stages in tournaments

Well... Already the looser may change his character, while the winner must keep his one. It is like this for years and noone ever complains. How this differs from changing stage?

1) being beneficial for someone means it gives advantage to someone. Having advantage created by random choice is "fair" to you, but removing this advantage by choice is not..?
2) you are contradicting yourself here. A lot. You are saying the stages are maybe beneficial, but not unfair to anyone. But few lines before you where arguing that stages have minimal impact upon the game. Where you see the problem then? If the impact is minimal, why not allow to pick stage? I am really lost in your arguments here.

You are mixing apples with pies here.
Picking character/stage are INGAME choices. Picking opponent is OUTGAME choice.
The INGAME should be as fair as possible, to remove "random" or "unfair" odds from the play. The OUTGAME is all about skills.
...
And that is why you souhld remove all INGAME dis/advanatages you can. Because playing FGs should be about OUTGAME - bout the skill - and not about INGAME.
Just to give you example - in VF it is not that much of issue, but in other FGs counterpicks can play damn huge role in the result. That is why looser is allowed to change his character, while winner must keep his one. If looser was counterpicked, he can be screwed no matter his skills. So he have option to change it; unlike the winner. The logic behind stages is the very some. Only difference is that stages do not hav as big impact upon the game as characters. But they still HAVE impact. And in cases of very close matches, the "small" impact can easily turn into deciding factor. Like LA_Akira loosing on Evo. While fighting on wolfs stage, the actual size of the arena was one of the most deciding factors in each round. Why? Because of playstyle of each player.

Why? Because to tell the true, encouraging the "random dis/advantage" pattern in competitive tournaments sounds pretty ridiculous to me, to tell the true.

 

@ Tricky:
Dude that's even more pathetic. This player does worse on walled stages than other ones? Even if that's the case, do you guys actually say that kind of stuff as if it's a truly legit copout, and should be respected enough to force an intentional tip in one's favor? I'm weak at breaking grabs. If I lose, should I be able to tell my opponent not to use certain ones in order to make it more fair for me. Grabs, just like the type of arena, are variables of gameplay. Neither is broken or even softbanned. Any inability to cope is strictly the shortcomings of that player. I respect your opinion, but this is the only place where guys justify this, simply not just because the Japs do it, but because it may be a player specific hindrance. You know how many factors influence the oytcome of a match? I'm "weak" against Eileen, having no knowledge or experience of the bitch. I can't lose then ask you to play someone else because it's more fair for me. I can switch characters if I choose, but you'll still have her. Which still remains a hindrance to me. Haha I have a headache now, but we'll agree to disagree. Japs regulate it. If we follow suit here, whatever, it's done lol.

@Unicorn
Lol wow. I'm too sleepy to make an adequate reply to each of your statements. I guess I could ask you do you play other games competitively or even go to tournaments, for having such a difficult time grasping an established viewpoint that is only in contention because Japs do otherwise. If you're going to discuss just be normal man. We all know the textbook definition of "fair", and how if something is beneficial to one person, this is "unfairness". But you know we're speaking in regards to this topic. Jacky may be more beneficial to a player than Jeffry is to me. Does this mean that I get to scream and say it's unfair? I can choose Jacky but then I can say that my opponent's time spent with Jacky is more beneficial to him. And so on. It's exhausting how some of you guys theorize on certain specifics and then attempt to justify them in such an unethical way. The various stages are in the game for a reason. You cannot control EVERYTHING ingame. There must be one constant(or is it control? idk), this being the stage. Your responsibilty as a player is to prepare yourself for this. To become as capable as you can on certain stages just as you may try to learn how to defend certain setups.

But yo, I can't even argue this anymore. The more you try to argue something that's made sense for so long, the less sense you end up making trying to explain it to people who either don't get it, or get it and want their brains to bleed. The moment we got on random select stages being disadvantegeous to one player and stating the obvious, I knew I should've bailed asap. It's only so "fair" you can make competitions. People who've been competing in fgs for years understand exactly what I'm talking about. Dudes playing SCV losing high roller tourneys because Nightmare swung their ass off the stage. They can bitch, but did they expect to manually select the stage? Hell no. Random select said you take this floating raft stage and you try to survive. Same way football teams can't change the weather. Rain/heat/cold/snow may favor some athletes over others. But are you going to even be heard saying that or request that you postpone the game until a sunny day? Fuck no. This whole thing shouldn't even have to be broken down this heavily to explain why 99% of fgs use random select. Playstyles clash every single round. LA knows why he lost, but you think he would even have asked could he manually choose stage if noone told him he could beforehand. Who the fuck even dwells on this type of shit like this? I wish we had a statement from a Jap player as to what the general reason is to why they pick, and the significance of it outside of getting outplayed at that particular moment, in that particular situation.

 

Anyway, just the basic point of this discussion you keep missing 24/7:

They did not, because THE RULES SAY SO. The same goes for LA_Akira. He did not ask for manually change the stage, because the rules did not allow that, no matter what his wish was in that moment.
But here, we are NOT discussing any tournament situation. Here, we are discussing the RULES itself.
...
Please try to understand this simple fact.

 

Lmao. Goodnight Unicorn.

 

I don't see the problem with manual stage select. You're going to come across them one way or another so you better be prepared.

 

It is morning / day for me here, but thank you

Still like many of your posts here on VFDC. Just disagree with what you post in this thread

 

Japan didn't allow stage select before actually. It's something that came along in VF5...

They used to play on random stage select. I prefer random stage but I don't mind either rule.

 

I liked the way EVO ran it where you were allowed to pick whatever stage you want. Seems like this topic has come around because in the FS the stages play to much of a role in the actual fight. Nobody seems to like the TACO stages to much

 

This shit is hilarious... Who gives a fuck about the stages.. US still got dealt wit open or close

 

I'm not a great player and I'd never play in tournaments. But man I gotta speak up in this thread. This is not about individual player skills or whether you or I or he is good/scrubby. It's also not about whether some ppl are sore losers. And it's certainly not about whether "this is the way we've always done it." Just think about it logically.

For example, take a game where the stage/map is important, and the game is very competitively played: Starcraft. Look at any tournament's rules, and you'll see elaborate rules on how players can pick maps in a series of matches. It's never random.

Why never random? (1)Map is important. (2)Imagine if you get the bad luck draws twice in a 3-games match. That'd be just BS.

Suck it up, it's a tournament? No, actually the correct answer is "It's a tournament so we should minimize random chance so that player skill determines the victor, not the dice." Also, where luck can be replaced by player meta-strategy, that's even better.

Imagine if in a baseball game, the order of the team going up to bat is determined randomly.

Now think about VF5FS. Certainly, the stages aren't as determining as Starcraft maps. But do they play a factor? It's a yes/no question. If you say yes, then random chance should be minimized, full stop.

 

flymike, I'm not sure how we got on the point of fairness it didn't seem to go that route till you used the word "fair." Anyways it's not about what's fair and what's unfair. Stage select is in the game and stages play a role in the outcome of a match (much much is another discussion) so I was just wondering on how to govern it.

I personally prefer EVO rules. Loser get's stage change but only to another random stage.

 

This here. It seems some people have very strong opinions about this and a larger group just don't care either way.

I'm proposing the next two WNF's and the next StickyBug Next Level Arcade tournament use the 1st stage is random select (or agree on a stage to start on between both players), Loser gets to pick the next stage rule. We honestly won't know until we try it out in a real setting, and our only reference point now is the japan 1 and done set-up.

 

I think loser should be able to counterpick stage. Watching Evo, I was surprised this is not the way it already is.

 

Either you adapt to the game or you expect the game to adapt to you

 

I have no idea what you are saying in relation to this discussion on what the rule we're talking about is. What are you saying in less cryptic language?

 

That there are two types of players, those who whine about tiers, technical aspects of the game, stages, moves and the game itself. The other type of players play the game and try to find solutions to said problems stemming their losses to themselves and not external factors. Nobody has an advantage in this game at the select screen. If you think your character sucks against walls - change character. If you hate technical aspects of this game - change your game. Don't try to avoid stages with walls and/or expect people to change the rules of the game to accommodate you.

This is nothing less than the RO discussion with certain characters ("Kaaaaaaaa-gay") that's been seen since VF4 in a new form.

Stage select should be random. If you don't like playing on a special stage - tough shit. Otherwise you're modifying the game outside its original parameters. If a stage (type) is made to pop up 1 out of 12 times by random and now suddenly it happens every second time (1 out of 2) due to someone selecting it (i.e "counterpicking") you have just modified the rules of the game in a pretty dramatic fashion. Some see this as 'fair' I see it as the complete opposite.

 

I hear what you're saying but you're missing the other side of the mind game. This isn't just about what stage you play well on, this is about what stage your OPPONENT plays well on. If you notice your opponent sucks on particular stages, then you should be able to exploit that weakness in their game. Keep in mind this stage select thing is how they've been doing it in japan, so they at least are aware of the impact stages can have on the meta game.

The discussion, at least from my stand point isn't "oh I suck on this stage'. It's "my opponent sucks on this stage let me punish them for it". This second point is actually in agreement with what you just posted, however my conclusion is to pick a stage to punish someone for that.

 

You won't realistically have time to figure this out in a tournament setting playing against randoms anyways. And I don't care if it's a mindgame that's sort of a whole other argument sacrificing integrity of the game to get a new mindgame. Going into extremes with this it could get really silly quickly.

You still can. But it still boils down to walls basically and people who hate the two 'taco' stages. Now what is funny is the trail of logic that ensues.

1) You really hate taco stages, they are like 1/10th of the areas in the game (2 out of 19 or 20).
2) You make it so that you can take away this stage when getting it by random select so you don't have to play this twice. Yes!
3) But hold on,..Now if your opponent REALLY wants to play on these stages he has the same option as you do so in reality you're making a potential situation of you having to play on these two stages 50% of the time as he can select them upon losses everytime. Oh noes!
4) ???????
5) Profit - I R happy. Now it's more fair that I don't have to play on the tacostages I don't like.

 

My two cents, for what it's worth.

We basically have a question to answer - does the stage have relevance to the outcome of the match?

If the answer is no (meaning the better player should/will win due to skills and adaptation to the stage), then it shouldn't matter whether stage select is allowed or not. If the stage truly doesn't matter, then why not let someone choose if/when they win, or lose, or whatever rules they want to impose? The only [practical] argument against it would be that, by allowing someone to pick the stage, they're tilting the game to their advantage (which contradicts your opinion that stage doesn't matter). The only other arguments are things like ethics, meaning, by allowing people to change stage, you're entertaining the idea that the stage was the reason for the outcome, but if you disagree then, again, just allow a stage-switch and if the stage truly doesn't matter then the outcome will be the same; and then there's the argument of 'time-wasting'. To those who see stage as a non-issue, constantly having the stage switched around after each match might be irritating and feel like a waste of time, but I think that's a minor issue in the face of [proposed] fairness/balance.

If the answer is yes, then it becomes a case of whether you think the randomness of stage select should be maintained or diminished. Either you're of the mindset that random is random, both players had 50/50 chance to get what they wanted, and you should just have the grace to deal with what you get, and learn to adapt to the stage that is selected; or you're of the mindset that the effect of the stage select should be minimised as much as possible, and mechanics should be enforced to combat them. The first game must be chosen in some random fashion (unless players are given 'skill ranks' and the lower-ranked player is given first choice, but that's a bad idea and discussion for another time). After the first game, the winner is now deemed to be the better player in that match-up on that stage. Now, as competitors, what we want is to achieve the statement 'after all the games, the aggregate winner is the better player'.

Remembering that we're of the mindset that stage is a factor (however big or small), we must remove 'on that stage' from the first conclusion, and so we allow the loser to change stage, and from here, one of two things happens:
1) The previous winner wins again, and we can now make the statement that the winner is the better player in that match-up on those two stages. At which point, the loser chooses stage again and the process repeats.
2) The previous loser now wins on his chosen stage, and we can now make the statements 'first winner is the better player in that match-up on the first stage; second winner is the better player in that match-up on the second stage'. At which point, the new loser chooses the stage and the process repeats.

Now, after this has happened enough times, we'll be at one of two conclusions:

1) The aggregate winner has beaten the aggregate loser in more than half the matches, despite the fact that the aggregate loser has chosen more than half the stages. This means that, for this session, the aggregate winner has played better and can be deemed 'the better player' (as much as any such judgement can be made) at this time.

2) There is no real aggregate winner or loser - the win ratio is at, or close to 50% each. This means that both players are at roughly equal skill level, and either the stages didn't matter, or that the difference in skill level is less than that of the effect of the stage. Either way, when stage effect is minimised, the two players can perform at roughly equal levels.


So, based on this reasoning (with which you're more than free to disagree), there are two reason to allow stage-switching, being that either the stage truly doesn't matter at all so allowing it has no effect, and that stage does matter and also that its effect should be minimised. There is one reason not to allow stage-switching, being that random is the only true 'fairness' and that the onus is on you as a player to adapt and diversify with each stage.


From a personal standpoint, I think stages do have a limited impact, but much less than in previous games. Things like ring-outs when your opponent is at full health, or combos whiffing because of an odd wall-hit, leading to the opponent getting a quick-rise kick to finish the match etc - they're a bit silly to me, but they not something I'd claim are the reason for my wins/losses over enough games. Also, since this game makes throw-escapes a lot easier and certain bullshit evading attacks *coughKagecough* no longer grant free ring-outs, it's really a lot easier to avoid the biggest offences that a stage can produce, and all you're really left with is combo damage against walls.

Just the way I reason things out...

 

KiWe gets it. Applaud this man.

Genzen also makes a thoroughly logical, and reasonable comparative argument.


Really, even if your opponent kept you on the wall or rung you out the entire match, you should be faulting your own self and changing how you approach, not only the stage, but this fucking guy: your opponent. Rather than go, "Hmmph, he beat me because of ____. It is impossible that I can do the same to him....at this particular location. Therefore, I wish to fight at this stage next! Now!" I don't like all this emphasis being put on <I can utilize this stage better.> or <The opponent plays well on this stage>. No telling exactly why Japs do it or what led them to start. But to over-analyze it and actually refer to it as if the door doesn't swing both ways, that's particularly weak. Stages in 3D games having an effect on matches isn't anything new. None are banned in this game because it's a revolving door. To mind-numbingly demand otherwise is, well sir....

That's some excessive deer meat shit.