items spawning) as well as to their opponent. And playing in free-for-alls requires a different skillset than playing 1v1 or 2v2 — with several players all directly competing with each other, each player needs to divide their attention between all of their opponents, making it easier to be caught off-guard. The same fundamentals apply in any ruleset, but tweaking the rules will by necessity alter the strategies needed to succeed. By utilizing different rulesets at different stages of a tournament, we can ensure that the overall winner will be the player who has the most skill at all aspects of the game, rather than a narrow subset of it.

Ah yes, the old "items take skill" argument. The issue here is that, despite any extra elements of skill items might add, they add a far greater element of luck which undermines whatever skill they might require. Items are designed with the intention of letting less skilled players have a chance, because they're designed for a party game, not a fighting one.

Furthermore, competitive Smash Bros isn't just a test of raw skill. It's about strategy, patience, and understanding your opponent's own habits and srategies. You can't plan around randon item spawns, and you can't always react to them either. As fun as they can be, they are inherently uncompetitive and should be kept as far away from tournaments as possible.

 

[Luigifan18]

Ah yes, the old "items take skill" argument. The issue here is that, despite any extra elements of skill items might add, they add a far greater element of luck which undermines whatever skill they might require. Items are designed with the intention of letting less skilled players have a chance, because they're designed for a party game, not a fighting one.

Furthermore, competitive Smash Bros isn't just a test of raw skill. It's about strategy, patience, and understanding your opponent's own habits and srategies. You can't plan around randon item spawns, and you can't always react to them either. As fun as they can be, they are inherently uncompetitive and should be kept as far away from tournaments as possible.

That may be true, but stage hazards, the other half of my point, tend to be far more predictable, allowing for players to strategize around them.

 

[Envoy of Chaos]

Stage hazards are also often very intrusive and disruptive despite being less of random element. Wiley's Castle isn't legal because the Yellow Devil completely prevents you form playing normally. Norfair isn't legal because the lava is very disruptive nearly steadily.