Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[FerrishTheFish]

since 20-30 guys are the same as 300....

As if every tournament has 300 entrants. Besides, 20 - 30 = -10 != 300. So what's your point?

PS Since people tend to get offended when I call them trolls for posting off-topic comments and acting as though they constitute rebuttals to well-thought out/thorough arguments, I will instead elect to call you a "Wild Thing."

 

[Varist]

I hope you don't seriously think there's going to be 300 Melee entrants at Apex Luma
rofffffl
try halving that number

 

[Bones0]

Again...

Europe runs best of 5 as the standard...

They have been for a while...

No johns, America.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

As I (and now many other people) have said, assuming equally likely outcomes is not valid when the subset under consideration can be divided into dissimilar groups. If you agree that you can change the probability that a set will last 3, 4, or 5 games just by changing which two players are playing the set, then you agree that you cannot assume equally likely outcomes.

Some other people have also pointed out that you could probably also change the probability that a set will last 3, 4, or 5 games by changing which characters the two players use, or changing which stages the games are played on. You could also change the expected length of an individual game by changing the players, the characters, and the stages. You see how complicated this can get? Not to mention that player choice, character choice, and stage choice all influence each other. You really think you can ignore all that and just say all outcomes are all equally likely?

Not that I need numbers or a better model to disprove an invalid assumption, but I honestly suspect that I can apply a Poisson distribution to the number of individual games that the winner of the set lost (0, 1, or 2), and I can practically guarantee that I can apply an Exponential distribution to the length of an individual game (controlling for stage and character).



You realize this was my whole argument, right? That you can't claim that bo5's automatically result in a 3-hour increase in tournament length without some numbers backing up that claim? As far as I'm concerned, if Kal says he runs bo5 tourneys with 20~30 entrants that finish in 4~5 hours, that proves it is possible for other TO's to do so as well.

you don't get it. I don't really care what the numbers say. I dont even take that 3 hours as an exact estimate. If you did, you are stupid. If are you trying to say that increasing the number of games in a tournament also doesn't increase directly the length of the tournament, then you are stupid still.

 

[danieljosebatista]

I don't think anyone would dispute that the tournament would take longer, but the extra length is probably negligible and more than worth it for having bo5s rather than bo3s. In my experience what makes tournaments run long isn't matches themselves, but players who disappear when they're needed, people who play friendlies instead of allowing tourney matches to take place, things like that. If we hold those things constant, which we should, then honestly a couple extra games in tournament won't make it run THAT much longer in the end.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

you don't get it. I don't really care what the numbers say. I dont even take that 3 hours as an exact estimate. If you did, you are stupid. If are you trying to say that increasing the number of games in a tournament also doesn't increase directly the length of the tournament, then you are stupid still.

Your math is COMPLETELY wrong. If you have 100 bo5 sets running on 100 TVs at the same time and each set takes 3 minutes more than its corresponding bo3 set, then by your math you have increased the length of your tournament by 300 minutes (5 hours), when in reality you have increased it by 3 minutes. Your math would only be right if there were only one TV running at your tournament. Any extra time that would be added on by bo5's vs. bo3's would have to be divided by the number of TVs that you have running. If you have so much as 10 TVs, then even 5 extra hours becomes just 30 extra minutes. THAT is why we say that the extra time would be negligible.

You ask for numbers, but then say that you won't change your mind regardless of what the numbers say. You ask why your logic is incorrect, but you don't listen when I tell you why. It's pretty funny how you call ME stupid when you are the one deliberately ignoring logic and evidence.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Ferrish are you ********? 100 bo5s on 100 TVs would take an estimated 12 minutes with my system. You obviously don't understand math. Come back when you get out of middle school.



edit- btw in ****** terms, my system takes the mean number of games in a bo3 (2.5) and the mean number of games in a bo5 (4) then multiplies it by a random guess of a game length (3 minutes) to get an average set length (7.5 and 12 minutes respectively). Since we are assuming TVs are already used at maximum efficiency (new players get on the TVs as soon as the set ends) the increase of set time is seen directly in total time. Therefore the ratio of bo3 set time and bo3 tournament length is equal to the ratio between bo5 set time and bo5 tournament length (7.5 / 5 = 12 / x). Bo5 tournament length is therefore 8 hours.

if you were to plug in 7.5 minutes for the total tournament length (100 bo3s on 100 tvs) then do the same ratio math you get 12 minutes.

 

[crush]

sveet stereotyping middle schoolers again

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah ur right crush, that was mean


i think most middle schoolers could have followed my math LOL

 

[Bones0]

I guess time goes at a different speed in Europe. Sort of like how the water in the toilet spins the other way in Australia.

 

[crush]

Yeah ur right crush, that was mean

well yeah you have to use the mean what would you use instead?

 

[Kal]

How is assuming they have equal probability wrong? Do we have numbers saying otherwise?

Not necessarily anything concrete, but it seems a good common-sense rule of thumb to assume that longer sets occur less often, especially at larger events, simply because we expect skill gaps to result in shorter sets. Expect, here, indicating likelihood, not meaning "100% of everything will occur exactly as expected."

There is also the fact that, as another rule of thumb, you don't assume different subsets of a sample will have the same probabilities. As far as I'm aware, there's no rigorous math behind this, so naturally I'm not suggesting that they for sure don't occur in equal frequency. It's just a rule of thumb.

Anyway, onto the important part of my post:

I finally got that platinum on Arkham City. **** Riddler's bull **** *** nonsense riddles and his stupid ****ing trophies. Kicking him in the face (twice) was so damn cathartic (twice).

Highlights from previous posts:

Kal was right

the mbr should ultimately pay attention to the best arguments. Those belong to ferrish snd kal.

And the coup de grâce, cementing that Sveet is, in fact, absolutely the worst MBR member, if not the worst poster on SWF:

Ferrish are you ********? 100 bo5s on 100 TVs would take an estimated 12 minutes with my system. You obviously don't understand math. Come back when you get out of middle school.

As a particularly bad offender, Sveet, I am surprised to find a poster whose ad hominems are explicitly worse than mine. Ferrish got caught up in a technical error (likely because your "model" is presented some four pages back), and it was perhaps an embarrassing moment for him. Under your "model," there is an underlying assumption that TVs are being used to maximum efficiency, and the number of TVs is not a factor. However, getting caught up on bull **** like this:

you don't get it. I don't really care what the numbers say. I dont even take that 3 hours as an exact estimate. If you did, you are stupid. If are you trying to say that increasing the number of games in a tournament also doesn't increase directly the length of the tournament, then you are stupid still.

just reinforces that you've got no leg to stand on. No one here is denying that an increase from best of three to best of five will result in an increase in the duration of a tournament. It would be absurd to say otherwise. Ferrish is not an imbecile, and if you took any time to read (and comprehend) his posts, you'd see that the following sums up his point (and further reinforces that you're an absolute ***):

An increase from best of three to best of five increases the duration of the tournament an amount small enough to be considered worthwhile.

It's amusing that you throw insults at Ferrish, despite your consistent inability to fully comprehend what you've read, as well as explicitly quote mining to avoid addressing the complete argument provided by your opponent. Yeah, you have a purple nametag. You're so. ****ing. Cool.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I guess time goes at a different speed in Europe. Sort of like how the water in the toilet spins the other way in Australia.

You win again, Bones.

 

[Varist]

that's a myth thooooooough

 

[crush]

Its true vairist I've been to madagascar before

 

[Strong Badam]

^ I don't think FoD of Yoshis compares to the rock or fire transformation on PS lol

If you want to try to quantify the effect those random aspects have on a game, I'd be pretty interested in the results. Til then such statements are about as strong as "I think FoD or Yoshis compares to the rock or fire transformation on PS lol"

 

[Kal]

I doubt anyone can explicitly quantify the effects of said randomness (which is why we generally take an "all or nothing" approach to allowing randomness), but it's possible to estimate some rough probabilities and state what the impact of it is. However, the latter notion needs to be well-defined before you go ahead and say something like "lava negatively impacts the match." Expected value is a zero-sum game: when one player is negatively affected by the lava, his opponent is positively affected, and vice versa. You could, I suppose, look at the negative expectation of an individual player, but I feel that to be sort of contrived and arbitrary.

 

[TheBOSS]

Japes is so dirty...that stage I feel promotes camping amd stalling. I think DK should be the only optional stage for dubs.

And it's been brought up in the past but have we ever considered making FOD a counter-pick stage only like pokemon? Just curious.

 

[Kal]

There's nothing wrong with camping or stalling. Your personal preference on what makes the game fun should not be a factor in the ruleset.

Regardless, camping and stalling are significantly reduced in doubles.

 

[ShroudedOne]

If a stage enables a win that would not otherwise happen (Mango vs Pink Shinobi at Genesis, match 2 I believe), then shouldn't it be considered for banning? I'm asking more as a devil's advocate than anything, but I am curious.

 

[Kal]

I see no reason why that would qualify a stage for being banned any more than anything else enables a win that "would not otherwise happen." If my opponent can only beat me because he plays Sheik, does that qualify Sheik for being banned? I would argue the same for any stage. The only exception I see is also, conveniently, the ubiquitous reason to ban anything: because it breaks the game. Hyrule enables a win at a rate near 100% with a very simple to execute camping strategy, effectively forcing the game, when CP'd to Hyrule, to be played with Fox dittos, and to resort to the single strategy of gaining a lead and camping. Stages like Brinstar, Mute City, etc. do not break the game in any comparable light.

This is also ignoring the plethora of other issues with such a ban criterion. What does it mean that the win "would not otherwise happen?" The notion is imprecise enough to allow for virtually anything to be banned on such reasoning.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Fair enough, Kal. Fair enough. I understand that. Thought it should be noted that Mango was a good deal better than PS (it should also be noted that the only other time that PS beat Mango's Jiggs was on Mute City, lol).

And it's awkward editing something, and then seeing someone post their response midway...

 

[Kal]

<3

It should also be noted that "better" here is not really a well-defined notion. Skill is a measurement of your ability to win the game being played. Saying that he's better and lost because of a single strategy simply suggests that his opponent is better at the game being played, which is Melee with the inclusion of whatever strategy caused Mango to lose. If the strategy were overly degenerate, or caused the game to break, there would be merit in banning it, but the simple fact that a "better" player lost there is no indication that it should be banned.

If a Roy main is "better" than me, but loses because I know how to abuse Roy's suckiness with Peach, would you want to ban Peach? Surely not. Because, really, I am the better player.

In other words, you're choosing the elements of game you think are worthwhile skills and defining player skill accordingly. Thus, "janky" wins appear unfair or unearned, despite there being no logic or rationale behind such a stance.

There is also merit in pointing out that such an example you've provided may very well just indicate a character flaw. Though I do not recall the set you are referencing and am too lazy to research it. And there are plenty of examples of better players losing to worse ones without any "jank" involved. Anecdotes don't do a good job of presenting the big picture.

 

[Strong Badam]

u ?ean rockcrcok va. pink shinpobi?
ur so dukb u should change your ame to DumbOne
and me durunko ne

 

[Anand]

well yeah you have to use the mean what would you use instead?

What a baller. This is gold.

Also, there's a lot of bad math/reasoning in this thread.

 

[Kal]

Do you care to elaborate on what math is bad, exactly?

 

[ShroudedOne]

LOLOLOLOL, drunk SB. Alrighty then.

Kal, here is the match I was referring to. But I agree with your points anyways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u39LxgyuI

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It's amusing that you throw insults at Ferrish, despite your consistent inability to fully comprehend what you've read, as well as explicitly quote mining to avoid addressing the complete argument provided by your opponent. Yeah, you have a purple nametag. You're so. ****ing. Cool.

you're right i have been quite insulting. I guess i've gotten so stressed out lately that its just effecting everything i do. Personal apologies to you, Kal. Ferrish this applies to you as well and to the countless people people i've probably insulted directly or indirectly.

In my defense, it really frustrates me when someone is arguing with me for pages upon pages and the whole time thought I was saying something completely different from what i actually was. For example, nitpicking details of my model (or whatever you want to call that prealgebra homework problem) and then not even understanding it in such a way. I am not a writer, I hate english. If my terminology is wrong, you can correct me, but saying everything in my post is wrong simply because I wasn't technical enough is much worse, in my opinion.

I didn't think anyone actually thought i was saying precisely 3hours will be added to the length of the tournament. I basically made up a bunch of numbers to show that bo5 would take longer than bo3. I had also expressed that in my logcal/regionals of 20-30 average players games are constrained by setups and played quite efficiently therefore increasing the sets to bo5 would take an unreasonable amount of time.

I'm not sure whether it was back here or in the MBR debates of the same issues, but my opinion and the opinion of the majority of players is that bo5 should be played in bracket for every (inter-) national with layered pools or some other guideline. We never had the intention of making it a rule and I suppose me offering my anecdote was unprofessional.

I think a lot of people need to realize that the purple names are individuals. My opinion isn't the word or will of the MBR. I used to discuss and debate the same way pre joining MBR but nobody slandered me in such a way then when I was only an individual.

Right now I don't have enough time to read a lot of posts which is why I choose only to respond to certain ideas I really disagree with. I didn't intend to slur the argument in any way, however it likely occurred regardless of intentions.



tl;dr Apologies to everyone. Hopefully my view is worded smoother and everything can be cleared up. My view is not necessarily the view of the entire MBR.


Gahhhh what a blog post. Now im tired and don't feel like writing any more. Goodnight Smashboards.

 

[Strong Badam]

u ?ean rockcrcok va. pink shinpobi?
ur so dukb u should change your ame to DumbOne
and me durunko ne

I'd like to apologize to the entirety of Melee Discussion for this post.

As well as all of crush's posts.

 

[crush]

your welcome smashboards

 

[Bones0]

Thancs Krush.

 

[crush]

ur wrong kal. also ur logic is ur doin it rong bro. (insert smiley face since am happy)

 

[Kal]

Best part from above is the transition from "wrong" to "rong." Awesome.

 

[Strife]

ur wrong kal. also ur logic is ur doin it rong bro. (insert smiley face since am happy)

It's like you never have anything constructive to say.

 

[Bones0]

It's like you never have anything constructive to say.

I'm sorry, what did you say? I can't hear you over the




SOUND OF YOUR HYPOCRISY.

 

[Strife]

I'm sorry, what did you say? I can't hear you over the




SOUND OF YOUR HYPOCRISY.

I said that Crush never has anything constructive to say.

Whenever he posts something it's always some dumb one liner that I'm guessing is supposed to be funny, but is not. Even if I upset people when I post it serves a purpose. This guy is just useless.

 

[crush]

I said that Crush never has anything constructive to say.

Whenever he posts something it's always some dumb one liner that I'm guessing is supposed to be funny, but is not. Even if I upset people when I post it serves a purpose. This guy is just useless.

yeah but u just annoy people and complain about things maybe u just dont see the deeper meaning behind what i say. most people are more annoyed by you than me i bet ($5MM)

 

[Strife]

^ It doesn't matter if I annoy people more. My point was that I contribute to topics, while you don't.

 

[crush]

u dont really contribute to topics though. Also I do occasionally contribute but obviously you haven't seen those posts since u dont actually play melee

 

[Strife]

u dont really contribute to topics though. Also I do occasionally contribute but obviously you haven't seen those posts since u dont actually play melee

You can't read through the Dashizwiz player fund, or Apex tournament thread and say that I didn't contribute to the thread(whole pages were about my posts); and I suppose you're right that I haven't seen all your posts. When I have the time I'll search through more of your posts and see if any of them have any value. All the ones I've seen so far are useless though.

And I totally play melee, what would make you think that I don't?