Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Kal]

It's an interesting point. We allocate one minute per stock. What we happen if we allocated instead forty-five seconds? Thirty seconds? Would the game deteriorate into overpowered time-out strategies dominating the metagame, or would we have roughly the same game with less waiting when time-out strategies are viable?

 

[Bones0]

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.

You can:
1. Make a rule set for accessibility.
2. Make a rule set for competition.

If they both happen to be the same thing, then it won't matter if you only focus on competition. If you do 1. or a mix of both, you are opening the rule set up to less competitive standards. This really isn't complicated. If you are trying to make a competitive rule set, the only factors that come into play should be how the game is played competitively. You can try to cram the game into the model other games uses and just hope it works for both.

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.

WTF are you talking about? Where did I say someone incapable of controlling their character doesn't determine their skill? I pretty much said the opposite, that tech skill plays a huge role, but it shouldn't (which is why 2 stocks is dumb...).

 

[Anand]

Math is hard, even for math majors.

Probabilistically speaking this is false. If we say evenly-matched means each player is as likely to take the other's stock (from even %) then we can model a 99 stock match like flipping coins until we get a total of 99 heads or 99 tails. If we accept this as a model (and I think it's pretty good for "evenly matched" players) the likelihood of close matches (the losing player taking close to 99, or however many, stocks) actually goes up as the stock count is raised.

Think of it this way, it's much more likely to "perfect" someone in a coin flipping contest if you only have to get 4 heads in a row as opposed to 99, likewise it's much more likely to get 4 heads and only 1 tails than 99 heads and only 25 tails in 5 and 124 coinflips, respectively.

No, you are wrong. The expected relative difference from the expected mean decreases but the expected absolute difference increases. Think of it this way, it's much more likely to get within 10% of 50-50 if you flip a coin 1000000 times vs flipping a coin 10 times; however, it's much more likely to get within 10 heads of 50-50 if you flip a coin 10 times vs flipping a coin 1000000.

Even if you take two really evenly matched players, if you put them on 99 stock someone is going to win by a significant margin because they are playing for so long. We aren't even close to this point though, which is evident from the fact that PLENTY of bracket matches still come down to last stock, and even last hit. This is why, if anything, we should be increasing to 5 stock, not decreasing to 3 or 2.

To elaborate, what Bones0 is saying here (or at least, what he should be, but of course I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) is that if one player's expected rate of stocks lost is slightly lower than another player's, he is more likely to win by a few stocks in a longer game. Think of it this way, you are more likely to at-least-3-stock someone in a 99-stock game than at-least-3-stock someone in a 4-stock game. Basically, a stray hit is less likely to make the "worse" player win, because it is less likely to come down to the last stock. Of course, this model has some flaws, but we can ignore them for now.

While it may be the case for the specific number chose (best of seven), it is true that there will be a set-length we can choose that will create a game with the same or better chance of the better player winning. There is just no guarantee that the set-length will be practical (e.g. it might turn out we need to make it best of fifteen).

This is false. First of all, it's not even well-defined. If we define the better player as the player with a probability of winning a given match that is greater than 50%, the "better player" in a given pair of players might change depending on the number of stocks per game. I'll elaborate later in this post. (Note: I am bringing up this definition because it is the one Kal mentioned before.)

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."

lol, you are a hypocrite, also a jerk (no offense)

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.

You are wrong, as I have explained / will explained. Notably, I should point out that the probability for an individual match can change from > 0.5 to < 0.5 by adjusting the number of stocks.

(Also, notably, the probability of winning an individual match isn't necessarily independent of the outcomes of other matches, etc. To take a simple (but extreme) counterexample, let's say we have Player A vs Player B, where Player A excels on FD+PS and Player B excels on Brinstar+DL64, to such a large degree that it's impossible for either one to win on the other one's counterpick. Then the outcome of the set will be determined solely by the outcome of the first match. Of course, you might argue that this counterexample wouldn't happen in real life, but regardless, it almost certainly breaks whatever assumptions you use in your supposed proof. (If not, feel free to explain your proof.))

==================================

Now, here we go: explanation of how the probability of winning a given match can shift from Player A's favor to Player B's favor, simply by changing the number of stocks.

Here is a simple, yet realistic, counterexample to thinking the "better player" can be well-defined as the player with the greater chance of winning a given game, regardless of stock count. Suppose Player A is an excellent aggressive player, with good technical skill, that sometimes SDs. Let's say that the rate of his SDs is related to the rate of his kills on Player B as follows: over the course of him taking one stock from Player B, there is a 20% chance of him suiciding (and effectively throwing away, on average, half a stock, since at any given time Player A could have any fraction of his current stock remaining; this is a little fuzzy but acceptable). This is reasonable because the amount of damage/KOs dealt to the opponent is proportional to how much you play, as is the number of SDs suffered. Now, let's say Player B's style is heavily into trading hits and more defensive, and VERY consistent, and he never SDs. For every 10 stocks Player A takes from him, Player B manages to take 9 stocks in return.

Now, let's consider a 2-stock game. As long as Player A doesn't suicide before eliminating Player B's two stocks, he will win, since Player B's damage output is a little lower. The probability of this happening is (1 - 0.2)^2 = 0.64, so Player A has a 64% chance of winning the game. (Technically, I didn't prove that it was exactly 64%, only that it was at least 64%, since I didn't formally show Player A only wins if he doesn't suicide, but bounding it below at 64% is good enough for our purposes, as we'll see.)

Now, let's consider a 4-stock game. As long as Player A has at least one suicide, Player B will win, because Player A loses the equivalent of 0.5 stock per suicide, and Player B will take the other 3.5 of Player A's stocks while only losing (10/9)*3.5 < 4 of his own stocks. The probability of this happening is 1 - (1 - 0.2)^4 > 0.59, so Player B has a greater than 59% chance of winning the game. (A similar parenthetical note applies here as in the 2-stock game analysis.)

So, it is clear that in this simplified model, which still seems fairly realistic, the "better player" actually depends on the number of stocks per game.

Spoiler

This model is a little silly because it sort of pretends Melee is a traditional fighter with health bars, with its notion of continuous damage until a KO point, but it seems like a reasonable model for certain matchups + playstyles, where combos and gimps or other early kills are rare. Like, maybe bair-only Puff dittos, haha. Anyway, that isn't really relevant. If a simplified model can disprove a general statement, saying that Melee is more complex than my example assumes it is, without actually doing any analysis, doesn't really prove the general statement... just wanted to cut that off in case Kal tried; it would basically be saying "oh yeah you can't disprove what I said so I'm right."

Spoiler

I was going to use A = Mango and B = Armada, but that is unfair to the two players. Also, Armada would tap regardless of stock count.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Good ****, Anand. Also, those were the two players I imagined when reading your post

 

[n1000]

No, you are wrong. The expected relative difference from the expected mean decreases but the expected absolute difference increases. Think of it this way, it's much more likely to get within 10% of 50-50 if you flip a coin 1000000 times vs flipping a coin 10 times; however, it's much more likely to get within 10 heads of 50-50 if you flip a coin 10 times vs flipping a coin 1000000.

We don't disagree. I was speaking as if Bones' "win by a significant margin," scaled with the stock count. Also the second part of what you quoted isn't wrong.

Basically what I posted was ambiguous, I didn't mean to say anything about the expected absolute difference from the mean. Perhaps I unfairly misconstrued Bones' claim.

I like your model. I didn't foresee the particular exception you drew up but the possibility of inconsistency between "betterness" as stock count is changed forced me to make the player skill variable a probability to take a stock instead of probability to take a match.

Your paragraph about heavily favored counter-picks has been something of an elephant in the room...I'm curious to hear about this issue from participants of tournaments that use Cactuar's ruleset.

Of course at the end of it we're forced back into the initial scenario: attempting to define "betterness". I especially like your model for its simplicity and yet how gracefully it shows that betterness does not necessarily carry over between rulesets differentiated by stock/match and match/set.

I still think it's fair to make aesthetic statements on what we prefer to be favored play, for example Anand's model shows that a 2 stock matches may actually favor suicide-prone players, contra what has been repeated throughout this thread. Perhaps we want to favor this risky, aggressive playstyle or maybe not.

EDIT: It's interesting to see 2 stock matches having (potentially) both reduced accident forgiveness and on the other hand, seemingly paradoxically favoring accident-prone play. Freaking cool post Anand

 

[-ACE-]

Lol get ***** kal.

I like how cactus's post a few pages back was full of hypothetical scenarios and assumptions based off little to no evidence, but that's exactly what he wrote off most of the criticism of this ruleset as. Lol

 

[Cactuar]

My complaint has been about vague hypotheticals, not specific ones. You guys say things like "Fox will just camp and ruin all the CPs." and my statement is "aside from hyrule and great bay (and arguably KJ64), he can't even really do that. Please provide examples. And then you say things like "Fox will just waveshine everyone to death on walkoff stages", when the reality is that there is only one stage with continuous ground left to right, and that on all the other stages it can happen on, the only way to pull that off is for the enemy to put themselves in a terrible position and essentially SD.
Vague vs Specific.


Assumptions I make are far from lacking evidence.
Opinion vs expert opinion.

 

[-ACE-]

Some were vague, some weren't at all. It was blatantly hypocritical that's all, lol. Also, your skill level being above most of the posters here doesn't necessarily make your assumptions better than theirs when were discussing something that is still largely untested (imo at least a few tournaments using this ruleset would have to take place to get a more concrete assessment of the effects this ruleset would have on the metagame).

 

[Dan Salvato]

I don't think we can get much further by arguing about theory. We need to find a good way to put this to the test, and that will give us something real to talk about instead of running in circles. Nobody should object to at least trying it out, so we should be putting our effort into figuring out a good way of doing so.

 

[Cactuar]

You realize that most posting arguing over the ruleset is intended as being against it as a legitimate ruleset for tournament use, right? As such, stating that you need evidence, and then stating that the evidence would have to come from tournament play when your stance is for it to not be used in tournament is fail.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Matches containing Hungrybox are too long.

fix'd
10obvioussolutionisbanhungrybox

 

[Dan Salvato]

You realize that most posting arguing over the ruleset is intended as being against it as a legitimate ruleset for tournament use, right? As such, stating that you need evidence, and then stating that the evidence would have to come from tournament play when your stance is for it to not be used in tournament is fail.

So if we test the ruleset in a tournament setting and it doesn't work out, that's the evidence that the protestors need. They should be interested in testing it simply in anticipation of its failure. Likewise, those supporting the ruleset would be anticipating its success.

 

[n1000]

So if we test the ruleset in a tournament setting and it doesn't work out, that's the evidence that the protestors need. They should be interested in testing it simply in anticipation of its failure. Likewise, those supporting the ruleset would be anticipating its success.

It all sounds so reasonable and then you remember where you are (are posting)

 

[-ACE-]

You realize that most posting arguing over the ruleset is intended as being against it as a legitimate ruleset for tournament use, right? As such, stating that you need evidence, and then stating that the evidence would have to come from tournament play when your stance is for it to not be used in tournament is fail.

Lol. I never said I needed evidence. I said without evidence, your assumptions are essentially no better than mine (i think that low stocks will promote camping, I get shot down because its hypothetical, you think the timer will serve as a deterrence against camping, I remind you this is also hypothetical, you state that your opinion is better than mine, I say testing its the only way to find out, you say I fail, lmao).

 

[Cactuar]

The conversation you think we are having and the conversation that is actually being held are two different things.

 

[-ACE-]

The conversation you think we are having and the conversation that is actually being held are two different things.

I'm not believing this until it is play tested.

 

[Buddha Lova]

The conversation you think we are having and the conversation that is actually being held are two different things.

And with this Cactuar wins!
On a side note this rule set is awesome! Its a revolution from the boring standard BS we have now..

 

[BigD!!!]

"requesting feedback"

(feedback)

"none of you know what youre talking about"

but seriously, this sounds fun, but i dont think pandering to other communities is necessarily important

 

[Cookiemonsta]

Hey Cactuar, if this were a tournament with the bo7's, what semifinals and finals be just out of curiosity? Best of 9? 11? 13 (lol that'd suck)?

 

[Kal]

Best of over 9000?

 

[Cactuar]

That is more of a TO decision.

One possibility is that TO's could run the whole tournament with best of 7 sets and not even need to modify for late bracket play.

Bumping up to BO9 or 11 would probably be more comfortable for those sets though. There are more than enough stages to pick from.

 

[PK Webb]

Bo11 sounds crazy like imgine a best of 11 puff ditto...........the sheer horror

 

[Cactuar]

Meh, it doesn't actually sound that bad to me. 33 minutes maximum of puff play time, where, at any point during the matches, one of the two puffs will always be forced to be the aggressor.

As opposed to the current, where a best of 5 puff ditto can take 40 minutes of playtime where both puffs are overspacing bairs for the first 7 minutes of the match, and then suddenly realize they have to fight.

The lower timer forces action, so even if the winning player is camping, the loser doesn't have much time to waste and MUST do something, as opposed to the current timer being 8 minutes and allowing the loser to play an extremely drawn out game of footsies for 7 minutes. Basically, time is a more precious resource now, so throwing out overspaced bairs forever becomes a less and less viable option when you have less time.

And really, this is only worst possible scenario. Because of the forced action from the timer, it is highly unlikely for timeouts to occur unless the winner specifically goes to time out by stalling, rather than playing defensive. At any point in time, if you are losing, you should either be approaching to attack, approaching to bait, or using some sort of projectile or movement+zoning to provoke the enemy. Time should very rarely get wasted by stalls, as the losing player can't afford to let it happen.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Wow...you guys really need to lay off Puff mains. Puff dittos are not simply bair for 7 minute campfests, and I'll even go further to say that there is a LOT more to that character than bair. Jesus. It's like saying that Peach dittos are only down smash.

 

[Anand]

It's like saying that Peach dittos are only down smash.

Well, yeah, there is also crouch cancel.

 

[Beat!]

Anand, I don't think you're being completely Fair right now. If ya know what I mean.

 

[Cactuar]

I don't think Puff dittos are actually like that, but I was speaking in terms of worst possible scenario.

 

[Anand]

Anand, I don't think you're being completely Fair right now. If ya know what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean. I felt really bad about my post, especially since I am a Puff main. I'll give it a rest. My apologies to ShroudedOne.

I don't think Puff dittos are actually like that, but I was speaking in terms of worst possible scenario.

ArcNatural gave me some sick tips on Puff dittos, primarily involving usmash OoS.

 

[Bones0]

When would Puff dittos ever exist? I've never heard of two Puffs being in the same pool. I've barely ever heard of two Puffs being in the same bracket.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Well, yeah, there is also crouch cancel.

Anand, I don't think you're being completely Fair right now. If ya know what I mean.

*facepalm*

I don't think Puff dittos are actually like that, but I was speaking in terms of worst possible scenario.

Somehow, I didn't think that you did, either. I'm just tired of hearing the over-generalization. Sorry.

I know exactly what you mean. I felt really bad about my post, especially since I am a Puff main. I'll give it a rest. My apologies to ShroudedOne.

Oh, you. *chuckle*

ArcNatural gave me some sick tips on Puff dittos, primarily involving usmash OoS.

Usmash in general is very good in the Puff ditto.

 

[I R MarF]

Here are some problems I think exist with the 3 minute timer:

1. 3 minutes is about average match time. Wouldn't it be very easy to camp it out since everyone is used to playing for that amount of time? Camping for 8 minutes seems very exhausting, but 3 seems very doable because we are used to matches being about that length.

2. Even if the losing player is forced to approach, how is stalling not the best strategy for the winning character? Particularly in the Jiggs MU where the winning puff could just be focusing as hard as they can on keeping the losing Jiggs at bay until the last 30 seconds when they'll just stall until they SD and come back only to win by percent?

3. Since you are "forced to approach" due to time constrants like Cactuar suggests, couldn't that lead to really rushed, 2 dimensional approaches that the winning character could easily counterattack because they are no longer focused on trying to get in?

4. Currently, percents mean very little in terms of forcing approaches because you have plenty of time. However, couldn't percent leads now be a major factor because the time is so short? TBH, keeping someone 100% higher than you may be better than killing them because you can just bat them away until the timer runs out. Take a character like Marth who has excellent low-mid percent combos but low kb growth on many of his moves. What is to stop him from racking up a quick 60-70% lead then just keep his opponent away with fairs for half the match with no intent on finishing them off? You could just SD when someone tries to pull a tactic like this, but you are still behind a stock. I mostly just fear that getting any percent lead allows you to camp

5. It favors characters with projectiles or any character that can slow the pace of the match too much

I think the 2 stock Bo5 or Bo7 model could actually work, but you can't do the 3 minute timer. This isn't a traditional 2d fighter where you have restricted movement during gameplay. In smash, its all about the fluid, precise movement and combos that begin with spacing and end with predictions or bad DI. This is why the game is fun to watch, because it is different, and because you do have time to adapt to your opponents tactics.

I say you try 2 stock with 5 minutes. It'll still keep some of the ideas of unforgiving gameplay like SDs being a fatal mistake and warrants more rounds and stage choice, but it doesn't mutate the core gameplay and pacing of smash into some sonic boom fest like street fighter 4 where any lead is a lead.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

play the ruleset. then tell me how possible it is to keep someone out with marth's fair with a percent lead for minutes at a time.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Not to mention the fact that in my mind, thats really effing smart if somebody decided to do that anyway. Thats madd strategic.

 

[I R MarF]

play the ruleset. then tell me how possible it is to keep someone out with marth's fair with a percent lead for minutes at a time.

A more practical strategy would probably be to DD camp by the ledge and either WD grab, pivot grab, or shield grab their approach then just dthrow them off the stage and run to the other side. Rinse/repeat

If we somehow get in the situation where I get their back to the ledge, thats when I would try to hit them with the tipper fair.

Not to mention the fact that in my mind, thats really effing smart if somebody decided to do that anyway. Thats madd strategic.

But really boring to watch and isn't as smart as the current tactics in the metagame. Its just exploiting the ruleset conditions more than anything else and would turn smash into footsies.

 

[DippnDots]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I didn't wade through everything. The only and I mean ONLY issue I have with the ruleset is that 3 mintues 2 stocks and fox. Just one laser at the beginning has a huge increase in its benefit, especially on all the stages that are mostly banned because of fox year and years ago. I think it's definitely worth I try, we just may need to ban metafox :O

 

[da K.I.D.]

lol.

it doesnt matter what the ruleset is, if marth down throws somebody offstage. theres absolutely no reason to run to the other side of the stage considering the set ups that marth gets in that position and how easy it is to take a stock at that point.

 

[I R MarF]

lol.

it doesnt matter what the ruleset is, if marth down throws somebody offstage. theres absolutely no reason to run to the other side of the stage considering the set ups that marth gets in that position and how easy it is to take a stock at that point.

If its even stocks and they have a much higher percent than you, it makes perfect sense because 1. you can camp just as hard knowing its easier to keep them out because their percent is higher and 2. the lower the clock gets, the more urgent and predictable your opponent will get. If they are down the stock, yes, you should try to end the match. Otherwise, this is a very safe and reliable option and all the top/high tiers could easily pull a tactic like this with their own throws. Especially Fox and Falco who can build damage and opponent rage with their lasers.

 

[Cactuar]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, I didn't wade through everything. The only and I mean ONLY issue I have with the ruleset is that 3 mintues 2 stocks and fox. Just one laser at the beginning has a huge increase in its benefit, especially on all the stages that are mostly banned because of fox year and years ago. I think it's definitely worth I try, we just may need to ban metafox :O

Only two stages were banned for this specific reason. Hyrule and Great Bay. Those two stages will be banned in singles in the actual ruleset for this, whenever I get around to writing it up, but probably not doubles. I actually wouldn't mind seeing an intense game of last player last stock on each team playing circle tag as the time runs out, desperately trying to land a hit and take back the lead. Sounds awesome.

 

[Kal]

It's very true that just about any justification for a ban in singles hasn't proven true in doubles. Unless you're a scrub and ban stuff because it doesn't sit still, I mean.

 

[da K.I.D.]

thats completely stupid.

Why would you try to reset the situation to neutral when you are clearly in an advantageous position?

Why would you choose to give the opponent another chance to win, just because they might be urgent and predictable, instead of killing them outright when you get the chance?

thats like saying shiek is going to grab her opponent at 110 and down throw him and then run away and charge needles when she could just down throw fair edgehog for the win.

and to be honest fox and falcos should be playing like that anyway.