Counter-Picking

[Ceirnian]

I have one (ok technically two) really important question that will make me care about this issue in the first place.

Even if Wizard does decide to allow advanced slobs, will that change anything at all? Will that really make smashers put down their torches about trying out items in a tournament? Really, I’ve seen/heard people say so many times they don’t plan to come to evo because items are random and so on… but now I see you two here trying to get the counter picking method to the SWF norm.

[edit] I’m going to retract my statement of being in support of advanced slobs. Both methods favor me, so I really don’t care. I’m going to stay neutral.

[System_1]

Yet, we’ve explained exactly how the system that removes levels as a factor is the one currently in place.

And where are you getting that from? How does advanced slob remove levels as a factor? Hell, AZ already provided you with an example of how the level is STILL a huge factor in gameplay, AND in character choice. You sir are wrong.

::sigh::

If I want to take my opponent to Big Blue, any value in doing so is invalidated by my opponent getting the opportunity to pick a character based upon that. I don’t see how you can argue that.

[System_1]

You don’t think there is a single character you could choose that wouldn’t make the stage and character favor you instead of the opponent? Stage properties are not absolute, they vary based on the match up, and you can nullify properties a character may have on a stage by using another character, which is why the loser gets to pick the character after the winner.

So you’re admitting that advanced slob removes any value in level picks, and shifts everything to character matchups. Thanks for making my point.

[System_1]

No.

It places value on both. The level pick will only work given the correct character match up, having more characters allows you to ensure you will have a level/character match up that is in your favor as the loser.

How does it place value on both? If I break out Rumble Falls, and my opponent can just pick a highly mobile character, then what’s the point in picking Rumble Falls?

[System_1]

You can pick a character that bogs down that characters mobility, suddenly Rumble falls is working against the winner from the previous match. Say, choosing Diddy, with 3 meteor Smashes and constant banana slippage. Your knowledge of countering people is quite shallow.

And what if The opponent picks Diddy and starts spamming his 3 meteor smashes and sets up constant banana slippage? You can’t think very far ahead.

[MrWizard]

If advanced slobs is not agreed on, would SRKers have any problem with a compromise between the two counterpicking systems?

Basically you can make it so the loser can opt to pick both character AND stage, but in doing so, he allows the winner to change his character. If the loser chooses to pick either character OR stage, but not both, the winner must stay.

This sounds excellent. Hope many people agree with the above statement?

[System_1]

This sounds excellent. Hope many people agree with the above statement?

An option between the two definitely sounds fine.

[COUM]

COUM: Randoming stages minimizes the chance the players will actually perform well on that stage. Not all stages benefit characters equally, going random to a stage could completely eliminate any advantage that losing player could have had if it randoms to a poor stage for their character.

Under the system I suggested, characters would be picked after the stage, so the only people getting screwed by random stages would be those who only play one character. Whether that’s a problem really boils down to what you want to test - who is most skilled with a single character, or who is most skilled with a number of characters.

[Pimp_Willy]

This sounds excellent. Hope many people agree with the above statement?

If you were going to go with this method, it needs to stay loser chooses stage -> Winner chooses character -> loser chooses character

So long as there is the option for the loser to force their opponent to stay the same character, sounds like a good compromise

[MrWizard]

If you were going to go with this method, it needs to stay loser chooses stage -> Winner chooses character -> loser chooses character

So long as there is the option for the loser to force their opponent to stay the same character, sounds like a good compromise

WE HAVE A WINNAR!

[System_1]

If advanced slobs is not agreed on, would SRKers have any problem with a compromise between the two counterpicking systems?

Basically you can make it so the loser can opt to pick both character AND stage, but in doing so, he allows the winner to change his character. If the loser chooses to pick either character OR stage, but not both, the winner must stay.

Congratulations go to Nintendude. You had a good idea. Unless you stole it from somebody else. In which case you’re guilty of plagiarism.

I’m okay with both being possible.

You aren’t even going.

[SamuraiPanda001]

This sounds excellent. Hope many people agree with the above statement?

Its a good choice.

[omfg]

The entire problem with the EVO method is this: tiers.
The best characters in the game are inherently good on all the “neutral” levels. If you don’t play one of these characters, say you play Ike, then you are basically fucked in the EVO system, why? Because your options are limited.
If I know my best level with Ike is, say, Norfair, then the only way I can play both Ike and Norfair against the opponent is to take a loss with Ike in one of the previous rounds.
So:
Ike versus Falco on Smashville
Ike loses
Ike versus Falco on Norfair
Ike wins
Ike versus Falco on Smashville again
Ike loses

WOW, that certainly was interesting.

you’re jumping light years ahead. isn’t that assuming Ike will undoubtedly lose? tiers are tiers because of what you can do with the char. Falco and Ike are not like machine gun and dagger; what you can do with them matters more than what tier they are. Honestly, if you’re maining Ike and you can beat him on Norfair and yet it’s like forfeiting if you play him on Smashville, that says something about your skill with Ike on Smashville, not the counterpick system. In other words, the scenario you just described is only possible if the Falco PLAYER sucks at fighting on Norfair and rapes Smashville. that has nothing to do with the characters themselves.

and even if everything you’ve said is totally factual, then why would you want to bring Ike to a tournament in the first place? you’re supposed to play to win, not to lose

[Corner-Trap]

Mr.Wizard said he wanted evidence/proof for him to change any of the rules. Advance slob has years of collective data backing it up, the system Mr.Wizard made has not even been tested in one major tourney(or minor one). If this isn’t enough to promote him to change the character/stage selection method then nothing will.

EDIT:

A merger of the two systems does sound like the best compromise.

[System_1]

Well, if you count Melee, there is plenty of proof his system does not generate tests for the best players, view EVO World 2007 results being quite peculiar and favoring single character mains.

Though, I guess there may have also been a problem with single game sets.

How much proof is there with tourneys that actually use most of a game’s levels? I mean yeah, it’d probably work great if the only levels allowed were FD, Battleground, Smashville, Lylat and Yoshi’s Island…but it doesn’t pan out in a tourney that doesn’t ban every level that is made up of four or fewer horizontal lines. Any results from Brawl or Melee tournies that used levels like Jungle Japes, Big Blue, Hyrule Temple, etc? If so, I’ll concede the point.

[omfg]

No, the points is that you DON’T main Ike, but you use Ike in the specific scenario of Norfair and Falco. The only reason Ike was used in the first match was to have the counter pick where Ike could win happen. Ideally, you would use your best character for the first match and if you lose that, then you would try Ike on Norfair against Falco, and work from there.

You’re also pretending that stage/character advantages aren’t huge, because they are. A Melee example would be Ganon versus Peach on Jungle Japes, its virtuously impossible for Ganon to win, assuming both players are good/really good.

Also, platforms benefit Ike, its easy to stay away from platforms on Smashville. Just saying. You’re missing the big picture.

they can be big, but I can’t recall any that mean Character X = win. Depending on what they are, they can also be compensated for or even avoided at times. from what I can tell, Falco vs Ike on Smashville isn’t one of those absolute win situations.

[omfg]

i’m in favor of the compromise, especially if it’ll satisfy everyone

[Corner-Trap]

I don’t see the point in over complicating the advance slob system which has worked perfectly for years, but if we must make a compromise to please everyone then I guess a merger is necessary. So players are able to choose between 1 of 2 different character/stage selection methods:

Option 1:

1. Loser picks stage
2. Winner picks character
3. Loser picks character

Option 2:

1. Winner keeps character
2. Loser either picks stage or character
3. If loser picks character then the same stage is used
4. If loser picks stage then same character is used

[Corner-Trap]

As far as first stages go, I’ll agree with Mr.Wizards proposal of using Smashville only. No character as of now is known to have a heavy advantage over another character because of Smashville, so it’s a fair stage to start of a match. This also eliminates the randomness problem I had with the old advance slob system where the first stage was picked randomly amongst the neutral stages.

[System_1]

Just got through reading the topic. I also like Smashville only for first stage because I think the idea of “player knows stage before character” in every round should be explored a bit. I remember usea on SmashBoards bringing it up in a topic a while ago and it did make me stop and think about it.

As for the compromise, my only issue with it is how hard it will be to understand by newer players who are not familiar with either method. Also, a ruling should be made about when the player chooses to make their choice about which counterpick to use. Is it before the set begins? After losing the match?

I still honestly believe Advanced Slob Picks is the easiest way to go. I haven’t really seen an advantage to the other method yet and I think it keeps things simpler for newer players.