Is there a consensus on the rules for stage selection yet?

[Jaxel]

Is there a consensus on the rules for stage selection yet?

Personally, I think the rules are WAAAAY too complicated. There doesn't need to be a set of stages for "starters" and a set of stages for "counterpick". Having two different sets of stage rules is just an example of over-micro-managing.

 

[ZeroJanitor]

It's worked for years now. People are accustomed to it, and it works. I see no reason to change it.

 

[Jaxel]

It's worked for years now. People are accustomed to it, and it works. I see no reason to change it.

Because you want to attract new players? When these new players come to their first tournament, and then you essentially have to give them a binder full of rules before they even play their first match, they will get discouraged pretty immediately.

 

[Munomario777]

I don't see why players wouldn't have to read the rules of the tournament before playing. Also, merging the starters and counterpicks wouldn't exactly make it that much shorter; there would still be the same amount of stages

 

[LiteralGrill]

There was actually an entire discussion on how to select stages for the new game that has probably been thrown down to the depths of the forums sadly.

Realtalk: FLSS (Full List Striking System) where you do striking as usual from the entire legal stagelist is not only more logical but easier for new players to understand as well. The starter/counterpick system is also unhealthy for the meta in the long run. This has been discussed a ton in a bunch of places, @Amazing Ampharos is definately the man to talk to on the subject.

 

[Conda]

Because you want to attract new players? When these new players come to their first tournament, and then you essentially have to give them a binder full of rules before they even play their first match, they will get discouraged pretty immediately.

I understand your feeling of confusion if you're new to competitive play. It's fine if you currently don't think the stage selection rules are as simple as you'd like.

But the proper reaction is to read the rules and understand how they work in a competitive environment. Understand the value of any competitive-anything having some additional rules.


Yes, there are some rules to make competitive play even more fair, intense, and competitively efficient.

The stage selection process works in tandem with the b03 set structure, which works in tandem with our stock|time structure, which works in tandem with our bracket structure.

Competitive play demands respect for rules like these, the same way any sport athlete or chess player needs to understand and respect the rules of their game. People who want to go to a tournament EXPECT some competitive rules to be in place, and they enjoy learning about them and playing within them.

You can kick around a soccer ball in a backyard, or you can play a competitive pro soccer match in a stadium - both are rightfully and expectedly different, with the pro level game having more rules in place. A kid who has only played soccer in their backyard may not know the rules for pro level soccer, but pro level soccer doesn't cater toward giving them an easier transition to professional play.

A kid that wants to play professionally and sign up for a soccer league will be open to soccer's pro rules, and will not complain if he doesn't like the offside rule or no-hand-contact rule. He wants to live up to pro soccer.
You can figuratively be 'the kid in the backyard' or 'the kid signing up for a league' - it's your decision to make.

TL;DR

There is no risk of turning away new players, because new players at tournaments expect there to be additional rules when it comes to competitive play, for any sport or game.

The discussion should be if an alternative stage selection process is better. Not that we should get rid of the current one just because 'more rules is confusing'.

 

[DavemanCozy]

I'd be fine if we just had a full stage list, with bans going either way until only 2 stages remained for whoever is picking first.

Problem is though, we can't seem to agree on some stages that should be legal (some tourneys ban Halberd and Skyloft, others don't). We really need to agree on that first.

 

[Tagxy]

Is there a consensus on the rules for stage selection yet?

Personally, I think the rules are WAAAAY too complicated. There doesn't need to be a set of stages for "starters" and a set of stages for "counterpick". Having two different sets of stage rules is just an example of over-micro-managing.

Regarding your question, I dont believe theres a full concensus but its becoming fairly narrowed down.

I also completely agree that we should eliminate counterpicks for the reasons you stated, rules should be intuitive. Ive done this myself in the past running my own tournaments.

I understand your feeling of confusion if you're new to competitive play. It's fine if you currently don't think the stage selection rules are as simple as you'd like.

http://8wayrun.com/

 

[Munomario777]

I also completely agree that we should eliminate counterpicks for the reasons you stated, rules should be intuitive. Ive done this myself in the past running my own tournaments.

They are intuitive. First match, agree on a stage from the starter list. All subsequent matches, the loser picks a stage from the starter or counterpick lists. The latter is literally all the counterpick rule adds besides splitting the stages into two categories.

By the way, since it hasn't been cleared up in the topic, counterpicks are in place since certain stages favor certain characters, but are still legal. The losing player gets to choose the stage based on their own and/or their opponent's character choice, or countering the opponent's character pick.

 

[Tagxy]

Thats why stage striking exists.

In any case, having two lists of stages is not intuitive at all.

 

[shapular]

The only problem I have with full list stage striking is that people have trouble remembering what stages have been struck with 7 starters, let alone having 13 stages or so.

 

[Munomario777]

Thats why stage striking exists.

In any case, having two lists of stages is not intuitive at all.

So having banned stages on the fly is easier to grasp and more intuitive than having a set stage list. Riiiiiight...

Having two lists of stages is intuitive if you actually think about why it's there. If a stage that gave an advantage to Character A was a starter, and another for B, the player playing as A would stand by the stage for A, and same thing for B. With the more balanced stages being at the start, it's easier for players to agree on a stage, while stages with more of a character-specific advantage are better for when one player is picking, since the picker can choose the stage that's best for their character, without arguments from the other player.

 

[Tagxy]

If it takes a paragraph to explain it isnt simple. Also I didnt say to include janky stages or a long list, obviously make it something managable.

 

[Munomario777]

If it takes a paragraph to explain it isnt simple. Also I didnt say to include janky stages or a long list, obviously make it something managable.

It doesn't take a paragraph to explain the rule. It does take one to explain why it exists.

 

[Conda]

Thats why stage striking exists.

In any case, having two lists of stages is not intuitive at all.

It's not TWO lists, its ONE list that expands after the first match. It's a very basic stage selection system.

 

[T0MMY]

Right now there are two major models proposed as alternative to be more inclusive of extended/fringe Stages as well as to offer solutions to some common problems that have plagued the system for years:

The FLSS, which has some major flaws that needs to be worked around (mainly the time constraints and the "Pizza Topping Dilemma" and having to remember a rather robust list of Stages that will or will not be used):
Players take turns striking from a "full" stage list until they come down to a Stage to play.
"Full" could be all Stages or about as "full" as TO will tolerate (which could ironically come down to a very strict striking procedure?)

The Competitive Stage Selection Procedure (from The Competitive Standard Rule Set) which utilizes the power of Competitive Philosophy to determine a fair stage as efficiently as possible without time constraints:
The Competitive Standard follows a hierarchy for efficiency and stresses an agreement between players:

1. Agreement Method
2. An Option to Random Starting Stage
3. Ultimatum: Stage Striking Method

To further describe this simple 3-step system:

Spoiler

Only one of the two methods may be used (the option to Random Starter is there to verify players do not get DQ'd for utilizing Random which I see many players doing at tournaments), and once a method is agreed upon then the entire process is complete.
The only Stages that are banned are those which promote stalling due to size or other design flaws (e.g. Temple), so players are allowed to go to some of the "jankier" stages if they so desire. There is a suggested Tournament Stage List, but ultimately Stage List is determined by TO to suit their attendees' desires.

The best part about this model is it solves a long overdue problem with the fairness-violation of Counterpick (an advantage is given to a player who loses, which is anticompetitive to give advantage to any player unless unavoidable).
The players will find they come to 3 Stages they are content with (in a Bo3) which avoids both the fairness violation and the Pizza Topping Dilemma as a FLSS creates.

Example of how it plays out:

Spoiler

Player 1: "Agree to Smashville?"
Player 2: "Nah, how about Final Destination?"
Player 1: "That's not where I want to go, unless you want to random starter we can strike"
Player 2: "Ok, we'll strike"

(for sake of length let's say the Stage List is only Final Destination, Battlefield, Smashville, Lylat, and Town and City)
P1 Strikes Lylat
P2 Strikes Town and City
P1 determines Battlefield is used for first round
P2 determines Final Destination is used for second round
3rd round will be on Smashville if loser wins second round.

 

[dguy6789]

The stage striking system does not take more than 5 minutes for anyone to grasp. Competent TOs tend to have a printed out list or have it listed in their tourney thread of legal and illegal stages for starter and counter pick as well.

The only debate that really remains is what stages should be legal and what should not be. There isn't really a debate on how or if stage striking should be done among anyone who isn't a novice.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

If I am correct, the main problem with the current strike system is that by isolating a certain set of stages for the first round, we make characters who function well on starter stages seem superior to other characters in meta, and encourage a lack of stage knowledge due to the ability to counterpick to starter stages, which can cause meta stagnation, yes? If that's the case, then full list stage striking would probably be the best option. Time complaints about the method aren't really that bad, as FLSS is only used once a set, and isn't that much longer than regular striking.

 

[Omegaphoenix]

Apologies. Accidental double post

 

[Munomario777]

If I am correct, the main problem with the current strike system is that by isolating a certain set of stages for the first round, we make characters who function well on starter stages seem superior to other characters in meta, and encourage a lack of stage knowledge due to the ability to counterpick to starter stages, which can cause meta stagnation, yes? If that's the case, then full list stage striking would probably be the best option. Time complaints about the method aren't really that bad, as FLSS is only used once a set, and isn't that much longer than regular striking.

Well, if a character had too much of an advantage on a starter stage, it would be made into a counterpick.

 

[M@v]

It took a couple years for stagelists to be fully syncd in brawl. And that's not a bad thing; different regions trying different stages lets us see if they are viable or not based on how they are played.

 

[link2702]

Because you want to attract new players? When these new players come to their first tournament, and then you essentially have to give them a binder full of rules before they even play their first match, they will get discouraged pretty immediately.

because its worked just fine in the past. Likewise any players who are new to a tournament scene of a game need to read the rules. If someone is serious about getting into a game competitively, they're going to read, and follow the rules.

you need to understand just *WHY* the community has the ruleset for stages set up the way it does. You have to remember that smash is drastically different from any other fighter ever created. The Stages layout actually MATTERS for characters and matchups. There is no "100% neutral for every character" stage(no not even battlefield and definitely not Final destination), hence the reason stage striking and counterpicking exist.

 

[Hong]

http://8wayrun.com/

Could you explain how this link is relevant to the message you had quoted?

 

[Omegaphoenix]

Well, if a character had too much of an advantage on a starter stage, it would be made into a counterpick.

I'm not saying it'd have to be a huge advantage. It would just be a small thing that might not affect anything all that much, but it could still be a slight problem that could be avoided by taking the at most probably 30 seconds a set to go FLSS for the first match. If a character has their best matchup on a Counter pick stage, it gives a sort of small punishment to a player with more stage knowledge, because it invalidates it for the first match.

 

[B0NK]

lmao this is smash Jaxel there's never a consensus on this damn board

just ask players that are around your local scene what they think, then you'll find a consensus

 

[Syde7]

Is there a consensus on the rules for stage selection yet?

Personally, I think the rules are WAAAAY too complicated. There doesn't need to be a set of stages for "starters" and a set of stages for "counterpick". Having two different sets of stage rules is just an example of over-micro-managing.

Considering that the Stage Striking + Counterpick + Character Counterpick system has been in place for nearly 15 years, I would say a consensus has been reached. I don't mean to sound rude with that statement, honestly, I just don't know any other way to put it. I am totally open to rethinking the paradigm and bucking tradition, so long as its for the benefit of competition and the enhancement of the metagame.

I do agree with you (and I'm extrapolating your intent here, so I apologize if I'm incorrect) that there shouldn't be regional differences in stage lists for tournaments on a major-regional->national scale. Locals, and state-level tournaments are fine, imo, to have a varying stage list. Afterall, there has to be SOME input to decide if stages should be moved from CP to neutral, neutral to CP, or from banned to playable. The local/state-level tournies are great places for this.

I understand your feeling of confusion if you're new to competitive play. It's fine if you currently don't think the stage selection rules are as simple as you'd like.

But the proper reaction is to read the rules and understand how they work in a competitive environment. Understand the value of any competitive-anything having some additional rules.


(Other Stuff he said)

TL;DR

There is no risk of turning away new players, because new players at tournaments expect there to be additional rules when it comes to competitive play, for any sport or game.

The discussion should be if an alternative stage selection process is better. Not that we should get rid of the current one just because 'more rules is confusing'.

This. This sums up my stance perfectly.

because its worked just fine in the past. Likewise any players who are new to a tournament scene of a game need to read the rules. If someone is serious about getting into a game competitively, they're going to read, and follow the rules.

you need to understand just *WHY* the community has the ruleset for stages set up the way it does. You have to remember that smash is drastically different from any other fighter ever created. The Stages layout actually MATTERS for characters and matchups. There is no "100% neutral for every character" stage(no not even battlefield and definitely not Final destination), hence the reason stage striking and counterpicking exist.

Also this. The stage is almost as big of a part of a single game, and an entire set/match as the characters themselves, especially in certain matchups. Of course, one could argue that this would be a reason to do a full stage strike and not counterpicks... its one of those points that play to both sides. The important thing to take away from the above post, is that stage picks matter... and the current system (with neutrals first game) is an attempt to balance that importance as best as possible.

Well, if a character had too much of an advantage on a starter stage, it would be made into a counterpick.

Not true. There's a litany of instances where a character has had a STRONG advantage on a neutral stage. Brawl Diddy Kong + Final Destination comes to mind.

I don't disagree with your sentiment/train of thought though, in that if a traditionally neutral stage happens to now favor a certain character (either in Smash 4, or any other Smash game where a development may occur/tech found/etc that the stage gives said char a significant advantage) it should be moved to counterpick.


Important Side Note:
I've yet to see anyone (and I apologize if someone has brought it up), but the counterpicking system currently in place isn't JUST for stages... but stages AND characters. So, any talk about a different system needs to address the selection of characters as well.

 

[Munomario777]

Important Side Note:
I've yet to see anyone (and I apologize if someone has brought it up), but the counterpicking system currently in place isn't JUST for stages... but stages AND characters. So, any talk about a different system needs to address the selection of characters as well.

Well, that's as simple as choosing a character on the CSS in response to your opponent's choice.

 

[Syde7]

Well, that's as simple as choosing a character on the CSS in response to your opponent's choice.

Lol, of course. I'm just mentioning that there's a reason behind the order and whatnot in the current system, and if one were to ever experiment with another sort of system, to make sure that the order of things has a reason for it. More of a: "don't forget, bc it'd suck if someone could think up an innovative, super fair system only to have it ruined bc they forgot to include character picks as part of the system"

 

[Munomario777]

Lol, of course. I'm just mentioning that there's a reason behind the order and whatnot in the current system, and if one were to ever experiment with another sort of system, to make sure that the order of things has a reason for it. More of a: "don't forget, bc it'd suck if someone could think up an innovative, super fair system only to have it ruined bc they forgot to include character picks as part of the system"

Well, counterpicks for characters and stages are sort of separate, unless someone were to propose both at the same time.

 

[Jaxel]

You're right, I DON'T know the game. I'm commenting on this as an outsider looking in. As a spectator who looks at these rules and just goes "Que?". I understand stages are as important as characters; what I don't understand is the distinction between starter stages and counterpick stages. If a stage is too "broke" to be selectable as a starting stage, it doesn't become less broke as a counterpick stage... especially since there is no winner character lock in the smash community.

To me, as an OUTSIDER, the counterpick stages system looks like nothing more than the guy who was determining the rules 15 years ago not willing to spend the time to overcome his own faults and instead coming up with this absolutely bizarre ruleset to make things easier on himself and possibly his friends.

Just because you've been doing something one way for 15 years, doesn't make it right. Gay marriage was illegal for hundreds of years; should we stick with that tradition too? I'm not saying you guys have been doing it wrong for 15 years; I'm just saying that myself, as an outsider... just don't get it.

 

[Cactusblah]

because its worked just fine in the past. Likewise any players who are new to a tournament scene of a game need to read the rules. If someone is serious about getting into a game competitively, they're going to read, and follow the rules.

you need to understand just *WHY* the community has the ruleset for stages set up the way it does. You have to remember that smash is drastically different from any other fighter ever created. The Stages layout actually MATTERS for characters and matchups. There is no "100% neutral for every character" stage(no not even battlefield and definitely not Final destination), hence the reason stage striking and counterpicking exist.

If Omega stages were the standard, none of that would matter. There wouldn't be striking, counter-picking, or any of that nonsense. Characters would be considered as good as their performance on flat stages, nothing more. We would see all 47 stages in the game played, not just Smashville 80% of the time.

 

[Jaxel]

If Omega stages were the standard, none of that would matter. There wouldn't be striking, counter-picking, or any of that nonsense. Characters would be considered as good as their performance on flat stages, nothing more. We would see all 47 stages in the game played, not just Smashville 80% of the time.

Not Omega Wrecking Crew.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It took a couple years for stagelists to be fully syncd in brawl. And that's not a bad thing; different regions trying different stages lets us see if they are viable or not based on how they are played.

This depends. A lot of times while this sounds good at first, but when one regions says "hey this stage is working and has absolutely no issues, why aren't you using it in tournaments" and the other side goes "it sucks, are aren't adding it" which happens all the time, it really doesn't work. It also tends to end up with the side using less stages getting their way instead of those who thoroughly tested a stage because people whine and complain about adding a stage in. m

On top of this, different regions have different characters in larger numbers in them, and can make people think certain characters are stronger then others on certain stages because no one is playing the counters for those characters on said stages skewing this even worse.

What could really be nice is if every TO hosting events all got together and discussed how stages were working and shared their knowledge, but a lot of TOs never even think it's apparently worth their times to discuss them on the boards in the thread specifically for it where we have the most knowledge on stages so we have no idea how and why they make decisions, and there is a good chance they are doing so without actually having all of the information or just don't care to get it which is highly disturbing.

Or there are people who ban things for "jank" or "we didn't like it", the best kinds of scrubs :/

TLDR: People running different rulesets all over is not as good as it looks on the surface.

Considering that the Stage Striking + Counterpick + Character Counterpick system has been in place for nearly 15 years, I would say a consensus has been reached. I don't mean to sound rude with that statement, honestly, I just don't know any other way to put it. I am totally open to rethinking the paradigm and bucking tradition, so long as its for the benefit of competition and the enhancement of the metagame.

Actually, there really isn't. A lot of people have been fighting for FLSS on the boards since the days of Brawl and have shown why it is a superior system countless times. The masses just refused to listen or ever pay attention to it sticking to the old system "just because it's always been that way". A bad logical fallacy.

If Omega stages were the standard, none of that would matter. There wouldn't be striking, counter-picking, or any of that nonsense. Characters would be considered as good as their performance on flat stages, nothing more. We would see all 47 stages in the game played, not just Smashville 80% of the time.

We also would be removing a large part of what makes our game the game we play and probably ruining the possibilities of several characters to be viable in the metagame.

You're right, I DON'T know the game. I'm commenting on this as an outsider looking in. As a spectator who looks at these rules and just goes "Que?". I understand stages are as important as characters; what I don't understand is the distinction between starter stages and counterpick stages. If a stage is too "broke" to be selectable as a starting stage, it doesn't become less broke as a counterpick stage... especially since there is no winner character lock in the smash community.

To me, as an OUTSIDER, the counterpick stages system looks like nothing more than the guy who was determining the rules 15 years ago not willing to spend the time to overcome his own faults and instead coming up with this absolutely bizarre ruleset to make things easier on himself and possibly his friends.

You are not the only one. Every week hosting tournaments I have to try and explain it to players and they all seriously are just causing serious confusion. If we could develope something that made way more sense and had a strong base in logic, that would be way better. (FLSS covers that too.)

 

[Syde7]

You're right, I DON'T know the game. I'm commenting on this as an outsider looking in. As a spectator who looks at these rules and just goes "Que?". I understand stages are as important as characters; what I don't understand is the distinction between starter stages and counterpick stages. If a stage is too "broke" to be selectable as a starting stage, it doesn't become less broke as a counterpick stage... especially since there is no winner character lock in the smash community.

To me, as an OUTSIDER, the counterpick stages system looks like nothing more than the guy who was determining the rules 15 years ago not willing to spend the time to overcome his own faults and instead coming up with this absolutely bizarre ruleset to make things easier on himself and possibly his friends.

Just because you've been doing something one way for 15 years, doesn't make it right. Gay marriage was illegal for hundreds of years; should we stick with that tradition too? I'm not saying you guys have been doing it wrong for 15 years; I'm just saying that myself, as an outsider... just don't get it.

I respect that stance, 100% regarding the "just because its always been done this way doesn't mean it isn't the best way". On the subject of the "Que?" reaction, the closest thing I can use as an analogy is tennis (as its the only sport I've ever been into enough to compete on a level where I made money off of it). The scoring is like... ?what? 0-15-30-?40? What? Why... why are they going up by 15... except for the... last one? Why do they switch sides after the FIRST game, but then wait till after the 3rd game to switch back? WTF is going on?" To an outsider, it looks like the guy who developed the scoring couldn't do math, or forgot to switch sides after the 2nd game and just said: "Eh, screw it... we'll make switching after the 1st, and 3rd games the rules".

It's... just the rules. *shrugs* Wacky, but... it happens.

The distinction between starters and counterpicks is, at times, somewhat arbitrary. Theoretically, a neutral stage is supposed to give the closest approximation to no inherent advantage to one side or the other (doesn't always work out like that), while a CP gives a noticeable buff to one (or more) characters.... but this buff in and of itself is not enough to grant an automatic victory, or make a certain MU unplayable at the higher/est level - not to mention that the advantage could be potentially offset by a character counterpick.

Alternatively, a neutral stage typically has no instances of random variance, while a CP stage might... though one that would typically not be severe enough to alter the playability of the match (like Spear Pillar Brawl), fairness of the match (Wario Ware Brawl or any iteration of Hyrule Temple).

All I'm saying... is that if we want to change the stage system... do so bc it improves the competitive landscape, not to make watching it easier as if someone really wants to get into the game, either watching or playing... they'll take the time to learn the basics of the system.

Well, counterpicks for characters and stages are sort of separate, unless someone were to propose both at the same time.

I've always perceived it as happening at the same time, to an extent. How I have always experienced it (and admittedly, it may have changed during my LONG absence):
Winner bans stage. (to limit the number of 'buffed' stage options Loser has at his disposal)
Loser picks stage. (to give their character a 'boost' in the next game / give the opponent's char a nerf in the next game)
Winner picks character. (to offset the advantage of the stage CP)
Loser picks character. (to offset advantage of the winner's new character).

A player has both the stage and the character in mind at the same time, each influences each decision.
"My Character X has an advantage over his Character Y on Stage B. But, I know he also plays Character Z... which has an advantage on Stage B.... and I don't have a character that could counter that, on that stage... so, that pick is out, unless I want to gamble. So, I can pick stage C... which isn't as strong for me as B, but covers but his character options and enable me to remain as character X"

Its all a part of the same process, and so I consider it to be a part of the same system. At this point, its really just semantics, I suppose! =P

Actually, there really isn't. A lot of people have been fighting for FLSS on the boards since the days of Brawl and have shown why it is a superior system countless times. The masses just refused to listen or ever pay attention to it sticking to the old system "just because it's always been that way". A bad logical fallacy.


You are not the only one. Every week hosting tournaments I have to try and explain it to players and they all seriously are just causing serious confusion. If we could develope something that made way more sense and had a strong base in logic, that would be way better. (FLSS covers that too.)

First Paragraph: My apologies. I got out of the Brawl (and smash scene in general) around early 201?1? (if memory serves... its been so long I totally forgot my old SWF password for the account I had since like... '04 or so) and I was not aware of any upsurge of that system as a result of that absence. I agree, again, that sticking to something just because its always been that way is not a good outlook. I would love to read more on the FLSS... if you can post a link for me? Ty.

Second Paragraph: I would imagine it could be hard on a T.O. to explain the current system. I've had to do it a time or two myself, and while I found some ways to get around it/ease the pain, it was a hassle. Again, totally support "new system based in logic".

 

[Jaxel]

Actually, in Tennis the side-switching rule makes complete LOGICAL sense. The server changes with each game, so 1 and 2 are both players serving their own times on the same sides. Then the third game they swap so that the serving comes from the other side this time. There is a logical too it, and one that can be EASILY explained.

The starter/counterpick stage situation in Smash is not comparable in ANY sense. It can not be explained logically to a new player with any sense. In addition the 0/15/30/40 scoring system in Tennis also is not comparable because the game doesn't change at all simply by calling it differently than 0/1/2/3. The scoring names don't change the game. The starter/counterpick stage rule does however.

Having all these stage rules may not even be "improving the competitiveness of the game". What its doing is arbitrarily changing the meta of the game, rather than requiring players to get better and ADAPT to the meta. Its micro-managing things rather than actually allowing the game to grow organically.

 

[LiteralGrill]

If I could double like you post @ Jaxel I would do it. I have rarely heard it worded better then that.

What would you say to our current striking system, but with all the legal stages being on the list from the start, rather then splitting them up?

 

[Tagxy]

Today I learned full list stage striking is the same as just having a single stage list. There needs to be a better name for that, the name implies something else and makes it seem like it's something more abnormal then having a starter and counterpick list.

Could you explain how this link is relevant to the message you had quoted?

Jaxel isnt new to competitive play, I believe he's streamed 2 apexs. I didnt want to draw too much attention to it thought.

 

[Syde7]

Actually, in Tennis the side-switching rule makes complete LOGICAL sense. The server changes with each game, so 1 and 2 are both players serving their own times on the same sides. Then the third game they swap so that the serving comes from the other side this time. There is a logical too it, and one that can be EASILY explained.

The starter/counterpick stage situation in Smash is not comparable in ANY sense. It can not be explained logically to a new player with any sense. In addition the 0/15/30/40 scoring system in Tennis also is not comparable because the game doesn't change at all simply by calling it differently than 0/1/2/3. The scoring names don't change the game. The starter/counterpick stage rule does however.

When I first started watching, and even as a beginner playing, it made no sense. However, once someone explained it to me (like you described)... it made perfect logical sense. Regarding the scoring, I was accustomed to other sports where certain actions had values associated to them. Basketball: Free throw=1, inside the arc=2, outside the arc=3; Football where safety=2, FG=3, TD=6, and point after 1. There wasn't that "Action = Set number of values/points" that I was accustomed to, and until someone explained that to me... it didn't make sense at all.

Edit: (Not to be hinting that you, specifically, need things explained, or you don't know the game/scene, or anything derogatory... just saying that new stuff to new people = rarely makes sense until explained is all)


But, to me, the starter/counterpick system makes logical sense.
1st game is played on a stage that presumably gives neither player an advantage, or is one that both players can agree on (meaning that both players accept and are ok with any inherent advantages a stage may provide). Striking is done to get to presumably the most neutral of stages, as its reasonable to assume that both players will strike neutrals that lean to his opponent's advantage.

2nd game is played on a counterpick stage that presumably gives the loser a boost, like a handicap in bowling. I see it as a level of sportsmanship, and/or to possibly cover the fact that the neutral wasn't really neutral (which, if this is something that is a repeatable phenomena to where one char has a distinct advantage on a neutral, the neutral should be stricken). However, this boost is partially offset by the winner banning one of these CP stages. The loser gets to change their character to increase the handicap, while the winner gets a final choice in character to once again level the handicap.

3rd and subsequent games are played as the 2nd. The 1st game's winner will have the "counterpick advantage", wherein their victory in the 1st game is 'rewarded' with the ability to put themselves in a favorable position should they lose in a less-favorable one (their opponent's cp.)


Its a mini-game of rock/paper/scissors, give-and-take, and sportsmanly offsets. To me, it makes sense, and ultimately balances out. It may not for you, and for many others. That's not an insult or knock or anything... merely just a different opinion. Because of that, I'm all for learning about and possibly introducing new systems that make sense competitively.

Also, liked your post due to the approach that the current system may be defining the meta as opposed to it growing on its own, which I see now was the intent of your OP and is an insight in its own right.

 

[LiteralGrill]

@ Tagxy you are probably right, can you think of something better? Honestly I like to look at it as Legal/Banned instead of Starter/Counterpick. You play on legal stages and not on banned ones. But I'm not sure that's the best name.

 

[Sandwiches]

No offence OP, but I literally haven't watched a single pro Smash game nor care about the scene. It took me about 10 seconds to read and remember the rules and it was immediately obvious why these rules work well with a competitive BO3 match structure. This is not some complex mathematical formula, almost anyone can pick this up in seconds, I can't see this hindering anyone's participation in tournaments.