stages in tournaments

The only reason I, and maybe the others bring up the "well japan does it" is because their system has worked for the past 5 years. It won't break the game and decreased the random factor in deciding who the better player is in a set. When playing or watching a finals I think both players should have full control over every aspect of the game, including stage selection. That is my fundamental stance and is why I've been proposing the idea of random 1st stage and loser gets to pick. Others have more clearly stated why that's a good idea, and this isn't even something unique to fighting games. FPS's and RTS games have the same issues and discussions and have come up with a nice solution to the problem.

I'm failing to see why if stages don't matter to the people supporting only random selection is okay, why would being able to choose the second stage be a problem? If you don't believe it makes a difference what's the problem?

 

KiwE, I'll try to address what you've said as best I can, though I don't know if I fully understand what you're saying/asking (your posts are a bit hard to follow, sorry).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if I thought that stages doesn't matter why would I let the opponent pick something he is comfortable with / want? That's not a contradiction (wtf?). If my opponent was to choose a specific stage, even though I didn't think stages mattered, I wouldn't rematch on the stage he selected if a match really mattered out of principle. He might not like walled/open stages even though it's beneficial to his character of psychological reasons. If he's only comfortable on 2p side or only practices on a specific stage his combos or he's not comfortable playing Brad - these are all his problems. I will exploit every single one if money or big prestige is on the line.</div></div>

I can see your line of reasoning here, and you'd fall into the conclusion I made earlier that 'yes, you think stages have some effect on the outcome (even if it's purely a psychological effect), but you don't care - random is random and fair'. That is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid way of thinking, I just don't agree with it because, if I were on either side of the match, I'd want to remove/reduce the effect the stage had on the outcome.
For example, if I were the loser, and I truly felt that the stage was the reason I lost and that I would win on a different stage, then yes, I would want the chance to prove my claim. If I won, my claim is validated (at which point my opponent can now judge the value of stage selection), or if I lost, my claim is invalidated, at which point I must concede that my opponent is/was the better play at the time.
If I were the winner, and my opponent were to claim that my victory was based on the stage selection, I would want to offer him the choice of a new stage (randomised or selected, I have no preference), such that I could have a 'fairer' match in his eyes, and either prove myself to be the better player regardless of stage, or have a challenging, hard-fought match where the stage 'evens out' the initial skill difference.

I don't see either opinion as 'right' in this regard; it's just two differing views - one based on the fairness of randomisation, the other based on limiting the effect of the stage upon the match.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Certain characters are better at ring outs, certain characters are better at walls, some again better at RO's over low walls. Are you in actuality advocating that all character differences should be nullified?. Also; I think that certain characters are better at CH launchers (Akira) and certain characters are better at poking (Pai) or have better lows (Lion). Why not limit these as well and change the rules of the game to adapt to this? A good way would be to only allow a single character in the game and call it Aki-Fighter-Evolution or Lion could only use low's every second round.</div></div>

This is getting too specific - I really don't want to argue the potential value for each stage with each character against each different character etc, especially since it's largely subjective anyway (how one person might see a stage as an advantage to one character, another person might see it as a disadvantage to the same one). The point, at least from my perspective, is that, if the loser feels the stage was a factor in the loss, he should be given the chance to validate his claim by playing a different stage. That way, he either proves his skill on what he considers an even (or advantageous) playing field, or he loses again and admits his inferiority at that time. With enough matches, it should be plain to see that either the players are roughly equal on their respective battle fields, or that one player is clearly better than the other.

I don't really know how to respond to the nonsense about limiting the game to one character or only allowing low moves on certain rounds or whatever - that's not even a comparison to changing the stage after a match...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know what kind of crack you and Mlai for instance are on but repeated random pickings, regardless of game, reduces variance (and gives a bigger samplesize). This is statistics 101. It really feels like you are arguing that it doesn't. If you wanted to reduce variance you should be arguing for that every VF match was FT3 wins instead of two. That would be the sane thing to do. For instance there's a movement in marvel right now for this very thing to reduce "luck" in the game. </div></div>

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here - I don't actually understand the sentences. I don't know what 'Mlai' is, and I don't think the condescending 'on crack' comment is necessary in what I view to be a rather tranquil, 'shooting the breeze' discussion/debate. Ad hominem at its worst.

Anyway, I'll try to address what I think you were trying to say, but feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words. You say that 'choosing random stages reduces the variance (and gives bigger sample size)' - which, if I'm understanding correctly, advocates my point. By having the stages switched on a regular basis, the value and effect of any one specific stage upon the outcome of the results is minimised. If only one of ten games was played on stage A, then stage A's effect upon the outcome is reduced to 10%. If we do a 'pick a random stage and play on it 'till we're done', then stage A's effect upon the outcome is 100%. By allowing the stage to be changed, we reduce the effect of stage upon the outcome.

You use the acronym 'FT3' - I need to clarify that it means 'First to 3' wins? Or am I off the mark there?

Assuming it does, then yes, obviously, the more games we play, the less value any anomalous event will have upon the results as a whole. The same can be said of stages - the more stages upon which we play, the less value any one stage will have upon the results as a whole.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, I would want you, or Mlai, to mathematically prove to me under the following premisses in a FT2:

1) First stage random
2) Second stage looser picks
3) If the game is not over - loser picks
4) Game ends

I want you to prove to me under those premisses, assuming it is not idiots playing, that stage selection will be LESS important and/or the occurrence of problematic stages will be LESSER than 3 games of random pick. </div></div>

I can try. Let's assume then, that stage A is preferred by Player Y, Stage B is preferred by Player Z, and Stage C is neutral preference to both players.

Under the 'three random selections' rule, we could end up with the following:

Round 1: Stage C
Round 2: Stage A
Round 3: Stage A.

Should this occur, Player Y gains the advantage of playing two games on his preferred stage, and one game at neutral. The effect of the stage can then be argued at being the deciding factor in two games.


If we use the 'loser picks after the first random selection', the following would happen:

Round 1: Stage C - Player Z wins.
Round 2: Stage A (selected by Player Y) - Player Y wins.
Round 3: Stage B (selected by Player Z) - Player Z wins.

When this occurs each player has played a game on their preferred stages, meaning only the initial game's stage can be argued as to the reason of the win/loss (since the other two game's stages cancel each other out). The effect of the stage can then be argued at being the deciding factor in one game.

Disclaimer: yes, I'm aware that you could present a situation whereby the results show that the stages didn't matter at all (for example, each player winning on the opponent's choice, or one player winning all three matches etc), but you asked me to 'prove' it, which is the best I can do. The point is that random selection can result in one player repeatedly getting stages viewed by his opponent as disadvantageous, which could then be argued as the reason for the outcome. By allowing the loser to choose, he can no longer make this claim.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is really everything that should be said:

1) You're creating comeback mechanics.
2) There are other 3d games where stages matter. To my knowledge SC5 and T6 both use random select at new stage:
http://8wayrun.com/wiki/tournament-ruleset/
http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.php?thr...n-event.132002/
3) It will lead to retards doing mistakes at tournaments in the end picking the first stage and what not.
4) It's unnecessary - everyone will still be raped by a low tier Blaze from JP. When the Asian players were at Evo they didn't really seem to give two fucks about it being random anyways.</div></div>

1) Comeback mechanics? I don't really understand what you mean. The stage is the stage for the entirety of the match - you don't 'build up' a power bar for 'zomg-ultra-move-of-doom'. Yes, there are ring-outs and massive wall combos, but that only furthers my argument that, if you feel either of these are a factor for your loss, you should be given the option to eliminate/reduce their likeliness. I don't see how choosing a different stage is a 'comeback mechanic'.

2) I'm not arguing what other games do - I'm offering my opinion on what I think this game should do. Majority consensus does not always equal the best choice.

3) I have no idea what this means.

4) Not a contradiction to anything I've said. If I play against your Japanese El Blaze and he beats me, I can choose to fight on a different stage (if I believe it was a factor). After that match, one of two things happens:

a)If I win, he is offered the same option and we repeat the process many times until either one player emerges with a higher win ratio than the other (at which point the more skilled player is apparent), or we end on a roughly equal ratio (at which point we can agree that we were roughly equally matched).
b)If he wins, I must accept that he is better than I am, as he beat me even when I had chosen a stage I viewed as most optimal to me (meaning I can no longer claim the stage was a factor in my loss).


I hope I covered everything in a way that makes sense. Again, these are just my views given the previously-stated supposition.

 

I gotta agree with genzen here, if you are better than me, fighting on "my home turf" should pose no problems. This way of thinking is very japanese, for example: in the game of go (the national game of japan) the weaker player always plays black (i.e. Moves first) to create the most legitimate match-up. Giving a player who won the last match his preference in stage would be backwards. If you defeat your opponent despite his "advantage" you have proved your skill. If you are stronger and defeat him on your preferred stage you have proved very little. That said, I think stages have a fairly small effect on the outcome.

 

I will address this only:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know what kind of crack you and Mlai for instance are on but repeated random pickings, regardless of game, reduces variance (and gives a bigger samplesize). This is statistics 101.</div></div>
With the above, you're referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

However, this "law of averages" only applies to the game as a whole. For example, to the character "Lion" played by every Lion player in the world over the lifetime of the game edition. To think that it applies to you playing Lion over a FT3 match in a single tournament is committing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Yes, over the lifetime of the game, Lion played by all gamers in the world will encounter each stage equally in Random Select. However, that past average does not extend to your 3 matches in a single tournament.

While a run of five heads is only 1â„32 = 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.

 

Switching characters isn't against the rules. It just means you're working as hard as Vanessa players do.

 

Vanessa players don't work hard anymore .

 

Random stage select is not random btw, ask Tricky I got my stage every time

 

This man speaks the truth. Stage I CHOOSE YOU!!

 

Oki so let's do this

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regarding the argument that stage selection punishes the winner of the first match. That is a specious argument. Even if that winner is, as you say, at a disadvantage second match and loses, then by the same token he will have the advantage on the deciding game, and will therefore have the advantage overall.</div></div>

Your statement is false since you don't consider all possible outcomes and assume a certain scenario happening

1) First stage random, I win
2) Second stage loser picks, I win
3) Game over FT2 (first to two)

In the following scenario you will have been granted an advantage against me based upon me winning the first match and you loosing. I have been granted no advantage against you. We have not been fighting on equal terms at all and that I won had nothing to do with it.

Loser being granted an advantage prior to next game is a comeback mechanic and I don't understand how people can even argue this

I don't have to prove shit to you. What are you, babies? Come ask me in casuals later on (if I bother) to prove to you anything (I'm not your local preacher or scientist), not when there's big money on the line to handicap myself so you can feel better about yourself and the losses you get. That's your problem. I want you to prove to me that you didn't win by throwing me with Wolf cause his throws do lots of damage so no throws second game ok? It shouldn't be any problem to you if you really are better than me; you HAVE to agree to this if you think you can beat me without throws - I think burning hammers is why you won ;(

Who gives a shit?

It's also absurd to think that you will change someones core belief of the importance of stages based on the following, one, game. I think you pretty much have your mind made up and if you don't it's not my problem to teach you or sway you either direction. This is a tournament and I want us to fight on an equal playingfield throughout our games.

You have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about.
First of all the theory you present as the gamblers fallacy is regarding that people showcase a bias towards odds evening out. For instance if I flip a coin and you have gotten heads three times in a row I now believe that the next one "should" be tails due to me understanding half of the flips should be tails. But the coin has no memory of what has happened so it's still a 50/50. You're greatly misinterpreting this fallacy and bias thinking that this means that effects aren't showcased until large numbers are active (lol). Let me prove to you really simply that you have no idea what you're talking about:

Question 1: If you were to play one match of VFS - what are the odds that all your games are played on a 'taco stage'?

Answer: 2 out of 20 stages are 'taco stages'. Your odds are 1/10 (10%).

Question 2: If you were to play 3 games of VFS - what are the odds that all your games are played on a 'taco stage'?

Probability: (1/10)*(1/10)*(1/10)= 1/1000=0,1%

Do you understand the difference between 10 and 0.1% Mlai?

Bonus questions:

1) If you and I play, and I absolutely know you don't want to play on "taco stages" and/or I feel I have an advantage on them - what are the odds you will have played on a "taco stage" upon winning against me?

2) Since 'taco stages' are only 1/10 of the stages in this game - will stage selecting help or hinder that you don't play on them assuming the above?

Protip: Odds of not playing taco stage at all in a FT2 if it becomes two games is (9/10)*(9/10) = 0.81 = 81%
Odds of not playing taco stage at all in FT2 if it becomes three games is (9/10)*(9/10)*(9/10) = 0.729 = 72.9%

3) If stage selecting for the loosing opponent becomes a reality - what stage would it be most beneficial for you to practice on (and perhaps always choose because of this) in turn? Assumption: 'Taco stages' have the largest impact on gameplay of the stages selectable within VFS. Assumption: Stages that have most effect on gameplay will be picked the most.

Lol what? Yes let's ignore what the other 3d community's (Tekken and Soulcal) that are vastly larger than VF's have come to for conclusions after discussion amongst tournament players during YEARS. It's a majority consensus but it doesn't have to right - I think a 3-5 part discussion of non tournament players (and yes I include myself there) in the general forum will be much better. Lets get Master Po in here also so we're sure we make this right.

And yes a majority consensus HAS more bearing by default cause this is a majority decision which will affect more than the said people in this discussion.

Facts:

1) Stageselection for the looser is granting the loosing player a benefit and that is a comeback mechanic.

2) Tekken and SC, games where walls are just as important as in VF if not even more, use random stage selection upon picking a new stage. These descions have been made with the basis of 100x more brainpower and with 100x more tournament players in the discussion then everything discussed here these last pages and to reinvent the wheel valuing the discussion here more is just crazy talk.

3) You will NOT play less on problematic stages if stageselection becomes a reality over every new match being random stageselect as it has been up until this point.

/KiwE

If I have written something wrong here I appologize it's pretty late and this will probably be my last post in this thread I <3 you all <--- This is VFDC's blowjob icon btw