Tribal System: Facilitate entry and Level up players

[Takehiko]

One of the problems that stick out for the Smash4 community is that when certain players dominate a scene, it usually leaves the rest of their scene struggling to keep up. Many smashboard posters suggest that players should go to tourneys to improve, but it can be difficult to improve depending on who you're matched against. Another word of advice is to play friendlies, but if higher level players in thier scene don't want to play friendlies with lower level players because they can't learn from the matches. This can also be a problem. The solution for this situation would be to institue a Tribal System in the Smash4 scenes.
The main purpose of this system is to help aid scenes by improving help amongst smash4 players while also adding another element of competition.

Beginning:​

To start it off, you'll need to take the top 3-5 players in your scene, these will be your tribe leaders. Your tribe leaders will be known as S class players. Now each player through out the community can be drafted (or randomized) into the spots of A-F classes. These classes will represent they're current skill level and the certain things that they will need to learn in order to advance to the next level. On to the classes.

Classes:​

F: This is the beginner class as they're just coming into the scene or the ame of smash 4. The best things for these players to learn are the basics and start on mastering the mechnics of the game. It'll be at this level that they're main focus is Understanding of Basic Mechanics before moving on.
D:This is the upper level of beginner class. At this level they'll learn more into their character and how to work on getting certain things out of them that they want. It's at this level that they're main focus is Maximizing Damage and Effective Shielding before moving on.
C: This is class breaks in the Intermediate level. At this level, they'll know how to get most things out of their character by way of comboing or effectively using defensive options. It's at this level that they're main focus will be Punishing before moving on.
B: This higher level is where they've already had a crack into Match up knowledge because they've needed that, so that they can punish. So at this level is where they'll expound on that knowledge by learn Match-Up Knowledge and Stage choices before moving on.
A: This is that high level of of the spectrum and what allows the players who dominate the scene to stay at the top. Which is why the fianl part of theis is MindGames and Reads.

So how does one level up?​

Well, during an agreed time, the tribes will meet up and each player of a certain level will play against other people in their level round robin style. And if a player wins against 3 people then his tribe leader will review the matches and if they deem that they've learned what they've needed to know for that level then they will be allowed to level up.

​

What this does?​

This makes players inside a scene responsible for each others progress since all the players in a certain tribe who are 1 level or higher than that players can aid them with their progress. It's with this system that when a new player enter a scene that they will be able to join into a tribe and immediately have the ability to start leveling up with the people who are on their same level without a lot of intimidation.

FAQ's:
​

How is this different from Crew Battles?​

Well the difference is crew battles have players battle against a set of players without knowing if they're skill levels will make it a even match. This focuses on the players as individuals while also making sure that they have the promise of being able to improve.

How is this different from Crews?​

Crews are built out of already strong players who would like to represent themselves as a sect. This brings them more to responsiblity of the whole scene and brings the aspect of competition to them because in the same way how Norcal & Socal's revialry has helped them become a strong coast.

So now this is you guys part please let me know if this is something that you'd like to see around Sm4sh scene. Also the level up matches could be streamed also, so that way players feel like they're fighting on a level playing field and getting noticed for it.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Nobody has time for any of this. The best players have basically no incentive to spend time grooming less skilled players, and if you could get that many people together conveniently, you could already be hosting Smashfests without having to make an arbitrary system where some people are in individual groups. A high-level Sheik player may have no idea how to help a lower-level Ganondorf player to improve because that's not what they're used to.

You're grouping players into letter grades based on things that are pretty arbitrary. I know loads of players I would call very good as a whole who are not good at optimizing damage or have poor match-up knowledge. Also, topics like "mindgames and reads" or "effectively using defensive options" don't really make up a simple subject that you either get or don't get. You're oversimplifying the process of being good at Smash in a way that suggests that it's as simple as "learn this and you'll be good," which is very rarely how it works.

This reads as if you feel you can lump players into concrete skill levels, but your criteria for doing so seems really arbitrary. Every player's path to improvement is different, and a generalized system for considering people better or worse doesn't seem to take that into consideration.

 

[C0rvus]

I find myself agreeing with the points that TheReflexWonder brought up. This isn't going to happen with the tournament scene at large. There is no incentive for any top players to participate in this. I could see this being set up separately in sort of a Zero to Hero type improvement program, but for more people, or an online ladder system; but we have both of those in varying quantities already. I think that the average low level player has plenty of resources to improve with in this game; guides and videos made by top players, Zero to Hero, simple vod review, Anther's Ladder, locals with players who are mostly willing to answer simple questions, money matches, the list goes on. I wish there were more resources for mid level players hitting a plateau, but I digress.

 

[Raijinken]

While I like the idea generally, I, too, agree with ReflexWonder. Especially on the point that most high-skill players cannot even begin to properly coach a player on other (or significantly different) characters.

I'm the best player in my group (which doesn't say much), but if suddenly a player wanted to learn Olimar, the best I could do is tell him I hate the character and have only used him enough to beat All Star on Hard. He would learn more from reading a wiki than from the best player in the group.

 

[Nabbitnator]

I think this is more for the individual player to figure out. If they want to improve they should find people within the community who are better then him or herself ask questions about the game, and ask them to play a match. I find it better to create a network of people you can get information. Groups take a lot of time. Which many people do not have so labbing with some friends from here or irl, and asking questions will help progress. Throwing people into groups would discourage new players when they see what the rankings mean.

 

[Takehiko]

Nobody has time for any of this. The best players have basically no incentive to spend time grooming less skilled players, and if you could get that many people together conveniently, you could already be hosting Smashfests without having to make an arbitrary system where some people are in individual groups.

First off, If no one has time for what I'm suggesting then no one should have be all up in arms when GA was called Trash. The best players incentive to spend time grooming players is to have a more stronger community around them. Tell me, would you want to be the best player in a "Trash" community. If yes, then I can see why you would be good with a bad community. If no, then you'd understand my Idea.

Smashfest are situation where people just play people. That's just like For Glory. It dumps you into a place with a player who you don't know what their skill level is and is allows you guys to play. Now it's always called a bad system because of that. Now notice that the system I put together is based off of the system that allowed SF4 online players to improve. Look at the S-F system on Sf4 and notice that F level players don't know certain things that A grade players will.

A high-level Sheik player may have no idea how to help a lower-level Ganondorf player to improve because that's not what they're used to.

Lol. Alright so lets look at that statement. "A high-level Sheik player may have no idea how to help a lower-level Ganondorf player to improve because the tools available are not what they're used to." First off, a high level Sheik will know what he would know what a Ganon needs to do to win against them, right? So take that apply it to other Matches and BOOM! It works.
Key example, I'm a Yang player in SSF4. So if I'm helping a Gief player, then I have to think about what I don't want to happen to me (SPD, Getting Ultra 2 while I'm trying to DP, ETC). Knowing this, I'll look more into his tools, if he's vs a Ryu since I know about the stuff I need to do to beat a Ryu player, I can apply it to him. See you don't have to be the same in order to teach someone. Saying something like the previous statement is saying that "Since I don't play the same character as you, I don't understand anything that that character can do.".

You're grouping players into letter grades based on things that are pretty arbitrary. I know loads of players I would call very good as a whole who are not good at optimizing damage or have poor match-up knowledge.

Alright, but notice that a lot of those players have to go back and refine those same things to their own detriment. This idea is supposed to bring people up to par of being a certain level. You can't throw out a whole idea because it's simplified because it's in the simplification that allows the captains to be able to focus on certain things for them to improve.

This reads as if you feel you can lump players into concrete skill levels, but your criteria for doing so seems really arbitrary. Every player's path to improvement is different, and a generalized system for considering people better or worse doesn't seem to take that into consideration

Sure everyone's path to improvement is different. I can understand that, but if the current way of just get gud, or oh well isn't working then you gotta implement something new. It all can't be wrong just cause it's not the way that you're used to operating.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The best players in the state didn't get that way by implementing a strict training procedure. The best players in the state also don't give a **** about how good the state is perceived (and in some cases agree with the idea that GA is not that great skill-wise), and even if they did, since it's hard enough to get the best players out to go to the same tournaments regularly (where they stand to make money and/or find the best competition), the idea of bringing that many players together for training seems increasingly unlikely. They have lives beyond the game and limitations that prevent it from happening. Fatality doesn't have a vehicle he can drive. I don't even live in GA, despite being ranked #1 in the state. How could you put something like this together if the players that you are suggesting lead people simply can't make it out?

The problem with the grading system continues to show itself. You make a comparison to Street Fighter (4, presumably)'s online ranking system but oversimplify what those numbers mean. There are many players with an A rank who are there by sheer number of matches played, who still have actively bad win/loss ratios and aren't very good players/don't have a great understanding of the game or their character. Some players only play opponents with a similar rank or worse and thus "boost" their ranking in a less meaningful way. If you told players you had an online A rank at an offline tournament, nobody would care or think more highly of you due to that variance. Either way, the only reasonable way we would have to rank players would be their tournament placings, which is already somewhat subjective in our Tier List rankings, and many players have shown their distaste with the results of it. Also, none of this changes the fact that the way you're suggesting to rank players is an awful skill metric and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of individual character elements and what skills are most important and/or hardest to learn.

Explaining basic concepts to get better is something that doesn't require a huge system of rankings and lessons. That's something players can (and often do) do when playing everyday matches, in tournament or friendlies. Does your system revolve around the idea that high-level players otherwise refuse to help/advise lower-level players? If so, what makes you think they'd agree to teach people in the system you're suggesting? It also takes more meaningful information than would likely be provided by a higher-level player who knows little about using your character. Characters in Street Fighter tend to be bound by rules that are much more uniform across the cast than Smash for a number of reasons (multiple jumps, much greater variance in movement speed, frame data speed/safety, stage differences, offstage play), so it's a lot easier to explain things in terms of basic archetypes (like "Dragon Punches") because the things that affect gameplay are much less varied in Street Fighter than in Smash. Even of similar skill level, the way a Sheik player approaches the neutral position is worlds different than how a Ganondorf player approaches neutral, so talking about making the most of your movement and number of safe pokes doesn't really do Ganondorf any favors. Again, you can talk generally, but nuances are usually much, much better off being presented by other people who really know the character. A great Sheik player might very well tell you to main a better character instead.

The point I feel that you're missing is that nobody I've met who is good at this game became good by following a strict training regimen. If I thought learning about Smash was tedious and unenjoyable, I wouldn't do it. What you're suggesting doesn't sound fun at all, and fun is what really brings players out (and that goes for all skill levels). It also doesn't sound like a cohesive plan for making a player better, and this comes from someone who's been getting better at a fast rate for a long time. I wouldn't still be playing this game and experimenting with stuff if I didn't find it enjoyable, but that doesn't mean that you have to pioneer the metagame in order to be successful at Smash.

You have to think about ways to improve and apply those ideas in as many ways as possible. The best players here are able to seek out ideas on SmashBoards and in videos from players better than them, then think critically about the new information to improve their gameplay, oftentimes by talking to other players. Long story short, it's an understanding of "how the game works" that makes people good, which requires experience more than anything, IMO. I could give most players every bit of esoteric Smash knowledge in my brain in a (probably very large) textbook, but they will only really understand why something is useful or when it should be applied or the nuances that make a move better than it seems by experimenting and making use of it themselves. You can't just explain a strategy in a game as open-ended as Smash; people have to put in their own time to understand it, hone it, and think of ways to improve it or modify it against various players/characters.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Honestly, the best way to improve is to play. I have a national level player that attends my locals and it doesn't deter me from trying to improve. A lot of us there want to beat him. I feel a rivalry towards some of the other players. Every person I lose to just makes me want to improve and give back to them what they gave me.

 

[Raijinken]

Again, ReflexWonder's points hit pretty accurately, in my opinion.

That said, it's not unreasonable to want to facilitate that sort of community-based guidance. While your tiers are a bit arbitrary, I think it is fair to categorize players in a few groups.

1. Has never played Smash (or only infrequently at the most casual level), has no experience (playing or spectating) competitive games of any sort. Think of the stereotypical "plays with a Wiimote sideways" kid. This kind of player has the most variety of easy ways to improve (like simply learning the game), but is often most sensitive to the personalities in the community (including their own). They need someone to play, sandbag a bit, and teach them basic skills like how to do tilts (or smashes, I find some total beginners can do one but not the other reliably), tech, grab, and recover properly. They're not going to want some regiment or strict hierarchy, they just need a friend who knows something about the game
2. "Experienced casuals" who have probably played a lot of Smash under various rulesets (likely including For Glory if they have a good connection), and can be expected to have a standard proficiency in probably everything but perfect pivoting (as far as Smash4 goes). May or may not have entered small tournaments before, so they'll also possibly need easing into the idea of pure play-to-win. They probably have a "main," or at least a few characters they show preference to, and thus will need probably someone at least somewhat knowledgeable or skilled in those characters to learn from.
3. Regardless of Smash experience, the last category is very familiar with competitive gaming, probably including fighting games, and thus knows how to "train" and improve their technique. They primarily need exposure to Smash's oddities (for instance, stage selection procedure, and customs if your region is still awesome and not lame), and more matchup and general game practice. They probably know how to play-to-win, and would probably not mind learning by getting beaten over and over again.

Identifying players based on looser concepts like those above, and then helping them practice in a way that helps them the most, is a great way to build newer players in the Smash community. But past experience plays as big a role in Smash learning as standard learning styles do in other situations. You won't have much success giving a visual learner verbal instructions, and unless they have a real do-or-die attitude, you won't get a newbie to enter your tournaments so he can learn by being double eliminated immediately.

 

[Takehiko]

Alright. I'll ask a mod to delete this then.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Closing thread on request of the original poster.