Ruleset Changes Poll

[prisonchild]

when I first read double blind I thought it meant both people chose random characters. that would be fun.

 

[thegreginator]

Alright I have nothing to do at work today so I've been messing with the data trying to see how it changes when we weight votes according to skill level (defined by combined ELO ranking) and tournament involvement (defined by number of combined ELO games).

I got weighted results by using a formula that gave the top ELO person a score of 2 (meaning they get 2 votes) and the bottom ELO person a score of 1. I then did the same for ELO games played and averaged the two.

I then took these weighted results and eliminated anyone who has played in 0 ELO games (so it's tournament players' votes only).

RESULTS: Normal --> Weighted --> Weighted (Tourney Players Only)

• Kicking Hyrule ouf of neutral: 51% --> 54% --> 59%
• Use timer: 42% --> 42% --> 39%
• Use 4 stocks: 26% --> 26% --> 27%
• Keep stalling rule (more enforcement + no rule change): 66% --> 68% --> 71%

So the biggest takeaway is that as skill and involvement go up, people prefer banning or CPing Hyrule noticeably more (this was even more evident when I used different methods of weighting that rewarded good/involved players even more).

PS. clubba can you confirm that people start out at an ELO of 1600? I couldn't seem to find this and that's what I'm using for the people with 0 games as of now.

PPS. anyone who knows more about statistics feel free to suggest a better methodology for weighting. I messed around with z-scores but they had a much larger range (4 to -1.2) and it was hard to account for the negatives.

 

[clubbadubba]

It is 1500 currently, and it doesn't include the results of Smashacre yet.

 

[Nintendude]

With regards to double blind picks, if the person chooses to open themselves up to unbalanced/unfair strategies then its fine. This is the same as a Ness player agreeing to gentleman to Saffron. Should we make a rule that says you can't gentleman to Saffron if you're Ness? No way. Rules are meant to protect those who want protecting, not force protection on people who don't want it.

Rules are meant to protect the integrity of the event as well.

 

[DMoogle]

This is a biased poll. You can't assume that just because someone voted for one option and not another, that they believe the opposite should be done for the option they didn't vote for.

I hate playing campy players as much as anyone, but the truth is that the vast majority of players aren't that campy. Some people are straight up boring to play against on Hyrule, but I can count them on one hand. And honestly, it's far from an unexploitable strategy. It's just that it requires a different strategy than most play requires. Battlecow camping left side with Pika? Choose Link and throw bombs and boomerangs down there, looking for a spot to finish with d-air or f-air. Easy game.

 

[prisonchild]

do people actually think match length is the biggest problem with the game currently?

 

[Fireblaster]

do people actually think match length is the biggest problem with the game currently?

It is a symptom of the sickness that is Hyrule.

 

[clubbadubba]

The "problem with the game currently" that was exposed at smashacre was that matches can potentially go on for 10+ minutes. This is unacceptable if it happens in a tournament for keeping the tournament running smoothly AND keeping viewers at the tournament and on the stream interested in 64. Once in a high profile tournament match IS enough of a deal to merit a rule change. We need to shorten match lengths. We can do this by:

a) Reducing stocks: Theoretically would cut down on the average time based on stock ratio. A 10 minute match now takes 8 minutes theoretically. Some say that people would play more conservatively with less stocks, I say that's garbage. If you play more conservatively with four stocks than five, that means you think its the best way win. If its the best way to win, you would've been doing it at five though unless for some reason you think playing less conservatively at 5 stocks is more beneficial than it is when you are at 4 stocks. Even if you insist that it is the case, that idea is theorycrafting at best and can't be used as a deterrent from doing this.

b) Add a timer: This would guarantee that stock matches stay below a certain time (8 minutes?). However, it might result it some matches going all the way to 8 minutes that previously would not have because player's decide to attempt a timeout. It is certainly more desireable to have all 4 min matches and one 12 min match than to have all or many 8 min matches. The only current legal stage I think unreasonable timeouts is hyrule as of now imo.

Banning stags right now doesn't make sense as a way to cut down match length because as we've seen DL can have 9+ min matches as well. I do think that if the timer option is used then hyrule is out. I'm fine with either solution, I'd just prefer timer/ban hyrule

 

[thegreginator]

Made a new thread for the stages to be discussed independently of the other issues here and to get rid of the ambiguity in this poll: http://smashboards.com/threads/stage-selection-poll-neutral-counterpick-ban.339995/

I'm going to crawl through some of this match length data and find out exactly how much time would be saved with various approaches. My suspicion is that 4 stocks would save the most time, followed by banning Hyrule followed by an 8 minute timer.

 

[Olikus]

4 stocks woudnt save much time, because peopel will fear muych more of losing a stock. Hence it can be even more campy. Japan is a good example, I dont think they would be that campy if they had 5 stocks, and not best of 1. Its to much at risk. This game is to unforgiving with 4 stocks. Banning hyrule, having a timer, and be more strickt about stalling is all way better options than reducing stocks imo.

 

[clubbadubba]

Under your theory as soon as people lose their first stock of 5 (which should take long right since people aren't playing conservatively when they have five stocks) they would go into 4 stock campy mode right?

 

[Karajan]

Under your theory as soon as people lose their first stock of 5 (which should take long right since people aren't playing conservatively when they have five stocks) they would go into 4 stock campy mode right?

do people do that in melee and do they win with that strategy

 

[clubbadubba]

No, there is no melee player who plays super aggressive in tournament when he has 5 stocks and then also goes campy when he has 4 stocks

 

[Sensei]

No, there is no melee player who plays super aggressive in tournament when he has 5 stocks and then also goes campy when he has 4 stocks

Melee begins with four stocks. 99.9% matches end before the timer runs out. I've only seen it a handful a times with players like Hbox in finals, and one only goes somewhat stalling when both players are at last stock over 100% and there are like 10 seconds left, but that is just the nature of characters like Jigglypuff's or Peach's ability to survive due to their recovery.

 

[Olikus]

Under your theory as soon as people lose their first stock of 5 (which should take long right since people aren't playing conservatively when they have five stocks) they would go into 4 stock campy mode right?

-_________________________________-

 

[clubbadubba]

Please be a bit more detailed in your responses

 

[Yobolight]

Nintendude and the other TOs needs to start making executive decisions on behalf of the community. Democracy sucks.

I am not even being sarcastic.

 

[prisonchild]

Nintendude and the other TOs needs to start making executive decisions on behalf of the community. Democracy sucks.

I am not even being sarcastic.

nobody is stopping (or can stop) them from making whatever rules they want for THEIR event. they just want to do what the majority wants (within reason).

 

[Cobrevolution]

^leave this country

 

[thegreginator]

Alright used mixa's match length data on over 400 tournament games and have some juicy insights on the time that would be saved for various changes to the ruleset: http://imgur.com/x1EZLYv

4 STOCKS
Assumes that matches are 20% shorter than the 5 stock data we have.

• Time saved per game: 49 seconds
  • This is 2 hours, 3 minutes over a 150 game tournament

Debate: You could debate that people will play more cautiously with 4, and there shouldn't be a full 20% taken off, but we have no evidence for that. (Don't cite Japan because bo1 is a far bigger factor in their cautious playstyle.) I more more interested in putting some numbers out there to give a sense of the magnitude than arguing over small details in what are perfectly reasonable assumptions.


BAN HYRULE
This takes the Hyrule matches out of the data and proportionally reallocates the distribution among the other stages.

• Time saved per game: 27 seconds
  • This is 1 hour, 8 minutes over a 150 game tournament

Debate: Shouldn't be anything controversial here. Hyrule matches are just longer on average...


8 MINUTE TIMER
Of the 408 matches we have data for, a whopping 6 of them (1%) went over 8 minutes. If you eliminate all the time from these 6 matches past 8 minutes, you save a total of 3 minutes over all 408 games.

• Time saved per game: 0.5 seconds
  • This is 1 minute over a 150 game tournament

Debate: Some people will probably argue that having a timer forces people to play more aggressively, but clearly no one's current style of play would be impacted by an 8 minute timer. People can still play defensively and finish their matches well before 8 minutes. An 8 minute timer WILL NOT cut down on stalling because it doesn't force a change in behavior. All it will do is encourage timeouts/running away, which isn't a viable strategy without a timer. This could actually serve to increase match length because more people will run away right until that 8 minute mark. Literally all it would take is one person running away for one match and all of the cumulative time we would have saved from timers since Apex 2012 is gone. For some reason people seem to think that an 8 minutes timer forces people to approach, but this clearly isn't the case if people are approaching such that the average match length is 4:06... If someone can rebut this please do because I see no possible way an 8 minute timer will save any time.

If you want to do 7 or even 6 minutes the time saved still isn't comparable to banning Hyrule or switching to 4 stocks. Plus that just opens up a whole 'nother debate.

 

[Olikus]

Please be a bit more detailed in your responses

i dont respons on stuff like that.

thanks gnight.

 

[clubbadubba]

To clarify, the purpose of the timer is not to cut down on tournament time, but to eliminate those extremely length matches. The average match is not the concern in this regard, so its not really comparable to the other 2. One could argue, as you have, that a timer will increase average match length because people will just run away, but just like the theories about 4 stock being longer because of cautiousness, it is only a theory and we would be better off gathering some data before we try to draw any conclusions as a community.

 

[Cobrevolution]

so we'll end our tournaments 3 hours and 12 minutes sooner than usual, while melee and brawl are still in pools

fair

also a lot of people are apparently quiet on these issues, unfortunately.

 

[Sensei]

Alright used mixa's match length data on over 400 tournament games and have some juicy insights on the time that would be saved for various changes to the ruleset: http://imgur.com/x1EZLYv

4 STOCKS
Assumes that matches are 20% shorter than the 5 stock data we have.

• Time saved per game: 49 seconds
  • This is 2 hours, 3 minutes over a 150 game tournament

Debate: You could debate that people will play more cautiously with 4, and there shouldn't be a full 20% taken off, but we have no evidence for that. (Don't cite Japan because bo1 is a far bigger factor in their cautious playstyle.) I more more interested in putting some numbers out there to give a sense of the magnitude than arguing over small details in what are perfectly reasonable assumptions.



BAN HYRULE
This takes the Hyrule matches out of the data and proportionally reallocates the distribution among the other stages.

• Time saved per game: 27 seconds
  • This is 1 hour, 8 minutes over a 150 game tournament

Debate: Shouldn't be anything controversial here. Hyrule matches are just longer on average...



8 MINUTE TIMER
Of the 408 matches we have data for, a whopping 6 of them (1%) went over 8 minutes. If you eliminate all the time from these 6 matches past 8 minutes, you save a total of 3 minutes over all 408 games.

• Time saved per game: 0.5 seconds
  • This is 1 minute over a 150 game tournament

Debate: Some people will probably argue that having a timer forces people to play more aggressively, but clearly no one's current style of play would be impacted by an 8 minute timer. People can still play defensively and finish their matches well before 8 minutes. An 8 minute timer WILL NOT cut down on stalling because it doesn't force a change in behavior. All it will do is encourage timeouts/running away, which isn't a viable strategy without a timer. This could actually serve to increase match length because more people will run away right until that 8 minute mark. Literally all it would take is one person running away for one match and all of the cumulative time we would have saved from timers since Apex 2012 is gone. For some reason people seem to think that an 8 minutes timer forces people to approach, but this clearly isn't the case if people are approaching such that the average match length is 4:06... If someone can rebut this please do because I see no possible way an 8 minute timer will save any time.


If you want to do 7 or even 6 minutes the time saved still isn't comparable to banning Hyrule or switching to 4 stocks. Plus that just opens up a whole 'nother debate.

Your calculations for time saved are exaggerated because they do not take into the fact that games are played simultaneously. This is a variable due to the amount of tournament setups and entrants for the event. With this in consideration, the 4 stock difference or banning hyrule does not amount to much time saved. Again, the biggest issue of tournaments running over on time is due to lack of strict scheduling and/or setups. This was the main issue at Smashacre, which was partly my fault, but I will make the necessary changes in the future so there will be smoother tournaments in the future.

For your argument on a timer, I do not see a timer as encouraging timeouts/running away. This has not been seen widely in Melee. Again we can do some testing of new rulesets at tournaments to get more data, but my intuition suggests there will not be an issue of matches timing out. Another way of looking at switching a match to 4 stocks would cut the average match length, 4:06 , by about 20%, which would be around 3:17.

 

[Karajan]

Can we forcefully enforce the stalling rule with scissors?

 

[prisonchild]

like, if someone is caught stalling the TO cuts their controller wire?


that could work.

 

[thegreginator]

Your calculations for time saved are exaggerated because they do not take into the fact that games are played simultaneously.

Very true. Guess it should be thought of more as a "score" for the purposes of comparison than an absolute amount of time saved.

I think you also bring up a great point about the logistics of the tournament being the biggest determinant of tournament length. I've written about this at length before, but I think a players showing some dedication to getting their matches done quickly instead of ****ing around would go a LONG way.

Another way of looking at switching a match to 4 stocks would cut the average match length, 4:06 , by about 20%, which would be around 3:17.

That's what I did lol (see http://imgur.com/x1EZLYv)

 

[jimmyjoe]

I wouldn't really have a problem with 4 stock games, but I still don't see how a change is necessary.

It seems like we have two concerns:

1) Finishing tournaments in a timely manner(mostly subjective unless a venue is going to close before the tourney ends).

• To me this is simple. While TO's have done a great job in the past, more can be done to keep the tournament on schedule. Whether that is scheduling specific times for rounds, having extra setups, making sure to start on time, etc. Only when match length is the primary reason a tournament is going to long should we feel rule changes are required.

2) Keeping viewer interest.

• Removing a stage like Hyrule doesn't make this game more interesting to watch. Without hyrule we would probably see even less character variation. Pika dittos on DL probably takes longer than falcon/link on Hyrule(APEX2012 finals) and definitely isn't as fun to watch IMO. This game is already interesting so let it do the work for us. There is no pressing need to remove stages/characters. Most matches are fun to watch, and the higher the level of play, the better then viewing usually is, but inevitably we will see less exciting matchups depending on the players/characters.

TL/DR: Hyrule isn't the cause of lengthy and/or boring matches, so don't try to make it a scapegoat. if you personally just don't want to play it, strike it. You're good to go.

 

[DMoogle]

I prefer watching high level Hyrule matches over high level Dreamland matches.

 

[Sedda]

I liked what jimmyjoe posted before. Why does the ruleset need to be changed so drastically (timer/no timer, banning hyrule, 4 stocks) because of one player's performance at ONE tournament.
It seems really unfair for Chibo (although I know that he means well) to jump on the ruleset because of the way M2K played (I don't mind the way he played). Did people over on the melee side try to change the ruleset after the Armada/Hbox stuff? Is it really that bad to just deal with the possibility that maybe a couple of sets might be like that in tournaments? Just wondering.

An 8 minute timer would solve that issue if it happened, and please don't say that adding a timer would result in really campy gameplay ALL THE TIME, or that 4 stocks would result in shorter/longer sets. We really don't know because those things haven't been tested enough (or at all). Hunches don't really matter. Unless you've tested these changes, you can't assume that they're going to work the way that you think they are.

 

[clubbadubba]

I think its safe to say that we as a community want to avoid 10+ minute matches in the future, which is why we are examining rule changes. If there is a non-drastic change (and 4 stocks really isn't "drastic" imo) that would solve this issue please introduce it.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

Just don't do timer+hyrule at apex, bad things will happen

 

[jimmyjoe]

What I'm saying is we don't need to do anything to avoid 10+ minute matches as they are incredibly infrequent. To go beyond "avoid" and to attempt to completely eliminate them is unnecessary because they aren't frequent enough to be a major concern. Besides, there isn't a game-changing way of doing that.

4 stocks would definitely shorten match length. This change also wouldn't affect character balance or our currently very fair(IMO) stage striking/counterpicking rules.

While I don't personally think it's necessary to switch to 4 stock matches, if the majority wanted to, I would have no qualms.

 

[clubbadubba]

What I'm saying is we don't need to do anything to avoid 10+ minute matches as they are incredibly infrequent. To go beyond "avoid" and to attempt to completely eliminate them is unnecessary because they aren't frequent enough to be a major concern.

I think they are frequent enough to be a concern. And if m2k continues playing (which I really hope he does), and other new/current players start to emulate his style because it WORKS with our current "fair" rule-set, we will only see this number increase as time goes on.

 

[jimmyjoe]

I think they are frequent enough to be a concern. And if m2k continues playing (which I really hope he does), and other new/current players start to emulate his style because it WORKS with our current "fair" rule-set, we will only see this number increase as time goes on.

Why are they frequent enough to be a concern? Have there been many 10+ minute matches other than ones involving M2K? Are you concerned enough about those to merit a rule change? The fact that he plays every game at a tourney is worse for completing sets than his play style. He was never available at Smashacre when we needed him.

Also, you're speculating that people will adopt his style. I highly doubt new players will see his style as opposed to other high level players and feel inspired. but again, that is speculation.

 

[Sedda]

Clubba: Yes, but wouldn't players be forced to develop ways to counter that stuff without having to depend on the ruleset. It's like the PM guys. They kept on changing characters because people complained without even allowing the metagame to evolve by itself. Let things unfold for a little bit instead of assuming that they're definitely going to happen in one particular way.

I think it's good to create measures in case the camping/stalling problems arise, but there's no reason to change stuff right away. If you start seeing a trend immediately and a rule change is necessary, you already know how things should be changed. No rush, though.

 

[prisonchild]

good points sedda, no need to make knee-jerk rule changes because of an isolated incident.

 

[Fireblaster]

I will say this: Next time I go to a console tournament if I run into a player that uses fox and counterpicks me to hyrule, I will more than gladly adopt M2K's plan and wait on the left side of hyrule the entire match and all day as a really gimpy character if I have to. You're not gonna enforce a "stalling" rule on me by forcing me to run through a bullet hell of lasers.

 

[Sensei]

I will say this: Next time I go to a console tournament if I run into a player that uses fox and counterpicks me to hyrule, I will more than gladly adopt M2K's plan and wait on the left side of hyrule the entire match and all day as a really gimpy character if I have to. You're not gonna enforce a "stalling" rule on me by forcing me to run through a bullet hell of lasers.

That's camping, not stalling. Just because you don't have the "tent" there, doesn't mean you're not camping.

 

[Sedda]

I will say this: Next time I go to a console tournament if I run into a player that uses fox and counterpicks me to hyrule, I will more than gladly adopt M2K's plan and wait on the left side of hyrule the entire match and all day as a really gimpy character if I have to. You're not gonna enforce a "stalling" rule on me by forcing me to run through a bullet hell of lasers.

That's ok. If after a while of being forced to come up with strategies IN tournaments nobody comes up with anything, THEN you can ban Hyrule. I think it's important to KNOW if it's really impossible to get around that stuff.

I'm not trying to tell anyone to start playing Kirby just to try to ban Hyrule really badly. If you wanna do that, that's ok, but you're forcing yourself to adapt to one strategy to prove a group of people wrong at the expense of having fun playing the game.