The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[WindMajor]

Well that settles it then. Good work, DeLux!

 

[Juushichi]

No guys, he's still wrong! That data is biased and only shows what we want it to show!

 

[popsofctown]

Nah, MK needs the banhammer and everyone wants it.

 

[Strong Badam]

the point of my argument wasn't that the 3 characters were broken & needed banning. the idea was that S Tier gets 45% of winnings, A Tier gets 30% of winnings, B Tier gets ~20% of winnings (I even rounded down for y'all), and that a tier earning 50% more than the tier below it is a sensible fact due to the concept that higher tiered characters are inherently more viable in tournament. The point is that if MK were truly "broken" or "eating up all teh moneyz," then his cash earnings if you want to bring up such silly data would probably be more than A and B Tier combined, but this is clearly not the case.
The characters are separated by tiers; there is an MK tier, but not a Snake or Diddy tier, so it doesn't make sense to only compare the earnings a character makes when he's the only character that makes up S Tier. If more characters were in S tier (read: Brawl was more balanced) then the ~ 45% tournament winnings of S tier would likely be split among those characters

For reference,

S Tier: 33972.98
A Tier: 22749.37
B Tier: 15257.23

 

[DeLux]

I think my data means that I believe in Strong Bad with all my heart

 

[popsofctown]

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.

The point anti-ban was trying to make is that pro-ban is simply advocating banning S-Tier. Strong Bad himself is trying to apply reductio ad absurdum to that by suggesting it is equally legitimate to ban A-tier, and then B-tier, etc, therefore S-tier should not be banned.

EDIT: I think Cassio tried to extend the logic, actually

 

[John12346]

My data with MK-banned tournies disagrees with that logic... for now.

I'm still not releasing the data until I get some more tournies, but there's no real dominance with any character or tier yet. Of course, I am working with a low sample size of 17 tournaments at the moment, so we'll see.

Edit: ALSO, you can't say for sure that all of MK's winnings will go to A tier in the face of a MK ban, that's just stupid. Unless you have some information that says otherwise, we can only assume that MK's winnings will be distibuted in a way that the remainder of the cast's percentages remain the same.

 

[Flayl]

The point anti-ban was trying to make is that pro-ban is simply advocating banning S-Tier. Strong Bad himself is trying to apply reductio ad absurdum to that by suggesting it is equally legitimate to ban A-tier, and then B-tier, etc, therefore S-tier should not be banned.

EDIT: I think Cassio tried to extend the logic, actually

Except that's logic Pro-ban isn't using in the first place!

 

[Strong Badam]

So Pro-Ban isn't advocating banning S-Tier?

John: lol, if the remainder of the cast's percentages stay the same then you'd have 45% of winnings going nowhere... the current A-Tier would eventually be split up into S-Tier and A-Tier (w/ some B-Tier mixing into the new A-Tier), and then S-Tier and A-Tier would probably have 45% and 30% of all tournament winnings. that's how game balance works man. you could say I have no data of this, but you also have no substantial data proving otherwise. come at me bro.

 

[popsofctown]

Except that's logic Pro-ban isn't using in the first place!

I'm not saying it's not a stretch..

 

[Cassio]

Well that settles it then. Good work, DeLux!

Nope, its still a voluntary poll. If youre intent was to get the votes of specific users then fine. But trying to conclude it's a measure of the community as a whole is still looney. Once again:

You and many pro-banners seem to stick by the 75% number and trivialize my explanations for why the voluntary polls are poor indicators for the true population. Admittedly I havent given the most thorough of explanations since I've had to maintain multiple arguments, but since were at a bit of a lull I can address any concerns. I've mostly appealed to the fact that voluntary polls are deemed horrid by all mathematicians and staticians, and that this poll is very much a voluntary poll. But since this isnt enough, I want to know why everyone still feels the polls results give such a strong conclusions. Im all ears.

 

[popsofctown]

Nope, its still a voluntary poll. If youre intent was to get the votes of specific users then fine. But trying to conclude it's a measure of the community as a whole is still looney.

it settles the pro vs nub thing though

 

[Cassio]

yeah, for that reason I agree that the poll still has its uses. If that was what he meant then I apologize.

 

[DeLux]

I agree with Cassio that it wouldn't necessarily answer the problem of volunteer bias.

But I feel it does answer against the accusations of confirmation bias that the whole community shouldn't be looked at and only the tourney going top ranked players should

 

[Strong Badam]

majority rule is dumb it's a video game not a country
MK HAS BEEN GIVEN TEH DEATH SENTENCE BY MAJORITY RULE

 

[Cassio]

Even countries arent run by true democracy .

Spoiler

First of all, I'd like to differentiate between the URC making decisions on a majority vote; vs following the majority of community opinion. Its very rare in any governing system that a populations majority make substantitive decisions that arent simply elections. Why? Because it causes chaos. I dont even have to go far for an example, my home state of california allows its citizens to ammend the constitution at every election with with a simple majority vote. As a result we've seen some of the worst laws enacted and budgets handstrung because 50%+1 deemed it so. Then two elections later theyll change it back. Its one of the biggest reasons if not the biggest reasons CA government is a mess. Bringing it back to smash, what happens if the majority feels we need to limit CGs next? Stages? Character specific lgls? And then what if they change their minds back again a year later? This is something relying purely on public opinion would allow.

Even taking majority rule chaos aside, fighting games in general and we as a smash community have adopted from the beginning is to leave the game as is unless it's been deemed harmful through opinion (i.e. some form of vote) and reasoning. Never in the history of smash have we eliminated a part of the game on purely majority opinion. Thats just the way we run things, always has been. Now Im not so deluded as to think that if 80% of the community wants something it shouldnt happen, nor would I ignore people leaving the community from not getting their way as a good reason (its very questionable objectively, but Im more pramatic myself). But even then theres usually good reasoning behind it.

In other words Im fine with using public opinion as a part of the reasoning, but to use public opinion to make the decisions themselves not only goes against smashh's precedent but can easily lead to chaotic results.

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.

As popsofctown said, you stated my point precisely, lol. Youre almost anti-ban now!

Edit: btw whats to say banning metaknight wont give A-tier the same dominance as MK? Current MK banned dont count since any players have used MK will need to rely on another dominant character. Speculation but something to consider. General point being you cant really define what 'too dominant' is.

 

[Juushichi]

People playing a video game agreeing is dumb, anarchy everywhere.

 

[BSP]

Snake, diddy, and falco are nowhere close to the amount of safety MK brings from stages and MU 's across the board. One of them won't get to MK dominance IMO

Also, "A tier" is 3 characters. We're going to have a/set of best character(s), so I don't see what's wrong with the majority of money being split between 3 characters. Also, I don't see a problem with 1 character holding a majority, but Atm, MK's gap is just so large and it keeps increasing

We don't know what "too dominant" is, but unless something big happens and players start adapting fast, I don't see MK not reaching whatever % you consider "too much"

 

[zmx]

Why do people still talk as if Diddy is still 3rd tier? He is second now. Even in recent tournys and streams I hear commentators saying "and diddy is the 3rd best" or "after MK you've got snake". They are stuck in 2009 even though they are supposed to be well-informed.

And I actually do believe with meta knight banned that Diddy would dominate because honestly that's like the only time you see top Diddys lose. Diddy can juggle the hell out of snake.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

My data with MK-banned tournies disagrees with that logic... for now.

I'm still not releasing the data until I get some more tournies, but there's no real dominance with any character or tier yet. Of course, I am working with a low sample size of 17 tournaments at the moment, so we'll see.

Edit: ALSO, you can't say for sure that all of MK's winnings will go to A tier in the face of a MK ban, that's just stupid. Unless you have some information that says otherwise, we can only assume that MK's winnings will be distibuted in a way that the remainder of the cast's percentages remain the same.

Do you have a list with those 17 tournaments? You have also been saying that you've had 17 tournaments since the last time we where arguing in the "How would the metagame change" thread' which was more than a month ago.

 

[Ripple]

Do you have a list with those 17 tournaments? You have also been saying that you've had 17 tournaments since the last time we where arguing in the "How would the metagame change" thread' which was more than a month ago.

no, he said we had 10. nice try. he mentioned the fact that we were half way there.

14, whatever

 

[John12346]

Do you have a list with those 17 tournaments? You have also been saying that you've had 17 tournaments since the last time we where arguing in the "How would the metagame change" thread' which was like a month ago.

No... I believe I had 14 when we argued back then, lol. What does it matter, anyway?

And uuugh don't make me look through all my files again; I'll do that as a package deal when I actually post the charts when I obtain 20 tournies.

 

[Steam]

is this thread getting anywhere yet? I'm just waiting for the announcement.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

No... I believe I had 14 when we argued back then, lol. What does it matter, anyway?

And uuugh don't make me look through all my files again; I'll do that as a package deal when I actually post the charts when I obtain 20 tournies.

I can wait.


So what do you guys think of two bans, no DSR?

 

[John12346]

It's an interesting enough rule. Has about the same, or possibly a bit more merit than 1 ban + DSR in my eyes, so I suppose I wouldn't mind either rule being active, I guess.

 

[Ghostbone]

The second is for everyone and hits at the poll itself. You and many pro-banners seem to stick by the 75% number and trivialize my explanations for why the voluntary polls are poor indicators for the true population. Admittedly I havent given the most thorough of explanations since I've had to maintain multiple arguments, but since were at a bit of a lull I can address any concerns. I've mostly appealed to the fact that voluntary polls are deemed horrid by all mathematicians and staticians, and that this poll is very much a voluntary poll. But since this isnt enough, I want to know why everyone still feels the polls results give such a strong conclusions. Im all ears.

I live in Australia so I might be wrong about this, but isn't the entire election in the US a voluntary process? I mean you don't have to vote if you don't want to right? So does that make it worthless?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

wrong thread

 

[fkacyan]

I live in Australia so I might be wrong about this, but isn't the entire election in the US a voluntary process? I mean you don't have to vote if you don't want to right? So does that make it worthless?

There are so many other things wrong with the American electoral process that this point isn't even relevant.

 

[R e d X]

is this thread getting anywhere yet? I'm just waiting for the announcement.

Not saying some good points aren't still being made but I gotta agree. I just want the verdict already. Any word on whether this is still gonna be announced by the end of September (tomorrow) or not?

 

[fkacyan]

Big announcement tomorrow according to aZ.

 

[Player-1]

yes there will be a very big announcement tomorrow

 

[fkacyan]

aka

MK ban + ruleset changes

not hard to read between the lines on this one

 

[Player-1]

is that your final answer?

 

[fkacyan]

is that your final answer?

sorry, I should have said MK ban decision.

[edit] It's either that or something literally nobody will care about. [edit]

 

[R e d X]

Big announcement tomorrow according to aZ.

yes there will be a very big announcement tomorrow

In this case I shall be checking the boards every few minutes from noon onwards. Thanks for the heads.

 

[Conviction]

Well Damn.

**** is about to get real.

 

[Life]

http://www.youtuberepeat.com/watch/?v=Dxa8WYydlEM&feature=player_embedded

*wishes I were a mod so I could imbed video*

 

[Xubble]

That's perfect. I'll be lurking more so than ever tomorrow.

 

[DMG]

Im staying up til announcement is made

I am god

 

[DarkISDA]

Im staying up til announcement is made

I am god

Wish I could do that. Sadly I have an exam tomorrow -_-