Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Divinokage]

I don't mind any matchup on KJ and I play Ganon.. so is that evidence enough that the stage isn't broken if no one can outcamp a Ganon?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Ok im gonna bring my recording setup to the tourney next week and time out everyone. Will you be fine with banning the stage then?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

[COLLAPSE="Hidden"]Oh hey guys I just stumbled across this thread on TL. The author did a lot of math and basically calculated how much difference a Best of N series has on the result.

What I got out of it is that the difference between a Bo3 and a Bo5 is an increase of about 5% chance the better player will win.[/COLLAPSE]

[COLLAPSE="Hidden"]The guy's math isn't even clear. I can't tell what distribution he's using to model anything. All he says is "after some calculations, I've found" and then starts listing things. People in the thread mention that he should use a binomial distribution (which seems right to me, given that there are only two possible outcomes and assuming that they are independent (i.e., that a win/loss won't influence the outcome of the following matches)), and I think that's how such a calculation should be done. Statistics has never been a strong suit of mine, so maybe Ferrish could provide a better analysis, but I might write something like this up later. I frankly just don't like Probability.[/COLLAPSE]

Been out of town and off the internet for the past four days, and wow this thread has gone crazy ...

[COLLAPSE="Read this if you feel like it"]@Kal Yeah, he uses binomial distribution. That aside, the bad math/reasoning in some of the comments made me lol.

@Sveet I don't think this guy really meant for anyone to take his conclusions too seriously. It looks like he took maybe 2 hours and threw some stuff together based on a binomial distribution to just give a basic idea of the benefits (and reduced marginal benefits) of increasing the number of games in a set. He states straight out that his method is prone to certain flaws. (As proof, consider the fact that he decided against the more accurate negative binomial distribution: repeat Bernoulli trials until r successes, where r=2 for bo3's, r=3 for bo5's, etc. Of course, it also suffers from the same drawbacks outlined below.)

Binomial distribution would only be 100% accurate if, for every game in the set, we had two players playing the same two characters on the same stage with zero saltiness and unlimited usage of the Gentleman's Clause. I disagree with a binomial distribution because repeated trials are not independent of each other: the conditions (my/my opponent's character, the stage choice, my/my opponent's mentality) and therefore the probability of victory in a given match are in fact dependent on whether or not I won the previous match due to the existence of the CP system.

My proposed method would be to apply a Poisson distribution to the number of games the winner loses. Poisson distribution (somewhat) bypasses the probability of victory in each individual game because it only depends on the mean number of games the winner would expect to lose in a set. As a mental exercise, write down a list of some players you know really well, throw a couple darts at it, and ask yourself how much you need to know about characters, stage, or mentality to predict which player would win in an individual game vs. how much you need to know about characters, stage, or mentality to predict how many games the better player will lose in a set. In a sense, while binomial distribution ignores character choice, stage choice, and player mentality, Poisson distribution simply makes those factors more ignorable.

Note that every single model I can think of loses accuracy as the relative skill of the players goes from highly unbalanced to roughly even, because the factors that are ignored/made more ignorable cannot be ignored in the case of two completely evenly matched players.

Note also that this is a moot point because I'm not about to write out a bunch of graphs, calculations, or equations so that I can post them on an internet forum that moved on from this topic two pages ago.

Note finally that I would accept a 5% increase in the chance of the better player winning in exchange for a small amount of extra time.[/COLLAPSE]As an aside, I too fail to see why the legality of Hyrule Temple has any bearing on the legality of KJ64. We don't decide to ban stages based on what other stages are banned. We decide to ban stages based on the same criterion used to ban other stages. And as far as criterion go, "Is it demonstrably broken?" is a pretty good one. You can demonstrate the brokenness of Hyrule based on knowledge of the game's mechanics alone, without the need for tournament results (which works pretty well as an arbitrary definition of "obvious"). You cannot demonstrate the brokenness of KJ64 based on knowledge of the game's mechanics alone. You need tournament results.

Sveet, if you feel able to deliver those tournament results, by all means do so. However, those results need to isolate camping as the sole reason for victory. If you can camp players worse than you, but not players better than you, then clearly camping is not an OP strategy.

 

[Kal]

Damn, quite an impressive post there, Ferrish. Alas, the Algebra background just isn't so useful for this sort of thing.

Ok im gonna bring my recording setup to the tourney next week and time out everyone. Will you be fine with banning the stage then?

...

 

[Deleted member]

i'd like to say that this game would be much better for tournament purposes if we played 5 minute timed FFAs on hyrule than if we left KJ64 as a CP stage in our current rules. at least temple FFAs are enjoyable and might draw a few extra players.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

i'd like to say that this game would be much better for tournament purposes if we played 5 minute timed FFAs on hyrule than if we left KJ64 as a CP stage in our current rules. at least temple FFAs are enjoyable and might draw a few extra players.

I would probably quit Melee if 5min FFA's on Hyrule became the norm.

 

[Kal]

Hell no, that would be fun as hell.

Umbreon, I've never been one to adjust the rules in an attempt to make players happy or to appease some fickle entertainment preference. I don't think it's a good idea for creating a ruleset.

 

[Strong Badam]

I don't mind any matchup on KJ and I play Ganon.. so is that evidence enough that the stage isn't broken if no one can outcamp a Ganon?

N o

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Kal, you're an algebraist? *high-five*

 

[Kal]

*high-five*

 

[ShroudedOne]

I don't see how you guys aren't being inconsistent...Hylian even said in one of his posts that he didn't see that many people timing each other out on KJ64, using the strategies that were outlined as broken. And yet, somehow, we don't need to see people on Hyrule to know that it's broken? It seems like a fairly "arbitrary" line to me.

 

[Hylian]

I don't see how you guys aren't being inconsistent...Hylian even said in one of his posts that he didn't see that many people timing each other out on KJ64, using the strategies that were outlined as broken. And yet, somehow, we don't need to see people on Hyrule to know that it's broken? It seems like a fairly "arbitrary" line to me.

No, we don't need to see people run away from others on Hyrule to know it's broken. It's because we have the ability to THINK.

Do we REALLY need to see tournament proof that Hyrule is broken? REALLY? It's common sense why it is if you understand the game at all on any sort of competitive level. Now if someone came along and was like "Hey guys several characters can beat fox on hyrule by doing X and Y etc" then yeah we would love to see it in tournaments to see if what they are saying is true.

Kongo jungle can be argued for either way because the problem isn't so outright obvious, proven by that fact that we are arguing about it in the first place. Do you see ANYONE arguing to make hyrule legal or giving ways people can beat fox there? No, you don't. You do see several claims in both directions for KJ64 though, which is why we need evidence for it being broken.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I'm certainly NOT saying that Hyrule is NOT broken. What I am getting at is that saying things like, "Hyrule is obviously broken," doesn't really prove anything. You could take a look at Brawl and say that, "Obviously, items are broken in that game, and should be banned outright." But I've heard some fairly good arguments for allowing some items into the game.

And I'm not disagreeing with what you've said there, either, Hylian. I am only saying that "It should be obvious" isn't enough.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I am only saying that "It should be obvious" isn't enough.

By "obvious," we mean "demonstrable on the basis of the game's mechanics." It's not an arbitrary line at all.

Hyrule Temple's defining attribute is that giant block-thing in the middle that prevents characters on one side from attacking characters on the other side without going around it. This means that the metagame on Hyrule Temple--regardless of how far or close you want to be to your opponent--is centered on being able to go around Hyrule Temple's block fast enough to achieve advantageous spacing.

Due to Fox's fast, long-range lasers and his reflector, there are no characters (besides, arguably, Falco) who can compete with him from an extremely long range. This means that, in order to have a chance, every other character (besides, arguably, Falco) has to approach Fox, meaning they have to go around Hyrule Temple's block faster than Fox, or at least fast enough to prevent Fox from safely lasering them.

However, Fox has great horizontal mobility due to his running speed and great vertical mobility due to his falling speed and high jumps. No other characters (besides, arguably, Falcon) can compete with Fox's ability to run around in circles on Hyrule. In other words:

The game's mechanics prevent almost every other character from competing with Fox at an extremely long range. The only character who can arguably compete (Falco), can't approach. The game's mechanics prevent almost every other character from approaching Fox from an extremely long range. The only character who can arguably approach (Falcon), can't compete at an extremely long range. No other character has BOTH the long-range capabilities AND the mobility to go toe-to-toe with Fox on Hyrule. Even if your opponent is better than you, unless he is playing Fox, he will only win if he can approach you, and unless he is playing Fox, he can never approach you. Fox is the only viable character on Hyrule, and there is no reasonable argument to the contrary.

This is vastly different from KJ64, where even the the people who think it's broken admit that THREE characters (Fox, Falco, Falcon) are viable on it. We're not just making this up. There is a distinct difference between the demonstrable brokenness of Hyrule and the alleged, possibly-demonstrable-but-not-yet-demonstrated brokenness of KJ64.

 

[Geenareeno]

I think what Shrouded is saying is that he doesn't think we're following the criteria for banning something closely enough. But like Hylian said, common sense.

 

[Kal]

That really depends on whether it's obvious to you, ShroudedOne. The very fact that it's obvious to us is what makes it sufficient. But, as I've said, Fox hard counters everyone there. And the method he uses to win is perfectly understood because of its simplicity: gain any lead on your opponent, Fox Trot away. There is nothing so overt with KJ64, so that is why we want evidence.

If, on the other hand, some reason were given for Hyrule not to be broken, the correct response would be to unban it and wait for evidence to turn up that it is, in fact, broken.

Your analogy with items isn't very good. Items aren't broken in either game, they are just deemed "too random."

Finally, our argument isn't "Hyrule is obviously broken." Our argument is "Hyrule is obviously broken because Fox hard counters the entire cast there."

 

[Varist]

holy ****, why is this even being questioned. those were the dumbest posts you have ever made Shrouded, hyrule is unsaveable.

why is this even being DEBATED? SERIOUSLY? we're justifying to another experienced player WHY HYRULE IS BANNED?

what if we ****ing gave fox's lasers falco stun. ****, they're both the same level of "obviously broken"

 

[Kal]

Varist, he explicitly states that he doesn't think Hyrule should be legal. Don't be an ***. He's asking for clarification on why we want evidence in the form of tournament results before banning KJ64 but not before banning Hyrule.

 

[Varist]

WHICH IS DUMB

"why do you need evidence to ban freeze glitch but not evidence to ban fox's stun lazurs?"

"go to fd and spam b when the match starts."

honestly, soooo dumb.

 

[Strong Badam]

lol "ban fox's stun lasers"

yes let's ban something not in existence

 

[Varist]

someone doesn't understand hypotheticals

 

[Kal]

It's not that dumb. His point is an important one to make, because we really need to tread carefully with things like this. If you're not careful with "that is obviously broken," then you can basically ban whatever you want.

Wait, Falco can shoot his momentum-crushing laser with only four frames of landing lag? That's obviously broken.

 

[Varist]

i understand that, but sometimes **** is too ridiculous.

and with hyrule, you can put that into practice too easily. at home. pick fox and laser and run away 8mins, cpu won't touch you, auto-jv5, that's too borked.

 

[Kal]

I mean, the fact that Fox's trot makes him faster than the rest of the cast, and the fact that his laser (and his stupidly good attacks) gives him an automatic lead on his opponent, should make it obvious. But that's sort of the point; we need to be explicit, and careful, when we say something is obviously broken. With Hyrule, I feel we have been. With KJ64, it's nowhere close.

 

[Strong Badam]

someone doesn't understand hypotheticals

Why even bring up hypotheticals? Hyrule Temple and Kongo Jungle 64 are both existent stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee for the Nintendo GameCube, while Fox with stunning lasers is not.

 

[Kal]

What is wrong with hypotheticals, Strong Bad? They have some good uses. You can't just dismiss a valid point with "well that's just a hypothetical."

Earlier I used a hypothetical to make a point: the issue Sveet seems to have with KJ64 isn't the actual limitation of options, but instead that the options are limited by the opponent's capacity to run away, i.e., the method through which the options are limited seems to be important, not the limitation itself.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I see nothing wrong with banning something due to demonstrable brokenness on the basis of the game's mechanics. A variant of chess where White gets two extra queens instead of bishops can be said to be demonstrably broken on the basis of the game's mechanics, while a variant of chess like Monster Chess would require much play-testing (it's actually pretty even, and tons of fun to boot).

 

[Kal]

Monster Chess is actually a guaranteed win for black. It's just difficult in practice because of a tendency to blunder, especially among lesser-skilled players, who are more likely to be playing the game in the first place.

 

[Strong Badam]

What is wrong with hypotheticals, Strong Bad? They have some good uses. You can't just dismiss a valid point with "well that's just a hypothetical."

I just don't really see the point in going "We would ban X if it existed" in a ruleset thread for a game that hasn't changed for over 10 years. We have to deal with what we have, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Kal]

If you posit the hypotheticals properly, you can shed light on certain biases the rule makers have, and you can work towards making a fairer ruleset. The answer itself is not what's relevant, but what you learn about the rule making process in general.

 

[Varist]

hey kal you could sleep at my house if you wanna

 

[Kal]

I feel like there might be some context I missed.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Kal and Ferrish, thanks. You guys pretty much gave me the answer I was looking for.

And lol, Varist. If you really think that this is about me trying to defend Hyrule...well...whatever. I can't ever make an argument against the logic in something. It always ends up being, "Lol, DummyOne, you're defending that," instead of understanding why I'm saying what I'm saying.

LET IT BE KNOWN. I am now an idiot, as declared by the great Varist. *rolls eyes* Forgive me for not simply taking everything people say without, perhaps, a little bit of a challenge, to make sure that their definitions are in order. Golly. This website never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Anand]

Due to Fox's fast, long-range lasers and his reflector, there are no characters (besides, arguably, Falco) who can compete with him from an extremely long range. This means that every other character (besides, arguably, Falco) has to approach Fox

No other characters (besides, arguably, Falcon) can compete with Fox's ability to run around in circles on Hyrule.

The game's mechanics prevent almost every other character from competing with Fox at an extremely long range. The only character who can arguably compete (Falco), can't approach. The only character who can arguably approach (Falcon), can't compete at an extremely long range. No other character has BOTH the long-range capabilities AND the mobility to go toe-to-toe with Fox on Hyrule. Even if your opponent is better than you, unless he is playing Fox, he will only win if he can approach you, and unless he is playing Fox, he can never approach you. Fox is the only viable character on Hyrule, and there is no reasonable argument to the contrary.

(Note: I omitted some of this quote just to make it shorter and easier to read, hopefully without losing any context.)

It looks to me like you are saying that characters have two potential options against Fox on Hyrule: compete at long range, or approach, then you're saying because no other character can do both, Fox is the only viable character against Fox.

Based on what you wrote, you should be saying that since Falco can compete at long range, he doesn't need to approach, and since Falcon can approach, he doesn't need to compete at long range. (Rather than what you said, which was that Falco can compete, but not approach, and Falcon can compete, but not approach.)

 

[Varist]

you're wasting bandwidth by challenging something like Hyrule. don't pretend I'm stupid and I don't understand what you're saying. You're challenging the philosophy behind needing evidence for one thing and not another. But you're being bullheaded by not acknowledging that Hyrule is so god damned blatant that it doesn't need it, and hence, you're wasting bandwidth by challenging something like Hyrule.

I know you know why it's banned, and agree that it should be. So why waste time? oh, it's about post count? because that's all that's being gained here.

also penises

 

[ShroudedOne]

Yep. It's about post count. I certainly care about how many posts I accumulate on a medium that will mean absolutely nothing to me in 10 years. That's the only reason. I'm glad you noticed.

<3 Varist

 

[Strong Badam]

you're wasting bandwidth by challenging something like Hyrule. don't pretend I'm stupid and I don't understand what you're saying. You're challenging the philosophy behind needing evidence for one thing and not another. But you're being bullheaded by not acknowledging that Hyrule is so god damned blatant that it doesn't need it, and hence, you're wasting bandwidth by challenging something like Hyrule.

I know you know why it's banned, and agree that it should be. So why waste time? oh, it's about post count? because that's all that's being gained here.

It's because you're allowing the logic of "It's obvious" to Hyrule but not Kongo Jungle 64. And don't mention bandwidth please lmao, that's irrelevant in 2011.

Kal & Ferrish, when challenged, actually responded. You, on the other hand, continued to make posts that contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you don't want to waste time here then just don't post here.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Based on what you wrote, you should be saying that since Falco can compete at long range, he doesn't need to approach, and since Falcon can approach, he doesn't need to compete at long range. (Rather than what you said, which was that Falco can compete, but not approach, and Falcon can compete, but not approach.)

Not true, actually. What I meant by all that was that Fox can abuse either option at his leisure, but no character has the capability to answer both options.

Sure, Falco can throw some lasers at Fox when they're horizontal to each other, but A) Fox's lasers are better at quickly tacking on a few extra % and B) the second Fox gets that extra % advantage, he doesn't have to compete with Falco, he can just turn around and run away. Falco, because he cannot respond to this option, is stuck.

I honestly don't know what I was thinking when I brought up Falcon because A) Fox can outrun Falcon on Hyrule because he runs barely slower than Falcon but falls faster and has faster jumps, and B) Fox just needs that one moment where he can reverse SHL, and unless Falcon powershields it, Fox can run away all over again. Falcon cannot approach well enough to counter the long-range options that Fox has against him, and he has no long-range options himself. Therefore, he is stuck.

 

[Varist]

okay, argue over why you should ban a stage that's already banned

 

[Deleted member]

Hell no, that would be fun as hell.

Umbreon, I've never been one to adjust the rules in an attempt to make players happy or to appease some fickle entertainment preference. I don't think it's a good idea for creating a ruleset.

I ran the MBR for 2 years. It worked great for me.