Unity Ruleset Subdiscussion: Stage legality

[Budget Player Cadet_]

<----- Point







<----- Your head

It's not about whether or not you have time to react. It's whether or not each players' skill is tested equally all the time.

Whatever, dude, you don't get it and I won't waste any more of my time trying.

Hey Thio. John doesn't quite get it. I do. Answer my objections to your idea. Justify banning over half the cast and all but one or two of the stages–and nuking the depth of the game in the process–because of randomness which will virtually never truly decide the winner of a game.

 

[fkacyan]

Hey Thio. John doesn't quite get it. I do. Answer my objections to your idea. Justify banning over half the cast and all but one or two of the stages–and nuking the depth of the game in the process–because of randomness which will virtually never truly decide the winner of a game.

Can you prove that beyond 99.5% confidence? Can you prove it beyond 95%?

How much game depth do we actually lose removing what is random?

 

[Lord Chair]

Another fun question: what does losing depth matter?

Be fair, a huge amount of depth is more or less analogous to a huge amount of fun. That's the only justification.

 

[Timic83]

so pictochat is pretty lame imo, how the hell did it get on unity warioware is more fair

 

[Orion*]

Gotta be honest, I would go to tournaments with no tripping hacks LOL, I have lost so many tournament sets to it at this point I don't even remember.

Anyway,

I don't like comparing banning stages with banning characters because PvP is different from PvS. Ex: on a completely flat non random stage like FD with two characters that have some limited random aspects, you can generally expect and control what is going to happen. Like, okay I'm going to space myself to not get hit by GaW's hammer.

Vs. you fighting someone on a neutral ground and now you have problems like

A. Oh, I now have to give up stage advantage because the haldberd laser hates me
B. LOL PICTOCHAT
C. My momentum is gone because PS1/2 decided to randomly change into a stage that favors my opponent.

Not to say that any of these aspects are even that bad for competitive play (outside of picto, stage ****ing sucks) but mostly to just say that they aren't the best comparison for me imo.

 

[fkacyan]

Another fun question: what does losing depth matter?

Be fair, a huge amount of depth is more or less analogous to a huge amount of fun. That's the only justification.

Tourney play isn't about fun, it's about setting a stage of equality where a given group of players can prove which of them is best for money.

 

[John12346]

Thio, I understand the point you're trying to make. We both see what a test of skill is at different terms.

I believe skill in Smash is not only being able to outplay your opponent, but also being able to incorporate slight nuances(in this case, CP stage obstacles, including the random ones) into your gameplay to take advantage of your opponent in different ways. I feel that being able to adapt to random obstacles is another test of skill, and the fact they might discriminate against you at times, giving the opponent the advantage, is outflanked by the slight change in gameplay they provide(except YI, but that's another story).

You believe skill in Smash is being able to outplay your opponent with no outside interference whatsoever. Any obstacle in the game that is random may have a tendency to single out an opponent and attack them consistently, thereby eliminating the test of skill between the two players and turning the game into PvPvS, which is not what we want.

Essentially, you believe the random obstacles lower the skill level needed to win by more of an amount than I believe the adaptation needed to handle those obstacles increases the skill level needed to win.

They're both subjective opinions. And we really don't have any way to prove either.

 

[Lord Chair]

Tourney play isn't about fun, it's about setting a stage of equality where a given group of players can prove which of them is best for money.

Nicely read.

l2english, srsly

 

[Orion*]

Essentially, you believe the random obstacles lower the skill level needed to win by more of an amount than I believe the adaptation needed to handle those obstacles increases the skill level needed to win.

They're both subjective opinions. And we really don't have any way to prove either.

I don't really feel its that subjective

learning stages is like getting better tech skill, or memorizing frame data, or practicing setups. you spend time doing it, you will just get better- maybe some learn it a bit faster than others, but it's just data.

whereas learning players is on a whole completely different psychological level, and thats where true top players really shine

edit:

^ @ chair LOLOLOL

and why didnt you call me :'(

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can you prove that beyond 99.5% confidence? Can you prove it beyond 95%?

How much game depth do we actually lose removing what is random?

Another fun question: what does losing depth matter?

Be fair, a huge amount of depth is more or less analogous to a huge amount of fun. That's the only justification.

Again... Over half the cast, and all of the stages. That's... approximately...

20*20 (number of still legal characters, probably a little on the high side) *2 (number of stages allowed)

...5200. Let's compare real quick...

40*40*15 (total number of matchups by stage and character with the current method) = 24000

HOLY **** YOUR METHOD CUTS OUT ALMOST 4/5THS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MATCHUPS YOU WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO PLAY IN THIS GAME! Realistically speaking, it's still at least half (accounting for only characters to D tier and stages that are commonly played) that you're dropping that would see play often.

This is what I'm talking about when I bring up competitive depth. This is why we should watch out what we ban/change! If I have to explain why having 5000 matchups instead of 24000 is a bad thing, then you really need to do a little background studying about what makes a game competitive.

 

[fkacyan]

Again... Over half the cast, and all of the stages. That's... approximately...

20*20 (number of still legal characters, probably a little on the high side) *2 (number of stages allowed)

...5200. Let's compare real quick...

40*40*15 (total number of matchups by stage and character with the current method) = 24000

HOLY **** YOUR METHOD CUTS OUT ALMOST 4/5THS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MATCHUPS YOU WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO PLAY IN THIS GAME! Realistically speaking, it's still at least half (accounting for only characters to D tier and stages that are commonly played) that you're dropping that would see play often.

This is what I'm talking about when I bring up competitive depth. This is why we should watch out what we ban/change! If I have to explain why having 5000 matchups instead of 24000 is a bad thing, then you really need to do a little background studying about what makes a game competitive.

How many of those matchups are relevant?

@john#s:

If you're not testing both people for the same things you can't be sure who is better at what. The hallmark of a good statistical test is eliminating variables.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Realistically speaking, it's still at least half (accounting for only characters to D tier and stages that are commonly played) that you're dropping that would normally see play often.

Remember, included in that list are almost all counterpick stages (literally every stage except FD and/or BF) and quite a fair bit of the top tier. Yeah, most of them are relevant.

 

[Orion*]

Remember, included in that list are almost all counterpick stages (literally every stage except FD and/or BF) and quite a fair bit of the top tier. Yeah, most of them are relevant.

i already explained why comparing them is bad though

 

[Lord Chair]

You're only adding counterpicking depth, which already isn't exploited nearly enough to actually be noticeable.

Even then, most matchups are irrelevant. For optimal counterpicking, I honestly don't think you'd need to learn more than 10 characters (probably way less, just picking some random number now).

Not only that, you're adding competitive depth to a game which has enough depth in and by itself. You still haven't answered to my question, which I'll hereby paraphrase:

What is the surplus value of competitive depth, what do we lose if we lose depth?

Even if the whole game would be scaled down to RPS, the top players would still distinguish themselves.

 

[fkacyan]

Remember, included in that list are almost all counterpick stages (literally every stage except FD and/or BF) and quite a fair bit of the top tier. Yeah, most of them are relevant.

Who in the top tier is random?

D3 GnW and Peach are the three characters with random effects, ignoring random tripping which is the result of another stupid feature, so I'm not counting that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Who in the top tier is random?

D3 GnW and Peach are the three characters with random effects, ignoring random tripping which is the result of another stupid feature, so I'm not counting that.

I made a list. Look back a page or two.

@Orion: I will address that after this dinner date.

 

[fkacyan]

I made a list. Look back a page or two.

@Orion: I will address that after this dinner date.

And we eliminate random tripping and that removes most of the list.

 

[xDD-Master]

Meta Knight (Dtilt has a random chance of tripping, and it makes a fairly large difference-between "barely not being punished on hit" and "grab combo")
Snake (Ftilt trip chance can mean the difference between taking a stale ftilt and dying to an utilt; usmash random trajectory)
Diddy Kong, Falco,
Wario (Bike Tires fly out in random directions)
Marth? (Doesn't Dtilt have a random trip chance or something?)
Ice Climbers, Olimar,
Pikachu (jab can trip or not trip)
King Dedede, Mr. Game & Watch Hope I don't have to explain these
Lucario
Zero Suit Samus Ftilt tilted down trip chance, maybe others
Toon Link Dash attack trip chance, maybe others
Kirby (?), Fox (?),
R.O.B. (Dtilt trip chance)
Pit?
Peach (Dat stitchface)
Donkey Kong (Dtilt trip chance)
Luigi (Misfires)

Your list is funny. I'll do to complete it without tripping and with attacks/situations where tripping can make a big difference BESIDE RUNNING! (Only Chaingrabs included anyway but in brackets)


MK - ... dunno ... dtilt
Snake - Mortar ftilt
Diddy - Up-B when get hit + If he drops a Banana when getting hit
Falco - ... dunno ... [chaingrab]
Wario - Bike Tires and look @Diddy
Marth - ... dunno ...
Ice Climber - Nana (See next post) [chaingrab]
Olimar - LOL the whole character x'D Because of all the pikmin colors
DDD - Side-B [chaingrab] dtilt? & bair?
Gaw - Side-B + Neutral-B
ZSS - Armor Pieces look @Diddy ftilt?
Tink - look @Diddy but they'll most likely explode anyway I think dash attack & nair
Kirby - Maybe some neutral Bs (Gaws for example)
Fox - ... dunno... dair
ROB - ... dunno ... ftilt? & dtilt?
Pit - ... dunno ...
Peach - Fsmash & Down-B
Donkey Knong - ... dunno ... dtilt?
Luigi - Side-B dash attack?
Wolf - ... dunno ... dtilt?
Zelda/Shiek - [Down-B Loading time is different for every wii]
Sonic - ... dunno ...
Ike - ... dunno ...
Ness - ... dunno ... dtilt?
Yoshi - ... dunno ...
Lucas - ... dunno ... dtilt? & dair?
Mario - ... dunno ...
Bowser - ... dunno ...
CF - ... dunno ...
Samus - ... dunno ... jab/ftilt???
Jiggs - ... dunno ... aerials???
Link - look @tink
Zelda - ... dunno ... dtilt! -.-
Ganondorf - ... dunno ...


RED characters seem to be not affacted by it at all. (Or not very much)
GREY characters only have some random tripping attacks.
WHITE Characters have random attacks
BLUE attacks have tripping and are used "a lot" or at least you play with the trip, like MK hoping for the trip to grab combo (Not Sure on all though)


A lot of characters get extra options by attack trips.
It's funny how the tops seem to be more affected by random events then the lows.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Nana is also random when separated from Popo.

 

[xDD-Master]

Nana is also random when separated from Popo.

Dunno, i think it's true... because Coms don't do the same things everytime :s Well... not EVERYtime. Sometimes they do the same thing 20 times in row like edge jumping and edge grabbing or stuff like that -.-

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I know for a fact it's true.

I did a lot of research on CPUs when I was trying to disprove the very common belief that they can learn/adapt.

 

[xDD-Master]

I know for a fact it's true.

I did a lot of research on CPUs when I was trying to disprove the very common belief that they can learn/adapt.

Did you succeed in trying to disprove it? ^^

I never really believed in it, even the fact, that my CPUs do crazy stuff sometimes.

My peach did this to me yesterday:

Platform Block push (I fall down) -> Bair forced get up -> float fair o,o it killed me, but I didnt DI at all because I was shocked by the bair get up force to fair XD

To sad it was p-mode D:



Well OK, I'll add Nana, just for the completeness

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well I got enough evidence to prove it

Not sure how many people have actually seen it though.

 

[Life]

Today, I was playing Brawl and not only noticed my AI seemed harder (which I grant to a lack of practice + using level-7 instead of 9 [which is odd itself, but eh]) but I could have sworn my music sounded slightly different (harmonies and instrumentation I never noticed before).

On topic, for the character randomness list: Sonic has dtilt trips (and possibly jab trips in some situations, I'm not sure).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

For the Jigglypuff list, her Down Air can trip.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And we eliminate random tripping and that removes most of the list.

...*headdesk*

K, MK's dtilt always or never trips? Which one? How do you do it without buffing or nerfing him? Never mind that we're already talking about hacking. Never mind that normal tripping is very different from that random trip chance on moves like MK's dtilt or Snake's ftilt. Thio, you are wrong. Get it through your head already you stubborn ****.

Also I love how we are going so far off track from anything even remotely productive because we have to deal with you Japanese Stagelist morons. >.< You guys need to recognize that you're as much of a worthless fringe group as the people who want to legalize everything short of temple and keep your pathetically uninformed opinions to the threads specifically designated for such mental masturbation!!! AND GOOD DAY TO YOU! You've succeeded in making the last 3-4 pages of one of the most important threads for determining brawl rulesets be completely worth ignoring. Keep this **** up and so help me god I will sic twinkie and grim on you guys's next thread to advocate mario bros.

 

[John12346]

@john#s:

If you're not testing both people for the same things you can't be sure who is better at what. The hallmark of a good statistical test is eliminating variables.

Once again, I'm saying that both opinions are subjective.

Some would believe that battles with no random influence would serve as the better test of skill...

...while others believe that being able to cope with random factors that are perfectly manageable, despite the immediate, but slight positional (dis)advantages they may provide would serve as the better test of skill.

What we need to know is whether or not the general consensus believes that, regarding random factors, skill consistency is increased by the ability to cope with such factors moreso than skill consistency is decreased by the random advantages given by these factors, and to what magnitude of difference between the two we will actually accept. It is from that decision we can derive the all-important "Ideal Stagelist" for this game.

 

[fkacyan]

Once again, I'm saying that both opinions are subjective.

Some would believe that battles with no random influence would serve as the better test of skill...

...while others believe that being able to cope with random factors that are perfectly manageable, despite the immediate, but slight positional (dis)advantages they may provide would serve as the better test of skill.

What we need to know is whether or not the general consensus believes that, regarding random factors, skill consistency is increased by the ability to cope with such factors moreso than skill consistency is decreased by the random advantages given by these factors, and to what magnitude of difference between the two we will actually accept. It is from that decision we can derive the all-important "Ideal Stagelist" for this game.

I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about a set of widely (Well more or less universally actually) accepted norms for statistical testing in any field, and a tourney is a statistical test.

@BPC: That you would mention mental masturbation is the most supreme irony I have ever seen or heard from another person.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If the random element in question doesn't actually affect results at the highest level, then why do we need to get rid of it?

 

[John12346]

@ Thio
Okay, first off, you need to stop sidestepping almost everything everyone says; mostly BPC. >___>;

@ Grim
Thio's just going to disagree with you and say it does, claiming that it provides some kind of inherent disadvantage to one of the players, causing each and every match on that stage to not be a true test of skill because one or both of the players were (in)convenienced in some way by the stage obstacles.

Back @ Thio
What you don't seem to understand is that these random elements provide little to no advantage to either player. Take Halberd's cannon into account, for example. Even if it's directly aimed at one of the players, there is far more than enough time for both players to get out of the way of the cannon and proceed with the match.

As I've said before, any immediate disadvantages caused by the cannon... they're non-existent because both players have more than enough time to get out of the way. From there, the match returns to a neutral position. After that, it simply becomes a test of who can avoid getting knocked into the cannon's shot... or who can knock the opposition into the cannon's shot... which some would argue to be a test of skill, which has an almost non-existent effect on skill consistency, despite having a random stage factor involved with it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Unless the randomness affects both players equally, which is practically impossible, it removes or lessens the effect of player skill, which is bad.

So essentially, G&W's Over B, DD"s Over B and Faust's random as hell meteor (GG) are all bad and reduce player skill.

Now I know you're arguing for the hell of it, not because there is something actually meaningful to it.

 

[fkacyan]

If the random element in question doesn't actually affect results at the highest level, then why do we need to get rid of it?

You can prove that 100% of the time that the random element has absolutely no effect on results?

***** please.

John#s: Nothing you or BPC is addressing the main point. You're trying to assess the degree to which, which is already past the point where it is, which is what I'm addressing.

You want to address degree to which, though? Fine, let's play ball.

Delfino: Which transformations appear in which order can have a drastic effect on the matchup. Easy to visualize is the effect that certain transformations have on D3.

Frigate: Which side of the stage is played on more often can drastically alter a matchup. Easy to visualize: MK vs Olimar. Olimar ***** MK on the second side with the platform and small dip, but he has a lot of trouble recovering on either side of the first half.

PS: Not quite as bad as the others, but things like windmall spawning, rock wall, etc can alter the momentum and flow of a match drastically.

Halberd: Canon and bomb are fairly easy to avoid, but still force either a standstill or put one player in a defensive position the other player does not have to worry about; instead, he gains an immediate advantage. The claw, however, is different. While both players know the timing, you do not know which player it will attack; if the claw attacks at the wrong time, it can give a free escape to a player who is getting strung or a boost to the opponent if you're in hitstun and it forces and airdodge at the wrong moment.

Yoshis Island: Shyguys, ghost platforms. Nuff said.

I could keep going, but that's rather pointless. It's not really that difficult to point out where randomness is and why it's bad and why in most cases it certainly affects at least 5% of cases. Not that this is particularly easy to prove, as skill is extremely difficult to quantify even in the best of environments using a highly unbalanced cast. No reason to make it even harder with random bull****, though.

@Shadowlink: You're going to say there wouldn't be a drastic difference in results if I could, say, pull a Gordo every time?

 

[MK26]

Not really.

I can play a match on like Bridge of Eldin, and If I wasnt blast zone camping or cging you off the stage with DDD, but posted the match and was like LOOK ITS PLAYABLE, I doubt you would say that rofl.

its kinda a late response, but if you did that, i'd have to show you counterexamples as evidence it isnt playable. i personally wouldnt (but plenty of others probably would) dismiss it off-hand as taking place on a lol-worthy stage and therefore being pointless to argue tho

i mean, this probably sounds stupid but someone on the stage forum (Grim Tuesday) went and studied mario bros of all stages and figured, hey, i have a rebuttal to every argument currently being said for why this stage is banned: you cant circle camp with those crabs running around everywhere, and you sure as hell cant blastzone camp unless you want one thrown at you. They arent completely random and you can control them, so someone who practices on this stage can have a better chance of winning on it than someone who does - and that means it's potentially fit for competition!

Sure, there were some people who laughed and said he was trolling, but others came up with counterarguments, and he tested them. Eventually he ended up agreeing that the stage should be banned, but not for any of the original reasons. He was told (and subsequently tested and agreed with the fact) that at whatever high level of play anyone could accomplish on this stage, the character choice essentially narrows down to the two characters in the game that have a reflector that deals somewhat continuous damage - falco and pit.

This is because they can afford to blastzone camp, as if you throw your turtle at them they can just reflect it back and hit/kill you, and if you fake the throw (say, by glide tossing downward while moving toward them) they can still hit you, and now you dont have your turtle. basically, if this stage was legal, the character list as soon as it got counterpicked would be cut down to two, and overcentralization of that magnitude is easily enough to ban a stage.

so long story short, if you really want to debate bridge of eldin, im pretty sure there are at least a few people out there that would be willing to actually look at the stage and see if the currently uncontested sentiment affirming its banning is, in fact, correct.

 

[John12346]

I could keep going, but that's rather pointless. It's not really that difficult to point out where randomness is and why it's bad and why in most cases it certainly affects at least 5% of cases. Not that this is particularly easy to prove, as skill is extremely difficult to quantify even in the best of environments using a highly unbalanced cast. No reason to make it even harder with random bull****, though.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Just like you say these random obstacles reduce the amount of skill needed to win the game, there are others who would say said obstacles INCREASE the amount of skill needed to win the game.

They would argue that, since you can very clearly see each random obstacle coming before it gets there(YI excluded, that's an entirely different point), and that the obstacles themselves provide very little gameplay change outside of positional advantages, then you are expected to be able to deal with these slight nuances of the game and turn it around to your favor.

It's true each obstacle of the game can alter the overall results of the match, but if one is not prepared to handle the random factors that give more than enough warning to react to, or cannot escape the positional disadvantage that the obstacle provided in the first place, it means the opponent outplayed him or her and he or she deserved to lose.

@Shadowlink: You're going to say there wouldn't be a drastic difference in results if I could, say, pull a Gordo every time?

...but you can't.

 

[fkacyan]

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Just like you say these random obstacles reduce the amount of skill needed to win the game, there are others who would say said obstacles INCREASE the amount of skill needed to win the game.

Other useless bull****

I suppose I've been phrasing my point badly. Well, no, but you're not getting it, so I'll try to simplify it

I don't care so much about more or less skill, but rather the difference in player skill tested.

If you're not testing both players equally then you're not testing them for the same skills and the test is moot.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Alright, here we go.

Randomness is uncompetitive. This is a fact, as it gives the less skilled player a non-skill based method of winning.

Lack of depth is also uncompetitive. A game with a small amount of depth is too simple to solve/master, so the better player cannot be feasibly found.

In the case of removing randomness from Brawl, in the majority of cases, the game becomes LESS competitive. By removing randomness you will also be removing depth, removing all randomness in Brawl removes so much depth that it is detrimental, rather than beneficial.

 

[John12346]

I suppose I've been phrasing my point badly. Well, no, but you're not getting it, so I'll try to simplify it

I don't care so much about more or less skill, but rather the difference in player skill tested.

If you're not testing both players equally then you're not testing them for the same skills and the test is moot.

...which is why the counterpick system exists in the first place.

Notice how our starter stages have no randomness to speak of(ignore YI for now; no one picks it anyway), and all of the random stages in this game are counterpicks.

Now, consider how the loser of each match will be able to take his desired character to his desired counterpick. In this way, this player prepares his own character that will be able to best capitalize on the randomness the stage will have to offer. The opposition will also have a chance to counterpick their own character so they won't get left in the dust of the stage's randomness. Generally, the counterpicker will win this match, because their character was(generally) more suited to the factors the stage had to offer. And if they lost... well... then they're not a good player and deserved to lose on the stage that they personally chose.

Sure, a random stage will favor the counterpicker more often than not, but both players gain access to this liberty equally, so it balances out in that regard. In this way, we can actually allow inherent randomness in the game, instead of decreasing the stagelist down to, like, 5 stages or something.

tl;dr Assume Player 1 loses the first game, and losses alternate between players for the set. Game 1 is played on neutral ground, Game 2 is played on a stage with randomness that slightly favors Player 1. Game 3 is played on a stage with randomness that slightly favors Player 2. It balances out in this way.

 

[sunshade]

Alright, here we go.

Randomness is uncompetitive. This is a fact, as it gives the less skilled player a non-skill based method of winning.

Lack of depth is also uncompetitive. A game with a small amount of depth is too simple to solve/master, so the better player cannot be feasibly found.

In the case of removing randomness from Brawl, in the majority of cases, the game becomes LESS competitive. By removing randomness you will also be removing depth, removing all randomness in Brawl removes so much depth that it is detrimental, rather than beneficial.

This.

Nobody responded to my post (from a few pages ago) except chair but this post by grim sums the idea up entirely.

 

[fkacyan]

This.

Nobody responded to my post (from a few pages ago) except chair but this post by grim sums the idea up entirely.

it looks correct on its face, but is actually incorrect.

Removing elements lowers the skill ccap, wheras introducing randomness increases variability.

Not the same thing.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So... why is increasing variability bad?

Because it makes it harder to determine the better player.

Which is exactly what lowering the skill cap does.