Stock Count: APEX Case Study

[Cassio]

Haha, yeah writing anything formal for an audience that's unable to receive it is wasted effort and often counter-productive. Writing to your audience and recognizing the need to do so is a skill in itself.

Spoiler

Sort of off topic, but one thing Id say Tuen is that I feel youre frequently unnecessarily harsh on the community. I've studied and worked with various groups of people in the past and I feel confident in saying that your issue is moreso with human nature than the smash community specifically, and that its something youll likely encounter again if you havent already. I can understand how thatd be infuriating as a researcher, which is why unforunately presentation and ability to persuade are generally more important than the research itself. It just bugs me to see the smash community specifically called out as if the poor qualities described were attributes of being in the brawl community.

 

[B0NK]

The last time I produced something similar, it was a 6 page report on MK's dominance which detailed non-parametric statistics in a way that could hopefully bring graduate level information to the level of the average reader on smashboards.

Can you link me to this?

I'd actually be really interested in reading it! :D

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

The numbers imply that 24.2% of matches would change if we switched to 1 stock, and 19.2% would change if we switched to 2 stock. That is using a very generous assumption of "there are no other confounding factors". And I do admit there are... such as a difference in playstyle.

I noticed my huge error yesterday but didn't correct myself because no one seemed to care. The 11.6% thing would apply to the 2 stocks, not the 1 stocks, seeing as how getting the second stock wouldn't change the outcome of a 1 stock at all. This means that either A. 11.6% of the "first stock winners" are also the "second stock winners", and it should be 30.8%, or B. 11.6% of the "first stock winners" are also the "second stock winners", but that was already included and the number of those that weren't the same is about half.

The two lead change bit describes a game that goes like this: Dr. Robotnik vs Tuen! Tuen takes the first stock (Tuen leads), then Dr. Robotnik takes Tuen's first and second stock (Dr. Robotnik leads) but then Tuen turns it around by taking Dr. Robotnik's second and third stock for the win (Tuen leads).

That is one of the rarer occurrences in match descriptions, since it is far more common for the winner to be the person who took the first stock first.

Thanks!

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Haha, yeah writing anything formal for an audience that's unable to receive it is wasted effort and often counter-productive. Writing to your audience and recognizing the need to do so is a skill in itself.

Spoiler

Sort of off topic, but one thing Id say Tuen is that I feel youre frequently unnecessarily harsh on the community. I've studied and worked with various groups of people in the past and I feel confident in saying that your issue is moreso with human nature than the smash community specifically, and that its something youll likely encounter again if you havent already. I can understand how thatd be infuriating as a researcher, which is why unforunately presentation and ability to persuade are generally more important than the research itself. It just bugs me to see the smash community specifically called out as if the poor qualities described were attributes of being in the brawl community.

With respect to your hidden text...

I too have worked with various groups and have found this particular group to be the most resistant to change and the least receptive to scientific, logical approaches. Tradition and the will of the high level or most visible players reigns supreme here. The way I speak of it may be harsh, but if nobody else will call out this behavior, I will do so in the most straightforward way possible.

Our differences in experiences may simply be a matter of who we met in our respective lives, but this is where I stand. If anything I do or say creates change in this community in any fashion, then I'd be pretty happy about it.

To further my point about resistance to change, go look at the signups for Concentrate V. The event's about to be cancelled due to a lack of interest (though forcing online registration and scheduling a week before semester-based finals doesn't help).

Can you link me to this?

I'd actually be really interested in reading it! :D

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=123595
http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=123676

It looks like the 'statistics is smoke and mirrors comments came from the BBR iteration of that. I'm not in the BBR, so I can't retrieve any of that.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

I noticed my huge error yesterday but didn't correct myself because no one seemed to care. The 11.6% thing would apply to the 2 stocks, not the 1 stocks, seeing as how getting the second stock wouldn't change the outcome of a 1 stock at all. This means that either A. 11.6% of the "first stock winners" are also the "second stock winners", and it should be 30.8%, or B. 11.6% of the "first stock winners" are also the "second stock winners", but that was already included and the number of those that weren't the same is about half.

The 11.6% represents a game where the last stock is a lead change. This could be considered to be integrated into the first two figures (24.2% 1-stock mismatches, and 19.2% 2-stock mismatches), but not added onto them.

Consider this example. You and I play again. This time, I lead first stock and second stock, but you win in an epic comeback and rip all three of my stocks a new one with your final stock. Epic stuff, right? With this analysis framework, this match has three identities. It is a 1-stock mismatch (I took first stock, but I lost), a 2-stock mismatch (I also took the second stock first, but I lost), AND a last stock reverse (you came back on your last stock).

Hopefully that makes things clearer... those extra numbers were just there for fun and they seem to be causing the most confusion, heh.

 

[B0NK]

Thanks! =)

 

[Cassio]

With respect to your hidden text...

I too have worked with various groups and have found this particular group to be the most resistant to change and the least receptive to scientific, logical approaches. Tradition and the will of the high level or most visible players reigns supreme here. The way I speak of it may be harsh, but if nobody else will call out this behavior, I will do so in the most straightforward way possible.

Our differences in experiences may simply be a matter of who we met in our respective lives, but this is where I stand. If anything I do or say creates change in this community in any fashion, then I'd be pretty happy about it.

To further my point about resistance to change, go look at the signups for Concentrate V. The event's about to be cancelled due to a lack of interest (though forcing online registration and scheduling a week before semester-based finals doesn't help).

I dont disagree with you. However my personal advice from my experience is that if your ultimate goal is to make a change I find that the harsh approach, with few exceptions, brings less result driven outcomes.

I also stand by the smash community not being worse than people in general, but I suppose I wont change your mind about that .