Hate Speech: Theory Fighter University: Remedial Math

Note: one very big general idea that emerges from the math that is not necessarily intuitive to everyone (or at least, you can't be sure that it's true without the math) is that when you apply a mixup the most important thing is not your BEST outcome but your WORST outcome. And this is COMPLETELY lost in Hates' version of the math. The reason why this is true (intuitively) is because your opponent is a sentient being, he will adjust his behavior to minimize how often you get your best outcome and maximize how often you get your worst outcome. So while TAS B is far far better on hit than BB, BB is way better on block: you are farther away so your opponent can't grab you as easily, you can step or reverse mix-up far more easily cause the frames are better, etc. Does that help your head Vincent? This kind of fits for you actually as we've played before and you almost never use TAS B, you use very simple very safe stuff almost constantly.

PS: what pops right out of what I wrote above is that people almost never duck against Soph because TAS B is such a good outcome, they will try to deny it to her constantly. If you play as Soph and just keep doing TAS B/grab 50/50's, people will just basically never duck, and then they will apply mixup after TAS B on block and eat you alive. I've definitely played Soph who used TAS B constantly (not in a good way, I mean they kept getting it blocked) and I think reading what I wrote above would help them understand where they are going wrong in a guideline sort of way.
 
Nirf said:
If you want Hates, I can derive a generalized "mix-up formula" which like I said will apply to a very broad swathe of mixups in the game (any 2x2, non recursive mixups) and people can apply this formula without worrying about the derivation. I'll do it tomorrow or something.
Click to expand...

Lay it on us!

Something else to consider, however, as to why I think that averaging results to 50/50 over an extreme time horizon is less of crippling error than you might believe:

You've got to consider that your optimal strategy shifts based on every previous iteration of a given scenario. Let's take your example of how Astaroth will optimally bullrush frequenty while throwing infrequently. As you yourself noted, if Cervantes knows Astaroth will mostly bullrush, he'll mostly stand, provided sidestep isn't an option. What we can't forget, though, is that Astaroth does not consider a blocked bullrush to be a "win."

Astaroth represents primarily bullrush-->Cervantes primarily stands and blocks-->Astaroth is forced into throwing more and more frequently in order to inflict any damage.

Again, over a suitably long time horizon, there's an ebb and flow to option selection that comes from the pressure of wanting not just safety, but damage, not to mention the subtle consequences for granting your opponent a free mixup by relying too heavily on the safe option.

There's an equilibrium to be found here, but it's dynamic, and I think it's close enough to 50/50 in the case of my Platonic Ideal Players that it doesn't make things too crazy.
 
Heaton said:
Siegfried VS Sophitia
  • Block TAS B - Sophitia is at -10 (safe)
    • A+G*B+G now comes out at i7
    • 1B now comes out at i14
    • Mix-ups
So what do you call a mix-up where one option is safe, but the other isn't? (besides terrible)
Click to expand...

It's called stop using 1b and pick a better mid lol
 
This is how people play soul calibur?? I apparently missed something starting out -- time to retake my Linear Algebra/Cal2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top