Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[LiteralGrill]

So, big stages are stupid stages or not?

It depends, such vague questions are tough to answer.

 

[PAPCGyE]

It depends, such vague questions are tough to answer.

For example A stage like New Pork City, but without the pink monster that kills instantly

 

[PAPCGyE]

It depends, such vague questions are tough to answer.

For example A stage like New Pork City, but without the pink monster that kills instantly

 

[LiteralGrill]

For example A stage like New Pork City, but without the pink monster that kills instantly

Circle camping makes stages that large a problem.

 

[Chiroz]

Not going to join the discussion, just trying to further explain some points.

T0MMY, the program will be designed so that once it gets going everything will be simplified and will actually help the TO organize events. It isn't possible to do everything at once, but for future iterations the program will become very attractive for TOs to use themselves if they want to simplify their own lives. (Which goes over what you were asking about lazy TOs). Basically all we need is a bit of support while we are at our beginning stages.

Secondly rulesets are declared on a different step than where the games are. Each game corresponds to a certain match between 2-4 players (depending on singles or doubles) which corresponds to a certain tournament or event which has a certain number of rounds with each round having the possibility of having different structure and/or rulesets (you could have 3 rounds of round robin with all stages on and then 6 rounds of double elim with only FD).

How long a game lasts is specified on the ruleset being used by that round. You only need to check said ruleset and then just take time remaining and substract them for time played. The same can be said for things like stocks.



You are talking about how a "dictator" can use this program to say what the right way to play is, but isn't that kind of what happens now? If I may say so myself it is much harder to convince people about something by "handling" the data which isn't there than convincing them when there is no data at all.

Let me explain myself because I think I might have made some grammatical mistakes and might be hard to understand. What is being done now, where a mayority just decides because it is what the experienced players decide would be much harder to accomplish if there was data suggesting that the experienced players are wrong. Obviously data can always be misused and misinterpreted, but convincing players that your misinterpretation is right is harder than convincing them that your experience is what matters most. At least in my opinion.

So having a database keeping track of everything would actually help against those type of situations.

 

[Overswarm]

How about you? Why are you irritating?

Because it's funny to me.

 

[T0MMY]

Not going to join the discussion, just trying to further explain some points.

T0MMY, the program will be designed so that once it gets going everything will be simplified and will actually help the TO organize events. It isn't possible to do everything at once, but for future iterations the program will become very attractive for TOs to use themselves if they want to simplify their own lives. (Which goes over what you were asking about lazy TOs). Basically all we need is a bit of support while we are at our beginning stages.

I'm not going to say this sounds very convincing, but that doesn't really matter. Not being a lazy TO in my region, I'll be looking to help out with this. Just bear with me while I evaluate and give whatever new developments some critique (like the question about remaining time, but no total time used).

Secondly rulesets are declared on a different step than where the games are.

I'm not sure what this point is directed at. Maybe about the time remaining question?
If so, perhaps having more information displayed alongside it would be helpful.

What is being done now, where a mayority just decides because it is what the experienced players decide would be much harder to accomplish if there was data suggesting that the experienced players are wrong. Obviously data can always be misused and misinterpreted, but convincing players that your misinterpretation is right is harder than convincing them that your experience is what matters most. At least in my opinion.

I think you summed up both sides of the problem. That lack of data won't help and data won't really help. It almost seems better to say that this is data, pure and simple, and not have any expectations of it since the data will be used however the people want (because that's what's going to happen anyway).

I can't wait for all the kind of "Mega Man should be banned because 68% of the players are using him" arguments.
Or "Ban Final Destination because this character is too good on it" arguments.
Not like these kinds of arguments won't be there anyway, but they will at least have some kind of appeal to majority fallacy to try to bolster them.

I'll be around sweeping it up with a little bit of reason (a spark of light, no matter how small always expels darkness).

 

[Chiroz]

I'm not going to say this sounds very convincing, but that doesn't really matter. Not being a lazy TO in my region, I'll be looking to help out with this. Just bear with me while I evaluate and give whatever new developments some critique (like the question about remaining time, but no total time used).


I'm not sure what this point is directed at. Maybe about the time remaining question?
If so, perhaps having more information displayed alongside it would be helpful.

The pictures provided by Capps are of the website and/or slips are mock ups of what is going to be. Currently they don't show everything. Plus when performing a query, the person using the program will be able to limit his search to as much or as little information as he wants. So if the person querying the information just wants to see how much stocks were left he is welcome to do so without needing to see what were the max stocks to begin with.

This is done because there is a very grand number of things that define a ruleset including the status of every single stage and every single item (which would be at the very least 60 fields of information in order to specify if they are banned or allowed under an ISP tournament). So much information might not be desired. Maybe you just query all tournaments where FD is banned so you don't need to see on screen that FD was banned. Or following those steps, you only care for 4 stocks/8 minute matches and only query for those matches, as such that information could be hidden so as to help you get to the information you want with more ease and less cluttering of your screen.

I think you summed up both sides of the problem. That lack of data won't help and data won't really help. It almost seems better to say that this is data, pure and simple, and not have any expectations of it since the data will be used however the people want (because that's what's going to happen anyway).

I can't wait for all the kind of "Mega Man should be banned because 68% of the players are using him" arguments.
Or "Ban Final Destination because this character is too good on it" arguments.
Not like these kinds of arguments won't be there anyway, but they will at least have some kind of appeal to majority fallacy to try to bolster

The thing I was saying though is that even though data does not solve this problem, the availability of the data to everyone helps diminish it.

You can make hypothetical situations all day long, but normally things like Google or Newspapers/Channels have always been a good thing for the development of communities even if there is a minority that uses these tools for a wrong purpose.

At least that's my opinion. Sure people have used Newschannels or newspaper to spread propaganda or slightly altered versions of the truth, but remember this program isn't going to be an analysis of the data, it's going to be just data. Anyone can open up the website and check the numbers themselves in a couple of minutes. If you are convinced by an opinion about the data when the data does not even hint at that opinion and without checking the data yourself chances are you would have been convinced without the existence of the data itself.

At the end of the day, if the data does hint at Falco winning 90% of his games on FD then wouldn't you call that overpowered? I mean MK right now has a bunch of 55-60% matchups and people say he is overpowered because he doesn't have any bad matchups. Imagine Falco winning 90% of all games on a single map, even without any data people would notice instantly. But with data we might be able to tell if the characters Falco does badly against maybe are just horrible in FD. We could look at the data, look for the 2nd character with most wins on FD and try and see how he fares against Falco. Look for which players using Falco won against good players using different chars, maybe Falco is just not picked a lot at major events and these unbeatable Falco's just haven't fought someone their own level. Many reasons could be causing this and data would pinpoint the possible causes for us to test.

If data suggests that any Falco player (including inexperienced ones) could beat any pro player if they are on FD 90% of the time, yet this player loses 90% of the time playing on any other stage or using any other character, then maybe Falco in FD should be taken a hard long look at. Don't you think?

 

[T0MMY]

The pictures provided by Capps are of the website and/or slips are mock ups of what is going to be.

Ok, so it's more a question why the person who made the mockups decided on the information shown.

[/quote]The thing I was saying though is that even though data does not solve this problem, the availability of the data to everyone helps diminish it.[/quote]
I'm not so sure about that. But I suppose being optimistic isn't going to be too bad of a thing here.

You can make hypothetical situations all day long, but normally things like Google or Newspapers/Channels have always been a good thing for the development of communities even if there is a minority that uses these tools for a wrong purpose.

This is under the assumption that hypothetical situations are just being made up. Fact is that this matter is has already been historically shown to be the case and can be expected. This is something I have brought to the table and it can be addressed or ignored. Seeing as this isn't my project it's not my position to decide.
But having some foresight on this matter would give TO's like me more reason to be acceptable to this work.

At the end of the day, if the data does hint at Falco winning 90% of his games on FD then wouldn't you call that overpowered?

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion right away. I would want to look at the data first.
See how easy it was to jump to the conclusion "overpowered" simply based on data.
Interpretation is everything.

I mean MK right now has a bunch of 55-60% matchups and people say he is overpowered because he doesn't have any bad matchups.

Yeah, again this data didn't seem help matters, some may say it just gave fuel to the pyros.
This is exactly why I brought up the question why this project should be undertaken to begin with.
I'm not trying to put it down, I am honestly wondering why we need it (and I did say as a TO I would be looking into using it).

Imagine Falco winning 90% of all games on a single map, even without any data people would notice instantly. But with data we might be able to tell if the characters Falco does badly against maybe are just horrible in FD. We could look at the data, look for the 2nd character with most wins on FD and try and see how he fares against Falco. Look for which players using Falco won against good players using different chars, maybe Falco is just not picked a lot at major events and these unbeatable Falco's just haven't fought someone their own level. Many reasons could be causing this and data would pinpoint the possible causes for us to test.

This kind of analysis is fine. It seems to be on an individual basis, such as me being a competitive player and being CP'd Falco on FD I'd want to know how to beat that challenge.
But this is beyond the scope of my concerns as individuals using this as a tool to help improve their competitive game is not the same as a mob of people trying to ban Falco, FD, or both and using this data as "proof" to do it.
I may once again have to emphasize I am not trying to undermine anyone's efforts with this, but just talking about a point nobody else may want to.

If data suggests that any Falco player (including inexperienced ones) could beat any pro player if they are on FD 90% of the time, yet this player loses 90% of the time playing on any other stage or using any other character, then maybe Falco in FD should be taken a hard long look at. Don't you think?

I'm not sure what "taken a hard look at" implies. Please clarify.

Spoiler

This may be where Capps thinks I am "question dodging", but is a good example of asking for clarification so a more accurate answer may be given. ;^)

 

[Zyskyoto]

3 stock, no items, battlefield clones and FD only.

But you already knew that.

And so did the rest of you.

/thread

 

[Chiroz]

Ok, so it's more a question why the person who made the mockups decided on the information shown.

On the next paragraph I give you an explanation of why there could be a lack of information anyways. Truthfully you just didn't look at the whole picture when doing an analysis of the design of the program.

This is under the assumption that hypothetical situations are just being made up. Fact is that this matter is has already been historically shown to be the case and can be expected. This is something I have brought to the table and it can be addressed or ignored. Seeing as this isn't my project it's not my position to decide.
But having some foresight on this matter would give TO's like me more reason to be acceptable to this work.

Well in my own opinion, historically speaking (I say opinion because I am not a historian or got perfect A's on history classes back in high school, so my knowledge of history isn't exactly complete) the situation where one person or group commands or sways the opinions of others normally happens the most when those others have little to no knowledge of the situation at hand. Having information does not mean the problem doesn't happen, but it does mean that it is much harder for the party trying to convince the others.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion right away. I would want to look at the data first.
See how easy it was to jump to the conclusion "overpowered" simply based on data.
Interpretation is everything.

Yes, but if you had no data what would you do? You are agreeing with me that in this case data gives you a way out while not having it means there is no alternative other than saying: "we shouldn't ban him because we are ignorants of why this is happening"

Yeah, again this data didn't seem help matters, some may say it just gave fuel to the pyros.
This is exactly why I brought up the question why this project should be undertaken to begin with.
I'm not trying to put it down, I am honestly wondering why we need it (and I did say as a TO I would be looking into using it).

But most of the data was barely just opinions and perceptions. The actual raw data was just % used and % won on tournaments and this data was already incredibly skewed because people were following popular opinions and perceptions. So technically speaking, MK's status was our own creation. I am not debating wether he is OP or not, I am just saying that the actual lack of data helped people convince others about MK's OPness without much hesitation. Data may not have helped the case, but at least then you could see exactly when and how does MK fail (if he fails at all)

This kind of analysis is fine. It seems to be on an individual basis, such as me being a competitive player and being CP'd Falco on FD I'd want to know how to beat that challenge.
But this is beyond the scope of my concerns as individuals using this as a tool to help improve their competitive game is not the same as a mob of people trying to ban Falco, FD, or both and using this data as "proof" to do it.
I may once again have to emphasize I am not trying to undermine anyone's efforts with this, but just talking about a point nobody else may want to.

But I am not talking at an individual level, let me see if I can explain myself better. Say MK is winning most games and people start calling him OP. This "group" of people each on its own is an individual person. Say they are trying to convince more people about this "fact" and they post the win ratio of MK's in all matches being 65%.

Now you go into the site and look for MK's win ratio against all character (individualized) and you notice that MK wins about 80% of the games against Marth and Fox who are the 2 most popular characters by far. You then notice that Ganondorf and Bowser beat MK in 70% of their games but those characters are never picked. And so with data you discovered he isn't as OP and you can actually discuss against this group who call him OP and try to enlighten other people on the facts you discovered.

If you don't look at the data yourself and just join popular opinion without even trying to understand, chances are you would have done the same even if no data was provided or available and as such data did not influence your opinion.

If on the other hand, you look at the data and it does show that MK is ridiculously overpowered to the point where he wins against all characters on all stages and you are even able to defeat players with much higher skill just because of using said character, then it needs to be analized wethere MK is a healthy element of the game or one who is just hindering its possible growth.

I'm not sure what "taken a hard look at" implies. Please clarify.

Spoiler

This may be where Capps thinks I am "question dodging", but is a good example of asking for clarification so a more accurate answer may be given. ;^)

It means what I said on the previous paragraph. Data is there to allow us to discuss with facts rather than opinions. It is meant so that you cab clearly say: MK wins 65% of the time against Olimar instead of saying: Pros believe Olimar beats MK 55:45. Data won't solve our problems or make it worse, but it will inmensely help people who are trying to solve problems, it will also help people trying to make it worse admitedly, but as I said the data is there for everyone to use and people who are trying to help will be able to defend themselves with the same data.

If there is no way to defend a case using the data (banning a character), then maybe that case might not be worth defending. At the very least it should be analized as deeply as possible and that can only be done by having as much data as possible.

 

[T0MMY]

On the next paragraph I give you an explanation of why there could be a lack of information anyways. Truthfully you just didn't look at the whole picture when doing an analysis of the design of the program.

I understood what you posted, and you are wrong about me not looking at the whole picture.
Who made the mockups?

Well in my own opinion, historically speaking (I say opinion because I am not a historian or got perfect A's on history classes back in high school, so my knowledge of history isn't exactly complete)

We're talking within the scope of the history of Smash Bros. rulesets here, it doesn't go back much further than about a decade and does not involve high school (which is a joke of an institute anyway).

Yes, but if you had no data what would you do?

That question is contrary to the point of having data showing Falco winning 90% of the time.

But most of the data was barely just opinions and perceptions. The actual raw data was just % used and % won on tournaments and this data was already incredibly skewed because people were following popular opinions and perceptions.

From what I was keeping up with, the data was actually collected the same way as this new proposed program.
To say it was mostly just data would only seem to serve to brush this point under the rug. Not healthy for a conversation.

But I am not talking at an individual level, let me see if I can explain myself better. Say MK is winning most games and people start calling him OP. This "group" of people each on its own is an individual person.

Groups of people are not an individual person.

Now you go into the site and look for MK's win ratio against all character (individualized) and you notice that MK wins about 80% of the games against Marth and Fox who are the 2 most popular characters by far. You then notice that Ganondorf and Bowser beat MK in 70% of their games but those characters are never picked. And so with data you discovered he isn't as OP and you can actually discuss against this group who call him OP and try to enlighten other people on the facts you discovered.

I think you are missing the point that such data would not resolve anything with these kinds of groups and instead should be used on an individual basis.
If this were me finding out that somehow 70% of the Bowser/Ganondorf players are winning against Meta Knight then I would simply look into picking the specifics of those matchups.
As it is if you look at Oregon's 5 year record you'll see my R.O.B. beats the stuffing out of Meta Knights about that percent or more. Do I think R.O.B. is somehow a good character in that matchup? No.
The data doesn't change my opinion at all and I would never suggest people pick up R.O.B. to play against Meta Knight as it takes an insane amount more skill to beat a MK player who knows just roughly the basics of spamming Tornado, D-Smash, and Shuttle Loop.

So, like I said previously when asked about Falco winning 90% of the time on FD: It would be cause for me to want to examine the situation, but should NOT be the end-all of a metagame analysis.
Individually this works.
Using it on a national debate just adds fuel to the fire.
Note: imo

If on the other hand, you look at the data and it does show that MK is ridiculously overpowered to the point where he wins against all characters on all stages and you are even able to defeat players with much higher skill just because of using said character, then it needs to be analized wethere MK is a healthy element of the game or one who is just hindering its possible growth.

This actually would serve an example why I think Philosophy trumps analysis.
With sound philosophy we don't get scrub-mentality dictating on a loose thread of "data".
Wisdom > Knowledge

The Smash Community would greatly benefit from a competitive standard.

It means what I said on the previous paragraph. Data is there to allow us to discuss with facts rather than opinions.

Again, it may be nice if that turned out to be the case, but it still does not address the issue of facts data being used to dress up poorly founded opinion/assertions.

If there is no way to defend a case using the data (banning a character), then maybe that case might not be worth defending. At the very least it should be analized as deeply as possible and that can only be done by having as much data as possible.

I am mostly agreeing you on all the above accounts as well as this one.
But please stick to my question why this data would help on a national scale (arguing to make a character banned nationally) rather than a local/individual one.

 

[Chiroz]

I understood what you posted, and you are wrong about me not looking at the whole picture.
Who made the mockups?

It doesn't really matter. The mockups are in fact incomplete. But my point was that a person who searches for matches with 8 minute timers and 4 maximum stocks will probably not be displayed the "maximum time" or "maximum stock" field because they already know what it is since they specified they only wanted to see games with said parameters. (Obviously this doesn't apply to all data, thing such as character and player will always be shown even if you specify them, at least under the current design, but who knows, we could change that). Basically I just wanted to say that there are instances where maximum time won't be needed and even though that wasn't the case on the mockup, it very well could have been.

We're talking within the scope of the history of Smash Bros. rulesets here, it doesn't go back much further than about a decade and does not involve high school (which is a joke of an institute anyway).

I am talking about the use of data as a whole. Data is used in every single field of every single art/science, etc. I am trying to express that having data readily available for any topic does not create erroneous opinions that would not otherwise be created anyways. That is to say that I believe that if a perception is formed from a set of data and this perception is erroneous yet people believe it, then the same people would have believed the same perception even if there was no data to begin with.

That question is contrary to the point of having data showing Falco winning 90% of the time.

I am just trying to argue that having data is better than not having it. You are trying to create scenarios were data creates a problem, I am trying to show you where in most if not all of these scenarios the situation would be much worse if there was no data to begin with.

From what I was keeping up with, the data was actually collected the same way as this new proposed program.
To say it was mostly just data would only seem to serve to brush this point under the rug. Not healthy for a conversation.

It was, you are right, but most data we have to date is incomplete. There are some good data collections such as the one shown by OS which takes many elements into account, but ultimately even that data only has a very small sample of the Smash community.

Now, I am not claiming our program will be much better or that we will do what no one has been able to do yet. I do not claim any kind of superhuman powers or abilities. But I do think that if this program gets going, the data provided will be substantially larger and more accurate.

Groups of people are not an individual person.

I think you are missing the point that such data would not resolve anything with these kinds of groups and instead should be used on an individual basis.
If this were me finding out that somehow 70% of the Bowser/Ganondorf players are winning against Meta Knight then I would simply look into picking the specifics of those matchups.
As it is if you look at Oregon's 5 year record you'll see my R.O.B. beats the stuffing out of Meta Knights about that percent or more. Do I think R.O.B. is somehow a good character in that matchup? No.
The data doesn't change my opinion at all and I would never suggest people pick up R.O.B. to play against Meta Knight as it takes an insane amount more skill to beat a MK player who knows just roughly the basics of spamming Tornado, D-Smash, and Shuttle Loop.

So, like I said previously when asked about Falco winning 90% of the time on FD: It would be cause for me to want to examine the situation, but should NOT be the end-all of a metagame analysis.
Individually this works.
Using it on a national debate just adds fuel to the fire.
Note: imo

You are comparing world wide data with discoveries you make yourself which are also seen as "perception" by other people. If instead there was a clear indication that R.O.B. beats MK (70% of the high level R.O.B.s always beat the best MKs) then you could be sure that a lot of people would pick up R.O.B. and start countering MK. Sure, people who lack the skill level could say that they believe it's not true, but at the end, high level play will show whether or not the data is correct. You seem to think that a program telling you that out of all the matches between the top 100-200 players in the world, R.O.B. always beat MK is the same as saying: I always beat MKs back home. It's a different thing, one has many subjective elements (such as your own skill, number of matches, rules, stages, your opponents skill) which affect the outcome of the match, while the other does not have any (since you can filter them or analyze them separately).

As you said yourself you still don't suggest R.O.B. against MK because you realize it is the other subjective elements which are in your favor and you cannot truly gauge the one element you are trying to compare (R.O.B. vs M.K.).

This actually would serve an example why I think Philosophy trumps analysis.
With sound philosophy we don't get scrub-mentality dictating on a loose thread of "data".
Wisdom > Knowledge

The Smash Community would greatly benefit from a competitive standard.

I am not trying to say that we should blindly follow what data says. I even argued against that exact same point about 10 pages ago. But I do believe analyzing data is always good. Sure some people try to "manage" the data to fit their own theories which might ruin the game (such as MK needs to be banned!), but what I was arguing is that these people would still try to convince others of their theories if data wasn't there in the first place (As it has already happened a great number of times). And in the end of the day, assuming not only one person has access to said data, following the laws of probability (assuming more people want to help the game instead of ruin it) there will be more people arguing against said theories, as long as the data doesn't truly represent said theory and it was only manipulated to do so.

Again, it may be nice if that turned out to be the case, but it still does not address the issue of facts data being used to dress up poorly founded opinion/assertions.

I am mostly agreeing you on all the above accounts as well as this one.
But please stick to my question why this data would help on a national scale (arguing to make a character banned nationally) rather than a local/individual one.

There are many things which data could help us discuss. Such as stage/character legality. The thing is you are only looking at it from the negative side of the coin. Thinking it will be used by the people who have knee-jerk reactions to ruin the metagame of Smash.

I am basically saying that this is a competitive community. And as such we all just want whats best for the game's competitive scene, we don't have to worry about MK being too strong against the newer players or Link's bomb having a very complicated AT which makes Link good but it cannot be done by the average Link player. We can worry only about the "theoretical" top level play. The people who care/play about top level play are very unlikely to make knee-jerk reactions from a data set and from my experience normally are ok with analyzing and trying out new things.

The people who don't care about said top level play would probably still complain about things even if there was no data there to "rile them up". The difference is that with data it gives them some small piece of validity. All we would have to do is analyze this validity. At leas that is the way I see it.

 

[T0MMY]

It doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter if they receive feedback on their work?

The mockups are in fact incomplete.

Guess either nobody cares about feedback or someone jumped the gun showing them off?

But my point was that a person who searches for matches with 8 minute timers and 4 maximum stocks will probably not be displayed the "maximum time" or "maximum stock" field because they already know what it is since they specified they only wanted to see games with said parameters.

Showing time left but not more imperative data; this could be set up better.
Kind of stating the obvious here, Would go into more detail if feedback actually reached the designer.

I am talking about the use of data as a whole. Data is used in every single field of every single art/science, etc.

Not sure why you would make that proposition.

I am trying to express that having data readily available for any topic does not create erroneous opinions that would not otherwise be created anyways.

Yeah, I never said that either.
Just like having gasoline next to matches doesn't mean there is necessarily going to be a fire. But my advice is what will be the precautions if a fire breaks out when those two items are in a room full of arsonists.

That is to say that I believe that if a perception is formed from a set of data and this perception is erroneous yet people believe it, then the same people would have believed the same perception even if there was no data to begin with.

Yep, arsonists.
I mean perceptions.

I am just trying to argue that having data is better than not having it.

Who are you arguing that point with? I am not taking opposition to that.
Again, it's about precautions what you're dealing with.

You are trying to create scenarios were data creates a problem

Wrong.

I am trying to show you where in most if not all of these scenarios the situation would be much worse if there was no data to begin with.

Not doing that good of a job. Best you did was say there'd be a problem either way.
While you are busy ignoring inevitable behavior, I'll get to work on building reasoning that will provide the only escape hatch out of the fire.

Now, I am not claiming our program will be much better or that we will do what no one has been able to do yet.

You say "our". I am going to assume you are also working on this.
Ok, this explains the defensive nature to my questions.

I do not claim any kind of superhuman powers or abilities. But I do think that if this program gets going, the data provided will be substantially larger and more accurate.

Again, I have taken no opposition to any of these claims you are making, and have even said I would help out where I could with this project.
But I know there's going to have to be some damage control with the pyros.

You seem to think that a program telling you that out of all the matches between the top 100-200 players in the world, R.O.B. always beat MK is the same as saying: I always beat MKs back home.

The hypothetical example still stands. Player strength skews the data.
My practical example showed this.
Just letting you know in case you haven't thought of it yet.

It's a different thing, one has many subjective elements (such as your own skill, number of matches, rules, stages, your opponents skill) which affect the outcome of the match, while the other does not have any (since you can filter them or analyze them separately).

So, how are you going to reflect this in the data.

I am not trying to say that we should blindly follow what data says.

Ok, how are you going to communicate this to the users?

But I do believe analyzing data is always good.

Not always.
I try to stay away from absolutes. Sticky business.

Sure some people try to "manage" the data to fit their own theories which might ruin the game

Oh, so not always.

but what I was arguing is that these people would still try to convince others of their theories if data wasn't there in the first place

Hence the damage control I mentioned earlier.
Fuel for the fire.

(As it has already happened a great number of times). And in the end of the day, assuming not only one person has access to said data, following the laws of probability (assuming more people want to help the game instead of ruin it) there will be more people arguing against said theories, as long as the data doesn't truly represent said theory and it was only manipulated to do so.

I think you mean to say probability theory.
Not sure what laws you would be talking about unless it's Law of Large Numbers (which I think is also theoretically derived and may not be a law, strictly speaking).
Regardless, I don't think your assumption holds true just because there is data there to be used for good. It takes reasonable people to do these things. So what I am going to be focusing on is educating people on reason instead of casting pearls before swine.

There are many things which data could help us discuss. Such as stage/character legality. The thing is you are only looking at it from the negative side of the coin.

You are honestly saying precaution based on historical account and obvious likelihood is "negative".
Please, reconsider this bold statement before you have to try to lend it support.

I am basically saying that this is a competitive community. And as such we all just want whats best for the game's competitive scene

That's rather naive to assume.
Maybe you are being too "positive" about things?

We can worry only about the "theoretical" top level play.

There's no reason to worry about that. Strange.

The people who care/play about top level play are very unlikely to make knee-jerk reactions from a data set and from my experience normally are ok with analyzing and trying out new things.

This seems to me like another naive assumption.
Foresight, my dear boy.

The people who don't care about said top level play would probably still complain about things even if there was no data there to "rile them up". The difference is that with data it gives them some small piece of validity. All we would have to do is analyze this validity. At leas that is the way I see it.

I'm not sure who "we" are, but I am sure that "we" will have the same biased opinion relating to their own analysis as "them".
Opinion is merely opinion.
This data and the accompanying opinion should not be basis for making decisions on rulesets. IMEO

 

[LiteralGrill]

.

Your posts make little to no sense.

Do you believe having data collected and presented is bad or good?

This is a black/white answer and question. Available answers are "bad" or "good".

Which one?

 

[Mormon Mammoth]

Raykz said:
You are trying to create scenarios were data creates a problem

Wrong.

........................

The hypothetical example still stands. Player strength skews the data.
My practical example showed this.
Just letting you know in case you haven't thought of it yet.

Why are you so self contradictory and argumentative?

 

[T0MMY]

Your posts make little to no sense.

Do you believe having data collected and presented is bad or good?

This is a black/white answer and question. Available answers are "bad" or "good".

Which one?

False dichotomy.
Certain situations will result in a determined circumstance. If you prepare properly it won't be "bad" (whatever that means to you), if not then it's a grasshopper and ant scenario. So, ultimately I find this to be catch-22 question and leave it at that.

Why are you so self contradictory and argumentative?

If this is a prime example of a leading question: Please rephrase to be constructive rather than derogatory (or I could retort asking if you've stopped beating your wife).
If you were actually being serious, please refer to the answer I gave Capps.

 

[Mormon Mammoth]

Certain situations will result in a determined circumstance. If you prepare properly it won't be "bad" (whatever that means to you), if not then it's a grasshopper and ant scenario. So, ultimately I find this to be catch-22 question and leave it at that.

How do you believe we should prepare? Anything constructive will help, even if we disagree.

 

[LiteralGrill]

False dichotomy.
Certain situations will result in a determined circumstance. If you prepare properly it won't be "bad" (whatever that means to you), if not then it's a grasshopper and ant scenario. So, ultimately I find this to be catch-22 question and leave it at that.

Nope, I asked for a black and white answer. You failed to answer a simple question. All I was doing in collecting then showing people the data. That's it. You could have answered that easily but chose to create a wall in the conversation instead as you do in almost all conversations.

All I'm doing is collecting the data and allowing it to be searchable. There are tons of positive things people would be able to do with such a program. It has the capabilities to provide us with better rulesets, better commentary, better players, a more developed meta game, better matchup charts, better tier lists, need I go on?

It seems all you are worried about is someone will try and use the data and skew numbers to make up things for their own agenda. If someone does that, you can say "you are skewing data to make up things for your own agenda" and end that conversation. How easy is that? Then the people using the data legitimately will be praised in that regard for helping make an amazing tool that could make competitive smash better then ever before.

If someone does find something interesting that isn't normal to popular belief (like the R.O.B. beats MK example) this gives people something to test, through testing people will find this to not likely be the case and they data will reflect that. The database will become better and more accurate the more data it receives, an excellent quality.

People will collect this data anyways, it's been done in the past. The way it's been forced to be done in the past is ridiculously difficult and requires insane amounts of effort compared to how this will be done. The data will be there either way, and people will say what they want with the data. Why not allow a neutral party that has no bias to collect and present it? This adds ease of access, less bias, and allows the players themselves to sort out what it all means instead of the one or two people who take the time to collect things.

If you are worried someone will somehow use the data in an agenda you don't agree with, DEAL WITH IT, because the agenda you may agree with can do the same. You say the logical side will win in the end, then use this data with logic and it will win over people skewing data specifically to make up an agenda. If you believe this to be true, there should be no worry at all about such a program existing, and you should support it.

 

[T0MMY]

How do you believe we should prepare? Anything constructive will help, even if we disagree.

I think good, old-fashion education is the best approach here.

If this organization/program is used to help us competitive players individually improve by making analysis of matchups and specifics of matches easier to digest then I am fully behind it.
If it is being promoted as a way to make sweeping changes to rulesets on large-scale, than I am very much opposed to it.

In the latter case it is a tool of Smash Community politics. And this is why I think education is really the only way to keep this kind of tool from doing more harm than good. If we have some reasonable and wise representatives in each region they can talk sense to the local players about why certain rules are used (stocks vs timer, Team Attack: ON, Items: OFF, etc.)
Groups of locally sensible people will reflect a reasonable national ruleset.
The way it seems to be promoted is contrary to this, so I would be strongly opposed to it. So, here I am providing my perspective on the matter.

Nope, I asked for a black and white answer. You failed to answer a simple question.

You calling it "failed" just means a success to me.
Dress it up however you'd like, false dichotomies do NOT have to be answered, if you believe otherwise, then I have a simple black & white question for you:

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

Yes/No?

Spoiler

The above was all that was necessary to answer the question, but for further details on the rest of the post:

All I was doing in collecting then showing people the data. That's it. You could have answered that easily but chose to create a wall in the conversation instead as you do in almost all conversations.

Wrong.

All I'm doing is collecting the data and allowing it to be searchable. There are tons of positive things people would be able to do with such a program.

Positive things are not to be challenged.
Are you saying you want to back down when the negative things are challenged?
If so, please do not be a passenger plane engineer or take any career that puts peoples' lives at stake. When someone asks how your plane will make a continental trip without proper fuel capacity you would say "JUST LOOK AT THE POSITIVE THINGS - WE CAN FLY!"

No, sorry.

It seems all you are worried about is someone will try and use the data and skew numbers to make up things for their own agenda. If someone does that, you can say "you are skewing data to make up things for your own agenda" and end that conversation. How easy is that?

I am going to take wild guess here... you've never been part of any major movement regarding rulesets for the Smash Community.

Then the people using the data legitimately will be praised in that regard for helping make an amazing tool that could make competitive smash better then ever before.

Haha, good one.

People will collect this data anyways, it's been done in the past.

This is exactly how I know what to watch out for regarding the "pyros".

If you are worried someone will somehow use the data in an agenda you don't agree with, DEAL WITH IT

What do you think I am doing here?
Dealing with it like preparing for an incoming storm.
I am planting the seeds of wisdom here that's going to prevent some really scrubby people from being able to get away with some really scrubby things just because some rather incomplete data gives them a semblance of credibility (topics include majority-rule and reason > data analysis).
You're welcome.

You say the logical side will win in the end, then use this data with logic and it will win over people skewing data specificallyy to make up an agenda. If you believe this to be true, there should be no worry at all about such a program existing, and you should support it.

Firstly, I don't worry over this program or whether it is created or not; as I said earlier I actually do support it.
Secondly, "logic" will not just win out in the end, as if I could just sit back and expect this all to work out properly in the end.

"The price for liberty is eternal vigilance."

I guess I could say it was a nice attempt at quelling my criticism by trying to convince me I am just simply "worrying" too much and should exit this conversation.
Instead, I find myself saying: If we want to play the game competitively (or casually) the way we want instead of some dictator(s) telling us how to play the game then I cannot sit back and just let the chips fall.
That kind of behavior reminds me of this phrase instead:
All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I think good, old-fashion education is the best approach here.

If this organization/program is used to help us competitively players individually improve by making analysis of matchups and specifics of matches easier to digest then I am fully behind it.
If it is being promoted as a way to make sweeping changes to rulesets on large-scale, than I am very much opposed to it.

In the latter case it is a tool of Smash Community politics. And this is why I think education is really the only way to keep this kind of tool from doing more harm than good. If we have some reasonable and wise representatives in each region they can talk sense to the local players about why certain rules are used (stocks vs timer, Team Attack: ON, Items: OFF, etc.)
Groups of locally sensible people will reflect a reasonable national ruleset.
The way it seems to be promoted is contrary to this, so I would be strongly opposed to it. So, here I am providing my perspective on the matter.

Well, look what the project director (me) says, previous post especially. I'm collecting and presenting data, that's it. People can do with it what they will after that, I just want a non bias collection and presentation. That's it. Do with this data what you see fit.

I have no intentions of having it be some sort of political tool. If people use the data in that way? I can't stop them, they have every right to and will collect data by hand to do so anyways. (As it was in the past.) Educate people all you want, I have no issues there but I wont be personally doing it. I want to never have a bias so that everything I show is legitimate. I'm just here to collect and present, and to provide tools to help the community.

 

[T0MMY]

Well, look what the project director (me) says, previous post especially.

You're not the (potential future) dictator here. Haha.
The moment you tell people what to do then you can be, but it's silly to try to set yourself up in that role.

I'm collecting and presenting data, that's it. People can do with it what they will after that, I just want a non bias collection and presentation. That's it. Do with this data what you see fit.

That's what I am doing here. The information you've already given, I have been analyzing and posting my results. Pretty cool, huh?

I have no intentions of having it be some sort of political tool. If people use the data in that way? I can't stop them, they have every right to and will collect data by hand to do so anyways.

I agree.

Educate people all you want, I have no issues there but I wont be personally doing it.
I want to never have a bias so that everything I show is legitimate. I'm just here to collect and present, and to provide tools to help the community.

Ok, Sounds like fun :^)

 

[LiteralGrill]

You're not the (potential future) dictator here. Haha.
The moment you tell people what to do then you can be, but it's silly to try to set yourself up in that role.

No, I'm actually the director of the DataKae! project, I'm saying that literally. Raykz is the guy who wrote our database code. I don't tell everyone what to do though, we convene and discuss on things together, I'm just the guy who keeps us on focus and keeps the direction of the project steady. Still, I hold the position I stated I do.

Hopefully, the idea of a non bias data collection and presentation is something you can support.

 

[T0MMY]

No, I'm actually the director of the DataKae! project, I'm saying that literally. Raykz is the guy who wrote our database code. I don't tell everyone what to do though, we convene and discuss on things together, I'm just the guy who keeps us on focus and keeps the direction of the project steady.

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

If you don't tell everyone what to do (exercising absolute power) I'd think your position is more along the lines of a director?
Although I guess dictator could work as well... but I'd suggest growing a silly, little mustache first X^D

 

[LiteralGrill]

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

If you don't tell everyone what to do (exercising absolute power) I'd think your position is more along the lines of a director?
Although I guess dictator could work as well... but I'd suggest growing a silly, little mustache first X^D

I sadly cannot grow a mustache, pitty...

Anyways, the major point is the repetitive "I'm only here to collect and present". I hope the backrooms, TOs, and any serious smash player will use the program constructively and make use of the tools we hope to provide (school and a limited amount of programmers slow us down, I'd kill for volunteers) in a way to positively promote smash.

 

[T0MMY]

I sadly cannot grow a mustache, pitty...

Testosterone pillz.
Just don't go for the fake facial hair, that may make you lose credibility in your dictator powers... much like what the CIA planned to do to a certain Cuban dictator in operation mongoose. lol

Anyways, the major point is the repetitive "I'm only here to collect and present". I hope the backrooms, TOs, and any serious smash player will use the program constructively and make use of the tools we hope to provide (school and a limited amount of programmers slow us down, I'd kill for volunteers) in a way to positively promote smash.

Sounds good.
However, I'm not so hopeful (been involved in this community a long time). So I've got backup plans.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Seriously, just don't respond to him. Some people can be irritating because they have different beliefs, or they type too much or too little, or can't articulate things properly. t0mmy is none of those things.

*all

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sounds good.
However, I'm not so hopeful (been involved in this community a long time). So I've got backup plans.

Why not hopeful? Of everyone I've contacted thus far it's gotten a positive response (some TOs pledging to try the system out early to give us extra data to work with even).

What are your plans, get the data yourself? It's about time someone did this either way as it would be a HUGE boon to smash, but good luck designing up a system to handle it. It's been taking us MONTHS to manage some of the basics and get them down right. Programming is tough.

 

[T0MMY]

Why not hopeful?

Not saying there's nothing positive coming out of this, THAT stuff doesn't need to be taken care of.
Been part of the community a long time, so looking at it with some experience here.

Of everyone I've contacted thus far it's gotten a positive response (some TOs pledging to try the system out early to give us extra data to work with even).

I was one of those TO's who said they would help out with the data, but just remember, popularity is not a good indication of how good something is.

What are your plans, get the data yourself?

I am not going to be working with data, it'd be a waste of my time.
I'm working with seeds of change.

Spoiler

*all

How ironic.

 

[nat pagle]

This Thread:

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Why so quiet?

 

[xDD-Master]

Battlefield should be the only legal stage.




Nah jk, I am all open for as many stages as possible in the beginning. At least for the first few months we could play on all stages and collect data.
It doesnt even have to be the main event, maybe without pots too. Just for the sake of testing out the game.

 

[Zonderion]

So with the possibility of Smash 4 @ MLG, what kind of rules do you think MLG will have? Will those rules sway the norm?

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=214718

 

[xDD-Master]

So with the possibility of Smash 4 @ MLG, what kind of rules do you think MLG will have? Will those rules sway the norm?

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=214718

I am pretty sure they would use community standard rules.

 

[Zonderion]

I am pretty sure they would use community standard rules.

Care to expand?

 

[ScubaF_ingSteve]

Care to expand?

No items, stage striking, the numbers of stocks + timer, stage list, any banned techs like wobbling or infinite caping, dave's stupid rule, etc.

 

[LiteralGrill]

MLG has been known to have a much larger stagelist in the past.

 

[Zonderion]

No items, stage striking, the numbers of stocks + timer, stage list, any banned techs like wobbling or infinite caping, dave's stupid rule, etc.

Do you think if MLG had information on the most played set of rules that they would adapt to that? Or are they pretty much set in their ways?\

 

[RODO]

I'm down for the datakae! thing

 

[Zonderion]

I'm down for the datakae! thing

That's what I was hinting at. Datakae! will be gathering lots of data for Smash 4 including rulesets. I'm wondering if MLG would be interested in what the data says and how they would form the rulesets based on it.