 GameSpot GameBoy Advance GameCube PC PlayStation2 Xbox Game Rankings Game Boy Advance GameCube PC PlayStation 2 Xbox |
| Spring 2004 Contest |
| Pre-Season Spring 2004 Contest Discussion - Part 2 |
| Team Rocket Elite (33): Board List | Topic List | Log Out | Help |
| This Topic has been marked closed. No additional messages may be posted. |
| First Page | Previous Page | Page 8 of 10 | Next Page | Last Page |
| From: Heroic Tails | Posted: 3/16/2004 12:03:29 PM | Message Detail |
| No, it wasn’t. It was, if you thought the match was 50/50. Otherwise, if you were sure Mario was going to win, then of course, choosing Crono wasn't the best choice. Of course, everybody was sure Link was going to win too. However, there isn’t a Mario/Crono in this contest that I can see thus far What would be the fun if everybody could see the same match results happening? Just because you don't see any very close matches happening doesn't mean other people don't see them. No, it’s not as clear-cut in the Mario/Crono case – I’d go so far as to say that this example has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about, actually. Actually, it has a lot to do with what . In your previous post, you basically said: "Mario won, so your theory is wrong". I showed you a case where it is obvious that my theory isn't wrong, unless, of course, there are unknown factors (cheating mostly), which I already said before. This was just an obvious example where I showed you can't tell the best strategy from the actual results - which is the same in the Mario/Crono case. Just because Crono lost doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't the best choice, you have to look past that. And I’m not going to think that way this year because it’s a stupid idea that won’t work. I’m going to go with the evidence. I agree we should use evidence, but suppose your evidence tells you a given match is about 50/50 chance. What are you going to do? And, as much as you don't want to admit it, other brackets are a factor. --- "I tried a SMB speed run once but I ran into the first Goomba and died because I forgot to jump. After that, I never tried again." - PsychoSwordsman |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 12:15:32 PM | Message Detail |
| No, it wasn’t. Yes it was, and this isn't even debatable. To pick Mario to beat Crono in 2003 made no sense at all, if you gave a damn about winning. How can you even say otherwise? The match was an utter toss-up, yet the brackets were heavily in favor of Mario. A simpler example of Game Theory does not exist. The optimal strategy was not in doubt there. Now, for next year it might be, because of the "cheating" factor. But this factor didn't exist in 2002. If anything, you'd have expect cheating for Crono: someone might've figured, "well, the Crono cheater has more experience now, and he won't get caught this time." But no one except the actual Mario cheaters (inside information, heh) could've relied on pro-Mario cheating as a tie-breaker. You’re basing your choices off of everyone else’s, which I think is stupid You could think so, but then you'd be wrong. I don't mean to sound like an ass, but its true. You are, simply put, incorrect. If you just do your own damn bracket you’ll do much better than trying to second-guess who everyone else is betting on. Mostly, yeah. Game Theory has very limited applicability here, simply because no one here knows it well enough--or has anywhere enough data on the brackets--to actually apply it to any significant extent. Now, if you really knew game theory, and had complete access to submitted brackets, you could possibly utilize it effectively. But otherwise, no. So you're correct that relying on Game Theory won't really get you anywhere, for the most part...but stupid? Hardly. No, it’s not as clear-cut in the Mario/Crono case – I’d go so far as to say that this example has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re talking about, actually. He was giving a more extreme example of precisely what we're talking about. You are approaching this from a post-event framework, which is not the right way at all. His point is very relevant. I’m going to try to account for more variables this year and thus have a better bracket. If last year taught you anything, it should be trying to account for less factors. There were literally dozens of factors that were taken seriously last year; everything from Metroid Prime factor on. Yet in the end they all amounted to nothing, except for the completely unheralded Kingdom Hearts factor. Who knows what factor(s) will affect the next Summer contest? If you worry about predicting which one will, then you'll probably get lost in a maze of complexity. Yes, someone will probably hit on the factor(s) that end up making a difference--and have good reasons for doing so. But trying to predict factors is probably of even more limited utility than Game Theory is. In specific instances, it's also more complicated. While Game Theory on the whole is obviously vastly more complicated than trying to predict factors, in certain instances it is not complicated at all and its utility is very clear-cut. For instance, not choosing Link to win in SC2K3, or choosing Crono over Mario last year. Trying to decide which new factors will influence these contests is never so clear-cut. game-theory junk that won’t work in the end "Junk"? Junk??? ...OK. I'm simply going to IGNORE that you just derided an entire scientific field. But as for it not working, well...it's already worked. Game Theory implied picking some heavyweight other than Link to win SC2K3. And it was right. And it would've been right, even if Link had won SC2K3. Optimal decision making in Game Theory should not be measured based on hindsight. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: Slowflake | Posted: 3/16/2004 1:18:03 PM | Message Detail |
| Actually, Prime boosted Samus from third tier to second tier, if we are to believe the Sonic/Samus near-tie. And what we dubbed at the time "Kingdom Hearts factor" (and still do today) is not a factor in itself, it's an example of a larger element of Summer Contest mechanics: as I said multiple times, characters with very few games under their belt will increase in popularity when they get a new one. Alucard is the prime example of it not stopping at KH: by 2002 numbers, he wouldn't have come close to beating Kirby. Now, why did I pick Alucard, I don't know. Probably impressed by his showing against Cloud, I guess. --- SpC2K4 Status --- Winner: FF7 --- Finalist: CT --- Semifinalists: SMB3, LoZ:WW |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/16/2004 1:37:14 PM | Message Detail |
| Yes
it was, and this isn't even debatable. To pick Mario to beat Crono in
2003 made no sense at all, if you gave a damn about winning. How can
you even say otherwise? The match was an utter toss-up, yet the
brackets were heavily in favor of Mario. A simpler example of Game
Theory does not exist. The optimal strategy was not in doubt there. Then obviously your game theory didn’t work, did it? Oh, gasp! You could think so, but then you'd be wrong. I don't mean to sound like an ass, but its true. You are, simply put, incorrect. Wow, then, why don’t you give me some reasons about why I’m wrong instead of just saying I’m wrong? So you're correct that relying on Game Theory won't really get you anywhere, for the most part...but stupid? Hardly. If something won’t get you anywhere, then relying on it is, indeed, stupid. He was giving a more extreme example of precisely what we're talking about. You are approaching this from a post-event framework, which is not the right way at all. His point is very relevant. No, it’s not, because he wasn’t talking about an event that was anywhere near 50/50. If last year taught you anything, it should be trying to account for less factors. There were literally dozens of factors that were taken seriously last year; everything from Metroid Prime factor on. Yet in the end they all amounted to nothing, except for the completely unheralded Kingdom Hearts factor. Who knows what factor(s) will affect the next Summer contest? If you worry about predicting which one will, then you'll probably get lost in a maze of complexity. I didn’t mean the crap factors like TJF, I mean things such as recent games having come out that could reduce a character’s popularity, or, on the other side of things, a lack of recent games. Yes, someone will probably hit on the factor(s) that end up making a difference--and have good reasons for doing so. But trying to predict factors is probably of even more limited utility than Game Theory is. And on that, sir, I disagree. Trying to predict what will sway the voters is far more relevant (heck, it’s the whole objective!) than using game theory in such a complex contest. "Junk"? Junk??? ...OK. I'm simply going to IGNORE that you just derided an entire scientific field. I don’t dislike game theory but it is junk as it pertains to this contest. As you said yourself, we don’t have enough data. But as for it not working, well...it's already worked. Game Theory implied picking some heavyweight other than Link to win SC2K3. And it was right. And it would've been right, even if Link had won SC2K3. Then it will always be right, I suppose, but is it utile? No. And I don't give a damn about any theory, regardless of how right it is, if it's useless. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/16/2004 1:45:29 PM | Message Detail |
| What
would be the fun if everybody could see the same match results
happening? Just because you don't see any very close matches happening
doesn't mean other people don't see them. Okay then, so this is just another “but that’s just your OPINION” post. Feh, well, to that I reply, duh. Actually, it has a lot to do with what . In your previous post, you basically said: "Mario won, so your theory is wrong". I showed you a case where it is obvious that my theory isn't wrong, unless, of course, there are unknown factors (cheating mostly), which I already said before. This was just an obvious example where I showed you can't tell the best strategy from the actual results - which is the same in the Mario/Crono case. Just because Crono lost doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't the best choice, you have to look past that. Okay, I’ll rephrase. You’re wrong to use the theory because it doesn’t have much meaningful application here. I agree we should use evidence, but suppose your evidence tells you a given match is about 50/50 chance. What are you going to do? And, as much as you don't want to admit it, other brackets are a factor. If my match tells me that a match is 50/50 then I would be just as well off flipping a coin as I would be using game theory. Game theory may optimize my results, IF I’M RIGHT, but if a match is truly 50/50 then I still only have a 50% chance of being right, regardless. Yes, I can gain more if that 50% is invested toward the less popular candidate in the brackets and succeeds but either way I have only a 50% chance of success. Furthermore, game theory is useless for predicting the outcome of the match, which to me is the only way to prove the utility of a theory in this contest. If you want to use game theory, obviously I'm not going to stop you. I still think there's far better ways to determine how to set up your bracket. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: Sir Shake | Posted: 3/16/2004 1:52:19 PM | Message Detail |
I haven't used Game-theory at all when making my bracket, and I'll tell you why I did that, as well as that I think its a good tactic if you think having a chance at winning the entire competition is more important then trying to gain the most points regardless of other brackets. For every match in my bracket, I have a sound reason for putting one contender over the other. I've thought long and hard over the tough ones, and I honestly feel this is the best I can do. Now, there are very few upset specials in there. While it may be the most efficient way of trying to win the contest, I'm simply looking to make the best bracket I can. If it were a matter of a YOU MUST BEAT ALL OTHERS OR DIE situation, I would have made it differently, more like Heroic Tails'. In all honesty, even though Game-Theory heightens your chances at winning it all, I think you need a healthy dose of luck to be the one to emerge as the best. I'm content with the way my bracket is, conservative and generic as it may be. As of this moment, I feel every winner I picked has the best chance in that match, and will win. To alter it would mean going against what I feel is right for the sake of distinguishing myself from other brackets. Of course I will be wrong on some... ...but I'd rather be damned for my own beliefs, then be damned for someone elses. </rant> --- Shake : Can ya cook? Kali101 : Not really. I nearly killed myself once, trying to make spaghetti. |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/16/2004 1:59:28 PM | Message Detail |
| Now, going back to discussing something that is of relevance to this contest: And what we dubbed at the time "Kingdom Hearts factor" (and still do today) is not a factor in itself, it's an example of a larger element of Summer Contest mechanics: as I said multiple times, characters with very few games under their belt will increase in popularity when they get a new one. Depending on the game, of course. I doubt Devil May Cry 2 has helped Dante at all, for example. It was so bad that it made Devil May Cry shine less. Same with Mario Sunshine, I think, although I don't think it hurt Mario's popularity horribly because - as you said - the effect of a new game is more important for those characters with few games. As this pertains to the game contest, a game is affected by its sequel, or even a game that's just related to it significantly enough to cause people to link both games together in their heads (like KH and FFVII). Kingdom Hearts was widely regarded as a good game and possibly caused some younger gamers to try out FFVII. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: solarshadow | Posted: 3/16/2004 2:28:13 PM | Message Detail |
| But if you're just looking to maximize your expected points--rather
than odds of winning--and believe that the consensus is best, you
should pick it. Maximizing expected points is about risk aversion;
maximizing odds of winning relies on volatility dynamics. This is
because your bracket is like an Option, in Finance: you can relate your
finish as the Stock Price (lower is better), with a Strike Price of 10.
This option only finishes with value, or "in the money", if you finish
in the Top 10. Very well explained. It wasn't until I'd written and re-written this post three times (this is the fourth) that I understood why I was having trouble with this idea as it pertains to the nature of this contest. My belief was that maximizing odds of winning does not differ from maximizing expected points in the later rounds. The reason for this was the scores of the previous winners. If we consider that last year's winner (thanks, Chichiri) only missed 9 points (183 out of a possible 192), it's clear that incorrectly predicting either semi-final match (16 points each) will almost certainly not win you any prizes (you would have a maximum of 176 points -- not good enough for last year's top 10 -- and the likelihood of getting every other match perfect is exceedingly low). Nine points lost could be one first round match and one division final match incorrect. More likely it's a few early matches incorrect and perfect division finals and beyond. And so if FFVII vs. OoT (as a division final match with a greater than 50% chance of its winner being a finalist) was absolutely required to be picked correctly in order to win (and it is), then it seemed to me that assuming it to be a truly 50/50 chance, you should be perfectly indifferent to either choice. However, we then have to consider the possibility of a tiebreaker. If only 10 people predict Cloud to face Sephiroth in a final and 9 of those pick Cloud to win, you will have better odds (assuming the match is 50/50) if you go with Sephiroth. If Sephy wins (a 50% chance) then you will win the contest. Had you picked Cloud and he won (a 50% chance), you would then only have a 1/10 chance of winning (depending on the tiebreaker). That means simply this: as far as points go in this contest, maximizing expected points does not differ significantly from maximizing odds of winning past the third round (assuming 50/50 matches). Therefore in a 50/50 match, the majority pick is irrelevant in an attempt to gain the most points. However, maximizing odds still has a significant advantage in the case of a potential tiebreaker. So you win, game theory -- but only in a tiebreaker. --- Contest Stats: http://solarshadow-stats.tripod.com |
| From: cyko | Posted: 3/16/2004 4:43:21 PM | Message Detail |
| ^^^^^ *agrees with Solarshadow* getting the Champion and two finalists correct is imperative to winning, and getting the Final Four right on is pretty much needed also (unless the rest of your bracket is perfect). case in point- last year, i was 100% sure Link could win. no doubt about it. and where did it get me? 137 points. i picked 56 out of 63 matches correctly and got nothing out of it, because i had the champ and one of the finalists wrong. a perfect Elite Eight and Final Four didn't matter for squat. on the other hand, me and Taco entered a joke bracket, just for kicks, where we picked the Square character winning in every single match. that bracket ended with 163 points, tied for 146th place. go figure. and we had Yuna in the Final Four. (that's right, every Square character; although we did put Link over Magus, but that's it.) how did that bracket do so well? because the Final Four and beyond are worth half of the points. that was predicting 53 out of 63 correctly. funny thing is, if we would have put Megaman over Yuna (cause we knew there was no way of Yuna winning that one, lol), that bracket would've gotten 171 points and tied for 32nd with a spot in the Top 50, with nine matches wrong. (that would've been 54 out of 63.) fewer matches right, but a significantly higher score, because it's all about the Final Four. --- Please go nominate Secret of Mana for SNES. Right Now. A Cheese Legend of Trivia 12 |
| From: Haste2 | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:04:56 PM | Message Detail |
| No.
This is a poll. Assuming constant vote totals--which we are--then one
vote lost for Magus is one gained for Ganon. The Z-Score is about 1.96,
which has a p-value of roughly .025. Ganon had a 1 in 40 chance of
winning that match. Well, I actually did take the same poll total. I meant that Magus got 1,000 more votes and Ganon got 1,000 votes. I wasn't ever talking about the probability of Ganondorf winning...just the probability of Magus getting 1,000 fewer votes with the same vote total (which means Ganondorf gets 1,000 more, of course) occuring by chance if the "true" number of votes Magus would be expected to get was 55,179. But now I'm starting to wonder if my calculation for even that was correct. Would you mind calculating this situation yourself? I'd say more on some other things, but I gotta go... --- "Ah, a party! We haven't had one of those. It could be fun! So...what is a party?" "Well, you drink punch and eat CAKE! ...I think." |
| From: Tequilla Gundam | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:12:41 PM | Message Detail |
| Thats
what I was saying. If you know MOST BRACKETS have a CT-FF7 final..pick
CT...because If you have a FF7 winner LIKE THE REST that DECREASES the
chances of you getting the prize IF FF7 wins...since you have to deal
with more brackets than if the underdog(CT) won. I see CT as the Cloud
of last year...Everyone thinks FF7(Link) is gonna win and boom CT pulls
it out(Cloud) --- Fools. Do you really think KH has a chance against Starcraft?Korea knows about this contest. You have been warned.~Captain Roy Falcon |
| From: Rzrsk8er | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:26:12 PM | Message Detail |
| If
we consider that last year's winner (thanks, Chichiri) only missed 9
points (183 out of a possible 192), it's clear that incorrectly
predicting either semi-final match (16 points each) will almost
certainly not win you any prizes (you would have a maximum of 176
points -- not good enough for last year's top 10 -- and the likelihood
of getting every other match perfect is exceedingly low). I don't think we should be using 2003's numbers to predict the score that the first place player will have. I think 2002's results would be more accurate. In 2002 the character contest was brand new and we had nothing to base the strangths and weaknesses of each character on. In 2003 it was slightly easier to predict winners by seeing what happened the year before. Like in 2002 this is a brand new contest with no way to figure the exact strengths of each game so it just makes sense to use 2002's numbers |
| From: UltimaterializerX | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:30:33 PM | Message Detail |
| Shake just made the best quote ever. --- MIASU!! My SC2K4 Petition: http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=7&topic=12558738 |
| From: StopPokingMe | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:32:47 PM | Message Detail |
| The
biggest problem with the game theory approach is the one that its
proponents here have already freely admitted--we don't have enough data
to actually use it appropriately. The brackets are secret. To pick Mario to beat Crono in 2003 made no sense at all, if you gave a damn about winning. How can you even say otherwise? The match was an utter toss-up, yet the brackets were heavily in favor of Mario. A simpler example of Game Theory does not exist. The optimal strategy was not in doubt there. This is true, but nobody could have known it at the time. The only way we had of guessing how the brackets were divided on that match was a handful of people expressing their opinions on the board. That, IIRC, would have led one to believe picks on Mario-Crono II were as evenly split as the votes turned out to be. If we could have known that the masses largely expected Mario to advance, we would then have had no excuse. Anyway, one thing in the favored #1 seeds poll I had wanted to comment on since Sunday but haven't had the chance: Only 7.3% of respondents answered "none of the above." Granted, that answer screams cop-out, but I found it truly shocking that only 7% of the population combined thought any of the 60 other games in the contest was unstoppable. Either people are more open to the possibility of their favorite being beaten than let on through their posts, or we're headed for an all-1-seed final four. Oh, and: 1. UltimaterializerX 2. Shake 3. Starion 4. DomaDragoon 5. Ngamer 6. ChichiriMuyo 7. cyko 8. Z1mzum 9. Haste2 10. Neoatomtaco 11. Heroic Mario 12. i am vishnu 2 13. Yesmar 14. solarshadow 15. StopPokingMe --- The GameFAQs Summer Contest 2003 Fanfiction Project: http://crolapras.tripod.com/ffproj.html |
| From: solarshadow | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:42:03 PM | Message Detail |
| I
don't think we should be using 2003's numbers to predict the score that
the first place player will have. I think 2002's results would be more
accurate. In 2002 the character contest was brand new and we had
nothing to base the strangths and weaknesses of each character on. In
2003 it was slightly easier to predict winners by seeing what happened
the year before. I'll grant you that. And I did consider that factor before eventually discarding it for two reasons: 1) The difference between the 2002 and 2003 winners was only 5 points. 2) The number of entrants jumped from 16764 in 2002 to 41059 in 2003 (245%) and is sure to increase again this year. More entrants means better odds of a higher winning score. Besides, in either contest you wouldn't win without a perfect final four and beyond, and I really see no reason why it should be any different this year. --- Contest Stats: http://solarshadow-stats.tripod.com |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:47:01 PM | Message Detail |
| Game
theory really only works on luck though. Yes, if you pick OoT and by
LUCK it wins, you're better off. But will luck take down the FF7
juggernaut? The game is more popular now than it has ever been, and
unlike Link I don't think Cloud has a fanbase split. Some LoZ fans may
not like OoT (I wont be voting for it much..) but will vote for any
incarnation of him. On the other hand there are only two sources where
Cloud comes from, and FF7 is several hundred time more important than
the other, Sora proves it. If the KH factor is real that likely means
more people HAVE gone back and tried FF7 (and comparing potd's on the
subject there is no reason to doubt it) meaning FF7 still gets the
greatest part of Cloud. OoT will get the most of Link compared to the
other Zelda games, but I doubt it'll be as much in comparison. Added to
the fact that Cloud is now above Link then either anti-champion votes
would be required to exist, or WW would have to be far less than the
sum that is Link. Those are the only two ways to explain it, either
anti-champion votes will have to exist or Wind Waker will have to have
been detrimental to Link. Does anyone believe either of these cases to
be true? --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:53:07 PM | Message Detail |
| Slowflake: Actually, Prime boosted Samus from third tier to second tier, if we are to believe the Sonic/Samus near-tie. I don't know about that. Samus was the 4th strongest character in 2002, but only the 7th strongest in 2003. We have reason to believe that her half of the bracket was overrated in 2002 according to the extrapolated standings, but there is certainly no reason to think she actually moved up in popularity relative to anybody who stayed the same or improved. Especially given that the average returning character improved in popularity; in that light, Samus' decline looks even worse. At best, she was a 2nd tier character and remained a 2nd tier character. (with the first tier being Link, then Link, Cloud and Sephiroth) If your trying to say that because Samus=Sonic in 2002 and that Samus did better than Sonic in 2003, that doesn't work, because the model that says Samus did better than Sonic in 2003 says she declined relative to her 2002 popularity. Just not as much as Sonic did. not a factor in itself, it's an example of a larger element of Summer Contest mechanics: as I said multiple times, characters with very few games under their belt will increase in popularity when they get a new one. What are the other examples of this? It certainly didn't apply for Dante, as smitelf pointed out, who doubled his number of games. You'd probably have to take demographics and appeal outside the existing fanbase into account, but while one can bring up many possible explanations for KH factor, fact is we just don't have enough data to draw any solid conclusions on why KH factor was so big. Just that it was. We can have strong suspicions though, and this one makes sense. Especially since characters who already have been in a lot of games are unlikely to expand their demographic appeal with new ones. So...I guess that was a really long-winded way of saying I agree with you, but (for the moment) with reservations. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 6:58:58 PM | Message Detail |
| smitelf: Then obviously your game theory didn’t work, did it? Oh, gasp! [...] Wow, then, why don’t you give me some reasons about why I’m wrong instead of just saying I’m wrong? But we've already gone over how it worked, and why. Ample things have been said to explain why you were incorrect. No, it’s not, because he wasn’t talking about an event that was anywhere near 50/50. The principles are the same. It was an extreme example used to illustrate the clear illogic of your position. This has already been gone over as well. And I don't give a damn about any theory, regardless of how right it is, if it's useless. But it's not...it turned out to be THE MOST USEFUL THING among those things that could be discussed pre-contest. Fanboyism won the contest, but Game Theory already suggested picking a non-Link winner, whereas maximizing expected points did not. Game Theory= T3H V1CTORAY. Is that better? If my match tells me that a match is 50/50 then I would be just as well off flipping a coin as I would be using game theory. Game theory may optimize my results, IF I’M RIGHT, but if a match is truly 50/50 then I still only have a 50% chance of being right, regardless. Yes, I can gain more if that 50% is invested toward the less popular candidate in the brackets and succeeds but either way I have only a 50% chance of success. Furthermore, game theory is useless for predicting the outcome of the match, which to me is the only way to prove the utility of a theory in this contest. You have said nothing to advance your view that Game Theory is inappropriately being utilized here. "Only way to prove utility?" Utility is based on *winning*. Game Theory is about *winning*. If you followed Game Theory derived optimal strategy last year you vastly improved your odds of winning, even if you had picked Sephiroth or Mega Man or somebody instead of Cloud. If you believe a match is 50/50, and yet the brackets are lopsided in favor of one character or the other, you are probably better off picking the underpicked character. Simple, isn't it? This is not, for the most part, some huge deal, and entirely too much time has been spent going over it; its just not that important (the not-picking-the-overwhelming-favorite-to-win-the-contest thing is a much more important thing)...but it isn't really questionable, and certainly not questionable from the framework you're working from. I apologize for being so condescending, but this is rather annoying, since everything has already been explained so thoroughly by myself and Heroic Tails. Oh, BTW, the 50/50 thing is questionable from a Game Theory framework, because there's a complicating factor (and probably a bunch of other factors that aren't occurring to me): *who* picks the character might not be independent of their place in the standings. For instance, if the minority of people who are picking the underdog are actually the same people who are likely to be higher in the standings, then this doesn't apply. Game Theory is complex. (vast understatement there) But from what we know this is unlikely to apply in those scenarios we are talking about. And if it is true then the "picking the favorite" thing to maximize your expected point total is completely out the window. So the optimal strategy is still clear, if you're only working from these two frameworks, our limited understanding of Game Theory, and our limited access to data. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:13:31 PM | Message Detail |
| solarshadow: So you win, game theory -- but only in a tiebreaker. Not really. You're talking about how you would've needed so many points to win last year, but you have to understand that the 183 points would NOT have come by maximizing expected points. That strategy would've result in vastly fewer points (at least 48 fewer, given that Link didn't even make the finals). Why did the leaders end up on the leaderboard? (outside of fanboyism, or some special intuition not shared by analysts) There's 2 logical frameworks in which you can analyze this, that I can think of. (probably others as well) Finance (risk and return): Because they cashed in on volatility. Their options (i.e., their "purchase" of Cloud and Sephiroth) ended up in-the-money. Game Theory: They didn't pick Link, who was the overwhelming favorite to such an extent that even if he won, picking him to win basically nullified your chances of winning before the contest began. Haste2: ...just the probability of Magus getting 1,000 fewer votes with the same vote total (which means Ganondorf gets 1,000 more, of course) occuring by chance if the "true" number of votes Magus would be expected to get was 55,179. But now I'm starting to wonder if my calculation for even that was correct. Would you mind calculating this situation yourself? Well, like you said, the estimated standard deviation was 165.6. 1,000/165.6 results in a z-score of 6.03, which has some infinitesimal probability and a 1-in-a-1,279,011,855 (less than 1 in a billion) chance of occurring. But in this case, Ganon would've won by by even more than Magus did. Rzrsk8er: I think 2002's results would be more accurate. In 2002 the character contest was brand new and we had nothing to base the strangths and weaknesses of each character on. In 2003 it was slightly easier to predict winners by seeing what happened the year before. Like in 2002 this is a brand new contest with no way to figure the exact strengths of each game so it just makes sense to use 2002's numbers I wholeheartedly agree. StopPokingMe: This is true, but nobody could have known it at the time. Wasn't there some talk about how Crono was still going to be underrated by the brackets, though? I think people expected that this would happen (I can't recall what I thought at the time). If not, then everything you said is correct. Granted, that answer screams cop-out, but I found it truly shocking that only 7% of the population combined thought any of the 60 other games in the contest was unstoppable Well...the question was "best chance among the #1 seeds". In that context, "none of the above" didn't even make sense ("all are equal" would've made more sense). It was still there, but I don't think most people who were expecting a non-#1 seed to win would've voted for "none of the above". That's assuming most of the voters had even looked at the bracket and had a clue as to who the other seeds were. Given that almost have the people in the other poll said "what contest", I'm dubious as to how many people know about the rest of the bracket. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:14:39 PM | Message Detail |
| Game
theory still requires you to get lucky. I'd rather lose a match that no
one saw coming than to win a match and have Shake come along and say
"damn, I got that right too... on the joke bracket I made while I was
drunk off my ass!". Winning by luck might, might, get you the games, but you're still winning by luck and not by skill. --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:15:21 PM | Message Detail |
| Chichiri: Game theory really only works on luck though. No, not luck. A rationale analysis of volatility, and/or a rationale comparison of expectations vs. probabilities. Having the volatility/probability fall your way is necessary, but then, that's always going to be necessary. Game Theory gives you an edge. Albeit, in the case of things like a Mario vs. Crono that takes place in the Sweet 16, an exceedingly mild one. On the other hand there are only two sources where Cloud comes from, and FF7 is several hundred time more important than the other, Sora proves it and: Added to the fact that Cloud is now above Link then either anti-champion votes would be required to exist, or WW would have to be far less than the sum that is Link. Those are the only two ways to explain it, either anti-champion votes will have to exist or Wind Waker will have to have been detrimental to Link. Does anyone believe either of these cases to be true? These two quotes are related. Cloud had an 80% jump in popularity from 2K2 to 2K3. So KH was indeed responsible for a lot of it. And no, neither anti-champion votes or Wind Waker hatred is at all necessary for Cloud to overtake Link. As stated repeatedly, Link did not decline in popularity, and his performance against Link in 2003 was the best you could've expected out of 2002 Link. Cloud's jump in popularity was the sole reason for his victory. So yeah, if you work from a comparing games standpoint, and FF7=Cloud 2002 and OoT=Link, then OoT shouldn't have much problem with FF7 at all. It should win with close to 60% of the vote. I don't think that's really the appropriate way to judge it though. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:21:08 PM | Message Detail |
| As
stated FF7's popularity on GameFAQs has been proven to be much higher
now than it has ever been, while there is no reason to believe OoT has
increased at all since 2002 Link is supposed to be no different than
2003 Link. If KH were worth 45% of Cloud's votes then Sora should have
done much better, but he didn't. FF7 is stronger than 2002, it's just
that simple. Betting against that is foolish. --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:32:08 PM | Message Detail |
| As stated FF7's popularity on GameFAQs has been proven to be much higher now than it has ever been Very possibly. But even if it didn't, I don't for one second think that OoT vs. FF7 can be reduced to Cloud's FF7-only (i.e., non KH-induced) popularity vs. Link's popularity. If KH were worth 45% of Cloud's votes then Sora should have done much better, but he didn't No, this isn't true. Sora was not really popular. This can easily be explained by Slowflake's idea that new games for old characters who haven't been in many games are important, combined with the idea that Kingdom Hearts expanded Cloud's appeal to an entirely new demographic. Sora's performance says nothing about how much KH was responsible for Cloud, Sephiroth, and Squall's big jumps in popularity. I mean, maybe Cloud's and Sephiroth's jumps might be explained away without Kingdom Hearts (difficult, but not completely insane), but Squall's? It's possible that the male characters from both FF7 and FF8 vastly improved in popularity for some unclear and coincidental reason, but given how much people talked about Kingdom Hearts during the contest last year as a reason for thinking all these guys were much cooler, its a far more logical explanation in addition to being the simpler one. It also fits with Aeris not improving as much, since she wasn't portrayed in the uber-cool Colisseum scenes; and also fits with Sephiroth not improving as much as Cloud and Squall, who were showcased much more heavily. That's why everybody buys into it so much: it makes perfect sense. A big boost to these guys having little to do with Kingdom Hearts is certainly possible...but makes little sense. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:35:40 PM | Message Detail |
| But we've already gone over how it worked, and why. Ample things have been said to explain why you were incorrect. Again, if theory does not equal reality, then why bother with the theory? The principles are the same. It was an extreme example used to illustrate the clear illogic of your position. This has already been gone over as well. But as already discussed, it only really applies to this contest in a 50/50 situation, so using an "extreme" example does not impress me. But it's not...it turned out to be THE MOST USEFUL THING among those things that could be discussed pre-contest. Fanboyism won the contest, but Game Theory already suggested picking a non-Link winner, whereas maximizing expected points did not. Game Theory= T3H V1CTORAY. Is that better? Okay, think what you want but I say Game Theory /= T3H V1CTORAY and I'm still not seeing any reason why it is superior to other methods of evaluation used in the contest. You have said nothing to advance your view that Game Theory is inappropriately being utilized here. "Only way to prove utility?" Utility is based on *winning*. Game Theory is about *winning*. If you followed Game Theory derived optimal strategy last year you vastly improved your odds of winning, even if you had picked Sephiroth or Mega Man or somebody instead of Cloud. But as you said, it would also apply if Link had won. So, if the results don't count against your theory, then they also shouldn't count for your theory. If you believe a match is 50/50, and yet the brackets are lopsided in favor of one character or the other, you are probably better off picking the underpicked character. Simple, isn't it? I don't have any problems understanding it. I've used game theory before, actually. I just don't see how it is very widely applicable in this instance. This is not, for the most part, some huge deal, and entirely too much time has been spent going over it; On this, at least, we can agree. I apologize for being so condescending, but this is rather annoying, since everything has already been explained so thoroughly by myself and Heroic Tails. There's not much to explain. It's simple in the way that you are applying it here. Simple, and ultimately useless. Game Theory is complex. (vast understatement there) On this, we can also agree. But from what we know this is unlikely to apply in those scenarios we are talking about. And if it is true then the "picking the favorite" thing to maximize your expected point total is completely out the window. So the optimal strategy is still clear, if you're only working from these two frameworks, our limited understanding of Game Theory, and our limited access to data. Again, the limited data comes into play. I still say that, when push comes to shove, the important thing is to select the winner. Game theory does not help there. Thus I still see it as pointless. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: Ngamer64 | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:45:09 PM | Message Detail |
| All
this talk about last year's big Kingdom Hearts Factor got me to
thinking. What have we done to insure that something similar is not
going to sneak up on us once again with this Contest? The answer: not
enough. Because, I don't believe anyone has yet compiled a complete
listing of all the games which have been rereleased (or at least
semi-rereleased) over the past couple years. With the recent trend of
great games being ported to the GBA, I could most certainly see where
entirely new (and, presumably, younger) fanbases could be created for
some of these old classics. So let's get to the listing here... Recent Re-releases - The Hunt for the Next "Factor" 1. Mario 3 - Recently rereleased as "Mario Advance 4" for the GBA. Has sold extremely well. 8. Metroid - Was just remade as "Metroid: Zero Mission" for the GBA. Seems to be doing very well for itself. 5. Phantasy Star - Brought back out as part of the new Phantasy Star Collection for (you guessed it) the GBA. No idea on sales here. 6. Donkey Kong - True, this was a while back now, but it was a great inclusion as a minigame in Donkey Kong 64. Now, though DK64 was largely regarded as disappointing, it still sold quite well, and the FAQ page did great as well (making the Top 25 for both '99 and '00... and I should know, as one of those FAQs is my own). Perhaps this has had more of an influence than you would first think. 3. The Legend of Zelda - Was a key drawing point for the Zelda Collector's Edition GC disk... many were said to be interested in the disk mainly for the sake of getting a working copy of this game. 10. River City Ransom - New GBA remake (or is it a sequel?) is due out... but not until sometime in May. Too late to help it here, it would appear. 2. Tetris - Has this game ever stopped being rereleased/remade in one form or another? (Hint: no) ------------------ 16. Secret of Mana - A semi-rerelease for the GBA entitled "Sword of Mana" seems to be doing quite well. 5. Sonic 2 - Just rereleased on the very popular "Sonic Mega Collection" for the GameCube. 4. Super Mario World - Hugely popular GBA port, "Mario Advance 2," has sold great. 6. Link to the Past - Immensely popular rerelease for the GBA, along with the multiplayer addition "The Four Swords." Has helped to keep LttP a Top 50 FAQ three years running. ------------------ 5. Final Fantasy Tactics - Though not a true rerelease, the Advance version has helped to keep the game's title, at the very least, near the top of the FAQ listings. Then again, FFTA is represented in itself, which likely nullifies any "factor" here, if there was one to start. 4. Metal Gear Solid - Huge remake for the GameCube earlier this month, as "The Twin Snakes." If only one game has a Factor behind it, this would have to be it. 13. Resident Evil - Very popular "RE-make," as it was dubbed, for the GC. Though that was a couple years ago now. 11. Castlevania: SotN - Has not had a complete remake yet... though that doesn't seem to be keeping them from trying, over on the GBA front. Speaking of which, why not just cut to the chase and do a direct port? 2. Ocarina of Time - The ultimate rerelease. We remade twice (with the addition of the Master Quest) as a Wind Waker bonus disk, and then was put out a third time as part of the Zelda Collection. ---------------------- Division 128 - All too new to have been remade yet. Hm... looks like we've finally found something that this quarter of the bracket is a bit more predictable at than the others. K, that should about do it. Post if I missed anything. --- the-elite.net Ngamer's Contest Archives: http://geocities.com/cyber1166/gamefaqs |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/16/2004 7:55:40 PM | Message Detail |
| Squall
lost on the half of the bracket that Mario came from. I honestly don't
think Seph overperformed on Link but that Mario underperformed. Is
there any reason to believe Seph overperformed, other than just picking
numbers left and right? His performance in 2k3 actually makes me think
he underperformed against Link, much like Mario. Think about it,
really, there are three obvious factors going against Mario. He doesn't have a sword, his game isn't like an RPG, amd his opponent was from the same company. Company loyalists would be split, and reasonably they should be split in MARIO'S favor, not Link's, as he is the Nintendo Icon. That leaves the other two things. Link has a sword, many players like characters with swords. People who like characters with swords will vote for Link over Mario. Mario games (with the exception of the RPG series) are very different than RPGs, Zelda games are much closer to RPGs. RPG gamers will like Zelda games better and will choose Link over Mario. That match was unbalanced by RPG gamers, to put it bluntly, and it makes everyone on Mario's half of the board look worse than they are. In fact, Link makes everyone look worse than they are, unless they are at Mario strength + Sword + RPG + Hero. Yeah, Crono could beat Link... *laughs*. I honestly think it could happen, though... But that's a bit off topic, the point is Seph 2k2 to Cloud 2k3 is a much, much smaller jump and a jump that is by far more accurate. Seph 2k2 to 2k3 is even smaller, if you really wish to find a constant. Judging by Sephiroth I'd have to say that FF7 has always been close, and has now surpassed OoT for certain. --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: Team Rocket Elite | Posted: 3/16/2004 8:03:23 PM | Message Detail |
| 16. Secret of Mana - A semi-rerelease for the GBA entitled "Sword of Mana" seems to be doing quite well. Sword of Mana was a remake of Final Fantasy Adventure(Seiken Densetsu 1) , not Secret of Mana(Seiken Densetsu 2). --- Do you have any advice for filling out our brackets? ''Never underestimate the true power of fanboyism.'' ~CjayC |
| From: Ngamer64 | Posted: 3/16/2004 8:10:33 PM | Message Detail |
| Ok,
the reviews I read said things more along the lines of "well the plot
and characters are from FFA. everything else is from SOM." But in any
case, it's a remake that seems to hold true to the series being
represented, which I imagine must count for something. But, ah well,
it's a 16 seed anyways, so we really don't need to think that one over
too much. --- the-elite.net Ngamer's Contest Archives: http://geocities.com/cyber1166/gamefaqs |
| From: cyko | Posted: 3/16/2004 8:19:34 PM | Message Detail |
10. River City Ransom - New GBA remake (or is it a sequel?) is due out... but not until sometime in May. Too late to help it here, it would appear. it's not a sequel, it is a picture perfect re-release and i highly recommend picking it up. unfortunately, it comes out May 15th, which is too late to affect this contest. 4. Metal Gear Solid - Huge remake for the GameCube earlier this month, as "The Twin Snakes." If only one game has a Factor behind it, this would have to be it. this one right here, i believe is huge. Twin Snakes is selling great, the reviewers are raving about it, and it is huge even on Gamefaqs here. it's the number three FAQ and have you seen the Message Board!?! it's almost as active as LUE!! it's one of the top Message Boards on Gamefaqs right now. There are curently 82 pages of topics (20 per page), which is almost as much as this Contest Board has had at its peak. that is insane. it won't be enough to beat FF7, but i do believe that this remake will push MGS past FFT. --- Please go nominate Secret of Mana for SNES. Right Now. A Cheese Legend of Trivia 12 |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/16/2004 8:24:27 PM | Message Detail |
| I
think the original MGS's performance is more than enough to push it
past FFT, so Twin Snakes is more of a nail in a coffin than a turner of
tides. --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: cyko | Posted: 3/16/2004 8:31:27 PM | Message Detail |
| nail
in the coffin is a good way to put it, Chichiri. i was torn in that
match for a while, because FFT was phenomenal and it does have that
mighty Square fanbase, but Twin Snakes finalized my decision. --- Please go nominate Secret of Mana for SNES. Right Now. A Cheese Legend of Trivia 12 |
| From: Team Rocket Elite | Posted: 3/16/2004 9:57:04 PM | Message Detail |
| Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes: 1657 Topics, 14876 Posts Life, the Universe, and Everything: 4930 Topics, 58221 Posts Random Insanity: 1140 Topics, 27708 Posts Current Events: 1834 Topics, 17019 Posts Spring 2004 Contest: 603 Topics, 15421 Posts The Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes Board really isn't all that active. LUE, RI and CE are quite a bit more active. Even this board is about as active. Although it is one of the more active game boards, it was only released about a week ago. I beleive the Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire Board has about 4000 topics a week after its release. --- Do you have any advice for filling out our brackets? ''Never underestimate the true power of fanboyism.'' ~CjayC |
| From: Heroic Tails | Posted: 3/16/2004 11:24:27 PM | Message Detail |
| Then obviously your game theory didn’t work, did it? Oh, gasp! Wow, then, why don’t you give me some reasons about why I’m wrong instead of just saying I’m wrong? I've given you a specific example where you can't judge the worth of a strategy by the actual results. Which means your first sentence doesn't make any sense, unless you can prove and not just say, that the Mario/Crono is any different. No, it’s not, because he wasn’t talking about an event that was anywhere near 50/50. Ok, then how about another example. You must choose head or tails (50/50 here, right?). If it's head, and you got it right, you win $10. If it's tails, and you got it right, you win $20. Which one are you going to choose? In Mario/Crono, this is basically the same. It's 50/50 (reasonable hypothesis). If it's Mario, and you picked it, you have better results than 1/3 of your bracket opponents who chose Crono. If it's Crono, and you picked it, you have better results than 2/3 of your opponents who chose Mario. Which one are you going to choose? Here you can't complain that's not the same, because it is exactly the same situation. And it's obvious in both case the best choice is the second one. I didn’t mean the crap factors like TJF, I mean things such as recent games having come out that could reduce a character’s popularity, or, on the other side of things, a lack of recent games. And on that, sir, I disagree. Trying to predict what will sway the voters is far more relevant (heck, it’s the whole objective!) than using game theory in such a complex contest Game theory is of limited use because of its complexity of course, but if you can't see it applies in a very simple situation such as the Mario/Crono case, then I guess this is hopeless. And guessing which recent games could increase/decrease a given character's popularity is even more random than anything else. Remember how huge the increase of both Cloud and Sephiroth were? How the hell are you supposed to predict that in a rational way? Okay then, so this is just another “but that’s just your OPINION” post. Feh, well, to that I reply, duh. Not at all. I just thought you at least understood that it worked in the case of close matches, and you just didn't see any happening, while other people might see them. If my match tells me that a match is 50/50 then I would be just as well off flipping a coin as I would be using game theory. Game theory may optimize my results, IF I’M RIGHT, but if a match is truly 50/50 then I still only have a 50% chance of being right, regardless. Yes, I can gain more if that 50% is invested toward the less popular candidate in the brackets and succeeds but either way I have only a 50% chance of success. Ok, so in my new example, you are saying you would choose randomly head or tails (50/50, with more profit with one of the two choice), instead of going directly with tails? Furthermore, game theory is useless for predicting the outcome of the match, which to me is the only way to prove the utility of a theory in this contest. If you want to use game theory, obviously I'm not going to stop you. I still think there's far better ways to determine how to set up your bracket. Where did I ever say this was useful to determine the outcome of a match? Never. This is about getting the most out of a toss-up match - where you decide you can't determine the outcome. --- "I tried a SMB speed run once but I ran into the first Goomba and died because I forgot to jump. After that, I never tried again." - PsychoSwordsman |
| From: Overated | Posted: 3/17/2004 12:56:47 AM | Message Detail |
| Here's a link of a very large poll taken of SNES games: http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=913&topic=12468707 --- FFT Versus Tournament http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/gentopic.asp?board=19482 |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/17/2004 5:24:35 AM | Message Detail |
| smitelf,
you don't seem to be on very friendly terms with "logic" ;-) Like
Heroic Tails, I'm just going to write this off as hopeless and
pointless. the point is Seph 2k2 to Cloud 2k3 is a much, much smaller jump and a jump that is by far more accurate. Seph 2k2 to 2k3 is even smaller ChichiriMuyo, you're trying to rehash things that have long been put out to pasture. Cloud jumped massively from 2K2 to 2K3, there's nothing to question here. And Crono could not beat Link unless he was in Kingdom Hearts 2 (or some other new game). He'd lose 60%-40%; receiving at least 36% and at most 44%, though very likely falling in the 37%-42% range. We know this already with very high confidence; vote proportions can be predicted very accurately in matches like this. Put guys like Crono and Kefka in KH2, and you'd see massive jumps for them too, perhaps even more massive then the FF7 character jumps since they're from even further back. Someone brought this up last year, and while it has no chance of happening, I start weeping just at the prospect of Frog in a Kingdom Hearts game...because that's just...awesome...in so many ways... But anyway, Yuna should be a bigger factor next year due to X-2, and Rikku might make it in as well; but Yuna probably won't benefit nearly as much as Cloud did, because you don't have the expanding demographics factor, and Final Fantasy X is itself a recent game. Now if Kuja or some other FF9 characters are indeed in KH2, then they could benefit immensely in popularity. FF9 is obviously the most overlooked recent Final Fantasy and just the exposure alone would be a big deal. (though since there might not be an SC2K5, and KH2 might not even be out by then, it isn't too relevant to our discussion) As for Twin Snakes...it shouldn't make that much of a difference; but since this is expanding to an entirely new fanbase--GameCube--that's almost as big here as the Sony fanbase, there's a chance it could make a huge difference. I would be surprised at that, but it's possible. Final Fantasy Tactics never stood a chance against MGS though. Twin Snakes might give enough of a boost to allow MGS to give FF7 a run for its money, but I think almost everyone would be shocked if Twin Snakes bumped MGS enough to trump FF7. So Twin Snakes shouldn't be altering any match results. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: Slowflake | Posted: 3/17/2004 5:38:45 AM | Message Detail |
| Hmm, never thought of Twin Snakes. Maybe it can lend a hand to the MGS entry. I already thought it would beat FFT anyway, but can it really make MGS come a lot closer to FF7? My bet would be that w/o Twin Snakes, MGS would score around 35% against FF7. Would Twin Snakes be enough to send it near 40%? And more importantly, could Snake benefit from it in a character contest, or is he too established now to get a decent boost? Samus only had three games prior to Prime and Fusion, excluding the SSBs, while Snake already had a lot of exposure beforehand. Plus, Samus' support mainly came from old-school games before Prime and Fusion, while Snake is mostly known for his more recent accomplishments. For all that, I doubt Snake could become second tier overnight. --- SpC2K4 Status --- Winner: FF7 --- Finalist: CT --- Semifinalists: SMB3, LoZ:WW |
| From: Heroic Baby Yoshi | Posted: 3/17/2004 6:03:09 AM | Message Detail |
| This
site bleeds of PS2 casual gamers. A poll i took a while ago on the PS2
board said that Metal Gear Solid 2 was extremely popular. On the PS
board, a similar poll was taken and the Metal Gear finished second to
only FF7. MGS fanbase is already so strong, and I havent even seen how
strong the NGC fanbase is. --- "Ya know what? Screw Jay-Z! I'm starting my own clothing line, RockerWear,"-my friend |
| From: Slowflake | Posted: 3/17/2004 6:45:23 AM | Message Detail |
| Surprisingly,
the GameCube dominates big time as far as the ratio gaming
world/GameFAQs goes, and even though the X-Box is royally hated here,
it's still ahead of the PS2 in that aspect. There are almost as many GameCube owners as PS2 owners here... which is obviously not the case everywhere else. In other news, I launched the Board Odds Project this morning. http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=8&topic=13150434 --- SpC2K4 Status --- Winner: FF7 --- Finalist: CT --- Semifinalists: SMB3, LoZ:WW |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/17/2004 6:45:45 AM | Message Detail |
| Since you didn't actually read everything, creativename, I'll give you a quote: "the point is Seph 2k2 to Cloud 2k3 is a much, much smaller jump and a jump that is by far more accurate. Seph 2k2 to 2k3 is even smaller, if you really wish to find a constant. Judging by Sephiroth I'd have to say that FF7 has always been close, and has now surpassed OoT for certain." See, this time you can finish reading the post. There was no mention of me outright denying an increase for FF7, in fact, isn't that what I was saying a few more posts back? My point is, since you were previously incapable of reading it, that Cloud probably didn't increase quite as dramatically as the number show. Being on the wrong side of Mario, by all logical analysis, caused a significant decrease in the 2k2 Link vs. Cloud expected numbers. Mario did far less than he should have against Link due to the tastes of the GameFAQs userbase. In a match where two relatively equally powerful characters from a similar background (Nintendo) one must be given an advantage over the other by an outside source. That source is the RPG fanbase, and those people would have voted differently had Mario not made the finals. Yes, FF7 made a noticeable jump, I've already clearly stated that in how many posts? But I don't think Cloud's jump is as much KH as it was bad placement and graceful aging (the only term I cna think of for a 7-8 year old game that just keeps getting more popularity). --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/17/2004 7:33:55 AM | Message Detail |
| the point is Seph 2k2 to Cloud 2k3 is a much, much smaller jump and a jump that is by far more accurate Sephiroth 2K2 to Cloud 2K3 is still a 40% jump. Discount it by the average jump for repeat characters and its still a 30% jump. And to simply conclude that comparing Sephiroth to Cloud is a "far more accurate" representation of KH factor than comparing Cloud to Cloud is dubious at best, but more likely just flat out baloney. My point is, since you were previously incapable of reading it, that Cloud probably didn't increase quite as dramatically as the number show. And I have already shown why this is not true. I'll go into even more detail below however. In a match where two relatively equally powerful characters from a similar background (Nintendo) one must be given an advantage over the other by an outside source. That source is the RPG fanbase, and those people would have voted differently had Mario not made the finals There isn't much evidence at all to think that SSF majorly hurt Mario in the 2K2 final. And the lack of effect of SFF in heavyweight-vs.-heavyweight matches is very well-documented and can be taken for granted at this point (heavyweight matches are seemingly not affected by anything at all except true popularity, which is why their %es can be so accurately predicted). Let's work out the best numbers we can by assuming it did though. The most Mario would've gotten against Link without SFF is about 42.5%. This number is arrived at by simply taking the average increase in Link ratio for the North and East divisions, 23.6%. Increase Mario's 2002 Link ratio by this much and you end up with him getting 42.5% against Link. These numbers actually are inflated slightly by Donkey Kong's massive SFF-induced jump in 2003, but whatever. Furthermore, assume that without Planet GameCube (I think that was the site), Cloud would've defeated Mario with 53% of the vote in 2002 (this assumption does have merit). This puts Cloud at 45.5% against Link in 2002. That is still a 27.7%+ increase in geometric popularity, despite using the most liberal estimates possible! This is not "slight" by any rationale definition. But I don't think Cloud's jump is as much KH as it was bad placement and graceful aging (the only term I cna think of for a 7-8 year old game that just keeps getting more popularity But this makes no sense and can be easily dismissed. You are basically trying to fit the evidence to you pre-conceived notions of KH factor being over-rated, when in fact the evidence itself is very clear. --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/17/2004 8:15:44 AM | Message Detail |
| Feh,
I'm going to write off this argument as well, creativename and Heroic
Tails. What you don't seem to comprehend is that I'm not an idiot and
do understand game theory. I just don't find it useful in this
situation, and I've said why -- lack of information and only
approaching usefulness in 50/50 situations. Even Mario/Crono wasn't
50/50 enough to tempt me to use this sort of logic. You haven't
contradicted these two points (hell, you've agreed with them!) so I'm
going to write you both off as hopeless game theory fanboys who won't
listen to reason. I assure you that I'm an extremely logic-oriented
person and I think game theory is fine and dandy but I'm not going to
try to apply it everywhere like a man with a hammer who thinks
everything is a nail. Now, onto a more fruitful topic. Yes, FF7 made a noticeable jump, I've already clearly stated that in how many posts? But I don't think Cloud's jump is as much KH as it was bad placement and graceful aging (the only term I cna think of for a 7-8 year old game that just keeps getting more popularity). Graceful aging? FFVII isn't getting more popular by default -- it's popularity just keeps getting bolstered by various Final Fantasy games that attract a younger generation to the series, and particularly Kingdom Hearts, which actually had FFVII characters in fairly major roles. The reason it has aged so well is that various other games keep drawing attention to its existence, Kingdom Hearts being the most notable of the bunch. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: Ngamer64 | Posted: 3/17/2004 9:38:53 AM | Message Detail |
| Thanks
for that poll link, Overated! Yeah, that topic (and the ones before it)
have been going on a long, long time now, looks like they've collected
well over 300 entries now. In case anyone didn't check the topic, here
are the results as of the last tally. ( total points ) total votes - total 1st place votes 01. Chrono Trigger ( 1422 ) 182 - 63 02. Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past ( 1324 ) 196 - 36 03. Final Fantasy VI ( 1159 ) 156 - 33 04. Super Mario World ( 981 ) 164 - 18 05. Super Metroid ( 855 ) 139 - 19 06. Super Mario RPG: Legend Of The Seven Stars ( 725 ) 117 - 11 07. Super Mario Kart ( 531 ) 109 - 4 08. Super Mario All-Stars ( 504 ) 91 - 6 09. Secret Of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2) ( 489 ) 89 - 7 10. EarthBound ( 473 ) 74 - 9 So, as you can see, their opinions reflected the nomination process very closely. Of course, it remains to be seen how close it will hold to the actual voting. A few points... LttP seems vastly underseeded as a 6. I think when it comes time to vote, the most useful indicator here would be total votes (meaning a user placed the game in his own Top Ten). And as you can see, Zelda came out on top by a pretty comfortable margin in that regard. Secondly, why didn't Super Mario Kart make it in? That still upsets me a little. Oh well. --- the-elite.net Ngamer's Contest Archives: http://geocities.com/cyber1166/gamefaqs |
| From: Team Rocket Elite | Posted: 3/17/2004 10:06:05 AM | Message Detail |
| Nominations
are based on "1st place votes". Based on the data they collected, SMK
only got 4 1st place votes. The 8 games you bolded all had more 1st
place votes than SMK. --- Do you have any advice for filling out our brackets? ''Never underestimate the true power of fanboyism.'' ~CjayC |
| From: Team Rocket Elite | Posted: 3/17/2004 10:21:48 AM | Message Detail |
| It's interesting to look at it based on the number of 1st place votes: Seeding. Game - #1 Votes 1. Chrono Trigger - 63 6. Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past - 36 2. Final Fantasy VI - 33 3. Super Metroid - 19 4. Super Mario World - 18 -. Terranigma - 13 8. Super Mario RPG: Legend Of The Seven Stars - 11 7. EarthBound - 9 16. Secret Of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2) - 7 -. Tales Of Phantasia - 7 -. Super Mario All-Stars - 6 -. Secret Of Evermore - 6 The nominations follow it almost exactly. The two exceptions being Zelda: LTTP and Terranigma. As far as I know, Terranigma never got a North American release. But why did LTTP get such a low seed? --- Do you have any advice for filling out our brackets? ''Never underestimate the true power of fanboyism.'' ~CjayC |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/17/2004 11:42:11 AM | Message Detail |
| That
poll makes me a little less worried about the LttP vs. Super Metroid
match (wasn't too worried to begin with there) but more concerned about
LttP vs. FFVI. I'd say that's the most significant match in the
division, considering difficulty of prediction and point value. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: Slowflake | Posted: 3/17/2004 11:48:37 AM | Message Detail |
| Actually, SM worries me more than FF6, and even then it's not too much. I don't know, but FF6 strikes me as having a very loyal and vocal fanbase, but lacking in numbers. Sort of like FFT. Of course it finishes second in every "favorite FF" poll, but so does LttP, and by a far lesser margin. And if we are to consider that Zelda and FF are about equally popular, that gives LttP plenty of room to play. --- SpC2K4 Status --- Winner: FF7 --- Finalist: CT --- Semifinalists: SMB3, LoZ:WW |
| From: smitelf | Posted: 3/17/2004 12:13:09 PM | Message Detail |
| I don't know, but FF6 strikes me as having a very loyal and vocal fanbase, but lacking in numbers. Sort of like FFT. Hmm, I don't know how much I buy that... Of course it finishes second in every "favorite FF" poll, but so does LttP, and by a far lesser margin. All that says is that Final Fantasy VII is more dominant as the Final Fantasy game than OoT is as the Zelda game. I don't think those polls are much good for comparing games between series. --- "Your fate is sealed, and none but yours." -- Auron Proud Supporter of Starcraft in the Spring 2004 Contest |
| From: Yesmar | Posted: 3/17/2004 4:28:46 PM | Message Detail |
| 6. Donkey Kong - Don't forget that it was also a playable game in Animal Crossing Division 128 - All too new to have been remade yet Except for Skies of Arcadia, if that counts. --- Heh Heh... The wind... It is blowing...--Ganondorf |
| From: ChichiriMuyo | Posted: 3/17/2004 5:20:35 PM | Message Detail |
| You
actually discount the probability that Cloud's placement was bad? I'd
argue he'd have done a lot better against Link than Mario did in 2k2. Okay, so off of a subject that can't be proven for absolute certainty either way without a time machine. The last Favorite FF poll showed 7 having 40% with more competiton than ever before. This was only a couple months after SC2k3. Four months before the SC FF7 had 38% and less competition (no X-2). Not long after the release of FFX (Ceej tends to do these Favorite FF polls a few months after a major game is released in the series) FF7 only had 32%. Obviously there is a limit to 7's growth but despite having more competition it has managed to increase ~2-3% every four to six months since Ceej has been doing polls on gamefaqs. *note the first favorite FF poll had 7 at 25% more than four years ago So umm, what about that says that 7 isn't gaining? What about that says its gains have solely been the cause of KH? At the rate that the FF7 populatiry increased despite the vote being split by a greater number of opponents I would have been surprised, looking at these numbers, if Cloud didn't take at least 5% more in actual poll results from one year to the next. Its growth is probably at the slowest it has ever been but its popularity is STILL growing and would have continued to grow without KH, all previous polls point to this as being enevitable without KH. Oh, and Sephiroth is a much, much better guage for growth than Cloud because we already have reason to suspect Cloud's results were as much as, using your liberal estimates, 5% shorter on Mario than they should have been. That does not a good yard stick make. ***!!Warning!!*** Rambling and sorta off topic: Taking the nice list provided by some wacky guy named creativename (you wouldn't happen to know him, would you?) in comparisson to Link, Sephiroth grew 6.3%. Using your now more liberal estimates if Cloud were honestly at 45% or so on Link in 2k2 and he is now *drum roll* 51.6% on Link. A 6.6% difference, using your previously liberal estimate. Sounds more than fair like that, I'd say. Maybe the 8% or so that Squall got is a bit more realistic, beyond that I think it was just bad placement and bad luck that prevented Cloud from showing his full strength in 2k2. </warning> Summary of important points: FF7's popularity on this site has been continuously growing since long before KH and would have grown without it as well. --- This spot is reserved for the stat-head with the best Sp2k4 prediction. |
| From: creativename | Posted: 3/18/2004 3:11:10 AM | Message Detail |
| As you said, FF7 has aged rather gracefully. I think the increase in popularity for FF7 between: http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=762 and http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=1178 Can most likely be attributed to Final Fantasy X's newness wearing off, and its votes cascading down disproportionately to VII. Doesn't really indicate for certain FF7 got any more popular in an absolute sense. Also, you still have to explain Squall's jump in popularity. Kingdom Hearts is the most obvious explanation. It's the grand unifying theory, so to speak, like Plate Tectonics was for biology and geology ;-) It's interesting to compare these two polls: http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=1178 http://cgi.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.asp?poll=1443 The results are almost exactly the same, with FFX-2 presumably cutting ever so slightly into FFX's vote total, and FFXI only being a very small factor. All the older Final Fantasy's declined extremely small amounts, with FF7 gaining an extremely small amount. So over the course of 269 days (from 2/24/03 to 11/20/03), almost nothing changed at all, even though 2 new games came out in the interval. The on thing that comes out at you when comparing the first poll (762) with the next two is Final Fantasy VI's decline. It went from 19.02% to around 14.5% in the last two. This would look bad for Final Fantasy VI...except that Final Fantasy III's big jump from the first poll to the next two is very suspicious, given that the first poll explicity stated (Japan), and the next two did not. FFVI's proportions didn't decline as precipitously if you give III's increase to it. And if we only had today's poll to look at LAST year, maybe we would've seen some of this coming: Are you one of the four million people who purchased Kingdom Hearts? Yes, I bought it when it came out 34.08% Yes, I just recently got it 9.91% No, but I still might someday 15.21% No, I don't have a PS2 13.11% No, I never wanted it 27.69% --- Remember to nominate Frog from Chrono Trigger for Summer Contest 2K4! |
| Jump to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |