Flipped Game Order -

[SuSa]

Coin flip is better if someone has a coin.

Personal story:

Spoiler

I got an 8, DSF got a 9 for port.

I raged so hard. Snake needs port vs MK. Makes the match x10 easier because grabbing you becomes far riskier and grabbing Snake as MK is the easiest way to get him in the air (and offstage)

I'd have preferred a coinflip because that is at least 50:50.

G&W's hammer is a probability of 1/9 - and can tie.

Also, the second (rehammer) results in a probablity of 1/8 - because you cannot get the number before it. More likely to tie.

The 3rd hammer (and every hammer after) has a probability of 1/7. Even more likely to tie.

 

[vVv Rapture]

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).

This works, too. Though I believe both players have to hammer once before doing the official hammer because apparently the first hammer for Game and Watch in a game cannot reach certain numbers or something. I remember reading that not too long ago.

 

[SuSa]

Read my post above yours.

 

[Vyse]

But doesn't RPS have a 1/3 chance to tie?
I don't understand the issue :0

(lol at this derailment)

 

[SuSa]

Yes, but you can choose rock if you tie with rock.

If we tie with double 5's then double 4's. If you get a 1, 2, or 3. You are less likely to win because your opponent as a higher chance of getting 6, 7, 8, or 9.

Not very 50/50. Depending on what you "roll" you have a different probability of losing.

If I roll a 1, I have an 8/9 chance of losing.
If I roll a 2, I have a 7/9 chance of losing.

And so on and so forward.

 

[Ripple]

susa, G&W hammer throw is always a 1/7 chance...

first throw can't be 1 or 2

second throw can't be a 2

 

[SuSa]

I thought it was the second throw cannot be the first throw, and that the third throw could not be the first or second throw - and this is repeated into infinity.

EG:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = I get a 9
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 I hit 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, - I hit 4
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9.... so on and so forward

EDIT:

REGARDLESS

It's never 50:50 so stfu.

 

[dainbramage]

Yes, but you can choose rock if you tie with rock.

If we tie with double 5's then double 4's. If you get a 1, 2, or 3. You are less likely to win because your opponent as a higher chance of getting 6, 7, 8, or 9.

Not very 50/50. Depending on what you "roll" you have a different probability of losing.

You fail statistics forever.

 

[SuSa]

Please enlighten me then.

Or am I failing at probability?

Coin = 2 sides = 50% chance of either outcome
G&W SB = 9 outcomes = 11.1% chance of an outcome and 89.9% that it is not that outcome.

If I get a 2:
11.1% chance I win
11.1% chance we tie
77.8% chance I lose

 

[John12346]

Note: As far as Game and Watch Judgment goes, here are the rules:
- You can't roll a 1 or 2 on your first shot.
- You can't roll a 1 on your second shot.
- You can't roll the last two numbers you pulled.

Susa, you're thinking of things wrong. Coin flips, RPS, and Judgment Battle ALL give both players a 50% chance to WIN as each game provides the same set odds to you and the opponent to pick the correct side of the coin/winning gesture/a random number.

For example, on the first shot of Judgment(no 1 or 2 can be rolled right now), you're equally likely to roll a number that gives you a 6/7 chance of winning(9, in other words) as you are to roll a number that gives you a 6/7 chance of losing(3, in other words).

Now time for statistics

Spoiler

First, some information to point out. On every calculation, the first number in each multiplication is the odds that I will win/lose/tie with that number. For example, if I roll a 5, I have a 2/7 chance to win(opponent rolls 3 or 4), a 4/7 chance to lose(opponent rolls 6, 7, 8, or 9), and a 1/7 chance to tie(opponent rolls 5).

The second number in each multiplication is simply the 1 in 7 odds that I roll that number. On the first shot of Game and Watch Judgment, neither I nor the opponent can roll a 1 or 2, so I'm excluding them.

Chance of winning by rolling a
3: (0)(1/7) = 0
4: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
5: (2/7)(1/7) = 2/49
6: (3/7)(1/7) = 3/49
7: (4/7)(1/7) = 4/49
8: (5/7)(1/7) = 5/49
9: (6/7)(1/7) = 6/49
Total odds of winning: 21/49 = 3/7

Chance of losing by rolling a
3: (6/7)(1/7) = 6/49
4: (5/7)(1/7) = 5/49
5: (4/7)(1/7) = 4/49
6: (3/7)(1/7) = 3/49
7: (2/7)(1/7) = 2/49
8: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
9: (0)(1/7) = 0
Total odds of losing: 21/49 = 3/7

Chance of tying by rolling a
3: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
4: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
5: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
6: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
7: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
8: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
9: (1/7)(1/7) = 1/49
Total odds of tying: 7/49 = 1/7

tl;dr- You have a 3/7 chance of winning, a 3/7 chance of losing, and a 1/7 chance of tying. Equal odds.

 

[SuSa]

Ouch. I see the horrible error I made now. =\

Because I always need two examples:

Spoiler

Chance of winning by rolling a
2: (0)(1/8) = 0
3: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
4: (2/8)(1/8) = 2/64
5: (3/8)(1/8) = 3/64
6: (4/8)(1/8) = 4/64
7: (5/8)(1/8) = 5/64
8: (6/8)(1/8) = 6/64
9: (7/8)(1/8) = 7/64
Total odds of wnning: 28/64 = 7/16

Chance of losing by rolling a
2: (7/8)(1/8) = 7/64
3: (6/8)(1/8) = 6/64
4: (5/8)(1/7) = 5/64
5: (4/8)(1/7) = 4/64
6: (3/8)(1/7) = 3/64
7: (2/8)(1/7) = 2/64
8: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
9: (0)(1/8) = 0
Total odds of losing: 28/64 = 7/16

Chance of tying by rolling a
2: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
3: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
4: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
5: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
6: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
7: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
8: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
9: (1/8)(1/8) = 1/64
Total odds of tying: 8/64 = 1/8 = 2/16

I have a legit john for this though.

Spoiler

I've moved so much since Freshman year that I've actually never had the opportunity to finish Geometry or Algebra I formally... I got my credits doing BS review and pretty much any mathematical concept beyond these (Alg. II, Trig, etc.) is self-taught... =\ which really proves my ability to understand mathematical concepts is hurt until the flaw is pointed out using an example or a formula that I'm able to comprehend. I still can't really handle with radicals. ^^;

 

[John12346]

Susa, I'm not saying you're wrong with your calculations, but keep in mind that no matter when GaW pulls out Judgment, there are only 7 numbers he can pull out at any given time.

First shot, he can roll any number between 3 and 9.
Second shot, he can roll any number between 2 and 9, EXCEPT the number he pulled on the first shot.
On all subsequent shots, he can roll anything between 1 and 9, EXCEPT the last two numbers he pulled.

 

[SuSa]

My thing was mostly to see the calculations. Just copy/pasted your thing added to it and altered what needed to be changed.

Although yeah, that was poor reading comprehension by myself. <_<

 

[teluoborg]

So how would a set happen with this new ruleset ?

 

[SuSa]

Flip a coin, decide who player 1 is.

Pick characters, double blind if needed.
Player 1 chooses stage.
Play out game.

REGARDLESS OF RESULTS

Pick characters again. Double blind if need be.
Player 2 chooses stage.
Play out game.

ASSUMING IT'S TIED

Pick characters again. Double blind if need be.
Strike from remaining stage list (Stage list - P1 CP - P2 CP = Remaining list)
Play on stage.

End of set

 

[MetalMusicMan]

This is an interesting proposition. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be better, it seems like it may just be a lateral movement, but it could be better or worse depending. Hard to say, but it is intriguing. I might have to test this sometime.

 

[SuSa]

What do you mean by lateral movement?

This takes the weight off of Game1 to a large extent, because you don't NEED to win that game to avoid the huge detriment game3. (Please note that currently in Game3, I can counterpick your character AND stage AND I have 2 games of experience against you.)

In this system player experience is pushed off until game3 on neutral grounds.

Basically:

Current system - You may not have been able to adapt to me fast enough on neutral grounds, so I gain a huge advantage game three when I've had an entire two games to adapt to you?

Flipped system - You may not have been able to adapt to me on my counterpick, but you get to try to adapt to me on your counterpick. If you do - we test on neutral grounds to see who has adapted to their opponent better.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Right, I understand the difference, but I think the reason that the current system is used is because many feel that it's appropriate that whoever wins on the neutral has the later advantage.

What you're saying sounds just fine, but I don't know that it sounds "better". It seems to be more of a matter of opinion as to when the neutral grounds test should be performed, but I'm not seeing major advantages or disadvantages to either way of doing it.


Oh, and lateral movement, meaning "to the side". So not higher (better) or lower (worse), merely different, but on the same level (just as good).

 

[teluoborg]

Flip a coin, decide who player 1 is.

Pick characters, double blind if needed.
Player 1 chooses stage.
Play out game.

REGARDLESS OF RESULTS

Pick characters again. Double blind if need be.
Player 2 chooses stage.
Play out game.

ASSUMING IT'S TIED

Pick characters again. Double blind if need be.
Strike from remaining stage list (Stage list - P1 CP - P2 CP = Remaining list)
Play on stage.

End of set

No stage banning in first 2 matches ?

At the moment I can see problems arise for sets longer than best of 3.
For example in a bo5 set : 3 games are required to win, and out of the first 3 games of the set 2 stages are chosen by P1 and only one by P2.

The alternative to this would be forced bo7, but then I fear it would only bring up more problems.

Any solutions ?

 

[SuSa]

No stage banning in first 2 matches ?

At the moment I can see problems arise for sets longer than best of 3.
For example in a bo5 set : 3 games are required to win, and out of the first 3 games of the set 2 stages are chosen by P1 and only one by P2.

The alternative to this would be forced bo7, but then I fear it would only bring up more problems.

Any solutions ?

Someone brought up 2 sets of best 2/3. Although I see a problem in this for time issues (LF, WF, GF1, GF2)

This is 4 more possible games outside of best 3/5 - and 4 games = 32 minutes * 4 = 128 minutes =2 hour and 08 minutes if every additional game went to time in all 4 finals.

EDIT:

Holy **** I've been failing basic math and spelling these past few days... I should start getting more than 3-4 hours of sleep.

32+32 = 64 + 32 = 96 + 32 = 128
I somehow got 32*4 = 108.... *facepalms*

 

[teluoborg]

Hum how does it work ?
Do you do a best of 3 sets of best of 3 games (lol) ?
So at worst it could last 9 games by round (provided all sets go to 2-1) instead of max 5 games/round for bo5. That's almost doubling the time finals take.

 

[SuSa]

Yeah. It'd be best 2/3 sets where each set is best 2/3 games.

I know. =P That's where I pointed out the issue with that.

 

[John12346]

Another suggestion that was brought up for Bo5 was:

P1's pick, P2's pick, then the remaining 3 matches are played on stagelist stricken neutrals.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Simply don't play Bo5 when you don't have the time to do so?

 

[-Googs]

I feel as if this is worded really poorly, I struggle to understand the op

 

[SuSa]

Play Brawl like many national sports.

Coin Flip finds who starts off.

End the game in a neutral tiebreaker.

/smallest tl;dr possible. But then you won't understand the "why" of it

 

[teluoborg]

Another suggestion that was brought up for Bo5 was:

P1's pick, P2's pick, then the remaining 3 matches are played on stagelist stricken neutrals.

Interesting but then you can win the set by only winning on neutrals (though I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing).

All in all I'd like to give this a shot, too bad I'm not a TO.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Only winning on neutrals isn't exactly a step down; now, you have to win on one neutral and two of your favorite counterpicks, or a similar constellation. I'd still prefer if it was P1 pick, P2 pick, P1 pick, P2 pick, neutral though. Leads to more counterpicking.

 

[Flayl]

Only winning on neutrals isn't exactly a step down; now, you have to win on one neutral and two of your favorite counterpicks, or a similar constellation. I'd still prefer if it was P1 pick, P2 pick, P1 pick, P2 pick, neutral though. Leads to more counterpicking.

You realize that gives P1 the advantage right?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why would it?

 

[John12346]

P1 wins games 1 and 2

Now he's going to an advantageous stage.

fml
______________________________________________

The point of Susa's system is to ensure that both players play on a lump sum total of stages played on results in a total amount of neutral.

In the case of 4 or 5 games in a Bo5 set played out, this does happen, but in the case of 3 games, it doesn't.

In terms of Player 1 picking first stage under +, -, +, -, N:
P1 wins three games: +, -, +; This results in P1 playing on 2 stages of his choice and P2 playing on only 1. That's bad.
P1 wins three, loses 1: +, -, +, -; This is fine; both players got to pick 2 stages of their choice.
P1 wins three, loses 2: +, -, +, -, N; This is also fine; both players got to pick 2.5 stages of their choice.

In terms of Player 1 picking first stage under +, -, N, N, N:
P1 wins three games: +, -, N; This is fine; both players got to pick 1.5 stages of their choice.
P1 wins three, loses 1: +, -, N, N; This is also fine; both players got to pick 2 stages of their choice.
P1 wins three, loses 2: +, -, N, N, N; This too is also fine; both players got to pick 2.5 stages of their choice.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, that was a lil' brain fart on my part...

 

[Arikags]

Excellent idea for the most part. I am a bit concerned with the effect of one player being given the stage choice first. They would get the advantage of being more likely to win the first round(however that may effect the psyche of the opponent), but the disadvantage of not being experienced enough with their opponent's playstyle to pick the ideal stage. Do the advantages balance the disadvantages, is the question.

 

[SuSa]

I'd argue... that they don't. Hence my part about that in the OP.

 

[Browny]

At first I tl;dr'd this thread...

But I see nothing wrong with this proposed idea. It has the exact same physical result of the current system while only changing the way people MIGHT approach the match in terms of mentality etc.

There really is nothing the current system has over this other than the 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' idea. Except that might be applicable if there was any proof that it ISNT broken lol Good cannot exist without evil etc, if the current system is good, that would imply that another (this proposed one) is bad, however it has never been given a chance.

 

[SuSa]

Many people think the current system IS broken though. =P

I'm one of those people. Both personally (subjective) and objectively (objective...duh).

 

[Ghostbone]

Well, the problem with the current system is the character counterpicking IMO
Double Blind character selection for every game would be good.

 

[rathy Aro]

This is better than the current system, but I don't see how its better than playing on 3 neutral stages. Everything about the cp system, even flipped, seems stupid to me.

 

[SuSa]

Full stage striking for all 3 matches would be ideal.

But then there is what's more realistic..... <_<

 

[Ghostbone]

Full stage striking for all 3 matches would be ideal.

But then there is what's more realistic..... <_<

Wouldn't this remove a lot of stage depth or something?