We need to revisit why FLSS is no longer being pushed-

[[Deuce]]

EVO ran this ruleset, why are we experiencing a reversal? In fact its just as restrictive as back in apex- here in SoCal what's being pushed is 5 starter, 2 CP, at apex it was 3 starter, 6 CP.

Are people serious in supporting the gentlemaning to smashville arguments as a legitimate point? In theory if you don't want to lose of course you'll want to garner every edge you can get. Let the other person be lazy, you did your homework, and that's why you'll win. Leave the gentlemaning to friendlies

One quote that still burns in my mind is what D1 said on stream, that "FLSS is the reason why stages like Castle Siege end up getting picked first game" as if Castle Siege isn't a competitive stage. If that stage ended up being the equilibrium after 9 stages of striking, let alone if it expanded to 13, shouldn't that be a testament to fairness? If the last 2 stages selectable were highly disadvantageous to one player, then shouldn't it be that player's fault? Stage selection and striking is a skill as well, just like pick/ban in popular MOBAs, what is there cause for concern?

 

[T4ylor]

Perhaps because most players don't like the system? And Castle Siege is a bad stage, glad D1 didn't include it in the ruleset.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

FLSS is something that I feel works better in theory than in practice.

I was for it until I saw stage-striking at our locals last up to a full minute among players who (rightfully) took it seriously. When the legal stage list exceeds 9 or more stages, I just prefer to keep the list short for the first game.

 

[Illuminose]

okay, so about counterpicks

The reason we have counterpicks is because we need to have enough stages. We need enough stages to play bo5 sets and still have stage choice. If we have DSR in effect, and the players do not gentleman to avoid DSR, and each game was played on a different stage, there needs to be enough stages for players to have a choice. Hence why Melee has PS1 legal (hint hint, it's not because it's a good stage). We have counterpick stages because they are necessary. There actually is an implicit assumption in this that certain stages are 'better' than others.

The other advantage to the starter/cp system is that the players like it. Players don't like FLSS. They are used to starter/cp and prefer the system. It is simpler and there is rarely a tangible difference in the outcome of striking.

 

[Ghostbone]

PS1 isn't necessary, melee has 5 other stages for Bo5 technically. PS1 is just seen as balanced enough to be legal but you can't strike from 6 stages so it's the least balanced and the odd one out. You have a choice every game with 5 stages, just 2/3 off the options for game 5 your opponent already won on.

If a stage is good enough to be played on in games 2/3 it's good enough to be played on game one. If people don't like normal counter-pick stages being played on then they should just be banned, the distinction between starter and counter-pick is silly.

 

[shinyskarmory]

If the Counterpick stages are really significantly more unbalanced than the regular starters, they'll all be struck out game 1 and we'll end up playing on a "normal" starting stage anyways.

If the counter picks are not considered to be centralizing or unbalanced, then it makes no sense to lock them away until game 2/game 3.

FLSS is more intuitive than the S/CP system and easier to grasp for new players joining the scene. It accomplishes all the goals of the stage selection system better than S/CP because it allows the players to decide what stages they personally feel are banworthy in the MU they're playing. For example, Battlefield is normally considered neutral, but I'm sure Little Mac mains would feel that stage is stacked against them.

Gentleman picks will happen no matter what system we use. The only really effective argument against FLSS is (as seems to usually be the case in Sm4sh policy arguments) logistics. FLSS will usually take longer than S/CP for game 1. But if it wasn't a problem at EVO, it shouldn't be a problem at any well-run tournament.

 

[Raijinken]

It's because "Unless you're a stick in the mud, you'll just gentleman me to Smashville or Battlefield instead of wasting both our time and picking one of those anyway." - EVO commentator.

Basically, people will sacrifice stage selection balance to go to their comfort zone, which just so happens to be Sheik's best stage.

 

[Ansou]

The reason that people prefer S/CP is because they are simply used to it. FLSS is actually a better and more simple system, but people don't want to use it because they want to play the way they are used to. Don't ask me why they are playing a new game and yet expect everything to be the way it used to be though. The only problem I have is that we have to limit the number of stages if we want to use FLSS as we can't strike with 14 stages. But then, I feel like using 13 stages still kind of works with our stage list. I don't agree with the time argument. If people need time for proper stage selection, then let them take their time. I mean this both from a player and TO perspective.

 

[T0MMY]

Why FLSS is no longer being pushed?

Probably because people finally figured out trying to "push" something on people has the exact opposite reaction: They push back.
People naturally like good things. Forcing people to use stages they hate and forcing TOs to use rules they don't want is a recipe for disaster. When people point out the flaws of a system it's best to fix the flaws and move on with things properly and the people will demand to use them when they are finally polished and ready to be used.

 

[[Deuce]]

Why FLSS is no longer being pushed?

Probably because people finally figured out trying to "push" something on people has the exact opposite reaction: They push back.
People naturally like good things. Forcing people to use stages they hate and forcing TOs to use rules they don't want is a recipe for disaster. When people point out the flaws of a system it's best to fix the flaws and move on with things properly and the people will demand to use them when they are finally polished and ready to be used.

This can be said the other way around really. Apex forced people to limit themselves into a tiny stage list they hate, that's why we got the EVO ruleset. It's when people stop talking and let the others walk all over them with their ruleset that it becomes the norm

 

[[Deuce]]

PS1 isn't necessary, melee has 5 other stages for Bo5 technically. PS1 is just seen as balanced enough to be legal but you can't strike from 6 stages so it's the least balanced and the odd one out. You have a choice every game with 5 stages, just 2/3 off the options for game 5 your opponent already won on.

If a stage is good enough to be played on in games 2/3 it's good enough to be played on game one. If people don't like normal counter-pick stages being played on then they should just be banned, the distinction between starter and counter-pick is silly.

Exactly. And regarding Melee I agree, but for smash 4 its all the more reasonable because there are more viable "counterpick" stages. 9 or 13 stage FLSS is fine.

 

[Zorcey]

If a stage is good enough to be played on in games 2/3 it's good enough to be played on game one.

The smartest man in the room.

 

[Raijinken]

In an absolutely worst-case scenario, using FLSS on a stagelist consisting of the exact same stages as are used in the current starter/counterpick system would be no worse for practicing/memorizing, but still improves stage selection bias.

 

[shinyskarmory]

Why FLSS is no longer being pushed?

Probably because people finally figured out trying to "push" something on people has the exact opposite reaction: They push back.
People naturally like good things. Forcing people to use stages they hate and forcing TOs to use rules they don't want is a recipe for disaster. When people point out the flaws of a system it's best to fix the flaws and move on with things properly and the people will demand to use them when they are finally polished and ready to be used.

Nobody is forcing you to use a stage you hate. If you hate Castle Siege or Halberd, just strike them in FLSS and you're good to go.

The reality is that in certain matchups, some starter stages can be MORE polarizing (within that particular matchup) then the counterpick stages. If that's the case, why not just let people strike to the stages that they agree are fairest in the matchups they're playing? That's what FLSS allows.

No stage is "perfectly neutral", so why pretend that we've found the five perfect stages which are fair in any matchup? Run FLSS and let the players decide.

 

[Raijinken]

Nobody is forcing you to use a stage you hate. If you hate Castle Siege or Halberd, just strike them in FLSS and you're good to go.

The reality is that in certain matchups, some starter stages can be MORE polarizing (within that particular matchup) then the counterpick stages. If that's the case, why not just let people strike to the stages that they agree are fairest in the matchups they're playing? That's what FLSS allows.

No stage is "perfectly neutral", so why pretend that we've found the five perfect stages which are fair in any matchup? Run FLSS and let the players decide.

While I agree with your post entirely, the sad truth is that most players are so indoctrinated/oblivious that they think Smashville is the most fair in any matchup.

 

[T0MMY]

This can be said the other way around really. Apex forced people to limit themselves into a tiny stage list they hate, that's why we got the EVO ruleset. It's when people stop talking and let the others walk all over them with their ruleset that it becomes the norm

Except there was a clamor to use more stages before Apex, so that doesn't make sense. Nowhere did anyone who put together Evo say they were using FLSS in response to Apex, that's all just speculation at this point.

Nobody is forcing you to use a stage you hate. If you hate Castle Siege or Halberd, just strike them in FLSS and you're good to go.

If only it were that easy, when a huge majority of players want to get rid of a non-competitive stage then it just gets banned outright. It's hard to get around this and I have made some pretty good progress with rules on stage selection that keep nearly every stage available while at the same time eliminating the logistically-challenged stages that practically everyone will have banned anyway (Stages like Temple potentially create a potential nightmare for scheduling).
Simply saying "use your strikes" may be good for you, but for the vast majority of players it will sound like "use your strikes to get rid of some stages you hate so you play on a stage you strongly dislike" - not a very convincing way of promoting the system.

There are flaws with FLSS that need to be smoothed out and then the system can present itself in a very convincing way without having to "push" it on people. That's about as simple as I can get my response to the problems happening.

 

[shinyskarmory]

If only it were that easy, when a huge majority of players want to get rid of a non-competitive stage then it just gets banned outright. It's hard to get around this and I have made some pretty good progress with rules on stage selection that keep nearly every stage available while at the same time eliminating the logistically-challenged stages that practically everyone will have banned anyway (Stages like Temple potentially create a potential nightmare for scheduling).

Simply saying "use your strikes" may be good for you, but for the vast majority of players it will sound like "use your strikes to get rid of some stages you hate so you play on a stage you strongly dislike" - not a very convincing way of promoting the system.

There are flaws with FLSS that need to be smoothed out and then the system can present itself in a very convincing way without having to "push" it on people. That's about as simple as I can get my response to the problems happening.

As I understand it, FLSS doesn't strike from the entire list of stages in the game, it strikes from the whole list of stages that would normally be allowed games 2/3 of the Starter/Counterpick system. FLSS therefore still allows us to ban out stages we dislike as a community.

By the simple manner by which FLSS operates, you and your opponent both take turns striking stages until only one stage remains, then that stage is chosen for game 1 and games 2 and 3 function identically to the S/CP system. If you think the traditional CP stages are unbalanced in your particular matchup, and your opponent agrees, you can strike them out and play on the regular starters.

The beauty of FLSS is that it allows people to still strike down to the traditional starters game 1, while also acknowledging that even the "balanced" starter stages themselves have polarizing effects (Sheik on Smashville is the most notable one but I remember Little Mac on FD was considered to be pretty stupid at release). Assuming both players have perfect knowledge of what stages are best and worst for their respective characters, FLSS allows the players to strike down to the most equitable middle ground, which is something that simply can't happen in the S/CP system.

But now I'm becoming more curious of the methodology behind your opinion. Could you answer the following questions for me so I can better understand your particular stance?

1. Do you believe that the standard Sm4sh starter list (Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town and City, Lylat Cruise) are the five fairest stages in every matchup?

2. From a TO perspective: If two players who were knowledgeable in both their characters and the matchup they were about to play agreed to use a different starter/counterpick list from the tournament standard list during their set, would you allow them to do so? Would the answer change if they were on stream?

3. The above question refers to two players using their knowledge of the game to "gentleman" to a stagelist they consider to be equitable. Gentlemanning is already considered to be acceptable with regard to individual stages. Do you consider gentlemanning to a different stage list different from FLSS, and if so, why?

 

[Raijinken]

One issue with FLSS (aside from generally imperfect knowledge) is that a lot of FLSS proponents use it to push in a generally larger stagelist (I myself did that the first time I ran FLSS).

The main issue there is that, especially assuming this imperfect knowledge, and further caused by a lack of quality-of-life sorts of things like fliers at each station (or better yet, something like a dry-erasable surface to allow for pseudo Project M style striking), it takes forever for players to do if your stage list is too big. Even Starter/CP selection takes a bit as players ponder over things like their opponent's familiarity and any sort of unfamiliar matchup. Doing something like 7-stage FLSS may be alright, but that sacrifices a lot of the theoretical improved stage balance per matchup.

It basically needs to be compressed into a more practical form somehow. Something like larger scale matchup/stage knowledge that led to some "implied" strikes to save time may be one option. But as long as the process remains slow and players' knowledge is incomplete, there's no good way to make the transition without people complaining.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

One issue with FLSS (aside from generally imperfect knowledge) is that a lot of FLSS proponents use it to push in a generally larger stagelist (I myself did that the first time I ran FLSS).

The main issue there is that, especially assuming this imperfect knowledge, and further caused by a lack of quality-of-life sorts of things like fliers at each station (or better yet, something like a dry-erasable surface to allow for pseudo Project M style striking), it takes forever for players to do if your stage list is too big. Even Starter/CP selection takes a bit as players ponder over things like their opponent's familiarity and any sort of unfamiliar matchup. Doing something like 7-stage FLSS may be alright, but that sacrifices a lot of the theoretical improved stage balance per matchup.

It basically needs to be compressed into a more practical form somehow. Something like larger scale matchup/stage knowledge that led to some "implied" strikes to save time may be one option. But as long as the process remains slow and players' knowledge is incomplete, there's no good way to make the transition without people complaining.

This is part of the reason I did my stage threads, so that people wouldn't have to spend tons of time learning each stage. Practice is still a thing of course but there's very little need to spend literally hours trying to understand, say, Wuhu Island when this exists.

 

[Raijinken]

This is part of the reason I did my stage threads, so that people wouldn't have to spend tons of time learning each stage. Practice is still a thing of course but there's very little need to spend literally hours trying to understand, say, Wuhu Island when this exists.

Sadly, that's all hidden a few extra layers into Smashboards, and the vast majority of that information doesn't get out to the locations new/lazy players are likely to check (i.e. the wiki or some site that doesn't bury it under a sub-part of the competitive part of a game's section of a board). Of course, newness and laziness are separate issues, but they certainly affect players' ability/willingness to access such information when they can just john about it and ban it instead.

 

[Zorcey]

You know, it occurred to me that we may doing things backward with this all this. Shouldn't we first determine the legal stages before deciding whether to do FLSS? After all, if we, hypothetically, end up with just five or six stages in the end, doesn't it suddenly become much less of an issue?

Not that I'm saying we'd actually be able hash out the legal stages, mind you.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Sadly, that's all hidden a few extra layers into Smashboards, and the vast majority of that information doesn't get out to the locations new/lazy players are likely to check (i.e. the wiki or some site that doesn't bury it under a sub-part of the competitive part of a game's section of a board). Of course, newness and laziness are separate issues, but they certainly affect players' ability/willingness to access such information when they can just john about it and ban it instead.

Yeah, I'm sort of terrible at self-promotion. I've toyed with the idea of linking to @kyokoro_pamuyo's megathread on Reddit or something but I'm not sure how to sell it in a way that doesn't sound condescending. ("You are all idiots and need to educate yourselves. Here's a resource." That'll go down like a lead balloon.)

 

[Raijinken]

Yeah, I'm sort of terrible at self-promotion. I've toyed with the idea of linking to @kyokoro_pamuyo's megathread on Reddit or something but I'm not sure how to sell it in a way that doesn't sound condescending. ("You are all idiots and need to educate yourselves. Here's a resource." That'll go down like a lead balloon.)

Frankly, sometimes that's the only way to point it out. I had to use that argument with my friends about customs all the time until they all became either "Eh oh well" or "Man customs are awesome."

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If it won't drink, let it take Sheik to Smashville.

 

[Charey]

Ignore this

 

[T0MMY]

1. Do you believe that the standard Sm4sh starter list (Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville, Town and City, Lylat Cruise) are the five fairest stages in every matchup?

2. From a TO perspective: If two players who were knowledgeable in both their characters and the matchup they were about to play agreed to use a different starter/counterpick list from the tournament standard list during their set, would you allow them to do so? Would the answer change if they were on stream?

3. The above question refers to two players using their knowledge of the game to "gentleman" to a stagelist they consider to be equitable. Gentlemanning is already considered to be acceptable with regard to individual stages. Do you consider gentlemanning to a different stage list different from FLSS, and if so, why?

1. I don't think it matters what my personal beliefs are about "fair" - I run events according to competitive theory and let the metagame advance to the point where the players will overcome stage-character limitations whether through newly developed techniques or a change in character to correspond to the stage used.
   • As long as a stage can fit a beneficial competitive value then I support it, and if players want to agree to any jank stage then I am fine with that as long as it doesn't hold up the tournament (mostly through stalling tactics or large stages that drag out a match).
2. Yes, the competitors decide their conditions by which they will play, the TO simply sets the rules by which the competition will recognize a record of their wins/losses.
   • A reason why I would step in and say "no" is if they were including banned stages in their new Starter/CP list - Playing on a banned stage should probably get the referee to stop the match and restart it on a non-banned stage to prevent time-related issues and get the match started promptly.
   • This would not change if it were being streamed, the reason is because the viewers should know they are watching a live broadcast of a tournament being showcased by the organizers and how the event is run, if they don't like it they can find a different stream to watch or go get a snack or something until the round is finished playing out. Toxic stream chats and armies of scrubs should not be a forum to make a change of rules.
3. Yes, Gentleman's Clause is different in definition than FLSS: I believe initiating a gentleman's clause (if it is allowed by tournament rules) from my understanding of the normative use: Gentleman's Clause is for a single Stage to be agreed to be used (not a stage list). FLSS is defined differently than this (using a full stage list to strike from and not breaking it into a CP list).
   
   • Ultimately this may result in a way to Gentleman a specific stage, I am just being a little too specific about definitions here, but you did ask
   • As stated earlier I would be fine with opponents striking from whatever list they agree to, but what I am saying here is that these two methods are in fact different and can be made available or not by the TO's discretion.
   • I recognize this as a kind of cuckoo's egg argument where the concept of a newly defined "gentlemanning" is switched with a "Gentleman's Clause" so commonly used. I am not saying I am against the idea of it, but will point out that good rulings never need such lowly "switcheroo" tactics.

 

[Raijinken]

1. I don't think it matters what my personal beliefs are about "fair" - I run events according to competitive theory and let the metagame advance to the point where the players will overcome stage-character limitations whether through newly developed techniques or a change in character to correspond to the stage used.
   • As long as a stage can fit a beneficial competitive value then I support it, and if players want to agree to any jank stage then I am fine with that as long as it doesn't hold up the tournament (mostly through stalling tactics or large stages that drag out a match).
2. Yes, the competitors decide their conditions by which they will play, the TO simply sets the rules by which the competition will recognize a record of their wins/losses.
   • A reason why I would step in and say "no" is if they were including banned stages in their new Starter/CP list - Playing on a banned stage should probably get the referee to stop the match and restart it on a non-banned stage to prevent time-related issues and get the match started promptly.
   • This would not change if it were being streamed, the reason is because the viewers should know they are watching a live broadcast of a tournament being showcased by the organizers and how the event is run, if they don't like it they can find a different stream to watch or go get a snack or something until the round is finished playing out. Toxic stream chats and armies of scrubs should not be a forum to make a change of rules.
3. Yes, Gentleman's Clause is different in definition than FLSS: I believe initiating a gentleman's clause (if it is allowed by tournament rules) from my understanding of the normative use: Gentleman's Clause is for a single Stage to be agreed to be used (not a stage list). FLSS is defined differently than this (using a full stage list to strike from and not breaking it into a CP list).
   • Ultimately this may result in a way to Gentleman a specific stage, I am just being a little too specific about definitions here, but you did ask
   • As stated earlier I would be fine with opponents striking from whatever list they agree to, but what I am saying here is that these two methods are in fact different and can be made available or not by the TO's discretion.
   • I recognize this as a kind of cuckoo's egg argument where the concept of a newly defined "gentlemanning" is switched with a "Gentleman's Clause" so commonly used. I am not saying I am against the idea of it, but will point out that good rulings never need such lowly "switcheroo" tactics.

In my ruleset (when I run any stage selection method besides Random Omega), I specifically listed a subset of non-gentlemanable stages. If players want to fight in regular-sized cave-of-life stages, I won't stop them (it happened because one of my attendees let our friend, the Lucario main, go to Gamer), but I did explicitly ban Temple, Palutena's Temple, 75M, Gaur Plains, Windy Hill Zone (iffy on that one really), Great Cave, and Jungle Hijinxs. This lets players still use the gentleman's rule to go to wherever else they wish (thus putting it on them if they want to let Ridley help, or deal with Pac Land), but on any stage where it's extremely easy to run and stall (bar Jungle Hijinxs because I'm not entirely familiar with the barriers appearance triggers), I made sure any matches thereon were automatically uncounted.

 

[T0MMY]

In my ruleset (when I run any stage selection method besides Random Omega), I specifically listed a subset of non-gentlemanable stages. If players want to fight in regular-sized cave-of-life stages, I won't stop them (it happened because one of my attendees let our friend, the Lucario main, go to Gamer), but I did explicitly ban Temple, Palutena's Temple, 75M, Gaur Plains, Windy Hill Zone (iffy on that one really), Great Cave, and Jungle Hijinxs. This lets players still use the gentleman's rule to go to wherever else they wish (thus putting it on them if they want to let Ridley help, or deal with Pac Land), but on any stage where it's extremely easy to run and stall (bar Jungle Hijinxs because I'm not entirely familiar with the barriers appearance triggers), I made sure any matches thereon were automatically uncounted.

Sounds about like my list of banned stages, all else is fair game; I too was a little suspicious of Windy Hill Zone, but ended up adding that to the list. I think I ended up having some practical issues with Luigi's Mansion and had to put that on there was well.

What it comes down to if people come to a tournament I am hosting to have fun playing Smash then I want to do as little about interfering with that as possible. However there is something to be said for the competitive value and people do not have fun from illegitimate losses - no matter how well a Stage can be argued in favor of with "stage knowledge" or "innocent until proven guilty" there is nothing that will change the mind of someone who just got eaten by a giant fish or blown up by a giant bomb that their opponent had nothing to do with.

My general philosophy is that any Stage that produces feelings of illegitimate losses should not be starters and I somehow try to reconcile a way to allow for those stages to be able to be used and to keep from having some kind of overbearing advantage of forcing your opponent to play on a coin-flip kind of environment if they don't want to.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of offering two events where one is more styled around a For Glory +Community Input ruleset and the other is a kind of For Fun style with all the non-banned Stages and wacky fun like Items, Custom Parts, or what have you.

 

[Raijinken]

Sounds about like my list of banned stages, all else is fair game; I too was a little suspicious of Windy Hill Zone, but ended up adding that to the list. I think I ended up having some practical issues with Luigi's Mansion and had to put that on there was well.

What it comes down to if people come to a tournament I am hosting to have fun playing Smash then I want to do as little about interfering with that as possible. However there is something to be said for the competitive value and people do not have fun from illegitimate losses - no matter how well a Stage can be argued in favor of with "stage knowledge" or "innocent until proven guilty" there is nothing that will change the mind of someone who just got eaten by a giant fish or blown up by a giant bomb that their opponent had nothing to do with.

My general philosophy is that any Stage that produces feelings of illegitimate losses should not be starters and I somehow try to reconcile a way to allow for those stages to be able to be used and to keep from having some kind of overbearing advantage of forcing your opponent to play on a coin-flip kind of environment if they don't want to.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of offering two events where one is more styled around a For Glory +Community Input ruleset and the other is a kind of For Fun style with all the non-banned Stages and wacky fun like Items, Custom Parts, or what have you.

From a community-building stance, I agree with that ideology 100%. That said, it sounds like quite a logistical nightmare to plan, sufficiently host, and properly run, such an event. Getting a large enough venue with enough setups, setting entry/venue fees properly (whether for profit or for tournament enhancement, whatever your goal there is), properly advertizing to both crowds, balancing all those to get a real turnout for both crowds (for instance, I know if I were to want to go play some Silly Smash with items and whacky stages and things, I certainly wouldn't be interested in paying an entry fee, while a venue fee could be more convincing, contrast a player entering the serious mode tournament who has to look at the potential payout/competitive value/fun to be had and decide if it's worth their commute).

It's a lofty ideal, but a good one to work toward.

 

[T0MMY]

From a community-building stance, I agree with that ideology 100%. That said, it sounds like quite a logistical nightmare to plan, sufficiently host, and properly run, such an event. Getting a large enough venue with enough setups, setting entry/venue fees properly (whether for profit or for tournament enhancement, whatever your goal there is), properly advertizing to both crowds, balancing all those to get a real turnout for both crowds (for instance, I know if I were to want to go play some Silly Smash with items and whacky stages and things, I certainly wouldn't be interested in paying an entry fee, while a venue fee could be more convincing, contrast a player entering the serious mode tournament who has to look at the potential payout/competitive value/fun to be had and decide if it's worth their commute).

It's a lofty ideal, but a good one to work toward.

It's worked out very well, logistically it's just another event like Doubles or Amiibo.
There is no entry fee but there is sponsored prizes for non buy-in events (usually gift cards or Amiibos). If it's a 32-man bracket for the main event the For Fun event usually gets close to 20 people playing because why not have some fun to try to win a prize? The more casual players enjoy the wacky fun and the competitive players are usually doing warmups or join in and just have fun.
Usually would not try to do additional side events unless there are a decent number of setups, space, time for scheduling and I don't like running multi-game events with side events. The most I do now is SSBM alongside SSB4 and I think it'd be more worthwhile for me to focus on just SSB4 only instead of try to juggle multiple events by myself (there's very few people running events in my entire state).

 

[Raijinken]

It's worked out very well, logistically it's just another event like Doubles or Amiibo.
There is no entry fee but there is sponsored prizes for non buy-in events (usually gift cards or Amiibos). If it's a 32-man bracket for the main event the For Fun event usually gets close to 20 people playing because why not have some fun to try to win a prize? The more casual players enjoy the wacky fun and the competitive players are usually doing warmups or join in and just have fun.
Usually would not try to do additional side events unless there are a decent number of setups, space, time for scheduling and I don't like running multi-game events with side events. The most I do now is SSBM alongside SSB4 and I think it'd be more worthwhile for me to focus on just SSB4 only instead of try to juggle multiple events by myself (there's very few people running events in my entire state).

I know that feeling. NC's scene is fairly small, not many people travel, and what events I've been able to attend weren't very logistically impressive (which probably weighs more to me than it should, as a logistics major). It takes a lot of effort and dedication to properly host a well-run event.

 

[W.A.C.]

FLSS sucks because it takes forever when you have ten legal stages, and it can be easy to forget which stages were striked unless you go through the hassle of selecting and deselecting stuff in the random stage selection screen. Starter and counter-picks are considerably less time consuming. I never want FLSS to return. This game isn't like Project M, which makes the process considerably quicker and more streamlined.

 

[Pinnacle-eSport]

I think I will be adopting the FLSS for my tournaments soon

 

[Ansou]

FLSS sucks because it takes forever when you have ten legal stages, and it can be easy to forget which stages were striked unless you go through the hassle of selecting and deselecting stuff in the random stage selection screen. Starter and counter-picks are considerably less time consuming. I never want FLSS to return. This game isn't like Project M, which makes the process considerably quicker and more streamlined.

Honestly, going through the random stage selection screen isn't that much work at all. Perhaps the small amount of extra time is worth it as it makes the game more fair and more varied?

 

[W.A.C.]

Honestly, going through the random stage selection screen isn't that much work at all. Perhaps the small amount of extra time is worth it as it makes the game more fair and more varied?

Most people (including myself and TO's) do not want to do with it. That's why most competitive players hate FLSS. I normally don't Gentleman to Smashville, but I did when we had this at tournaments because a lot of people don't want to deal with the hassle of FLSS. I'm more open minded to it now that SoCal trashed three of the stages and NorCal might do the same, but when there were 9 or 10 legal stages, it flat out sucked.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

FLSS sucks because it takes forever when you have ten legal stages, and it can be easy to forget which stages were striked unless you go through the hassle of selecting and deselecting stuff in the random stage selection screen. Starter and counter-picks are considerably less time consuming. I never want FLSS to return. This game isn't like Project M, which makes the process considerably quicker and more streamlined.

Have you never played in or watched a Melee tournament before? That is how they do stage striking, they go into the random stage selection and deselect stages they want to ban. If they can do it, we can do it.

 

[Illuminose]

Have you never played in or watched a Melee tournament before? That is how they do stage striking, they go into the random stage selection and deselect stages they want to ban. If they can do it, we can do it.

They do it with 5 stages, also the Melee random stage select screen is much better.

 

[Ansou]

They do it with 5 stages, also the Melee random stage select screen is much better.

This is very subjective. I prefer visual feedback in terms of pictures and therefore like the randoms stage select screen more in Smash 4. But they pretty much works in the same way, so it still shouldn't be a problem using it for anyone.

 

[KeithTheGeek]

I think Amazing Ampharos pointed this out, but Smash 4's RSS also eliminates some of the problem of running a larger stage list to strike from. Basically, you can also set random omega stages in addition to the standard random stage list, so you would use the second list to keep track of which stages are considered legal.

Locally, we just keep a list of stages posted at each station (although we don't use FLSS), and I think there's a number of ways TOs could address concerns in that regard. I think I've seen suggestions like, keeping a dry-erase board at a station for players to write down which stages were striked, and other similar things. Keeping a list of stages available for every set-up alongside whatever other means you allow players to track stages might require a bit of extra work but it'd be worth it if it makes the tourney experience run smoother and more enjoyably for the player.

Besides that 9 legal stages isn't even THAT big, regardless of if you're running Starters/Counters or FLSS. If you think gentlemanning to Smashville works for you, whether to make the process faster or whatever, that's fine - nothing's stopping you. But I'd hope people would be more willing to go beyond their comfort zone and try new things to make the tourney experience better.

For the record though, I'm fine with the traditional starter/counter-pick system and I don't really think people should be forced to run things one way or another. But we're still fairly early on in this game's life, I think it would be okay to explore our options some.

 

[Ajimi]

Hello there ! (Newly subscribed but long lurker.)

Maybe this can help (I made it) : http://supervachebros.fr/striking.html
The point is to use it directly from a smartphone during a tourney. The code is quite simple and can be adapted for how many stages we want.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Most people (including myself and TO's) do not want to do with it. That's why most competitive players hate FLSS. I normally don't Gentleman to Smashville, but I did when we had this at tournaments because a lot of people don't want to deal with the hassle of FLSS. I'm more open minded to it now that SoCal trashed three of the stages and NorCal might do the same, but when there were 9 or 10 legal stages, it flat out sucked.

What most people seem to fail to realize about FLSS is that each player only ever needs to memorize HALF, yes HALF of the list. You only need to memorize the names of the HALF you do NOT want to play on. When it is your turn to strike you call names from that list. I'm fairly certain even with a bad memory will likely remember if you called a stage they already called to strike so they will simply inform you if you picked an already struck stage, you then simply call another stage from your list.

here's an example with the following stagelist.

Final Destination/omegas
Smashville
Town & City
Miiverse/Battlefield
Lylat Cruise
Delfino Plaza
Castlle Siege
Skyloft
Wuhu Island
Dream Land 64
Kongo Jungle
Duck Hunt
Halberd

Example Guy(EG from now on) hates plying CS, DP, and LC and will always strike those regardless of matchup. EG will then add 3 more stages depending on the matchup. game 1 is vs a ZSS. EG adds BF, DL and Halberd to the list to make his 6 which is his half of the striking whether he goes first or second.

EG strikes first and calls 1 stage from the list.(order of what you strike only matters if you believe your opponent will strike part of your list for you in which case you get "extra" strikes).
Opponent(OP) strikes 2 stages.
EG strikes 2 stages.
OP strikes 2.
EG calls 2 stages from his list and his opponent tells him one is unavailable. He therefore calls his last stage from his list as his second option. The stages he memorized are now gone. (in this scenario he simply ignores one of the stages he memorized as his 6 and memorizes the new strike)
OP strikes 2.
EG needs to strike 1 more stage. Worst case scenario he doesn't remember because he was only keeping track of his strikes (and he had to remember the "extra stage" he struck because OP struck one from his list) but OP was also keeping track of his own strikes. OP simply repeats what he struck(minor inconvenience at best) and EG knows which stages are remaining and chooses a stage from the remaining 2.

Stage striking was completed by each only knowing 6 of the 13 stages on the list.

What can make stage striking even quicker is having a small list of "HELL NO I WILL NOT PLAY ON THIS STAGE" list. Say you hate all transformation stages, you simply strike all them and then gentleman to a remaining stage after using the striking process to eliminate the ones you will never play on.