Where Should SSB64 Go?

[KeroKeroppi]

Kero I'm so going to sandbag at apex under my alt, then when we're both on the last stock at high %, I'll get you by surprise. Get sent to loser after the first well seeded game *****.

Lol sorry kiddo, the likes of a you could never get me by surprise. You forget, I know all. I am all. I am the almighty KeroKeroppi! I'll never lose to a mod!

[collapse=]i've actually lost to A$ three times already lol
[/collapse]

 

[thegreginator]

So this collision thing got me thinking. Obviously there are a million reasons why this is horrible for the community but I wanted to see the actual payout numbers.

Melee - Apex 2013 GF - $6,540 total payout - 1st = 50%, 2nd = 25%

• If P1 and P2 collude, for every 10% increase in P1's favorability (ie 50/50 --> 55/45 --> 60/40), he gives up $82 of expected winnings (and P2 gains $82).

64 - Apex 2013 GF - $960 total payout (excluding $500 gift from cmu6eh) - 1st = 50%, 2nd = 20%

• If P1 and P2 collude, for every 10% increase in P1's favorability, he gives up $14 of expected winnings (and P2 gains $14).

Conclusion: If you're the favored player never collude. If you're the unfavored player and want to collude, you are sacrificing the integrity of the tournament and community for the price of a sandwich. Don't be a ****.

 

[Sedda]

lol no offense to those guys but why would m2k ever split with them. That's losing guaranteed money pretty much. Can someone point me to the drama? I'm bored

Apparently they used to do it all the time back when chu was more active, but (according to m2k) they would always be assholes to him if he didn't chip in. M2k refused and chillin sandbagged hard against Chu because he always does better vs M2K than Chillin does (and those first matches with Chu vs M2K WERE a lot of fun to watch). I guess he grew some balls and just owned them like he should.

 

[The Star King]

[collapse=]i've actually lost to A$ three times already lol
[/collapse]

Damn, A$ demolishing your stocks in Smash AND your threads on Smashboards! 2gud

 

[Vale]

SSB64 should go into the Nintendo 64.

A larger community only means that there is more drama. The proportion of people who are going to start things and such is relatively the same, but you hear about it more in larger communities because there are a larger number of people, rather than a larger percentage of people, engaging in the activity.
Growth of the community should never be bad. The idea of presenting the community in a good way is so that it can grow. The addition of other people in no way threatens the bonds and community that already exists. If there are problems in the community, they will become more apparent, but otherwise the original community can stay in tact, even if there is a larger community around it.

Collusion itself is not the problem, but rather the results from collusion. If GF is relatively even, then collusion will reduce pressure and can allow players who perform subpar under high stakes to give the best games possible. However, the idea that "it doesn't matter" at that point is prominent. If that is the prevailing mindset of the top players, then by all means collusion needs to be stopped. As long as the players still try to win, which they for reputation or other reasons, then discreet collusion doesn't present a problem. When GF is one-sided, the one who has the projected advantage doesn't have a real reason to agree to collusion.

 

[ballin4life]

Winning grand finals nets you 70% and getting 2nd place is 20%. Agreeing to split the pot with your opponent in grand finals before the match happens means you both get a guaranteed 45% instead. This is collusion and basically not allowed in any fighting game tournament ever. A lot of players often do it but at least they put on a good show to hide it and basically no one cares if they really split or not because they played a great match. It's only when *******s do something like pick an obviously ****ty character or just do random select only that it becomes obvious and an insult to everyone else that's part of that tournament.

I wouldn't call this collusion (who are they colluding against?) ... it's just splitting. It's not to the detriment of any of the other players in the tournament (though it may be bad for the fans).

You can still have a rule that players should play their hardest (there are possible ways to manipulate the bracket - e.g. if a favored player has a bad day in pools then one could be in a situation where intentionally losing will knock the favored player out of the bracket completely). But trying to prevent splitting is impossible.

 

[DMoogle]

So this collision thing got me thinking. Obviously there are a million reasons why this is horrible for the community but I wanted to see the actual payout numbers.

Melee - Apex 2013 GF - $6,540 total payout - 1st = 50%, 2nd = 25%

• If P1 and P2 collude, for every 10% increase in P1's favorability (ie 50/50 --> 55/45 --> 60/40), he gives up $82 of expected winnings (and P2 gains $82).

64 - Apex 2013 GF - $960 total payout (excluding $500 gift from cmu6eh) - 1st = 50%, 2nd = 20%

• If P1 and P2 collude, for every 10% increase in P1's favorability, he gives up $14 of expected winnings (and P2 gains $14).

Conclusion: If you're the favored player never collude. If you're the unfavored player and want to collude, you are sacrificing the integrity of the tournament and community for the price of a sandwich. Don't be a ****.

Too simplified. Players don't necessarily agree to 50/50, and being the favored player is never very clear. The point of collusion is to minimize variance by coming to an agreement of what the expected value of each person's winnings are. If the players can come to an agreement (and are accurate regarding winning %s), then it benefits them both by eliminating the variance.

 

[thegreginator]

Too simplified. Players don't necessarily agree to 50/50, and being the favored player is never very clear. The point of collusion is to minimize variance by coming to an agreement of what the expected value of each person's winnings are. If the players can come to an agreement (and are accurate regarding winning %s), then it benefits them both by eliminating the variance.

There is no (logical) reason to reduce variance.

The only way to collude in way that each player can realize their true expected value is by being accurate in their estimation of winning %, which as you said isn't very easy.

If and when players estimate the winning % wrong, one of them is going to be making less than their expected value and one is going to be making more.

 

[DMoogle]

There is no (logical) reason to reduce variance.

Um, of course there is, unless you have an unlimited amount of money. Risk premiums wouldn't exist otherwise. Surviving the short run is necessary to reach the long run.

The only way to collude in way that each player can realize their true expected value is by being accurate in their estimation of winning %, which as you said isn't very easy.

If and when players estimate the winning % wrong, one of them is going to be making less than their expected value and one is going to be making more.

Yeah, but just because two people can't accurately estimate their true EV doesn't mean they can't come to an agreement with an estimation.