• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

Arcansi

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
traffic. said:
All charts and systems become more balanced when you chisel away at the tops and bottoms of the variables in a table. Removing the bottom variable will inevitably balance the difference between the remaining numbers and create a closer balance to the spreadsheet just the same as removing the top variable by reducing the average difference. However by altering the number of variables in your list, you alter the possibility for different outcomes and different results, limiting the application of your system to a bias of preferred results. If you are hoping for a specific result, reducing the likelihood of all other results is intentionally offsetting the balance and making your system less effective in a greater number of applications. The less applications a system has, the less users that system will have by proxy. Regardless of the number of users interested in sharing the previously stated biased results, the system is still inherently flawed and will become outdated much faster than systems with more constant applications.
Click to expand...
It seems here you equate difference to a flaw, and assume that the system starts out perfect.

These are incorrect assumptions by virtue of common sense.

How are you defining results here? If we define it as tournament winnings, we can logically define this as removal of inherent bias to a result.

I also don't understand the applications line. This system only has one application, as far as I know.

As far as I know, I've addressed all your conclusions.
 
traffic.

traffic.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
427
actually difference is the number of numbers between numbers. maths 101.

number of applications being the number of possible equations your system, or formula, can be used to solve.

results being the answer of said formula.

users are the different people applying said formula by inputting different variables.

so for instance, the matchup chart you are using to argue meta knight should be banned by being the top character can be broken down as such.

MK vs Ganon, for example, is a +4/-4 matchup. This is a difference of 9. By removing these two extremes from the list of variables, you can alter the parameters of your formula to +3/-3, a difference of 7, which is defined as "more balanced" as there is less difference to the scale of possible results, 9 being greater than 7. By removing MK and Ganon, the list of variables becomes smaller, but more "balanced". However, removing MK and Ganon makes a list of 33 variables instead of 35, your formula can only be applied to fewer equations. So Fox only FD is "balanced", but has a minuscule number of applications, meaning the number of possible results are smaller. In context, because way less things can possibly happen, the "balance" makes the game less interesting and less exciting due to the elimination of novelty as represented by extreme, less common outcomes. And it is the rare and unique results of a formula that provide the most excitement for the users.

And you're right, the formula (read: matchup chart) is hardly perfect, but it's the formula you proposed as proof of your argument. So you are correct, removing MK balances the game differently. So does removing Ganon, the possible number of outcomes is smaller by the same reduction of variables. Ganon's removal makes MK's lead less extreme, so I propose we ban Ganondorf so MK's number of advantages becomes smaller, making the game more "balanced" for the remaining characters.

By removing a specific variable (read: MK), you remove all related equations from your results no differently than banning Ganondorf, but it only shows personal bias to the list of possible results, making your ban of MK no less biased unfairly than wanting MK unbanned specifically. Your argument is that MK ban isn't biased because it objectively "balances" the number of equations your formula is applied to. However by singling out MK and not any other number of variables, you are left with only personal bias. By striking variables from your list, you alienate anyone who is biased positively for MK, but also alienate people who think banning characters is unfair, making the number of people who are possibly interested in applying your formula smaller than then number of people you could have by keeping your list of variables unbiased and strike-free.



tl;dr for the math impaired: i wont stop playing MK to make you feel like a better player.

edzezedz- being fluent in robot, i may just be able to translate the basic fact that wanting an MK ban makes you a huge noob into longwinded unreadable theoretical maths garbage. next week i disprove organized religion using protein growth (specifically aspergilus fumigatus!)
 
SKidd

SKidd

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
3,141
Location
B.C.
can u tell us why so much more salt comes from jj and landon than anyone else
 
| Big D |

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
There are legit reasons why MK should be banned as well as legit reasons to keep him legal. The balance logic you guys are both using could be used to ban melee fox or legalize Ivan Ooze/Akuma. There is no wrong answer to whether he should be banned as well as not having a right answer. Many regions have him banned and many have him legal, both with reputable players as TOs in many cases. The question isn't should he be banned, the question is should he be banned in our area. The answer for BC Brawl is no, that doesn't necessarily mean that that is Gottacon's answer, but it definitely could be.

I recommend taking this argument up with the TO of Gottacon on Facebook, because arguing which meta game is the better meta game wont take anyone anywhere. It comes down to counter picks/character diversity vs the loss of a viable character. The case shouldn't be which meta game is better but how would the event benefit with or without MK.

[COLLAPSE="Fuel to the fire"][9/26/2012 3:05:44 PM] Big D: Yeah we don't have much of an MK problem
[9/26/2012 3:05:47 PM] Big D: or any problem
[9/26/2012 3:05:56 PM] Big D: but like people used to write essays on MK legality
[9/26/2012 3:06:02 PM] Big D: was kinda dumb
[9/26/2012 3:06:12 PM] Big D: What are your thoughts on MK?
[9/26/2012 3:06:26 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: That he should be banned
[9/26/2012 3:06:51 PM] Big D: Well aint that something
[9/26/2012 3:06:59 PM] Big D: maybe in your region I can see it
[9/26/2012 3:07:01 PM] Big D: but like
[9/26/2012 3:07:12 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: I mean
[9/26/2012 3:07:13 PM] Big D: we don't have any top level mks here
[9/26/2012 3:07:23 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: I can sit and write essay after essay
[9/26/2012 3:07:26 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: about my position
[9/26/2012 3:07:31 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: but I'm not David Sirlin
[9/26/2012 3:07:37 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: so nobody seems to care
[9/26/2012 3:08:06 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: But I'd venture a pretty confident guess that I've done the most research on Ban Criiteria
[9/26/2012 3:08:06 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: by anyone in our community
[9/26/2012 3:08:12 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: and reasons why MK should / should not be banned
[9/26/2012 3:09:51 PM] Big D: Im objective personally, what are some of the reasons to ban him?
[9/26/2012 3:10:13 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: He's a strictly dominant strategy in blind pick scenario
[9/26/2012 3:10:38 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: in a game where there is overcentralization on winning game 1 as a quasi-prerequisite to winning a set
[9/26/2012 3:11:02 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: He is also a strictly dominant strategy in the counter-pick phases
[9/26/2012 3:11:53 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: The metaknight banned ruleset metagame demonstrates considerable levels of more competitiveness than the Metaknight legal ruleset metagame when using herfindahl index and simpson diversity index as litmus tests
[9/26/2012 3:13:34 PM] Big D: So basically he's just a really safe character to use, too safe to a point of being bannable?
[9/26/2012 3:14:06 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: it's not that
[9/26/2012 3:14:12 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: well I guess yea it is
[9/26/2012 3:14:20 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: what is this wishy washy stuff
[9/26/2012 3:14:22 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: it's safe to the point of "it is inhernetly risky to use anyone but him"
[9/26/2012 3:14:29 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: ok I see
[9/26/2012 3:14:53 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: But in most game design theory, a strictly dominant strategy reflects a shallow game
[9/26/2012 3:15:23 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: however, when that strictly dominant strategy is removed, there appears to exist a deeper game
[9/26/2012 3:15:57 PM] Big D: So if I understand here
[9/26/2012 3:16:11 PM] Big D: MK Banned meta game > MK legal meta game in depth
[9/26/2012 3:16:19 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: in "competitiveness"
[9/26/2012 3:16:21 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: not just depth
[9/26/2012 3:16:24 PM] Big D: k
[9/26/2012 3:16:29 PM] Big D: "competitiveness"
[9/26/2012 3:16:42 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: as popularly defined by nearly every discipline academically
[9/26/2012 3:17:16 PM] Big D: So like
[9/26/2012 3:17:24 PM] Big D: depth/skill gap?
[9/26/2012 3:17:34 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: essentially
[9/26/2012 3:17:41 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: if MK had even one bad matchup
[9/26/2012 3:17:58 PM] Big D: well you know
[9/26/2012 3:18:02 PM] Big D: someone said on stream
[9/26/2012 3:18:03 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: the statistics would not indicate he's a strictly dominant strategy
[9/26/2012 3:18:21 PM] Big D: "It is to my understanding that Ice Climbers counter Meta Knight"
[9/26/2012 3:18:30 PM] Big D: I lol'd
[9/26/2012 3:18:30 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: right
[9/26/2012 3:18:33 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: but the numbers dont' back that up
[9/26/2012 3:18:35 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: lol
[9/26/2012 3:18:39 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: just point "scoreboard"
[9/26/2012 3:18:50 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: and the HI indicates he's a strictly dominant strategy
[9/26/2012 3:18:52 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: we'll put it this way
[9/26/2012 3:18:56 PM] Big D: he was a new guy trying to commentate i give him slack
[9/26/2012 3:19:00 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: if Brawl were a market
[9/26/2012 3:19:21 PM] Big D: I'd go for the pick two for the price of one deal
[9/26/2012 3:19:24 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: even some of the most libertarian economists would argue
[9/26/2012 3:19:37 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: that MK ought to be broken up into smaller firms
[9/26/2012 3:19:44 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: aka banned
[9/26/2012 3:19:44 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: lol
[9/26/2012 3:20:13 PM] Big D: I don't think I've heard the stock market used as an analogy for smash before
[9/26/2012 3:20:14 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: or they would argue he would destroy the game and it should be left to die
[9/26/2012 3:21:13 PM] xX1337Sn1PeZaSsAsS1nXx: but they would not argue that he's good for the sustainability of said market lol
[9/26/2012 3:21:20 PM] Big D: ok now without statistics here and all on based on preference
[9/26/2012 3:21:30 PM] Big D: With him legal
[9/26/2012 3:21:40 PM] Big D: Nobody in our scene wants RC/Brinstar/PS2
[9/26/2012 3:21:47 PM] Big D: with him gone I don't have to deal with MK
[9/26/2012 3:22:01 PM] Big D: that is all[/COLLAPSE]
 
Arcansi

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
| Big D | said:
There are legit reasons why MK should be banned as well as legit reasons to keep him legal. The balance logic you guys are both using could be used to ban melee fox or legalize Ivan Ooze/Akuma. There is no wrong answer to whether he should be banned as well as not having a right answer. Many regions have him banned and many have him legal, both with reputable players as TOs in many cases. The question isn't should he be banned, the question is should he be banned in our area. The answer for BC Brawl is no, that doesn't necessarily mean that that is Gottacon's answer, but it definitely could be.

I recommend taking this argument up with the TO of Gottacon on Facebook, because arguing which meta game is the better meta game wont take anyone anywhere. It comes down to counter picks/character diversity vs the loss of a viable character. The case shouldn't be which meta game is better but how would the event benefit with or without MK.
Click to expand...
I was about to bring this up save the second paragraph.

I originally wanted to just tell my case to the TO of Gottacon, but I forget myself.

My instinct is to challenge snipez on him having researched more than I, but I believe he has.

I don't think he knows more than me, but he does seem quite knowledgeable.

Snipez, why don't you talk in the thread?

I find it intriguing that I am essentially saying what snipez is, but in an objectively worse way.

EDIT: What I'm saying may look pretty far removed from what Snipez is, and it is. They're the same in principle(Not base principle, although they are the same in that also. But that's a given, we're on the same side of the argument). I hope this makes sense.

@Traffic: Along with above, I believe it should be noted that you ignored probably the most important point on my post.

The system you have going there doesn't fully represent Brawl(and the people playing it) as a whole.

It seems to ignore things like heavy bias towards certain results already, and such.
 
traffic.

traffic.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
427
:awesome:

apparently is too short to post on its own.

edit- and as i stated, the only effect of the ban that matters is player turnout. if the number of people that would show up is greater with an MK ban, then it is clearly in the region's best interest if the goal is to grow as a community. if less people show up because of the MK ban, it is clearly a bad decision, as the community suffers to coddle the few who cannot adapt.

lol repeating myself edit- arcansi the formula you are criticizing is the matchup chart you said backed up your argument completely.
 
traffic.

traffic.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
427
SKidd said:
can u tell us why so much more salt comes from jj and landon than anyone else
Click to expand...
Geospizinae is a sub-family of birds that due to geological isolation developed a variety of defining features to separate themselves from each other despite all having a common environment and motivation. A common misconception is that while these features are notably different when compared directly, that it makes them intrinsically different creatures. The subtle changes between the varieties alter biology over time and generations, with the deciding factors being changes to food sources, camouflage and identifying features, among many other small things that collectively add up.

It is not until there is a larger amount of these birds with a larger number of differences that we begin to single out and identify these particular traits, as in passing and isolated viewing, many of the subtle differences between birds can be missed. Once these different varieties are put together, the birds with particularly developed traits will not be singled out by the group, but by themselves, as the defining traits they have developed are as much an identification tool as they are a point of biological pride.

When the environmental conditions are primed to allow for these differences to develop, the singularity in question does not disrupt a small ecosystem, but given the diversity of a large ecosystem, those defining traits become rarer, leaving the fewer (by direct comparison) birds of the same group (as defined by their identifying features) to congregate and through the biological reward of passing these features on through generations, they become distinctly more developed and then grow to define the bird.

It's also important to note that in a large ecosystem, those flagship features are being identified by a larger number of birds (read: variations there-of) and appear to be considerably more dramatic than when only compared to those of the original similar caste of Geospizinae.
 
Arcansi

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
traffic. said:
lol repeating myself edit- arcansi the formula you are criticizing is the matchup chart you said backed up your argument completely.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you point that out earlier? This allows me to further understand the argument and actually respond.

I can't see any non-douchy way that you would want this, but I don't want to assume you are a douche. So, why?

You see, the things that I said exist in the formula do. You just chose to ignore them.

It pretty much invalidates your analysis, I believe.

Also, I'm pretty sure breez will invalidate the 'does the attendance of the tournament go up//down' criteria. He has a large conflict of interest and the resources to rig such a criteria.

I am wary of the given criteria, for this reason.

EDIT: May as well back up my point.

traffic. said:
if less people show up because of the MK ban, it is clearly a bad decision, as the community suffers to coddle the few who cannot adapt.
Click to expand...
This is true, given nobody has a conflict of interest(CoI) and the resources to skew the criteria.

But when there is one, the criteria no longer measures its original thing. It now measures something else, notably how much resources the CoI has + whatever it was measuring before.
 
traffic.

traffic.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
427
me in that first post]And you're right said:
This is true, given nobody has a conflict of interest(CoI) and the resources to skew the criteria.

But when there is one, the criteria no longer measures its original thing. It now measures something else, notably how much resources the CoI has + whatever it was measuring before.
Click to expand...
But you dont know Ben or why he's interested in talking to the guy who runs Gottacon, your argument can only be correct if it stands on the conditions (set by you) that he is trying to rig the contest to ensure that he wins. And the thing you need to understand is by breaking it down into that garbled math ****, you were able to see the flaws in using the matchup chart as proof for your argument for the ban, so that you would hopefully understand that your personal bias does not make an argument correct, simply that it's your personal bias and doesn't need to be justified, just accepted for what it is.

My argument was that by using the matchup chart (or for all intents and purposes, the numbers related to "hard stats") it takes away the human side of creative thinking and interaction needed for the game to have any context or meaning, and that I was opposed to the ban because it compromises that ideal. You not only prevent other people from playing with you, but you also prevent yourself from growing and overcoming obstacles because they are viewed as too difficult. That's why we don't want an MK ban. Not because we want it rigged so we can win, just that we want to play. Player turnout is the only thing that I care about, because I would hope as a fellow player you also want more people to play and for smash brothers to grow in popularity because you love the game, and that your chances of winning said game have nothing to do with how much you like playing it.

Unless it has everything to do with how much you like playing it, which is fine, just say it for what it is. I'm also curious as to what you are imagining "the resources it takes" are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom