The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[SaveMeJebus]

he said "instead", not "in addition to" mind you

Yes since you have players like bizkit (Snake) that do extremely well on RC and others who just get destroyed. Some players know stages and others don't

You obviously need the character but you need the player even more

 

[Ripple]

then by that logic, characters don't have good or bad stages. its just the players.

Wario vs. D3 ( Player A and B) is the nearly the same same as it is on FD as it is on brinstar or RC. it's just the players being more/less good at that stage. not the characters

 

[Omni]

Wario vs. D3 is the same as it is on FD as it is on brinstar or RC. it's just the players being more/less good at that stage. not the characters

wa t

 

[Ripple]

wa t

that's not what I believe omni

 

[John12346]

Repost because new page
.
.
.

Can you do it despite the fact that DeLux has said in no uncertain terms that the 75% that voted "yes" does not primarily consist of low-level players?

This actually caught my attention. Did I miss something?

 

[Ussi]

Some Anti-ban people saying the 75% who voted to ban MK are people who don't matter/don't go to tourneys/are bad

 

[SaveMeJebus]

he said "instead", not "in addition to" mind you

I'm going to quote this again because I understand what you meant now. You need both the player and the character.

Players have good and bad stages and characters have good and bad stages. If a player is good on a bad stage, then the stage becomes neutral for him. If the player is bad on a good stage, then the stage becomes neutral for him. If the player is good on a good stage, then the stage becomes really good for him. If the player is bad on a bad stage, then the stage becomes really bad for him (This does not include character MUs).

This is why the player is so important. Characters and stages don't change, players do

 

[Ripple]

I'm going to quote this again because I understand what you meant now. You need both the player and the character.

Players have good and bad stages and characters have good and bad stages. If a player is good on a bad stage, then the stage becomes neutral for him. If the player is bad on a good stage, then the stage becomes neutral for him. If the player is good on a good stage, then the stage becomes really good for him. If the player is bad on a bad stage, then the stage becomes really bad for him (This does not include character MUs).

This is why the player is so important.

player is equally as important then, not more so

 

[SaveMeJebus]

player is equally as important then, not more so

That's not true. Players are the only ones that can change that. The stage match ups will aways remain the same without the player. The same can also be said about character match ups

 

[Ripple]

That's not true. Players are the only ones that can change this. The stages and characters will aways remain the same.

players can't change anything but the way they play. they can't change match up or stage specific gimmicks or anything like that. that's why we have MU ratios.

characters are an aspect. stage is an aspect. players cannot be more than those combined


IDK know why i'm arguing this. this is pointless and got derailed from what I was going to post

 

[John12346]

Some Anti-ban people saying the 75% who voted to ban MK are people who don't matter/don't go to tourneys/are bad

Well, SFP said "does not primarily consist of low-level players," so wouldn't that suggest...?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

players can't change anything but the way they play. they can't change match up or stage specific gimmicks or anything like that. that's why we have MU ratios.

characters are an aspect. stage is an aspect. players cannot be more than those combined


IDK know why i'm arguing this. this is pointless and got derailed from what I was going to post

Match up ratios don't take match up knowledge or stage Knowledge into account which could switch the match up to the other players favour

 

[Ripple]

Match up ratios don't take match up knowledge or stage Knowledge into account which could switch the match up into one players favour

yes it does. otherwise it would just be based on cpu vs. cpu nothing at all actually

 

[Exceladon City]

Match up ratios don't take match up knowledge or stage Knowledge into account which could switch the match up to the other players favour

What?

I believe EVERY match-up discussion that I've seen has mentioned stages. Starters/Bans/Counterpicks. Including input from players of that character.

Where in the hell have YOU been? AiB forums?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

yes it does. otherwise it would just be based on cpu vs. cpu

I don't think you understand what I am saying since it would be impossible to base the match up chart on every tournament match ever played.

The match up chart doesn't take the stage and character knowledge of the individual players that are playing a match into account. This knowledge could switch the match up to the other players favor

 

[Exceladon City]

I don't think you understand what I am saying since it would be impossible to base the match up chart on every tournament match ever played.

The match up chart doesn't take the stage and character knowledge of the individual players that are playing a match into account. This knowledge could switch the match up to the other players favor even if the match up chart disagrees

It's been 3 years. Not much has changed. Unless you count unconventional CPs like PS2.

 

[Player-1]

Jebus, we don't take into account character knowledge in a MU chart either. I can say that M2K beats randomfalcomaster25 at a tournament who doesn't know about SH double lasering, but that doesn't mean much. Same thing for MU and stage knowledge, you assume that both hypothetical players share an equal knowledge of the MU and stage.

 

[Ripple]

I don't think you understand what I am saying since it would be impossible to base the match up chart on every tournament match ever played.

The match up chart doesn't take the stage and character knowledge of the individual players that are playing a match into account. This knowledge could switch the match up to the other players favor even if the match up chart disagrees

wtf?

the match up chart assumes the players are on equal footing at a competent level and an entire set is played out.

the match up chart does take into account stage and character knowledge of both players. if I know more than my opponent about what I can do on the stage or to his character of course its going to seem like it'll be a 60:40 as opposed to a 50:50 for example.

why would we base a match up chart off people who have more experience in game vs lower level people?


that chart couldn't even exist.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It's been 3 years. Not much has changed. Unless you count unconventional CPs like PS2.

A lot has changed in three years. Most players are just learning how to DI correctly and new stuff like shield DI has been discovered.

 

[Ripple]

A lot has changed in three years. Most players are just learning how to DI correctly and new stuff like shield DI has been discovered.

name something else other than ISSDI

I have yet to see anyone use ISSDI.

and most people already know how to DI properly. citing GIMR's MGM on DI is specifically aimed at people just now picking up the game which is not "most people"

 

[Mekos]

I'm so confused by these people who feel as tho nothing has changed in three years. I know of three smashers including myself who have advanced three characters. I'll say it again.
Fow for ness. Esam for pikachu. Myself for Lucas. I just created these techniques/setups and mastered them after clash 1.

I know there has to be other players who have advanced characters as well. Just because you have not experienced it does not mean things aren't changing. If your DK is the same as it was 3 years ago Ripple...I pity u.

 

[Strong Badam]

reposting cuz no one responded to it and I'm interested in what people think.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=295425

John#'s data doesn't get enough discussion IMO. I see pro ban bring it up a lot, but I never see much of an anti response.

What's the anti ban's response to nearly 45% of all tournament money being taken by one character?

Or, if you think John's data is flawed in some way and why it's not that great, say how.

I think that's pretty irrelevant. This only shows that MK is the best character, which is something we already know (He's a tier above every other character). The fact that the game is imbalanced doesn't really say much on its own.
I also think that we should instead compare cash won by tier, not simply by character. MK is the only character in S Tier and as such earns all of the winnings that S Tier characters do. A Tier is comprised of Diddy, Snake, and Marth. Comparing simply the "Cash Won (Full Split)" category:
S Tier: 33972.98
A Tier: 22749.37

S Tier only makes ~50% more than A Tier does. If my calculations and your claim of MK taking in 45% are correct, this means that A Tier pulls in ~30% of all tournament winnings. Clearly, A Tier is broken, overcentralizing, etc., since what is expected (better characters are performing better in tournament and are thus earning more of the tournament winnings) is occurring.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

name something else other than ISSDI

I have yet to see anyone use ISSDI.

and most people already know how to DI properly. citing GIMR's MGM on DI is specifically aimed at people just now picking up the game which is not "most people"

A lot of players have found option selects

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=308027

I know Flamwave found some too

 

[Ripple]

A lot of players have found option selects

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=308027

I know Flamwave found some too

you were proven to be doing something bad unless you were ddd in your own thread by delux. way to fail.

now let's get back to the ORIGINAL point before we derailed.

you ignored this

wtf?

the match up chart assumes the players are on equal footing at a competent level and an entire set is played out.

the match up chart does take into account stage and character knowledge of both players. if I know more than my opponent about what I can do on the stage or to his character of course its going to seem like it'll be a 60:40 as opposed to a 50:50 for example.

why would we base a match up chart off people who have more experience in game vs lower level people?


that chart couldn't even exist.

 

[DeLux]

Ripple, I ISSDI everything

Ripple is ungrabble btw.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

@Ripple, Read the last page. He never released the data

The match up chart assumes the players are on equal footing and as we all know, that is not always the case. The match up chart goes out the window when there are players involved

 

[John12346]

S Tier only makes ~50% more than A Tier does. If my calculations and your claim of MK taking in 45% are correct, this means that A Tier pulls in ~30% of all tournament winnings. Clearly, A Tier is broken, overcentralizing, etc., since what is expected (better characters are performing better in tournament and are thus earning more of the tournament winnings) is occurring.

Okay, so what you're telling me is that the game is magically centered around three characters, all of whom have disadvantageous matchups and stages when MK is taken out of the picture?

Protip: If you wanted to add up top characters' winnings to the point that it equaled MK, you'd have to go all the way down to Olimar, so perhaps I can claim that everyone between Olimar and Diddy overcentralizes the metagame?

Also what Flayl said below, I guess.

 

[fkacyan]

Why people still don't have Jebus on ignore is a mystery to me.

 

[Flayl]

S Tier: 33972.98
A Tier: 22749.37

S Tier only makes ~50% more than A Tier does. If my calculations and your claim of MK taking in 45% are correct, this means that A Tier pulls in ~30% of all tournament winnings. Clearly, A Tier is broken, overcentralizing, etc., since what is expected (better characters are performing better in tournament and are thus earning more of the tournament winnings) is occurring.

What could you possibly hope to accomplish with this reasoning? We don't ban tiers except for mid/low tournaments.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Why people still don't have Jebus on ignore is a mystery to me.

They enjoy the mental anguish?

 

[Cassio]

Okay, so what you're telling me is that the game is magically centered around three characters, all of whom have disadvantageous matchups and stages when MK is taken out of the picture?

He wasnt talking about matchups or stages. Stick to the point, results.

What could you possibly hope to accomplish with this reasoning? We don't ban tiers except for mid/low tournaments.

Why not? Banning 3 characters would greatly improve the results of everyone else and improve character diversity.

Why people still don't have Jebus on ignore is a mystery to me.

People favor arguing weaker easier arguments. Guess theres a sense of accomplishment or something.

 

[Ripple]

@Ripple, Read the last page. He never released the data

The match up chart assumes the players are on equal footing and as we all know, that is not always the case. The match up chart goes out the window when there are players involved

are you seriously trying to argue that the better player changes the match up?

because that's stupidly obvious. if someone is better than you, and the MU chart says you have an advantage but you lose or they make it hard. then its obvious they are better than you.

 

[John12346]

Why not? Banning 3 characters would greatly improve the results of everyone else and improve character diversity.

Yeah, you can't really argue that when those three characters don't even have a cumulative amount of success that even reaches MK's levels...

And also when all three characters have counters and bad stages, meaning that NONE of the three characters is an "answer all" scenario like MK is...

 

[Flayl]

Why not? Banning 3 characters would greatly improve the results of everyone else and improve character diversity.

These 3 characters lose to characters that are below them on the tier list so in fact you would be removing depth by banning those characters. Either way the argument is still ridiculous, nobody has ever banned a character because they were as comparably good as another character.

In fact, that logic is so stupid, you can apply reductio ad absurdum:
If you ban the most powerful tier of characters arguing that it improves the results of everyone else below them, then the next tier will become the most powerful. Then if you follow the same logic, you must keep banning tiers until only the bottom tier of characters is playable.

 

[popsofctown]

Actually, I've given that some thought before. Since by default you would assume a fighting games tier list encounters imbalance in a way that forms a normal distribution, depth would be maximized by banning every character past the 60th percentile or so, since it maximizes the number of characters close to the quality of your best character. So mid tier tournaments are optimal.

That's never ever going to happen, though.


Strong Bad's point is decent enough. A tier does cumulatively make a large amount of money, and 66% of something else qualifies as "comparable" for me. A tier is more than one character but it's still a small number of characters compared to the cast as a whole. When his point forces you to move across to "well, MK doesn't have counters, A tier does", you've sort of admitted that the money argument isn't working so you need to theorycraft to show why MK meets ban criteria.

 

[Flayl]

"well, MK doesn't have counters, A tier does", you've sort of admitted that the money argument isn't working so you need to theorycraft to show why MK meets ban criteria.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I brought up matchups as an easier way to show why it's dumb. I wasn't "forced" through that line of reasoning. If my post had only the reductio ad absurdum my point would be just as strong.

 

[DeLux]

Data shows the MK Polls results are fairly consistent (checks at 25/50/75/100) throughout the Top 100 Power Ranked SWF players on Rajam's list:

28-34% non participation

70% of voting pool are in favor of a ban (anywhere between 44-52% of the vote depending on cutoff)
30% of voting pool are against a ban ( anwhere from 17 to 22% of vote depending on cutoff)

 

[John12346]

Holy balls DeLux, does that data mean... uh... well, what does it exactly mean? I don't think I'm reading it correctly.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I brought up matchups as an easier way to show why it's dumb. I wasn't "forced" through that line of reasoning. If my post had only the reductio ad absurdum my point would be just as strong.

As well as the part where I said "Yeah, you can't really argue that when those three characters don't even have a cumulative amount of success that even reaches MK's levels..."

And something along the lines of where you would need to use all characters between OLIMAR and Diddy if you wanted cumulative success equal to MK's.

 

[popsofctown]

And something along the lines of where you would need to use all characters between OLIMAR and Diddy if you wanted cumulative success equal to MK's.

That's a good point.

 

[Zankoku]

I think it means that the overall distribution of votes among the top 100 ranked players who actually voted, according to Rajam's list, is very similar to the distribution of votes among all people who voted.