Get Your Tournament - Commentary
The time has come to give predictions that will make you laugh and give back your latest meal. I'm not sure what is easier to do, predict the Evolution 2011 top eight for Super Street Fighter IV, or bet on a number and color on the roulette table and get it exactly correct. It's tough, either way.
With more than 1,000 competitors, it will come down to some luck to get by certain people. It's crazy that just six wins in any other tournament would get you to the finals. And yet, six wins here means you're only halfway down the journey to the championship.
Would you bet on a Seth user, even Poongko, to somehow overcome the health deficiencies and make it to the Top 8? Are there too many people to where the top players will get random'd out by a Yun user? It's too tough to make that call.
So, here are my predictions for the Top 8. This isn't based completely on stats, rather just hunches and what I've seen on broadcasts or experienced first-hand.
no comments
It came out on the cuff last week during a Stats Series podcast. I told listeners that in order to win one of the two major tournaments at Evolution 2011, someone would have to win at least 10 games in a row.
Well, it turns out that's not really the case, but it is fairly close.
Think about how many times you've gone to an arcade or played online and have won 10 in a row. Haven't done it? You probably need to. It will likely take a 10-game winning streak to even be considered for a finals appearance.
I'm not sure how many players have signed up for either of the two major tournaments, but from what "Mr. Wizard" Joey Cuellar said on the Wake Up SRK podcast this past weekend, the totals are comparable to what was last year's attendance. So in all reality, we're looking at nearly 1,500 competitors for both games. And the number could be much more.
My analysis below is based off of how past Evolution tournaments have been structured. That is, a "pool" is just a smaller portion of the complete bracket. Then that pool is combined with another pool once its complete, etc. And then in the end the final two play for the title.
An even bracket would need 1,024 players. Add one more round, and it would be 2,048 players. So for the sake of this mathematical analysis because there probably 1,500 players, let's say there are exactly 2,048 players and you're stuck having to play in a play-in game. After repeatedly going through a fake bracket, here is what you'll need to do in order to reach the finals based on the point of when you lose in the tournament (if you lose).
So no matter what, you will need to win at least 12 games to win the title. Be prepared to grind it out.
no comments
Well, it turns out that's not really the case, but it is fairly close.
Think about how many times you've gone to an arcade or played online and have won 10 in a row. Haven't done it? You probably need to. It will likely take a 10-game winning streak to even be considered for a finals appearance.
I'm not sure how many players have signed up for either of the two major tournaments, but from what "Mr. Wizard" Joey Cuellar said on the Wake Up SRK podcast this past weekend, the totals are comparable to what was last year's attendance. So in all reality, we're looking at nearly 1,500 competitors for both games. And the number could be much more.
My analysis below is based off of how past Evolution tournaments have been structured. That is, a "pool" is just a smaller portion of the complete bracket. Then that pool is combined with another pool once its complete, etc. And then in the end the final two play for the title.
An even bracket would need 1,024 players. Add one more round, and it would be 2,048 players. So for the sake of this mathematical analysis because there probably 1,500 players, let's say there are exactly 2,048 players and you're stuck having to play in a play-in game. After repeatedly going through a fake bracket, here is what you'll need to do in order to reach the finals based on the point of when you lose in the tournament (if you lose).
| If you go ... | To reach the finals... |
| 0-1 | 21-0 |
| 1-1 | 19-0 |
| 2-1 | 17-0 |
| 3-1 | 15-0 |
| 4-1 | 13-0 |
| 5-1 | 11-0 |
| 6-1 | 9-0 |
| 7-1 | 7-0 |
| 8-1 | 5-0 |
| 9-1 | 3-0 |
| 10-1 | 1-0 |
| 11-0 | In the finals |
So no matter what, you will need to win at least 12 games to win the title. Be prepared to grind it out.
no comments
My whole plan was to only let you know that I finally put together the interactive chart for the Super Battle Opera qualifying tournament late last night. But something came up this morning related to it, and I'll connect both of them together here.
First off, the Top 6 interactive charts for the SBO tournament includes two extra parts.
Both of them, mostly SNK, received a lot of heat for winning the tournament and thus receiving the qualifying berth to represent the United States at Tougeki later this year. And then, they relinquished the berth to the runners-up, Mike Ross and Ryan "Filipino Champ" Ramirez.
But before they bowed out, the comments were fire. People were giving major love to Latif for carrying the team and questioned SNK's ability. And I totally understand why people were "upset." Never before had I seen a win share differential as big for a team that made the finals. A little more than a year ago, one team made the finals of an Orange County tournament and lost. That team's win share in the Top 8 was .824 and .176, a differential of .648.
Latif's win share was .923. SNK's win share was .076, a difference of .847. That's insane. In looking at my charts, SNK won his first round in the Top 6 and then never won again (and never had a lead at a benchmark). That put immense pressure on Latif and he delivered. His performance was lauded by many. Consider this: In the Top 6, he entered into every match down 1-0. How many of us would win three of the toughest matches in a tournament all starting with a deficit? Latif delivered when he needed to.
Enter Mike Ross.
I thought Mike's idea was truly genius. On the latest Cross Counter episode, he talked about dream matches he would want to see in the After Hours Suite at Evolution 2011. He mentioned getting everyone that thought SNK is/was bad and pitting them against him.
We all have had people doubt us. And I'm sure many of us have wanted to get those people in an arena and smack them around, to prove to them that they're wrong. SNK taking on all comers would be a great showcase at Evolution.
You can see the rest of the latest Cross Counter following the jump:
no comments
First off, the Top 6 interactive charts for the SBO tournament includes two extra parts.
- Averages: Under the percentage tables, there is a red line that shows the average percentages for each category. I added this so you all can tell when a player is above or below average in a certain statistic.
- Win Shares (WS): This is a very important stat in regard to team tournaments. It tells the percentage of total wins that a teammate had compared to his or her opponent. If both players win 2 rounds, then the win share for each player is .500. If one player gets 1 win and his teammate gets 3, then the win share is .250 for one player and .750 for the other. It's a quick way to figure out whether someone did more work for the team than his or her teammate.
Both of them, mostly SNK, received a lot of heat for winning the tournament and thus receiving the qualifying berth to represent the United States at Tougeki later this year. And then, they relinquished the berth to the runners-up, Mike Ross and Ryan "Filipino Champ" Ramirez.
But before they bowed out, the comments were fire. People were giving major love to Latif for carrying the team and questioned SNK's ability. And I totally understand why people were "upset." Never before had I seen a win share differential as big for a team that made the finals. A little more than a year ago, one team made the finals of an Orange County tournament and lost. That team's win share in the Top 8 was .824 and .176, a differential of .648.
Latif's win share was .923. SNK's win share was .076, a difference of .847. That's insane. In looking at my charts, SNK won his first round in the Top 6 and then never won again (and never had a lead at a benchmark). That put immense pressure on Latif and he delivered. His performance was lauded by many. Consider this: In the Top 6, he entered into every match down 1-0. How many of us would win three of the toughest matches in a tournament all starting with a deficit? Latif delivered when he needed to.
Enter Mike Ross.
I thought Mike's idea was truly genius. On the latest Cross Counter episode, he talked about dream matches he would want to see in the After Hours Suite at Evolution 2011. He mentioned getting everyone that thought SNK is/was bad and pitting them against him.
We all have had people doubt us. And I'm sure many of us have wanted to get those people in an arena and smack them around, to prove to them that they're wrong. SNK taking on all comers would be a great showcase at Evolution.
You can see the rest of the latest Cross Counter following the jump:
no comments
Ever watch someone get worked over in a match and wonder why he or she is so fast to get back into the next game? Even though it wasn't the same intensely, ultra competitive game that I cover on this site, I remember at Devastation 2009 losing a round in the Mario Kart Wii finals and pausing for a few moments wondering how unlucky I was. After some self reflection and tape adjustment (which gave me more time to reflect), I started the next race and won it, and the rest is history.
I had more than a minute to think about what happened in my loss and how I could prevent it from happening again.
But what about fighting game competitors? Is it the same way? What goes on in their minds as they compete in championship matches or late-tournament matches that determine whether they get in the money?
The person that comes to mind immediately is retired Smash player DieSuperFly. It seemed like after any loss, no matter who it was to, he would immediately go back to that same stage with the same character and play even more aggressive than in the past round. It was strange because it only worked some of the time. In being more aggressive, he'd take the early lead, but the actual outcome was still in the air.
Watching a lot of DSF matches over the years, I always wondered if he would change that mentality. He was already one of the greatest of all time, but would he be even better with some moments of self-reflection following a loss. We'll never know, now that he has retired.
I also remember East Coast (and sometimes West Coast) player Chu Dat walking around, talking to friends and staring into the ceiling after losses. A couple people told me he once went 30 minutes in between games, which is unreal.
Remember Justin Wong and Daigo Umehara during the Evolution 2009 championship match in Street Fighter IV? Both guys seemed to spend a lot of time in between their losses.
Think about how long you've spent in between games thinking about what just happened to you following a loss. Do you go back right away, or do you give yourself some moments?
I took a look at 84 random incidents in the Evolution 2011 circuit events just to see how time in between games affected the previous loser.
Full disclosure: I started the clock the moment players were able to start the next game or go to the character select screen, and the clock stopped once "Ready" showed up on the screen. Times were rounded up into whole numbers. If a player immediately went to the next game, that incident was counted as 1 second.
Overall, the 84 losers spent 9.17 seconds in between games. Out of those 84 incidents, the loser came back to win the next game only 27 times (.321).
Breaking it down by wins and losses, players that won the next game had only spent 6.78 seconds in between games of their previous loss. Players that lost the next game had spent 10.32 seconds.
Winter Brawl 5 was one of the tournaments I analyzed a little bit further. I captured 11 incidents, and the loser spent 17.45 seconds in between rounds. However, the number is high because of Ryan "Inthul" Burke. He was involved in six of these incidents and spent 25.17 seconds in between rounds, winning only one time.
At Final Round XIV, I captured 27 incidents. Losers spent 11.19 seconds in between games. Players that won the next game had spent 8.3 seconds in between games of their previous loss. Players that lost the next game had spent 12.88 seconds.
Here's a further breakdown by time:
You might want to take a moment to think about your loss. Based on this, don't take that much time.
no comments
I had more than a minute to think about what happened in my loss and how I could prevent it from happening again.
But what about fighting game competitors? Is it the same way? What goes on in their minds as they compete in championship matches or late-tournament matches that determine whether they get in the money?
The person that comes to mind immediately is retired Smash player DieSuperFly. It seemed like after any loss, no matter who it was to, he would immediately go back to that same stage with the same character and play even more aggressive than in the past round. It was strange because it only worked some of the time. In being more aggressive, he'd take the early lead, but the actual outcome was still in the air.
Watching a lot of DSF matches over the years, I always wondered if he would change that mentality. He was already one of the greatest of all time, but would he be even better with some moments of self-reflection following a loss. We'll never know, now that he has retired.
I also remember East Coast (and sometimes West Coast) player Chu Dat walking around, talking to friends and staring into the ceiling after losses. A couple people told me he once went 30 minutes in between games, which is unreal.
Remember Justin Wong and Daigo Umehara during the Evolution 2009 championship match in Street Fighter IV? Both guys seemed to spend a lot of time in between their losses.
Think about how long you've spent in between games thinking about what just happened to you following a loss. Do you go back right away, or do you give yourself some moments?
I took a look at 84 random incidents in the Evolution 2011 circuit events just to see how time in between games affected the previous loser.
Full disclosure: I started the clock the moment players were able to start the next game or go to the character select screen, and the clock stopped once "Ready" showed up on the screen. Times were rounded up into whole numbers. If a player immediately went to the next game, that incident was counted as 1 second.
Overall, the 84 losers spent 9.17 seconds in between games. Out of those 84 incidents, the loser came back to win the next game only 27 times (.321).
Breaking it down by wins and losses, players that won the next game had only spent 6.78 seconds in between games of their previous loss. Players that lost the next game had spent 10.32 seconds.
Winter Brawl 5 was one of the tournaments I analyzed a little bit further. I captured 11 incidents, and the loser spent 17.45 seconds in between rounds. However, the number is high because of Ryan "Inthul" Burke. He was involved in six of these incidents and spent 25.17 seconds in between rounds, winning only one time.
At Final Round XIV, I captured 27 incidents. Losers spent 11.19 seconds in between games. Players that won the next game had spent 8.3 seconds in between games of their previous loss. Players that lost the next game had spent 12.88 seconds.
Here's a further breakdown by time:
| Time | Incidents | Win % |
| 1-3 seconds | 45 | .333 |
| 4-6 seconds | 11 | .636 |
| 7-10 seconds | 9 | .222 |
| +10 seconds | 19 | .158 |
You might want to take a moment to think about your loss. Based on this, don't take that much time.
no comments
For my next act, I'll analyze the win ratio when someone eats pizza prior to a match as opposed to not. OK I'm kidding. I woke up this morning wondering whether getting more combos actually mattered. This is coming off of Poongko's win at Shadowloo Showdown because he uses Seth. While Seth can get in with multiple combos, sometimes it takes just two big smashes to even things up.
So let's look at the numbers, shall we? Based off of those that made the Top 4 at an Evolution 2011 circuit event.
If you had a combo advantage of:
Overall, those that had a combo advantage had a win percentage of .650.
Seems as though things really don't seem to pick up unless someone has two more combos than his or her opponent. And if it gets to a three-combo advantage, then you can fairly much lock up the round to whomever has it.
Full disclosure, there were two incidents of a five-combo advantage and two incidents of a six-combo advantage. Someone actually lost a round after posting five more combos than his opponent, the winner of that distinction is Ricky Ortiz; he fell victim to 801 Strider in that situation in the finals of West Coast Warzone 3.
One more for the combo fiends. Those that shut out their opponent in combos and posted at least one themselves had a win percentage of .720. no comments
So let's look at the numbers, shall we? Based off of those that made the Top 4 at an Evolution 2011 circuit event.
If you had a combo advantage of:
| Total | Amount | Win pct. |
| 1 | 134 | .432 |
| 2 | 102 | .745 |
| 3 | 65 | .908 |
| 4 | 23 | .913 |
| +5 | 4 | .750 |
Overall, those that had a combo advantage had a win percentage of .650.
Seems as though things really don't seem to pick up unless someone has two more combos than his or her opponent. And if it gets to a three-combo advantage, then you can fairly much lock up the round to whomever has it.
Full disclosure, there were two incidents of a five-combo advantage and two incidents of a six-combo advantage. Someone actually lost a round after posting five more combos than his opponent, the winner of that distinction is Ricky Ortiz; he fell victim to 801 Strider in that situation in the finals of West Coast Warzone 3.
One more for the combo fiends. Those that shut out their opponent in combos and posted at least one themselves had a win percentage of .720. no comments
Big thanks to Jeffrey aka G for alerting me to this. On the NeoGAF forums, "dahbomb" broke down character usage in eight major Marvel vs. Capcom 3 championship matches.
And the winner is NOT Phoenix.
It's actually She-Hulk. She has been on four championship-winning teams, and one runner-up team. Wolverine has been on three championship winners and two runners-up. Here's the top five according to the breakdown (bolded number is total, second number is championships, third number is runners-up):
So is there hope that a Phoenix-based team won't win the title at Evolution 2011? Don't count on it, according to dahbomb:
And the winner is NOT Phoenix.
It's actually She-Hulk. She has been on four championship-winning teams, and one runner-up team. Wolverine has been on three championship winners and two runners-up. Here's the top five according to the breakdown (bolded number is total, second number is championships, third number is runners-up):
- SHE HULK 5 (4, 1)
- WOLVERINE 5 (3, 2)
- PHOENIX 4 (2, 2)
- AMATERASU 4 (2, 2)
- SENTINEL 4 (1, 3)
- DORMAMMU 4 (1, 3)
So is there hope that a Phoenix-based team won't win the title at Evolution 2011? Don't count on it, according to dahbomb:
She is a problem and she needs to be solved. The combination of Wolverine as point and Phoenix as anchor has created a new monstrosity for players to deal with. Early X factor usage on a Phoenix team has also created some problems that players are having difficulty dealing with. Tokido is the forerunner of this strategy and he has won every single major he has been in with it.no comments
Phoenix defines the current meta of MVC3. You either have a Phoenix team or you have a really solid anti-Phoenix team/strategy/technology up your sleeve to deal with the problem. The rise of good Phoenix gatekeepers like Wesker/Wolverine makes matters worse where they are pretty much free to do whatever they want and are generally exposed to less punishment because the other player is too busy worrying about Phoenix on deck.
It goes without saying but... expect to see Phoenix at EVO.
Now that the Evolution 2011 circuit events are done, I wanted to take a look at the progression of the tournaments in terms of what I consider the three major offensive stats; first-hit win percentage, first-combo win percentage and closeout percentage. I got this idea from a few basketball stats junkies but most notably Ed Kupfer, who works for the Houston Rockets (go follow him on Twitter).
The idea is to see how the averages in the Top 4 stacked up individually (blue line) and as the circuit events progressed (red line). What I knew already going in was that the numbers, for the most part, were going to be below what is the normal tournament average (green line). The graphs are below, and you can click on each of them to see them in full size.
Here is first-hit win percentage when it comes to the Top 4 of each tournament. Just as a primer, first-hit win percentage is as it sounds; what's the win rate when a player gets the official "first attack?" This includes trades.
As you can see, there are only two tournaments that broke the tournament average: NorCal Regionals 9 and Shadowloo Showdown 2011. It's also interesting how the numbers were low in the majority of the East Coast tournaments.
•••
Here is first-combo win percentage. Just like earlier, what is the win rate when a player gets the first combo? It has to register in the game as a combo.
It's amazing how polarizing this stat tended to be from tournament to tournament. At East Coast Throwdown 3 and Montreal Annual Tournament VIII, getting the first combo meant everything. But at UFGT7, NorCal Regionals 9 and Shadowloo Showdown, it really didn't matter.
•••
Here is closeout percentage. This involves a little bit more of explaining. When a player has the lead and sends his or her opponent to 25 percent health, what is the rate in which they finish off the opponent?
Based on thousands of rounds, the tournament average is .828. As for the Top 4 in the Evolution 2011 circuit events, well let's just say there were more than ample opportunities to rally.
It is notable (I know a lot of you are going to say it is not surprising) how two of the worst three closeout rates were the online tournaments. The closeout rate seemed to improve as the series went on, and I contribute that to the same players continuing to make Top 4.
Shadowloo Showdown's closeout rate was so high because there were only two comebacks in 28 rounds. Poongko, the champion, closed out all 10 rounds in which he had a late lead.
no comments
The idea is to see how the averages in the Top 4 stacked up individually (blue line) and as the circuit events progressed (red line). What I knew already going in was that the numbers, for the most part, were going to be below what is the normal tournament average (green line). The graphs are below, and you can click on each of them to see them in full size.
Here is first-hit win percentage when it comes to the Top 4 of each tournament. Just as a primer, first-hit win percentage is as it sounds; what's the win rate when a player gets the official "first attack?" This includes trades.
As you can see, there are only two tournaments that broke the tournament average: NorCal Regionals 9 and Shadowloo Showdown 2011. It's also interesting how the numbers were low in the majority of the East Coast tournaments.
•••
Here is first-combo win percentage. Just like earlier, what is the win rate when a player gets the first combo? It has to register in the game as a combo.
It's amazing how polarizing this stat tended to be from tournament to tournament. At East Coast Throwdown 3 and Montreal Annual Tournament VIII, getting the first combo meant everything. But at UFGT7, NorCal Regionals 9 and Shadowloo Showdown, it really didn't matter.
•••
Here is closeout percentage. This involves a little bit more of explaining. When a player has the lead and sends his or her opponent to 25 percent health, what is the rate in which they finish off the opponent?
Based on thousands of rounds, the tournament average is .828. As for the Top 4 in the Evolution 2011 circuit events, well let's just say there were more than ample opportunities to rally.
It is notable (I know a lot of you are going to say it is not surprising) how two of the worst three closeout rates were the online tournaments. The closeout rate seemed to improve as the series went on, and I contribute that to the same players continuing to make Top 4.
Shadowloo Showdown's closeout rate was so high because there were only two comebacks in 28 rounds. Poongko, the champion, closed out all 10 rounds in which he had a late lead.
no comments
As mentioned earlier, I am going to be pulling a lot of the stats from the completed Evolution 2011 tournament season. Here's the start of it all.
I looked at the best percentages and the worst percentages from each of the tournaments when it comes to the Top 4. Here's what I consider the most important cumulative stats: first-hit win percentage, first-combo win percentage and closeout rate (success rate when someone has a lead and opponent is sent to 25 percent health)
THE BEST
THE WORST
I looked at the best percentages and the worst percentages from each of the tournaments when it comes to the Top 4. Here's what I consider the most important cumulative stats: first-hit win percentage, first-combo win percentage and closeout rate (success rate when someone has a lead and opponent is sent to 25 percent health)
THE BEST
- First-hit win percentage: NorCal Regionals: .620 (18 for 29)
- First-combo win percentage: East Coast Throwdown 3: .750 (18 for 24)
- Closeout percentage: Shadowloo Showdown 2011: .929 (26 for 28)
THE WORST
- First-hit win percentage: West Coast Warzone 3: .436 (17 for 39)
- First-combo win percentage: Ultimate Fighting Game Tournament 7: .514 (18 for 35)
- Closeout percentage: Evolution Online Tournament PS3: .759 (22 for 29)
This is a four-part series called "The Team Concept," where we explore what has happened in the year since Justin Wong has joined Evil Geniuses. How have players in fighting games been affected by teams and organizations coming into this realm?
MILPITAS — It can't all be roses and sunny skies. As Pac-Man player Billy Mitchell put it, if he's doing well, then someone must be unfortunate. It's the law of averages. We all can't be on teams and be successful. We all can't be on teams and be happy. Even as I was on a team and then as I led one, things weren't 100 percent good times.
Martin "Marn" Phan and Joshua "Wolfkrone" Philpot are two guys that were on organizations but then left for various reasons. They're not the only two that left for the exits. There are others that were signed to teams but then left but haven't make their frustrations public for contract reasons.
In doing this series, Marn and Wolfkrone didn't talk to me on Saturday with a pool of venom ready to unload on people. Instead, they talked about being on a team and why they're living the single life at the time (Wolfkrone joined the Peaceful Jay team days later).
You can listen to the interviews on the link below.
Interviews with Marn and Wolfkrone.
= = =
The Team Concept - The Series
PART 1: The Day That Changed Things
PART 2: Justin Wong's Year
PART 3: On a Team, Then Off a Team
PART 4: Growing a Team
script type="text/javascript" src="http://mediaplayer.yahoo.com/js"> no comments
This is a four-part series called "The Team Concept," where we explore what has happened in the year since Justin Wong has joined Evil Geniuses. How have players in fighting games been affected by teams and organizations coming into this realm?
MILPITAS — Justin Wong seems to be the same type of person on Sunday as he was one year ago prior to signing with Evil Geniuses. He still wins a lot of tournaments and still is the centerpiece of a lot of fighting game talk. He makes history and is part of history. And as I mentioned in the first part of this series, his decision to join the Evil Geniuses has changed the way we look at teams and organizations.
He won the Marvel vs. Capcom 3 tournament at NorCal Regionals 9 this past weekend, breaking the sting that came just a week earlier when he lost to Tokido in the finals at CEO 2011. Following the tournament, I talked to him about his year with Evil Geniuses.
You can listen to the interview below.
Interview with Justin Wong.
= = =
The Team Concept - The Series
PART 1: The Day That Changed Things
PART 2: Justin Wong's Year
PART 3: On a Team, Then Off a Team
PART 4: Growing a Team
script type="text/javascript" src="http://mediaplayer.yahoo.com/js"> no comments
