We can't do that unless someone has data on how well each character does on each stage.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Please read the process and understand that this process DOES weigh higher tiered characters more heavily. Higher tiered characters increase in popularity as their power increases and as their popularity increases, the power formula weights them more, it works out.This would be good if it took into acount weighting higher tier characters more than lower tier characters
why even make a post like this if you're not going to make an attempt to understand the math?How could shiek be #1 if he has 3 counters while say falco only has 1.
Gee, thanks, and there's absolutely no one upset with the current tier list. . .the problem with this isn't just that its kind of a silly idea, but also that phanna's list is also innacurate, so innacurate silly math concepts plus innacurate variables makes for innacurate lists
I'm unsure as to whether or not you were addressing me, but...I'm tired of these posts.
Please read the process and understand that this process DOES weigh higher tiered characters more heavily. Higher tiered characters increase in popularity as their power increases and as their popularity increases, the power formula weights them more, it works out.
Overswarm and others: Wesley is well aware of the problem of the proportions of high tiers vs low tiers. I proposed a better way to model these proportions, and Wesley has shown his approval. Hopefully it will be used in his next update.Yeah, this is true. >_< (Though the chart isn't as bad as you make it seem.)The only problem in all this is that the match up chart (in which you based all of this off of) is completely inaccurate. Therefore, many (if not all) of your results will be inaccurate.
I guess what we're doing is boiling down Phanna's chart into a tier list... with as much mathematical soundness as possible. Any discrepancies between our list and the tier list would be caused by one of three things: inaccuracies in our math, inaccuracies in Phanna's list, and inaccuracies in the official list.
Once we're satisfied with our math, then we can directly compare our results with the official tier list. Then some nice healthy arguments could ensue, like why is Phanna's list so mean to Bowser.. or so nice to Ness? Could it be a problem with the official tier list?
Seriously, all you needed to do was read my post to know that the matchups get weighted. Is that too much to ask?I'm unsure as to whether or not you were addressing me, but...
I was referring to the number of Falco players compared to the number of Kirby players.
There are more of them, so if Sheik does amazing against Kirby but sucks hardcore against Falco, she wouldn't get as much of a bonus as someone who did amazing against Falco but sucked against Kirby.
Dude, I would've cried because of it too if I thought Ness's matchups were anywhere near what they are on the Phanna chart. There are some inaccuracies on the Phanna chart and no character is more blatantly overrated on it than Ness, so naturally, with these numbers, he gets way overrated by the current system. However, this is not a flaw in the math, rather, it is a flaw in the Phanna chart. I'm willing to live with these flaws until I feel like the math is correct and then I will direct my attention to how the chart should be altered to best reflect accurate matchups.the tier list thats in place right now isn't quite correct either, but we are discussing it and making it accurate right now
EDIT: i havne't looked at the math because on a conceptual level i dont agree with it, i bet your equations are sound but they are based on false inaccurate variables such as "how many of X char exist" and phanna's matchup chart.
look at where ness is on your list, i cried becaues of that. lol
i bet the ness players like this system
It will most certainly be used in the next iteration. As you have put it, it's a fix addressing the proportions, not the way matchups are weighted. Matchups are and will continue to be weighted by my power formula in the first post, which addresses weighing matchups in the most logical way possible: directly proportional to the ratio of players playing each character.Overswarm and others: Wesley is well aware of the problem of the proportions of high tiers vs low tiers. I proposed a better way to model these proportions, and Wesley has shown his approval. Hopefully it will be used in his next update.
Quoted for truth. Gimpyfish, this project is entirely accurate, once we work out a kink or two, with the exception of the Phanna chart, which Wesley has acknowledged on SEVERAL occasions. Wesley has also asked for input on how to improve the chart.Since you haven't looked at the math, I don't understand how you disagree with it. Also, how many of X char exist, is not a variable that we estimate. It's something that developes over further iterations of the system, but I don't know why I'm trying to explain it to you since you obviously don't care about the process. So, whatever, if you hate everything about this, just stop posting on the thread so that it won't get bumped and hopefully everyone will stop paying attention so that your dream of this project dying can finally come true.
Yeah, the numbers will never be completely accurate, but they aren't going to vary too much.the formula probably makes sense, if we have accurate numbers, which we never ever will.
EDIT: ps, if you are using the current tire list to decide how many of certain chars there are (which is sort of relevant i suppose it has to be for a mathematical equation) thats just plain silly. XD
Currently Sheik, who dominates low tier but gets destroyed by top tier, is on the top of the list, which shows you haven't done weight by numbers.
He hasn't really posted where he's getting the numbers.... If this is supposed to be mathematical, you'd have to have numbers of players but I haven't really see those.stop being ignorant
it means he hasn't weighted enough, but if you stopped arguing stupidly and making 10 posts without realizing the simple truth that was stated in the original post (which is that the proportion of players IS weighted over time) and that has been acknowledged multiple times (that the number of players needs to scale more sharply to power level for each iteration), you could save us all some time and yourself some embarrassmnet
That's exactly what he's doing, and the reason the first results seem "inaccurate" is because (as has been stated COUNTLESS TIMES) the populations aren't changing by enough for each iteration to ultimately produced a properly segregated resultI like this idea, but I'd like to see where this stuff is coming from. It seems like he's just saying "there are an even number of players" and then just repeating the same calculations over and over again and slightly altering the number of players based on those initial calculations.
Isn't there a way to get legitimate results by using actual (estimated) population of characters?That's exactly what he's doing, and the reason the first results seem "inaccurate" is because (as has been stated COUNTLESS TIMES) the populations aren't changing by enough for each iteration to ultimately produced a properly segregated result
also, this isn't really about determining only the "best" character by this standard; doesn't matter that much who "wins"
It's not entirely worthless. Phanna's chart isn't entirely worthless either. While his chart isn't perfect, the numbers aren't going to be off by more than 3 at the most, which means mostly good results.What's more objective than starting at equal numbers though? all that it results in is requiring more iterations, but with the help of a computer, that couldn't take more than a few seconds right?
besides, gimpyfish already explained how this entire thing is worthless so who cares am i rite
I agree that that rating would be useful, but seriously, instead of writing your next post, read the thread, we've already been over this. . .It's not entirely worthless. Phanna's chart isn't entirely worthless either. While his chart isn't perfect, the numbers aren't going to be off by more than 3 at the most, which means mostly good results.
It would certainly be more objective to start off at equal numbers and SIMULATE how the smash community would change, but using actual estimated numbers from a large population would be crazy neat.
Can you imagine looking at the current smash population, then looking at a matchup chart, waiting a few seconds, and BAM
If you want to do well in today's smash scene, the characters that are systematically doing the best are...
That would be amazing. It would also be a semi-scientific way of seeing if Phanna's chart is wrong anywhere. We can expect Fox and Falco to be towards the top, but if Ness is say, 6th, we could say "that obviously is not right, Ness is not doing that well".
It'd be pretty cool.
Then for the love of god, stop b!tching about how wrong it is and inform us how it is wrong and why it is wrong.actually phanna's bowser matchup list is horendous and multiple matchups are off by more than 3 XD
3 to be off is MONSTROUS btw
They determine how relevant a character matchup is in the environment.Number of players wouldn't pose any accuracy to how "powerful" a character is.
bowser is DEFINITELY a "bad character" but hes not even close to the worst XDur totally wrong like bowser is not a bad character whats so ever...so what if hes not popular he sure is hell strong. HE DEFINITLY BEAT YOSHI AND G&W. You cant seriously make this own your own.....its very very cheap make sure and ask ppl b4 u post this garbage >: o