University of Texas - Austin

[Zigsta]

Kal, you've got 4. Let's set up a time for me to give them to you.

 

[Kal]

Oh my god, you're ****ing awesome. I'll be on campus Saturday. Does that work?

 

[Zigsta]

I'll actually be out of town then.

Tell ya what: I'll email my boss and get her to save 4 seats for you. I'll have them reserved under "UT Smash Club." They'll be reserved for you until 7 PM, 30 minutes before the show starts.

 

[dcx1287]

Any smash today?

 

[theeboredone]

So us Brawl peeps might be thinking of merging with you guys? Or should we start our own club?

 

[Kal]

I think merging is a good idea. We don't need to be competing for turnout, especially when merging will probably increase turnout for both games. But I'm a useless relic of the club with no power (read: I graduated), so Edgar, Matt and José will have to decide.

I would recommend that you guys bring what Brawl setups (and players, of course) you can tomorrow. And maybe some bribe money for Matt because he's a hater.

 

[MT_]

*I don't mind having Brawl at the meetings but don't expect me to put in any additional effort in order to make sure Brawl is happening. I guess what I am saying is, sure I welcome all the Brawl players at the meetings, but they will have to take care of themselves.

















* - Provided that each Brawl player brings $10 door fee to contribute to the "Matt's Hating Fund"

 

[dcx1287]

In light of the broken TV fiasco (and his strong showing at the tournament), I hereby nominate MT to honorary O.G. smasher status.

 

[Kal]

Hell ****ing no.

 

[theeboredone]

*I don't mind having Brawl at the meetings but don't expect me to put in any additional effort in order to make sure Brawl is happening. I guess what I am saying is, sure I welcome all the Brawl players at the meetings, but they will have to take care of themselves.




* - Provided that each Brawl player brings $10 door fee to contribute to the "Matt's Hating Fund"

I'm fine with the Brawl side worrying about their own stuff. It's more or less a mutual agreement, since I figure having two smash clubs on campus would be a bit stupid and would confuse any casuals that decide to show up.

But dat fee g2g.

 

[Kal]

We've pretty much foregone the fee entirely. I'll edit the first post soon.

 

[Kal]

Hey guys, I removed the rankings section from the second post. Do you think we should still do club rankings? We can do some sort of ELO thing based on the past few tournaments if people want, but Edgar and I will need to work out the kinks. Anyway, just post your opinion on the matter. This is more of a thing for the intermediate players to objectively place themselves, as there's not a lot of debate about the order of the top 3.

 

[MT_]

I'm in favor of an ELO thing but I think we should set some ground rules for it. Like, is it just going to be an Austin ranking? Our last ranking system had Houston players and stuff in it because they showed up for one tournament, but obviously they won't be showing up to that many tournaments so I feel like if we're doing a club ranking it should be only representing the club members (and by that I mean those that regularly attending club meetings, not just like UT students and w/e). Thing is, I am not sure how the program you guys wrote/will write will work on terms of modifying ELO based off of bracket if we only include Austin players in this; I'd imagine it could get pretty complicated.

Alternatively, we could approach a club ranking without using an ELO system and imitate other regions by creating a panel of players (a subjective component) who can look at tournament results (an objective component) and then fill in the gaps that lack of sample size causes to create a club ranking. In this case, the problems would be selecting who gets to be on the panel...and then the subjective component of course.

I guess my opinion on it is: it'd be cool to have, wouldn't care if we didn't have it, and might be a little troublesome to create and maintain.

 

[Kal]

We could just ignore results involving non-Austin players. It's not particularly difficult to come up with an adequate solution I think. I'm not a fan of using a panel, because then we could only rate the top 10 or so with any meaning. If we take two less-skilled players, I see no reasonable way of distinguishing who is better without it being ridiculously biased.

 

[MT_]

If the club ranking gets enough hype, we could introduce ranking matches which would essentially be panel members telling two players to play as if it was tournament and then using the set result to fill in missing gaps in knowledge.

An ELO system is fine though; I don't know two ****s about programming so if it's not hard to avoid non-Austin players affecting our club rankings then it should be fine.

 

[garrR]

ELO sounds cool. and i can help with programming if needed.

 

[Sethlon]

UTDZac actually already has a program that he uses to calculate "ELO" for the Texas Brawl Power Rankings.

 

[Sybawave]

Why not just do what Houston does and instead of Power Ranking players, just group them into tiers of skill level. It's a lot easier to figure out around what level each player is compared to the rest of the other players.

Honestly that's how it should be anyway, the people in their own tiers should know where they stand against everyone else. Eventually just move people up/down depending on how their skill is doing.

 

[Kal]

It's really obnoxious to say that any particular way of making a power ranking is how it should be done. There are advantages and disadvantages to various methods, and while it's certainly easier and faster to create one the way you've mentioned, it's also more biased and discriminates against lower ranked players. On the other hand, while the ELO system is almost completely unbiased and pays good attention to every attending player, it also takes longer to establish rankings and newer players must attend for a significant length of time before their "real" rank matches their ELO score.

 

[Sybawave]

Why does it discriminate and create a bias toward lower ranked players? All they would have to do is beat a certain number of people in a tier and then they would automatically raise to that tier rather than waiting for like 10 tournaments to get there. The way we were planning on having tier rankings take place is to have each player partake in a "Tier Match" so that they have a chance to move up a tier. Anyone who throws a match will have something happen to them...not sure what yet.

We didn't want to use the ELO system because like what you said, it takes so freaking long to do. I think that a lot of new players hate that method because they want to see how they're progressing in the scene that they are in. When it looks like they're not progressing, it's a bit demoralizing and could lead to their resignation.

I mean the method that we have obviously isn't a real PR. But I think that we could manage to just PR the people in the first couple of tiers (~10 people) and then just have everyone else in a tier like a hybrid system.

The higher tier players are more than likely going to be composed of long time players anyway so their ELO scores could be easily attained but at the same time, we have the lower ranking players in their own tiers grouped with people around their skill level with a simple method of moving up the list, beat everyone who is above you.

Tell me what you think.

 

[DelxDoom]

hey guys i'm danny, posting because i went to the event yesterday and to bookmark the thread in my user control panel

i am considering maining young link
there are a lot of falcos.

 

[-RedShadow]

i am considering maining young link

don't .

 

[BRLNK88]

Young Link has some great combo and camping ability, but he sucks at killing. He also has a mediocre recovery and is relatively easy to combo for his weight class.
You'll have a very rough time against most top and high tiers.

But I'd check with the Young Link board as well, they'd know better than me.

 

[Kal]

Why does it discriminate and create a bias toward lower ranked players? All they would have to do is beat a certain number of people in a tier and then they would automatically raise to that tier rather than waiting for like 10 tournaments to get there. The way we were planning on having tier rankings take place is to have each player partake in a "Tier Match" so that they have a chance to move up a tier. Anyone who throws a match will have something happen to them...not sure what yet.

First of all, it's clearly biased to say "I think player A is better than player B because of [insert anything other than tournament results]." When we're dealing with two players who don't do well in tournaments, all we can do is personally assess who is best with some sort of ludicrous bias. There is absolutely no unbiased way to take two mediocre players who are close in skill and say who of the two is better.

Now, it discriminates against those players because of what I've mentioned above: if you cannot decide who of two mediocre players is better, you either

a) leave them off the Power Rankings

or

b) arbitrarily order them

In either case, it discriminates against them because they don't get a chance at a fair spot on the Power Ranking.

We didn't want to use the ELO system because like what you said, it takes so freaking long to do. I think that a lot of new players hate that method because they want to see how they're progressing in the scene that they are in. When it looks like they're not progressing, it's a bit demoralizing and could lead to their resignation.

It really only takes two tournaments to see how you're doing. Your progression would probably be slower with the use of a panel. Let's be realistic: the panel is not going to have any idea whether mediocre player A has improved enough to move about the player above him. The only way to be sure is from tournament results. But ELO rankings will similarly work off of tournament results.

Just imagine some of the logistics as well. A PR requires a group of people to agree upon some sort of ranking scheme. Do you think such a thing will update quickly? No panel would want to get together and discuss local rankings often, and so, regardless of how quickly a player improved, it could take a very long time for their improvement to be recorded in a PR. Comparatively, an ELO system records improvements almost instantly. Moreover, it doesn't worry about how well you place in a tournament (which further removes bias), and instead worries about who you beat and who you lose to.

With regards to motivation, imagine how this will make weaker players feel. If you're not very good, and you're up against someone who is much better than you, you worry less about losing because you know it will not effect your rank as much. Moreover, this gives your individual wins more value, which would increase confidence among players. Imagine, for example, if a new player went up against a vet and ended up winning. In a PR, this would be regarded as a fluke unless it were repeated, but with an ELO system, this gets recorded as a significant win and gives the player a noticeable rank improvement.

I mean the method that we have obviously isn't a real PR. But I think that we could manage to just PR the people in the first couple of tiers (~10 people) and then just have everyone else in a tier like a hybrid system.

Are you seriously asking me why your method discriminates against worse players and then explaining that, in order to use it, we effectively only consider the top 10 players, and group the rest of the worse players into tiers?

Honestly, it's not that I think one system is necessarily better than the other. A PR system has its advantages. But it's certainly not objectively better in any real sense, especially when we have a tournament here every two weeks and it provides for an unbiased system of ranking players.

hey guys i'm danny, posting because i went to the event yesterday and to bookmark the thread in my user control panel

i am considering maining young link
there are a lot of falcos.

I would suggest maining someone who exhibits a playstyle you enjoy but is also tournament viable. However, it's up to you. And yes, there are a lot of Falcos. And a lot of Marths. And we have a few Sheiks. I'm the only Fox player in the world it seems.

 

[Jake13]

kal, you haven't updated the atx ELO since like march

we talk about the pr like errnite

Houston>Austin

mirite?

 

[Kal]

Hey guys, I removed the rankings section from the second post. Do you think we should still do club rankings? We can do some sort of ELO thing based on the past few tournaments if people want, but Edgar and I will need to work out the kinks. Anyway, just post your opinion on the matter. This is more of a thing for the intermediate players to objectively place themselves, as there's not a lot of debate about the order of the top 3.

Learn to read, Jake.

 

[Jake13]

still haven't updated it since march

quit avoiding the matter at hand

H > A

 

[Kal]

I know you're just trolling, but simple reading comprehension will lead you to the conclusion that the rankings have not been updated because we are unsure if we even want to do rankings.

Besides, I'm sure there is some janky nonsense that goes on in the Houston PR discussion along the lines of "no, he's not that good, he just wins because he plays Falco."

 

[DelxDoom]

don't .

+otherquotes

i'm not tooooooo serious about the game atm, but i 'main' falco. i am just too inconsistent with some things and i don't exactly have the resources to improve on it.

i enjoying playing as young link [and other characters like fox/falco] and i'm not really boxed in by the drive to win, so i might try an event or two going young link. we'll just have to see how things go.

of the high tiers, i am awful with peach/sheik, mediocre with marth/fox/puff, and less than good with falco. obviously the character strengths are what carry me when i'm playing the spacies.

anyway sometimes i just want to throw tons of stuff around


--on another note, I was wondering if there are any players big on Marvel 3 around the area.

 

[Kal]

If you don't care too much about winning, then just play whoever you want. But most players would find it too daunting to play a character they figure they can not win tournaments with.

As far as MvC3, they play it at ArcadeUFO pretty frequently. Register on Shoryuken.com, then post on the ArcadeUFO Thread. I think they meet just about every Friday.

 

[Sybawave]

Try not to let them play with the people who care about winning. It's a waste of time and effort. A lot of times in Houston, we don't even offer a hand out to the people who don't want to try lol if they just want to have fun with the game then they have like 100 other college friends that they could play the game with. It's so annoying being with people whom you know are not going to try and put effort into getting better.

 

[Kal]

Just because they're not interested in winning tournaments doesn't mean they won't want to improve. Don't be such a closed-minded ***. People can come and play however they want.

Also, there's a time and place for playing to win (read: you camp like an ******* in friendlies, and it's not really appropriate); in friendlies, your goal should be to improve. Just playing to win all the time stunts personal innovation.

 

[DelxDoom]

I get where you're coming from, so maybe I'll put the young link thing on hold for a little bit at least for tournaments.

-
I was told that mvc3, being a console game only is less popular at ufo, but thanks for the link.

 

[Kal]

They have arcade setups for MvC3, and I hear it's pretty popular.

To clarify, they're just 360 or PS3 games set up inside an arcade box. But it still feels like an arcade setup. It's pretty cool.

 

[Sybawave]

But being a closed minded *** is funnnnn.

 

[Kal]

Is there any way to convince you to stop posting?

 

[BRLNK88]

I get where you're coming from, so maybe I'll put the young link thing on hold for a little bit at least for tournaments.

-
I was told that mvc3, being a console game only is less popular at ufo, but thanks for the link.

I would personally focus on improving with a high or top tier character, if you're interested in winning.
However, it doesn't hurt either to try and get good with a low tier simultaneously, just don't make it your priority. For example, Young Link has decent match-ups with Peach and Jiggs, though you'd still need to get fairly decent with him to beat a good Peach or Jiggs.

 

[Kal]

Not trying to be too argumentative here, but you should probably reach a certain skill level before you devote any time at all to a low tier. Of course, this is only if you want to improve as quickly as possible. If that's not important to you, then trying to learn two characters at once is fine.

 

[DelxDoom]

Yeah, I think having multiple mains is somewhat beneficial, though you do get overall less developed if you try to spread.


And the fact that I lose falco vs pichu is still somewhat mindboggling to me

 

[Kal]

Don't worry about it. I beat José with Pichu as well and his Falco is pretty good. I even (almost kind of) gave Edgar a run for his money with Pichu. Once you learn the matchup you'll probably never have to worry about my Pichu again.