Flipped Game Order -

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

You all hate me for making threads. I know. But it can't be helped for the sake of logic. Please note, this is an extremely long thread. Please read the entire thread before posting. If need be, read it twice. Let it seep in. Think about it. Think about it compared to our current system. If you see a flaw, point it out.

First flaw:
Starting on a neutral game.

Here is a post of mine covering why a flipped system is more logical, even if "strange".

@The argument for choosing "Player 1 or Player 2"

If you read below (far far far below) you will see the strategic advantages to each Player spot. Some players may want to be player 1 others would want to be player 2. This is no different than deciding on port.

In the event that there is a dispute over whom is which player - it will be decided by a coin flip. (Just like how it's done in the NFL for kicking/receiving)

@Topic at hand
Regardless of who starts first in the flipped system - both players get the advantage of picking an advantaged stage.

@Double Blind picks (currently Game1 Only)
Why should double blinds be limited to just 1 match?
Why not double blind all 3 times?

@Giving the winner an advantage for winning
By flipping the system - you remove giving a player an advantage based off the first match. Instead, both players will receive 1 advantaged match. Regardless of the outcome of the first match. Why does this make sense you think?

If I win on a neutral stage. I am awarded an advantage. Why is it - that by winning a "tiebreaker match" I am awarded? Yes - I have an advantage set wise, but it's even stronger than if on a flipped system!

Current System:
I must win on Neutral grounds to gain an advantage for Game3.
I lose on Disadvantaged grounds.
I win on Advantaged grounds.

If I won on Neutral grounds, it can be assumed I will win on advantaged grounds. After all, I'm just tipping the balance into my favor. Why shouldn't I win? Flip side. If I lost on neutral grounds - I'm likely going to lose on a disadvantaged playing field. Wouldn't I?

Flipped system:
I win on Advantaged Grounds. This has no effect on any other game. (Advantaged/Disadvantage wise)
I lose on Disadvantaged grounds. This forces us to go into Game 3 if I lose.
I _____ on neutral grounds. This is a tiebreaker match.

If I won on advantaged grounds, and lost on disadvantaged grounds - there can be no assumption about what will happen on neutral grounds. It's a tiebreaker. If I won on disadvantaged grounds to begin with - does that not show that I possess more skill than you? Now what if I lost on advantaged grounds, but won on disadvantaged grounds. Who's to say who's more skillfull? Well - we need that 3rd round. Why not have it be as neutral as possible?

@Arguments saying losing Game1 is psychologically damaging for the player
Also, can't I argue that currently losing Game1 (on a neutral stage) allows my opponent to adapt to me, as well as me to him. At this point - game 2 hardly matters, it's more of him just adapting to me. He then gets to play on an advantaged stage, after having 2 games to adapt to me. How is this more "fair"?

Currently, losing on Game 1 is more psychologically ****ing because I know if I win on my counterpick, I now have to play a DISADVANTAGED matchup when I lost on a NEUTRAL matchup?

@Double Blind Game 2 gives Game 1 more weight
No, NO it doesn't. Both players have gotten the chance to see their opponents character. It's a null point. In fact, this supports being more skilled at this game as a whole by being able to play 2-3 characters on a competitive level. This also increases character variation within the game - and if you choose to main 1 character, you're already doing that in the current system. You're accepting the fact you can get hard counterpicked Game's 1, 2, AND 3. You accept that. Double Blind each match means the only variable is "what stage" - which is the only advantage a player gets. In the current system, I can blow 2 strikes to you. Not only can I choose your characters HARDEST matchup - I can choose your characters WORST stage.

Summary:

Current System

Game One
Player who gains an advantage won on a NEUTRAL stage. Assumingly does not know your playstyle. You do not know his.

Game Two
Player who lost now gets to counterpick his opponent in both stage and matchup. This places the winner at a disadvantage, but allows both players to adapt to eachother's playstyles.

Game Three (Assuming advantaged player lost Game2)
The advantaged player now gets to counterpick his opponent in both stage and matchup. This places him at an advantage. He has had two games to adapt to his opponent.

Flipped System

Game One
Player One is given an advantage. Let us assume he wins on this advantaged stage. Neither player knows eachother's playstyle. It is a double blind, so the opponent can only counterpick his opponent via stage.

Game Two
Player Two is given an advantage, regardless of the outcome of Game 1. Let us assume he also wins on this advantaged stage. Both player's have gotten to adapt to eachother's playstyles in Game One. It is a double blind, so the opponent can only counterpick his opponent via stage.

Game Three
Neither player is given an advantage. They strike from the remaining stages. They cannot play on the stages they already won on, so we simply remove these stages from the stage list to save time. They approach a stage free from bias. They play on this neutral stage, both with two games of experience under their belt. It is a double blind, so the opponent cannot counterpick his opponent by character.

The Strategic Play for Power

1st Player
I am placing my strategy on my opponent not expecting how to fight me on my terms. I am also hoping to gain a psychological advantage when I win. However, because me and my opponent have never played before - I don't know what stage to take him to outside of my knowledge of characters. I don't know how he fights either, so I don't know what stage would be bad for his playstyle.. I also run the risk of him figuring me out before I figure him out. It's a risky play, but can prove to be very rewarding if I win. If I lose this game, my opponent now knows my playstyle when he counterpicks me. The risk may not balance out the reward.

2nd Player
I am placing my strategy on my knowledge of how the opponent fights. I hope to best counter him, and realize he has gotten to "taste my playstyle". If I lost game one - I can keep my cool and think. I can CP my opponent pretty hard if I think what stage ruins his playstyle. This strategy is overall "safer" when it comes to deciding where to go and who to go, but if I lost Game 1 the set is riding on this. If I won the first game, it's very important that my opponent didn't figure me out. I have a pretty strong advantage now, but the suprise factor for Game 1 may have got me that win. I can't play it too safe because we'll go to a tiebreaker otherwise. The risk may not balance out the reward.

Now after having read my post - and seen the summary of the outcomes of the game. Which one seems more fair to both players? What is wrong with this system? It's used in nearly every competitive game - so why do we do the exact opposite? Why do reward a winner in a neutral state to gain an advantage? Why not just play 1 game in our current system?

I would like to thank

Jack Kieser
BPC
Raziek

Everyone who has debated intelligently in Stage Discussion that led upon this revelation.

Ripple · Nov 15, 2010

I lol'd

will comment soon

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

****IT SUSA. You ninja'ed my posting of Fandango's clause. You posted this while I was neck-deep in making a thread solely based on that.

.../cry.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Sorry Jack.

I spent like a full hour writing this all up... and organizing it a tiny bit.

@Ripple
~~Did I just own 10 years of logic with the help of 4 people?~~

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

Do you mind if we keep the discussion of it in the other thread? I feel like your first point is important enough that having both it AND the timeout clause in here might derail it. I can copypasta some of this thread, if you'd like.

Dabuz · Nov 15, 2010

not gonna lie, in the first part of this post, about stage selection, on paper this sounds very good, but there is the mental aspect to consider, it is demoralizing to lose, at least it is to most players, by giving one player an inherent advantage, he/she is most likely going to gain a mental edge, making the second player's advantage, not really an advantage anymore, but instead make it even after considering the advantaged stage

also, generally smart players will try to pick a CP according their players character and habits, by being first, it eliminates the ability to do so unless the players have fought in previous sets

This might also be pointless because, if a player wins on a neutral stage, it could be argued that player is probably better and therefore deserves to win

TBH, those are the ONLY initial flaws i found, i think people should start trying this in MMs/ tourney side-events and see what happens, because its possible the discouragement gained by losing round 1 might be nullified by the discouraged player having a CP and knowing with even more detail what to CP, and if that is the case, i can see this becoming a viable way to end the problem that winning round 1 of a set almost guarantees the win

i will not address the fandango clause because i have no opinion either way about what should be done in the case of time-out

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

It's demoralizing to lose ON A NEUTRAL.

At least you know going in that it's your disadvantage.

If I kicked you in the shin and challenged you to a game of soccer and won. Would you feel as bad than if I didn't kick you in the shin and I won?

Smart players are being awarded for being smart. Also for taking risks (it's a DOUBLE BLIND system!) as to whom their opponent will go. Even in previous sets, they can mix up the order they fight in.

Dabuz · Nov 15, 2010

SuSa said:
It's demoralizing to lose ON A NEUTRAL.

At least you know going in that it's your disadvantage.

If I kicked you in the shin and challenged you to a game of soccer and won. Would you feel as bad than if I didn't kick you in the shin and I won?

Smart players are being awarded for being smart. Also for taking risks (it's a DOUBLE BLIND system!) as to whom their opponent will go. Even in previous sets, they can mix up the order they fight in.

losing in general is demoralizing, thats why people john, to make themselves feel better, and if you kicked me in the shin, the game of soccer would be harder for me to play because i was hurt

also, of course smart players will be awarded for being smart, thats common knowledge :3

John12346 · Nov 15, 2010

Dabuz, think of it like this.

Let's say you fight me under this ruleset, right? Now, you ~~usually~~ always beat me in tournament sets, so let's play this match out under that assumption.

Game 1: I'll pick the first stage. Let's assume I found a stage so crippling against Olimar that you didn't know about, and I use it to somehow beat you first match.
Game 2: You pick the next stage. You pick a super duper flat stage or a stage with an incredibly low ceiling and kick my *** on it, because it's good for Lolimar and you're just naturally better than me.
Game 3: The final stage is selected from the entire stagelist, prolly ending with Smashville. You win on it, but the match comes closer than it did second match.

Under this ruleset, even if you lose on the stage that's BAD for you first round, that's it. There'll be no more bad stages headed your way in the next two rounds. You'll get an advantaged stage, then a neutral stage with which to **** with.
.
.
.
And of course, if either player loses on their own advantaged stage, they have to fight on a disadvantaged stage and a neutral stage. But that's fine, because they probably don't deserve to get the set win anyway if they lost on their (second) best stage.

Luxor · Nov 15, 2010

I'm hesitant to pass judgment without a real-life test, but this definitely seems pretty good. How would a Bo5 adaptation work, though? 1-2-1-2-neutral?

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Bo5 adaption I don't know. I didn't ask.

The way the anonymous user posted - it would be 1-2-1-2-neutral. The goal is to keep neutral the tiebreaker. But this presents a problem when playing to the best 3/5 as Player1 gets 2 advantages.

So perhaps:

1-2-N-N-N

Always remove the stage the player won on - then restrike from the list. (Inb4 time johns.. this is only for finals matches.. won't make the tourney last another 30 minutes... lol)

@John
I still don't see the purpose of stage bans, but that's an issue for another time.

Luxor · Nov 15, 2010

Yeah, getting 3 neutral-ish stages is the tricky part. The way you described would be efficient, though.

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

SuSa said:
Bo5 adaption I don't know. I didn't ask.

The way the anonymous user posted - it would be 1-2-1-2-neutral. The goal is to keep neutral the tiebreaker. But this presents a problem when playing to the best 3/5 as Player1 gets 2 advantages.

There's an easy fix for that. Change Winner's / Loser's Finals and Grand Finals to be Best 2 out of 3 sets. So, you'll have (player 1 then player 2):

P1 advantage, p2 advantage, neutral. Whoever wins two gets one point.
P1 advantage, p2 advantage, neutral. Whoever wins two get's ANOTHER point. If, at the end of this, both players have a point...
Tie breaker neutral match. Whoever wins gets the whole set.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

That could add a full on 24+24+24 minutes at worst.

1-2-N-N-N would be superior I would think, best 3/5.

All it assumes is "at least 5 stages are legal in the rule list"

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

Wait, what kind of math are you doing? Right now, Bo5 set has 5 matches, 7 minutes a piece, equals 35 minutes max.

The new "Best of 5" ends up actually having 7 rounds max, which only adds 14 minutes onto the set, at worst.

dainbramage · Nov 15, 2010

Blind picks for all 3 games, sure, whatever (pet peeve: picks are blind not double blind. Double blind would mean the ref doesn't know which characters the players are using either).

But your counterpick-counterpick-neutral is inconsistent with your desire to be more fair, and to reduce advantages due to luck. The player with first counterpick gets an advantage in your system, and how is the first counterpicker decided anyway? Given that the start of your quote is complaining about luck in port picks, this makes it worse.

Jack Kieser · Nov 16, 2010

Wait, did you read the OP right? It's not:

CP - N - N

it's

CP - CP - N.

Big difference. Both players are guaranteed a CP round no matter what, so it doesn't really matter which player goes first.

C.J. · Nov 16, 2010

Sure it does. Would you rather play on your opponent's CP w/o ever having played him before, or with one game of past knowledge as to how he plays? I personally would always choose the latter. Even though my opponent has had a chance to adapt to me, I'd still rather have the knowledge of him going in.

Inversely, whoever CPs second could have a potential advantage. People CP based on their opponent's playstyles as well as character MUs. If you pick your CP first, you lose that ability.

Maybe the two balance each other out? No idea. However, whether you get to choose your stage first or second does matter.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

Jack Kieser said:
Wait, what kind of math are you doing? Right now, Bo5 set has 5 matches, 7 minutes a piece, equals 35 minutes max.

The new "Best of 5" ends up actually having 7 rounds max, which only adds 14 minutes onto the set, at worst.

I did ****ty math. Also please note that you did your math wrong.

1) 8 minute timer
2) Assuming timeouts in every possible match. There is 3 minutes more time
3) 11 minutes per round.
4) Best 3/5 is 5 * 11 = 55
5) Two sets of best 2/3 (3 rounds max) is 6 * 11 = 66 minutes.

A mere difference of 11 minutes. However that's still 1 hour and 6 minutes dedicated to just one of 3 finals.

Assuming Winner Finals. Loser Finals. Grand Finals. Grand Finals 2

55 * 4 = 220
66 * 4 = 284

A difference of 64 minutes possible. Please note that one adds nearly 5 hours to the tournament time.

Not that it'd always go to time for every single possible match all the time.

EDIT:
@CJ
See! This is where the Tennis situation comes into play.

Many people would rather SERVE first, while others would want to RETURN.

I myself would always want to be Player 1. You admit you'd always want to be Player 2. In fact, it can actually be possible to come to an agreement without the need of RPS/flipping a coin. That would be only in a dispute (EG: Just like port priority!)

EDIT:

dainbramage said:
Blind picks for all 3 games, sure, whatever (pet peeve: picks are blind not double blind. Double blind would mean the ref doesn't know which characters the players are using either).

But your counterpick-neutral-neutral is inconsistent with your desire to be more fair, and to reduce advantages due to luck. The player with first counterpick gets an advantage in your system, and how is the first counterpicker decided anyway? Given that the start of your quote is complaining about luck in port picks, this makes it worse.

It's double blind because 2 players don't know what the other is choosing. Double blind means that neither player knows the other. 2 are blind. Double blind.

Actually, see me and CJ's posts. There CAN be stategy to why you would want to go 1st, or why you would want to go 2nd.

1st:
I am placing my strategy on my opponent not expecting how to fight me on my terms. I am also hoping to gain a psychological advantage when I win. However, because me and my opponent have never played before - I don't know what stage to take him to outside of my knowledge of characters. I don't know how he fights either, so I don't know what stage would be bad for his playstyle.. I also run the risk of him figuring me out before I figure him out. It's a risky play, but can prove to be very rewarding if I win. If I lose this game, my opponent now knows my playstyle when he counterpicks me. The risk may not balance out the reward.

2nd:
I am placing my strategy on my knowledge of how the opponent fights. I hope to best counter him, and realize he has gotten to "taste my playstyle". If I lost game one - I can keep my cool and think. I can CP my opponent pretty hard if I think what stage ruins his playstyle. This strategy is overall "safer" when it comes to deciding where to go and who to go, but if I lost Game 1 the set is riding on this. If I won the first game, it's very important that my opponent didn't figure me out. I have a pretty strong advantage now, but the suprise factor for Game 1 may have got me that win. I can't play it too safe because we'll go to a tiebreaker otherwise. The risk may not balance out the reward.

C.J. · Nov 16, 2010

Fair enough. However, in the quote in the OP you specifically mention why flipping a coin to decide ports is wrong. And yet you just recommend it again?

I'm in no way saying I have a better suggestion, don't get me wrong, just that it's not quite irrelevant who picks first. However, overall I like the idea.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

I'm for Rock Paper Scissors over a coin flip. One's competitive the other is luck.

Also note that players can come to a mutual agreement ala' this edit to the OP.

I should edit the OP to say "in the matter of a dispute" - because of what I just stated above. EDIT (DID THIS):/end edit

The Strategic Play for Power

1st Player
I am placing my strategy on my opponent not expecting how to fight me on my terms. I am also hoping to gain a psychological advantage when I win. However, because me and my opponent have never played before - I don't know what stage to take him to outside of my knowledge of characters. I don't know how he fights either, so I don't know what stage would be bad for his playstyle.. I also run the risk of him figuring me out before I figure him out. It's a risky play, but can prove to be very rewarding if I win. If I lose this game, my opponent now knows my playstyle when he counterpicks me. The risk may not balance out the reward.

2nd Player
I am placing my strategy on my knowledge of how the opponent fights. I hope to best counter him, and realize he has gotten to "taste my playstyle". If I lost game one - I can keep my cool and think. I can CP my opponent pretty hard if I think what stage ruins his playstyle. This strategy is overall "safer" when it comes to deciding where to go and who to go, but if I lost Game 1 the set is riding on this. If I won the first game, it's very important that my opponent didn't figure me out. I have a pretty strong advantage now, but the suprise factor for Game 1 may have got me that win. I can't play it too safe because we'll go to a tiebreaker otherwise. The risk may not balance out the reward.

dainbramage · Nov 16, 2010

Jack Kieser said:
Wait, did you read the OP right? It's not:

CP - N - N

it's

CP - CP - N.

Big difference. Both players are guaranteed a CP round no matter what, so it doesn't really matter which player goes first.

Yes, I should have written CP-CP-N lol... that typo kinda destroys the point I was trying to make and instead makes it seem like I'm ********. Still. CP-CP-N gives the player with first CP an advantage. Only a minor one (pretty much the same as the person who serves first in tennis having a mild advantage, and smaller than the advantage of being white in chess), but still there.

Also @ Susa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind#Double-blind_trials

In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group.

Except replace researchers with referees.

C~Dog · Nov 16, 2010

~~Except in Smash, you need a 3rd party to verify that both players are choosing a character independently and not reacting to what the other is choosing.~~

Wait no, I kept reading, and it says that the info IS kept by a third party. So you would be right, except that in smash the Referee IS the third party.

The researchers AND the individuals are both part of the experiment, in the same way that the players are part of the competition. The referee has no part in the competition.

Did I miss some point you were trying to make?

Luxor · Nov 16, 2010

Double blind in Smash refers to how both players pick blindly, hence double. The third party knows what's up; it's not a "true" double blind in the scientific sense.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

Fixed the OP, removed discussion about timeout clause. Made thread idea more narrow.

vVv Rapture · Nov 16, 2010

Could CPs be based on seed? Whoever gets the 1st or 2nd CP could get it based on seed. As in, maybe lower seed gets CP 1, then higher seed CP 2. Or lower seed gets to choose or something.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

Why would you do that when each has a distinct advantage and disadvantage?

Both are a risk/reward system. What if lower seed wants CP2? Knowing that the higher seed is a better player.

If anything I can agree with lower seed choosing. But now you have to seed everyone - and what if both players are unseeded? It leads to more problems than it solves... this can also be seen as possibly placing the higher seeded player at a disadvantage (as they cannot RPS for the priority for their strategy)

Our ranking system is relatively poor due to the lack of information it's able to collect based on players. =[

vVv Rapture · Nov 16, 2010

SuSa said:
Why would you do that when each has a distinct advantage and disadvantage?

Both are a risk/reward system. What if lower seed wants CP2? Knowing that the higher seed is a better player.

If anything I can agree with lower seed choosing. But now you have to seed everyone - and what if both players are unseeded? It leads to more problems than it solves...

Well then people would just be seeded. Not that hard to seed people for bracket.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

What if both players are unseeded? How would you decide seeding?

Remzi · Nov 16, 2010

For the record, RPS is only not luck based if two people play for an extended period of time or have watched the other play. Otherwise, it's basically 50-50. Coin flip would be better, imo.

vVv Rapture · Nov 16, 2010

SuSa said:
What if both players are unseeded? How would you decide seeding?

Could just be randomized then. I don't think it matters when it gets down to that point.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

BengalsRZ said:
For the record, RPS is only not luck based if two people play for an extended period of time or have watched the other play. Otherwise, it's basically 50-50. Coin flip would be better, imo.

I don't know man, Avalanche seems to work for me on a consistent basis.

If it's "basically 50-50" than it's not 50-50. Now is it?

I merely brought that up because Crow! is completely against the coinflip. (Although we already use it for deciding port priority...)

Remzi · Nov 16, 2010

SuSa said:
I don't know man, Avalanche seems to work for me on a consistent basis.

If it's "basically 50-50" than it's not 50-50. Now is it?

I merely brought that up because Crow! is completely against the coinflip. (Although we already use it for deciding port priority...)

Haha, well I'm just going by an article I read a few months ago about competitive RPS stating that the game was based solely on luck if only one game is played.

I mean really though, if Crow is against an arbitrary 50-50 decision being a factor in a set, I don't think he'd be in support of a "basically" 50-50 either...

vVv Rapture · Nov 16, 2010

You could do...best three out of five or five out of 9 for RPS. The game takes like two seconds. >_>

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

And we have a winner for best logic on this page (15PPP). <_<

Remzi · Nov 16, 2010

I still think its kinda silly... Why do we want something less random in the first place? Nobody should be earning advantages because they are good at RPS, a non-smash related skill.

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

Thank you for showing the world why we flip coins to decide in a dispute for professional sports. Please note that 1 and 2 are relatively balanced however, so it's not so much as who's earning advantages but who's being placed where.

I knew there was a reason but I couldn't think of it. XD

Remzi · Nov 16, 2010

I was actually just coming back in to say that the NFL uses a coin flip for a very similar situation. To decide who is placed in each of the 2 virtually even positions (kicking/receiving).

Works fine for them, right?

SuSa · Nov 16, 2010

It's used in a lot more professional sports than the NFL. But yes, yes it does.

Vyse · Nov 16, 2010

To settle port priority or in this case, Who gets CP1 and CP2, both players should go into a match as GnW, and judgment hammer at the same time to see who highest number (re-hammer in case of a tie).

Flipped Game Order -

Banned via Administration

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Fraud at Smash

Banned via Administration

Fraud at Smash

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Smash Journeyman

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Banned via Administration

Smash Master

Banned via Administration

Smash Journeyman

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

formerly VaBengal

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

formerly VaBengal

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

formerly VaBengal

Banned via Administration

formerly VaBengal

Banned via Administration

Faith, Hope, Love, Luck

Information

Network