Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[da K.I.D.]

On a tangentially related aside, I think we should decide things like first strike/controller slot with coin flips instead of RPS because in practice RPS isn't completely random.

RPS isnt supposed to be random.

its supposed to be a competition. like the actual match that the players are playing over.

 

[Metal Reeper]

I used to like this new ruleset but im hating it more and more. When I played it I would just get the lead and play SUPER defensive. Im usually really agressive. But I felt actually forced to play defensively. I didn't care at all about the clock I wanted to take him to time. It was a gamble I was sure I could win. As from what I've played of this ruleset I appose it. No one should be talking about this ruleset until they've actually tried it. Then we can just vote/ share our ideas from there. I also believe that the 2 stocks 3 mins should only be on the legal stages we have right now. We're jumping in too deep to something potential with having all these foreign stages on.

 

[I R MarF]

I used to like this new ruleset but im hating it more and more. When I played it I would just get the lead and play SUPER defensive. Im usually really agressive. But I felt actually forced to play defensively. I didn't care at all about the clock I wanted to take him to time. It was a gamble I was sure I could win. As from what I've played of this ruleset I appose it. No one should be talking about this ruleset until they've actually tried it. Then we can just vote/ share our ideas from there. I also believe that the 2 stocks 3 mins should only be on the legal stages we have right now. We're jumping in too deep to something potential with having all these foreign stages on.

This is precisely what I've been saying. playing defensively and running the clock is the optimal strategy when the time limit is so small

 

[n1000]

RPS isnt supposed to be random.

its supposed to be a competition. like the actual match that the players are playing over.

Yeah I know. I don't want to have to learn RPS strats to get an advantage at smash.

And Bones, that's not what "politically correct" means

Seriously though, you say "how is that difficult to understand?" when you've literally made a completely different point from your previous post. Likelihood of a better player winning a match vs likelihood that someone wins by a significant margin.

Your posting is unclear and inconsistent, almost to the point of dishonesty. I don't want to exclude you from this conversation but you've got to cut the BS.

Now then, addressing your latest point: We can't carry over a 51% chance to win between two different rulesets, but you bring up an interesting thought. Say we have player A being better than B with a skill difference modeled by a player's probability of taking the next stock taken by either player (so it can be carried over between rulesets with different stock numbers)

If player A has a 75% chance at any given point to take the next stock and player B has 25% then player A will win a one stock match 75% of the time. What would be A's chances of winning in a Bo3 with 4 stock matches? a Bo7 with 2 stock matches?

I don't know the answer yet but I think that a good stock/match count would maximize player A's chances at victory in a set since she is better (by this specific definition)

 

[Kal]

It's hilarious everyone is nitpicking the evenly matched opponents. I guess I should have said closely matched opponents to be politcally correct (evenly matched opponents is only a theoretical idea).

Politically correct? Are you serious?

My point still stands though. If you have more stocks, the better player is more likely to win. If you compare to players' likelihood to win against one-another and one player is at 51% and the other is at 49%, the player with the 49% chance is much more likely to win with only 2 stocks than they are to win with 99. How is this difficult to understand?

You're more likely to win individual matches. This does not mean a greater chance of winning in general. Especially since winning is determined by winning sets, not matches. It's not difficult to understand. You just expect condescension to make your invalid points valid. Ending all of your posts in either "lol" or a question which suggests that your viewpoint is the obviously correct one doesn't make your point of view correct, Mr. "infinite time means less camping."

You say I am just assuming there are only two reasons to reduce the stock count, but don't provide a third reason yourself? lol

The fact that you missed the hyperlink in my post does not mean that I don't have more than two reasons for using a two-stock ruleset.

And really. "Politically correct?" Really Bones?

If player A has a 75% chance at any given point to take the next stock and player B has 25% then player A will win a one stock match 75% of the time. What would be A's chances of winning in a Bo3 with 4 stock matches? a Bo7 with 2 stock matches?

I don't know the answer yet but I think that a good stock/match count would maximize player A's chances at victory in a set since she is better (by this specific definition)

Probability has always been my weak point in math, but it should be clear that, for any given ruleset where matches don't completely fall down to chance (i.e., where you can't simulate the results with a coin flip), a sufficiently long set-length will guarantee the probability of the better player winning to be as close to 1 as you want.

Formally, I would write:

For every p < 1, there exists an integer N such that the probability of the better player winning a set of length N is greater than p.

 

[n1000]

Yeah I'm doing the calculation for my own amusement and also to figure out what "sufficiently long" is. I'm going for "better than 4-stocks bo3" for most skill differentials.

 

[Kal]

At first, I assumed N would be difficult to calculate since it depends on the probability of the better player winning. However, if you write M = N(q), where q is the probability of the better player winning, you can probably just take N to be the supremum on the set {N(q) : q \in (.5, 1] } and get N as strictly a function of p, rather than of both p and q.

Though this is off the top of my head, and I ****ing hate probability.

On second thought, there is a good chance that N(q) is unbounded as the q approaches .5. Man I hate probability.

 

[danteistheshiz]

can I get a list of stages that lag in teams, k bye.

 

[Kal]

Mute City and Fountain of Dreams are all I am aware of.

 

[n1000]

So because of an interesting symmetry* the likelihoods of "better" players winning are almost identical between the rulesets.

*You can think of Bo7 as a "first to 4 sets" and a 4 stock match as "first to 4 stocks"
the same reasoning holds for Bo3 and 2 stock matches. Each ruleset has one "first to 4" and one "first to 2" component but in opposite orders.

 

[n1000]

I bet Cactuar knew that already

 

[Bones0]

If it's easier for the worse player to win individual matches, does it not become easier to win sets? How does that not make sense? You can't just go off of sheer probability calculations because that doesn't take into account that worse players rely on more predictable tactics and the longer a game is, the less effective those tactics become. If you only play 1 stock, guessing correctly becomes A LOT more important than adapting to what your opponent is doing and beating them. I am much more likely to gimmick my way to victory vs. someone way better than me because by the time they adapt the game has ended and they gain nothing from having adapted.

As far as your link to Cactuar's post:

1) They further separate viable and non-viable characters.
Irrelevant. Even if you wanted to attempt to balance the game with the rule set, it's generally agreed that the less cps available, the better low tiers perform.

2) They provide accident forgiveness for the stronger player.
lol I'm sorry, I can't take this one serious.

3) They increase the importance of individual matches.
They only increase the importance of matches to the point that they actually mean anything. If a match is only two stocks long, player skill isn't measured sufficiently making the outcome of the match less meaningful than the outcome of a 4-stock match.

4) Individual matches take too long. (2-8 minutes)
Subjective.

5) Reduces combeback potential.
Untrue. As I explained before, you are more likely to make a comeback 2v4 than you are 1v2. Not only do players have twice as much time to adapt and change up their game, but they have twice as many stocks for their adjustments to take effect. If you catch on to their teching pattern in a 1v2 situation, it's not going to help much because they may only tech 2-3 more times the rest of the game. In a 2v4 situation, they would be teching 4-6 more times, meaning that's twice as often your new adjustment would help you.

6) Reduces accessibility from other FGC players.
Irrelevant.

 

[n1000]

If it's easier for the worse player to win individual matches, does it not become easier to win sets? How does that not make sense?

By my model it is definitely more likely for a worse player to win a lower stock-count game than a higher one. This likelihood doesn't carry over to winning sets because it's offset by having more games per set.

The above is based on my earlier definition of "better", that is equal players are equally likely to take the next stock, a better player might have a 60% chance of taking the next stock, etc.

EDIT: if you adapt to someone's play in one game I don't see why you can't carry that over to the next game. If anything the fact that there are more breaks in Bo7s favors adaptive play.

 

[Bones0]

By my model it is definitely more likely for a worse player to win a lower stock-count game than a higher one. This likelihood doesn't carry over to winning sets because it's offset by having more games per set.

The above is based on my earlier definition of "better", that is equal players are equally likely to take the next stock, a better player might have a 60% chance of taking the next stock, etc.

I edited my post to address the fact that there are more games per set. At the very least, the fact that %s don't carry over still have a significant effect on wins and losses. If you're playing 2-stocks and you edge out a win game 1 and get destroyed game 2, that would normally be a single win for the opponent had it been a 4-stock game. The players are now tied in what should have been a solid win for the better player.

More breaks doesn't favor adaption because it only takes 1 big mistake for you to potentially lose the game. Better players are much more likely to lose their first 2 stocks than their second 2. Having a break doesn't help as much because stages and characters get changed, and the bad player has time to reflect on what they were getting punished for.

Watching House, now. Leave me alone.

 

[FrootLoop]

I always just tell my locals: "you guys don't like my ruleset? Convince me to change it or host your own."

I'm not the TO, I'm just part of the local crowd.

 

[n1000]

You're just conjecturing things about better players without any sort of justification. Are better players really more likely to lose their first two stocks than their second two? (I mean besides the fact that EVERYONE IS MORE LIKELY to lose their first two stocks than their second two) Does having a break not help better players as much? I really don't know, the reasoning you provide is perhaps suggestive of your claims but completely insufficient.


Moreover:

As I explained before, you are more likely to make a comeback 2v4 than you are 1v2....

is also suggested to be false by basic probability. Your reasoning is once again totally insufficient to justify your point. You're introducing asymmetry to a symmetric situation: both players had the same amount of time to adjust to the other's habits. In fact, in a 2v4 situation the guy has already run train on two of his opponent's stocks without taking a scratch himself, maybe he has an even BIGGER advantage! (it sounds good but is unsound)

 

[Kal]

If it's easier for the worse player to win individual matches, does it not become easier to win sets? How does that not make sense?

Because the sets can be of different length. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? If we have one stock matches played at best of one-thousand, you're going to tell me that the better player is more likely to win four stock matches at best of three?

**** no. You're throwing in a bunch of extraneous bull **** about adaptation which is already covered by the initial premise: that your likelihood of winning is a given. If you want to make it a function of the number of matches, that is all fine, but I sincerely doubt you have any adequate model to do so.

1) They further separate viable and non-viable characters.
Irrelevant. Even if you wanted to attempt to balance the game with the rule set, it's generally agreed that the less cps available, the better low tiers perform.

Except your question was why we want to reduce the number of stock, not increase the number of legal stages.

3) They increase the importance of individual matches.
They only increase the importance of matches to the point that they actually mean anything. If a match is only two stocks long, player skill isn't measured sufficiently making the outcome of the match less meaningful than the outcome of a 4-stock match.

Nothing you're spouting here makes any ****ing sense.

4) Individual matches take too long. (2-8 minutes)
Subjective.

No **** it's subjective. You want us to objectively justify an arbitrary decision?

5) Reduces combeback potential.
Untrue. As I explained before, you are more likely to make a comeback 2v4 than you are 1v2. Not only do players have twice as much time to adapt and change up their game, but they have twice as many stocks for their adjustments to take effect. If you catch on to their teching pattern in a 1v2 situation, it's not going to help much because they may only tech 2-3 more times the rest of the game. In a 2v4 situation, they would be teching 4-6 more times, meaning that's twice as often your new adjustment would help you.

c.f. n1000 telling it like it is.

6) Reduces accessibility from other FGC players.
Irrelevant.

What is relevant? Do you want birds to fly through the ****ing sky spelling "four stock?" Or would it need to be spelled "4 stock?" Nothing is "relevant." It's a ****ing arbitrary decision. If you disagree with the decision, that's ok. You can also disagree to play with stocks, or items-off. All of these initial decisions are arbitrary. Stop acting like you can ****ing prove one ruleset is better than the other. The idea that one ruleset is superior is absurd.

So because of an interesting symmetry* the likelihoods of "better" players winning are almost identical between the rulesets.

*You can think of Bo7 as a "first to 4 sets" and a 4 stock match as "first to 4 stocks"
the same reasoning holds for Bo3 and 2 stock matches. Each ruleset has one "first to 4" and one "first to 2" component but in opposite orders.

Would you care to share these calculations? I'm quite lazy but would very much like to see them.

 

[n1000]

Yeah after dinner I will post the spreadsheet I made.

 

[Bones0]

You're just conjecturing things about better players without any sort of justification. Are better players really more likely to lose their first two stocks than their second two? (I mean besides the fact that EVERYONE IS MORE LIKELY to lose their first two stocks than their second two) Does having a break not help better players as much? I really don't know, the reasoning you provide is perhaps suggestive of your claims but completely insufficient.

I meant if you have a better player vs. a worse player in an infinite match, the worse player has a much easier time taking the better player's 1st and 2nd stock than their 3rd or 4th because the better player will adapt and adjust. Let's say I have infinite stocks and I am playing Armada who only gets 4. How many stocks do you think I will lose trying to take his first stock? How many will I need to take his second? etc. Chances are it will become more and more difficult for me to take his stocks as he begins to figure me out.

is also suggested to be false by basic probability. Your reasoning is once again totally insufficient to justify your point. You're introducing asymmetry to a symmetric situation: both players had the same amount of time to adjust to the other's habits. In fact, in a 2v4 situation the guy has already run train on two of his opponent's stocks without taking a scratch himself, maybe he has an even BIGGER advantage! (it sounds good but is unsound)

This is why I said you can't just go off of theoretical probability. It completely ignores REALISTIC scenarios, such as the fact that it is harder to fight with 1 stock than with 2. In a 1v2, every hit matters twice as much. You have less opportunities to CC and trade. If it's 1v2 and I kill my opponent by trading attacks and I take 15%, that 15% is TWICE as much damage to my overall stock count than if it were 2v4. Even if you wanted to argue that a 2v4 was harder to come back than a 1v2, it's still obvious that a 3v4 come back is more possible. If you SD your first stock in a 4-stock game, it's entirely plausible you will bring it back. If you SD your first stock in a 2-stock game, you have to play SPECTACULARLY to bring it back.

Because the sets can be of different length. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? If we have one stock matches played at best of one-thousand, you're going to tell me that the better player is more likely to win four stock matches at best of three?

Well obviously introducing more stocks for either side skews the results. 1000 1-stock games would obviously be more accurate at depicting skill than 3 4-stock games, but that says nothing about the difference between stock counts. What you should compare is 1000 1-stock games to 250 4-stock games, which yes, I believe would be much better for determining skill. You allow for in-game adaption and aren't wasting all of the %s at the end of every 2 stocks (you are only wasting the extra % at the end of ever 4 stocks).

Except your question was why we want to reduce the number of stock, not increase the number of legal stages.

Well I don't see how stock count affects characters. The only way I see low tiers doing better is because they can abuse gimmicks for a quick 2-stock win as opposed to their opponent having time to adapt. And frankly, sacrificing competitiveness just to make it so people can use more characters is still dumb. If a character can't legitimately out-play another character, oh well, it's unviable. This is all irrelevant anyway because we shouldn't be trying to balance the game. The low tiers would be MUCH more viable if we played Super Sudden Death, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that...

No **** it's subjective. You want us to objectively justify an arbitrary decision?

I was asking for a reason to decrease the stock count. You disliking long matches is not a reason to do so anymore than me liking long matches is a reason to increase the count. How can you say "Matches take too long" in any context other than finishing a tournament on time?

What is relevant? Do you want birds to fly through the ****ing sky spelling "four stock?" Or would it need to be spelled "4 stock?" Nothing is "relevant." It's a ****ing arbitrary decision. If you disagree with the decision, that's ok. You can also disagree to play with stocks, or items-off. All of these initial decisions are arbitrary. Stop acting like you can ****ing prove one ruleset is better than the other. The idea that one ruleset is superior is absurd.

I never said I could prove anything, but acting like the FGC community should have any bearing on a Melee ruleset is ludicrous. It'd be like me saying, "Well 64 uses 5-stocks, so Melee should too!" I am fine with debating arbitrary decisions like 4 vs. 5 stocks, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing about irrelevant factors outside of the game such as how easily players from other games can switch to Melee. If you actually think that should have some bearing on the rule set, then clearly this rule set isn't focused on determining the better player and shouldn't be used in serious tournaments.

 

[Kal]

Well obviously introducing more stocks for either side skews the results. 1000 1-stock games would obviously be more accurate at depicting skill than 3 4-stock games, but that says nothing about the difference between stock counts. What you should compare is 1000 1-stock games to 250 4-stock games, which yes, I believe would be much better for determining skill. You allow for in-game adaption and aren't wasting all of the %s at the end of every 2 stocks (you are only wasting the extra % at the end of ever 4 stocks).

I don't think you're getting this at all. I'm saying that, if you want to claim that one game supports skill over another (i.e., increases the probability of the better player winning), then back that **** up. You haven't done so. I've explained that you can compensate for any difference in probability for the individual match by increasing the length of sets. This is a universal fact of any skill game, Bones.

Well I don't see how stock count affects characters. The only way I see low tiers doing better is because they can abuse gimmicks for a quick 2-stock win as opposed to their opponent having time to adapt. And frankly, sacrificing competitiveness just to make it so people can use more characters is still dumb. If a character can't legitimately out-play another character, oh well, it's unviable. This is all irrelevant anyway because we shouldn't be trying to balance the game. The low tiers would be MUCH more viable if we played Super Sudden Death, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that...

We're not sacrificing competitiveness. You asked for reasons to use two stock instead of four. This is one of the reasons. You did not ask for completely flawless justification, and you know better than to ask for it, because it does not exist. We're not trying to ban anything, here. We're not scrubbily justifying a bad decision (i.e., banning Rainbow Cruise because it ****ing moves). It's justification for an arbitrary choice. We don't even need to justify it, honestly. All we need is enough people to prefer it. Because the choice isn't inherently worse (or better) than the choice to play with four stock. It's arbitrary.

I was asking for a reason to decrease the stock count. You disliking long matches is not a reason to do so anymore than me liking long matches is a reason to increase the count. How can you say "Matches take too long" in any context other than finishing a tournament on time?

Considering that the decision is arbitrary, "I prefer long matches" is a perfectly valid justification for four stock.

I never said I could prove anything, but acting like the FGC community should have any bearing on a Melee ruleset is ludicrous. It'd be like me saying, "Well 64 uses 5-stocks, so Melee should too!" I am fine with debating arbitrary decisions like 4 vs. 5 stocks, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing about irrelevant factors outside of the game such as how easily players from other games can switch to Melee. If you actually think that should have some bearing on the rule set, then clearly this rule set isn't focused on determining the better player and shouldn't be used in serious tournaments.

Frankly, when you're making a decision that has no real inherent justification (since, for every pro, there is an associated con, and vice versa), it doesn't make sense to say that something is irrelevant.

I personally agree that this ruleset resembling a traditional fighter isn't really important. But to say it's irrelevant is bull ****! To claim otherwise, you must answer the following question: what is relevant? Then you'll realize that it's in the eye of the beholder. So yeah, you don't care that it resembles a traditional fighter. Neither do I. Hell, Cactuar doesn't seem to either since he barely mentioned the fact. That doesn't make it irrelevant. That makes it irrelevant to you.

 

[n1000]

http://www.mediafire.com/?lfbe9gmtn6awnkd

Cactuar's Alternate Ruleset Analysis Spreadsheet by n1000

NOTES: I use an atypical definition of relative player skill for the purpose of having a definition which may be applied to multiple rulesets.

Relative skill is defined by the likelihood that a given player will take the next stock.

This definition ignores many aspects of real Super Smash Bros. Melee matches such as character percents and the "momentum" within a game. However, it is a useful metric because it allows for differentiation between games with different stock counts and takes into account SSBM's unique mechanic of having a discrete scoring system within a game (players' remaining stock)

P(A) (cell B6) represents this value. A rough estimation can be achieved by considering typical matches between two players. How often does Player A take first blood?

ALL OTHER CELLS are calculated from P(A) which must take a value between 0 and 1

NOTATION:
P_a(3st.) = The probability that Player A wins any individual game(3 stocking the opponent)

P_b(2-4) = The probability that Player B wins a set (in this case a best of 7 series of games), winning 4 matches and losing 2.

P(B wins) = the sum of probabilities of outcomes where B wins the game (The probabaility of a 2 stock plus the probability of a 1 stock)

P(A wins set) = the sum of probabilities of outcomes where A wins the set (e.g., P_a(2-0) + P_a(2-1) for a Bo3)


Interesting results:
I have two good friends who play smash, one (Player A) is much better than the other, and I estimated their disparity in skill with P(A) = .75, a value which seemed to match well with the outcomes of the 4 stock matches we typically play.

According to this estimate Player A is just as likely to 4 stock B as he is to 3 stock him!

(And let me tell you Player B *does* get 4 stocked a lot

I will probably update to be able to take arbitrary stocks/game and games/set value and to meet the needs of the thread.

If you have any questions about the spreadsheet or the math feel free to ask!

http://www.mediafire.com/?lfbe9gmtn6awnkd

 

[Xyzz]

btw. @the guy complaining about not wanting to learn RPS tactics: If you don't care to learn, just use a random move, it's impossible to gain an advantage on that "strategy"
Keep in mind though, that humans are bad at creating random events. So if you're really paranoid, have some pseudo rng generate a sequence for you and print that out lol.
@ongoing discussion: I have no idea why I find you guys so damn entertaining. /popcorn :D

 

[Bones0]

If you are trying to create a rule set for competition, factors outside of the game should not be relevant. Anyone who thinks the rule set's resemblance to other games or its "fun" factor is relevant isn't focusing on competition. Obviously I have no problem with people making rule sets to accommodate the FGC or having more fun, but the point is that what is relevant is dependent on what your goal is. If we both believe different stock counts are the most competitive, that is an arbitrary disagreement. If you are taken into consideration accessibility for the FGC, you must be sacrificing the relevance of competitiveness. Is this rule set meant to be competitive or not? I've heard people say both, but I frequently see people suggesting that lower stocks is better for competition and supporting that point with unrelated points.

 

[n1000]

btw. @the guy complaining about not wanting to learn RPS tactics: If you don't care to learn, just use a random move, it's impossible to gain an advantage on that "strategy"
Keep in mind though, that humans are bad at creating random events. So if you're really paranoid, have some pseudo rng generate a sequence for you and print that out lol.
@ongoing discussion: I have no idea why I find you guys so damn entertaining. /popcorn :D

EDIT: I should use the digits of Pi I have memorized mod 3

 

[Kal]

I think you're my new favorite poster, n1000. What is your math background?

 

[n1000]

You are on my allies list, Kal

I am working on getting my undergrad math degree but I should have graduated by now...basically I've taken loads of classes but I transferred so I've got some BS to do before I graduate.

 

[da K.I.D.]

bones. you arent making a lot of sense. Alot of your posts seem to be really politically type statements where you just randomly jump between hot button talking points to win people to your side of thinking.

for example.

If you are taken into consideration accessibility for the FGC, you must be sacrificing the relevance of competitiveness.

This is not cohesive.
Why is it that thinking about accessibility to others means that you are taking away from competitiveness?
Is it somehow not possible to make a game that is accessible AND competitive? you seem to be saying that its not when I can bring up pretty much any major sport in the world to disprove that sentiment.
Why is it that making changes to appeal to another community that is already exceedingly competitive can ONLY make this one less so? Im not following at all. I would think that modeling what we do off of a bigger more competitive field would only make what we do MORE competitive.

for a second example.

Let's say I have infinite stocks and I am playing Armada who only gets 4. How many stocks do you think I will lose trying to take his first stock? How many will I need to take his second? etc. Chances are it will become more and more difficult for me to take his stocks as he begins to figure me out.

This is a massive assumption. And you have no proof to substantiate this statement.
I do.
I actually did this more or less with Mew2King at the end of day 1 of apex. he was trying to work in a new controller, so I (3rd seed in first round pools) played a 99 stock match with him (top 32). We only got through about 35 stocks, but I definitely noticed a solid 3 to 1 stock ratio that was consistent through the match. He was adapting to me, but I was adapting just as much to him as he was to me (as much as I could considering the massive skill gap that is.) And for every 3 stock he took from me, I would get 1 off of him and that was just as consistent at the beginning of the match as it was at the end.
So I call this little hypothetical of yours bunk.

another thing i didnt understand.

If it's 1v2 and I kill my opponent by trading attacks and I take 15%, that 15% is TWICE as much damage to my overall stock count than if it were 2v4.

Even if you wanted to argue that a 2v4 was harder to come back than a 1v2, it's still obvious that a 3v4 come back is more possible. If you SD your first stock in a 4-stock game, it's entirely plausible you will bring it back. If you SD your first stock in a 2-stock game, you have to play SPECTACULARLY to bring it back.

Why does any of this matter from a competitive standpoint?
Yes, obviously if you have half the stocks, then each hit is going to be worth twice as much in the span of the game. But you not so subtly inferred that this is a bad thing with out explicitly stating why (which is what reminds me of something a politician would do)
Yes, obviously in a two stock match you have to play way better to comeback if you SD in the beginning of the game, but why does that matter? It sounds like you are trying to make concessions for SDing and say that thats not a big deal, while preaching about how things should be tailor toward competition. I dont see how that logic matches up.
We want to foster the best ruleset for competition, but it should for some reason be okay to throw a life away?


So yea, I dont understand what youre trying to say other than, 'stick to what we do now, because its better. and its better because its what we do now.'



EDIT
n1000. ive been staring at your avi for a while... who is it? It wouldnt happen to be Ping from a webcomic named megatokyo would it?

 

[n1000]

Nope it's Miku Hatsune.

lol.

 

[Kal]

You are on my allies list, Kal

I am working on getting my undergrad math degree but I should have graduated by now...basically I've taken loads of classes but I transferred so I've got some BS to do before I graduate.

Oh, cool ****. I just graduated with a degree in pure math. I am going to apply to graduate school for 2013. Hopefully I will become some sort of algebraist, though I haven't got enough experience in Cryptogrophy or Combinatorics to say conclusively that I won't specialize in a different field.

Algebra is awesome, though. I've never understood analysts.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

When I was an undergraduate, one of my topology professors would always mock analysts. The amusing part was that his dissertation was mostly analysis and he decided he'd rather work on something completely different afterwards.

 

[Kal]

I had an algebra professor who would mock number theory. At one point he dismissed an important part in proving Sylow's Theorem with "it's just number theory."

I was once playing a "telephone" type game with some analysts (don't ask), where you write something down, and the person next to you draws it. The following person writes down what he thinks you drew, and then the next person draws that. One analyst looked at me and said "no wonder you're an algebraist, you can't draw for ****!"

 

[n1000]

Being able to draw or having good handwriting disqualifies you from being good at math

 

[Kal]

Analysts kind of need to draw. Apparently they draw abstract **** like function spaces and L^p spaces and dual spaces. I just try and visualize 3-space while living in 3-space and I struggle.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

One of the hardest things about learning to be a TA for me was writing legibly and largely. It took me about a year to be able to consistently remember that it's not the case that if I can read everything on the board in front of me, then so can the 50 students sprawled across the room.

edit: I should probably stop being a bad moderator and find something relevant to the topic to say. Unfortunately for me, I rarely find such discussions insightful since a significant majority of disagreements about rulesets stem from different ideals about what this game should be.

 

[Bones0]

bones. you arent making a lot of sense. Alot of your posts seem to be really politically type statements where you just randomly jump between hot button talking points to win people to your side of thinking.

for example.



This is not cohesive.
Why is it that thinking about accessibility to others means that you are taking away from competitiveness?
Is it somehow not possible to make a game that is accessible AND competitive? you seem to be saying that its not when I can bring up pretty much any major sport in the world to disprove that sentiment.
Why is it that making changes to appeal to another community that is already exceedingly competitive can ONLY make this one less so? Im not following at all. I would think that modeling what we do off of a bigger more competitive field would only make what we do MORE competitive.

If you are creating a rule set with sub-optimal attributes just to make it more accessible to the FGC, then yes, you are sacrificing competitiveness. You can't bring up other sports because they do the same thing. All modern day sports sacrifice competitiveness for the sake of tradition/viewer-friendliness/whatever. Video games are much less confound by these barriers because they are easily altered in their rules. Just because the FGC is competitive doesn't mean Melee's ruleset would be improved by becoming more like other games' rule sets. That's completely ridiculous.

This is a massive assumption. And you have no proof to substantiate this statement.
I do.
I actually did this more or less with Mew2King at the end of day 1 of apex. he was trying to work in a new controller, so I (3rd seed in first round pools) played a 99 stock match with him (top 32). We only got through about 35 stocks, but I definitely noticed a solid 3 to 1 stock ratio that was consistent through the match. He was adapting to me, but I was adapting just as much to him as he was to me (as much as I could considering the massive skill gap that is.) And for every 3 stock he took from me, I would get 1 off of him and that was just as consistent at the beginning of the match as it was at the end.
So I call this little hypothetical of yours bunk.

I don't think you getting trashed by M2K is proof of anything... It was a friendly and he was breaking in a controller so you can't really think it means all that much.

Why does any of this matter from a competitive standpoint?
Yes, obviously if you have half the stocks, then each hit is going to be worth twice as much in the span of the game. But you not so subtly inferred that this is a bad thing with out explicitly stating why (which is what reminds me of something a politician would do)
Yes, obviously in a two stock match you have to play way better to comeback if you SD in the beginning of the game, but why does that matter? It sounds like you are trying to make concessions for SDing and say that thats not a big deal, while preaching about how things should be tailor toward competition. I dont see how that logic matches up.
We want to foster the best ruleset for competition, but it should for some reason be okay to throw a life away?


So yea, I dont understand what youre trying to say other than, 'stick to what we do now, because its better. and its better because its what we do now.'

I don't personally consider comebacks to be a requirement for deep game play, but it was listed as one of the deficiencies of 4-stock matches in the OP. Ask Cactuar why he thinks it's relevant when creating a rule set.

As far as SDs go, I think they should be punished as little as possible. They are flukes due to technical errors, and I would hope that most competitive players largely value mental ability over technical. I certainly appreciate players' technical ability (and I would consider myself above average), but to say competition should become a competition of playing safe to avoid killing yourself is outlandish to me. I, like many others, find no satisfaction in winning because my opponent's finger slipped and he died. I seek to outplay or be outplayed, and SDing is only getting in the way of that. Even if you thought tech skill was a skill worth testing, I think lowering the stock count wouldn't help much because 2-stock matches is just going to force players to play more carefully. Like I said before, ledge dashing is already considered very risky, but in 2-stock matches almost no one will do it because there is no coming back from it if you mess up.

I've never displayed the mentality of "stick with what we do now," and it honestly makes me think that you haven't seen any of my posts. My ideal rule set would be best of 5, 5 stocks, 15 minute timer, and neutrals only.

 

[Kal]

Bones, we've moved on and are talking about math now.

 

[Bones0]

2 stocks vs. 5 stocks is math.

 

[Kal]

Nothing you've written in that ugly wall of text is math.

 

[knightpraetor]

can't believe i read all that....

most interesting thing was thinking about the timer. a strange balance exists where a shorter timer will balance out puff vs ylink or campy matches ( i don't think it's reasonable that a character should not be forced to attempt to approach even when down because he can just hope that in the 4 minutes of time that he has that one projectile will get through...)

but a longer timer benefits the majority of matches because no one considers keep away the last stock because it is too long to be feasible...

makes me wonder whether a 5-6 minute timer would be best..

 

[da K.I.D.]

If you are creating a rule set with sub-optimal attributes just to make it more accessible to the FGC, then yes, you are sacrificing competitiveness. You can't bring up other sports because they do the same thing. All modern day sports sacrifice competitiveness for the sake of tradition/viewer-friendliness/whatever. Video games are much less confound by these barriers because they are easily altered in their rules. Just because the FGC is competitive doesn't mean Melee's ruleset would be improved by becoming more like other games' rule sets. That's completely ridiculous.

That statement is only about as rediculous as you jumping to the conclusion that making a game accessible is somehow by definition, making it sub-optimal.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. You can have both. I brought this up in my last post and you ignored it.

I don't think you getting trashed by M2K is proof of anything... It was a friendly and he was breaking in a controller so you can't really think it means all that much.

I think it means far more than you assuming you know exactly what will happen in an infinite stock match between 2 people with a skill gap while you completely disregard one of the very few instances of such a thing actually happening in real life.

As far as SDs go, I think they should be punished as little as possible. They are flukes due to technical errors, and I would hope that most competitive players largely value mental ability over technical. I certainly appreciate players' technical ability (and I would consider myself above average), but to say competition should become a competition of playing safe to avoid killing yourself is outlandish to me. I, like many others, find no satisfaction in winning because my opponent's finger slipped and he died. I seek to outplay or be outplayed, and SDing is only getting in the way of that. Even if you thought tech skill was a skill worth testing, I think lowering the stock count wouldn't help much because 2-stock matches is just going to force players to play more carefully. Like I said before, ledge dashing is already considered very risky, but in 2-stock matches almost no one will do it because there is no coming back from it if you mess up.

I've never displayed the mentality of "stick with what we do now," and it honestly makes me think that you haven't seen any of my posts. My ideal rule set would be best of 5, 5 stocks, 15 minute timer, and neutrals only.

Sounds like you need to get on my level and play more brawl, since you dont seem to care much for technical skill.

Youre also assuming that somebody not being able to control their character effectively has zero bearing on how skilled of a player you are.

I practice with a kid that routinely does some pretty fly captain falcon combos that are more complecated and technical than anything I can do. But for every cool or effective thing that he does, he kills himself twice. According to your logic, this would make him better than me, even though hes never taken a game off me in his life.

p.s. @ knight, I ran a tournament with a 6 minute timer once. ish was effing awesome.