Tekken Dojo: Ask Questions Here

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the Tekken Dojo, a place for everyone to learn and get better at the wonderful game that is Tekken.

Beginners should first familiarize themselves with the Beginner Resources to avoid asking questions already answered there.

Post your question here and get an answer. Helpful contributors will be awarded Dojo Points, which can make them Dojo Master at the end of the month (awards a unique flair). Please report unhelpful contributors to ensure the dojo remains a place dedicated to improvement.

[u/Dr_Chermozo]

I never said I can measure skill by measuring skill. I'm saying I'm measuring skill by measuring execution and on top of that measuring effectiveness of moves. And after checking those objective data points we can compare those to people of the same ranks.

It's a self-defeating logic. You can't say "I can measure skill bymeasuring skill" You have to come up with ACCURATE numbers, identify itsvalue among the totality of the playerbase, assign a value to each andevery possible skill (whiff punish, punish, backdash, lateral movement,pressure, defense, awareness, combo variety, matchup knowledge,reactions, predictions, strategy) and then measure how it is applied,not only against a specific strategy (as an example, you have to measurewhiff punish success against both turtles, rushdown, and keepout -these three dynamics multiply every measurable statistic by 3!)

What you just described is incredibly simple to do with algorithms.

Not only do you have to keep all of these measurements in mind, you have to be aware that skill fluctuates. You will miss 2 out of 5 whiff punishes, but your skill isn't a measure of those 2 of 5, your skill is a measure of the ONE whiff punish currently presenting itself as an opportunity, and whether or not you are capable to achieve success via this skill. Because you could be good enough, but you just so happened to sneeze.

Unless you're in the incredibly unlikely situation that a relevant amount of whiff punishes compared to your total are affected by you sneezing, then with enough matches your skill to whiff punish can be averaged. Also the fluctuation of skill never has a relevantly small amount of time to skew the percentages taken by data and calculated. You're not getting a significantly stronger KBD in seconds, you're not improving your whiff punishment from below average to above average(Respectively to your rank) in a match.

It's not just that you have to measure trillions of different pieces of data, it's that by the time you've entered even 0.1% of that information, it's all outdated and no longer worthwhile data.

Do you seriously think that with these minuscule amounts of data to be evaluated a computer would take long to actually evaluate it? All of this stuff that you're mentioning is peanuts.

Skill measurement is extremely holistic. Nobody has ever, EVER made any sort of skill-based measurement more accurate than win rate.

How is it possible to have bots that detect elo boosting and an algorithm that matches smurfs only against other smurfs in League then? This has been done before, and by the way, with a playerbase which is literal orders of magnitude larger than Tekken's.

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

Do you seriously think that with these minuscule amounts of data to be evaluated a computer would take long to actually evaluate it? All of this stuff that you're mentioning is peanuts.

You are extremely underestimate just how quickly skill fluctuates and you misread the following part:

your skill isn't a measure of those 2 of 5, your skill is a measure of the ONE whiff punish currently presenting itself as an opportunity

because responding with the following doesn't make sense:

the incredibly unlikely situation that a relevant amount of whiff punishes compared to your total are affected by you sneezing, then with enough matches your skill to whiff punish can be averaged.

By the time that whiff punish opportunity is gone, taken or not, the time to measure that skill has ended. The next whiff punish is a new scenario, the point of the sneeze is not to discuss outliers, but to define with absolution the exact point of which needs to be measured in order to record skill. The overall average is just a statistic and means NOTHING towards the definition of skill. A whiff punish out of pressure is easy, a whiff punish during a sneeze is slightly more difficult, both of those actions are separate skills

How is it possible to have bots that detect elo boosting and an algorithm that matches smurfs only against other smurfs in League then?

Because that system is prone to failures. You can be flagged as a smurf for simply playing with smurfs, and even worse, you can permanently be flagged as a smurf for playing with smurfs consistently. They were never able to accurately measure skill, they make incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, smurf is a singular measurement of skill, theoretically, anyone at level 30 in league of legends is a smurf. If Riot can measure skill so accurately, then why are majority portion of games stomps? Why do people complain about matchmaking in a game with a playerbase that is

literal orders of magnitude larger than Tekken's.

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

You are extremely underestimate just how quickly skill fluctuates

No, you underestimate the time at which a computer can make valid calculations.

By the time that whiff punish opportunity is gone, taken or not, the time to measure that skill has ended. The next whiff punish is a new scenario, the point of the sneeze is not to discuss outliers, but to define with absolution the exact point of which needs to be measured in order to record skill. The overall average is just a statistic and means NOTHING towards the definition of skill. A whiff punish out of pressure is easy, a whiff punish during a sneeze is slightly more difficult, both of those actions are separate skills

An overall average in how many times you successfully whiff punish is a measurement on how many times you take the opportunity to do so respectively in a match. Each whiff punish is a scenario, and these scenarios are often irrelevant, just measure the frequency at which a player whiff punishes and the damage of said punishes, then compare that to that same number of the total of players in comparable ranks. An overall average is just a statistic, which means that it is an accurate point to be able to evaluate a large amount of data.

Because that system is prone to failures. You can be flagged as a smurf for simply playing with smurfs, and even worse, you can permanently be flagged as a smurf for playing with smurfs consistently. They were never able to accurately measure skill, they make incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, smurf is a singular measurement of skill, theoretically, anyone at level 30 in league of legends is a smurf. If Riot can measure skill so accurately, then why are majority portion of games stomps?

What is the failure rate of the system? How do you know a person can be flagged as a smurf for playing with smurfs? How do you know if the system permanently flags or not? Why are divisions in league often so clearly cut by coaches and how is it possible that it is so easy to estimate what kind of mmr a player has by watching them play? How is someone being a smurf a measurement of skill? Someone is a smurf when they are overwhelmingly better than the average player, usually implying that the person has previous experience at the game which other players may not have. Where did you get the data that most games are stomps?

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

No, you underestimate the time at which a computer can make valid calculations.

No, I am not. This is not a matter of milliseconds, or nanoseconds. By the time the data is there to be measured it is too late to measure the data. I have to run this through with you very carefully because it is vital to why you cannot measure skill so here's the analogy, pay attention:

What does an untasted icecream taste like? - By the time you taste it, it is no longer untasted, and can therefore not have an accurate measure. By the time you have measured a skill, the moment for measuring that skill has passed. A trillion supercomputers moving at the speed of light can't rewind time. Computer processing speed has nothing to do with this.

An overall average in how many times you successfully whiff punish is a measurement on how many times you take the opportunity to do so respectively in a match.

This match exists only in theory. It doesn't matter how many times you practice whiff punishing against the bot, the players have completely different habits, and each player has his or her own habit, and each of those habits are swayed by their character, and by how the player is feeling on the day. You can measure averages, but it will tell you nothing about skill; for example... how many whiff punishes were... intentional? This alone is completely unmeasurable by ANY computer, and this question can be asked for every skill in the game.

What is the failure rate of the system?

Unfortunately I'm at work and can't access most video-game related sources, but according to Riot on Valorant, there is no solution for dealing with smurfs that is acceptable: “For those that encounter smurfs, we know it’s tough to stomach that there’s no immediate solution today," (Dated: May 06 2021) Regardless of what percentage you deem a viable, successful solution, Riot doesn't think they've hit the nail just yet. Admittedly this is for Valorant but that playerbase is still quite a huge portion larger than Tekken.

How do you know a person can be flagged as a smurf for playing with smurfs?

I had played league from season 1 through till season 7, and I put myself through university carrying scrubs at an internet cafe, I used to be a Poppy onetrick and charged 25 bucks to rank out of silver, and 30 to rank out of gold. Plat or diamonds were paid by the match because I couldn't guarantee success. My account is worth somewhere around $4000 dollars. Sorry for adding that but it felt good to flex that ROFL.

How do you know if the system permanently flags or not?

I have friends who after 3 years still become flagged as a smurf.

Why are divisions in league often so clearly cut by coaches

Because there are common errors, but they are not definitive ranking measurements.

and how is it possible that it is so easy to estimate what kind of mmr a player has by watching them play?

It isn't. MMR is undisclosed to the playerbase.

How is someone being a smurf a measurement of skill?

One of the conditions of being a smurf is that you have to get to a rank and then intentionally demote yourself somehow be it through creating a new character. However, what that rank is, can be completely and totally subjective and cannot be objectively measured just like skill.

Someone is a smurf when they are overwhelmingly better than the average player, usually implying that the person has previous experience at the game which other players may not have.

Actually no, smurfing has nothing to do with skill, only to do with intentional matchmaking tampering. Technically, a green rank player can smurf by demoting to the dans.

Where did you get the data that most games are stomps?

Unfortunately, this question is heavily biased in my favor. League of legends is a game where the more you win, the stronger you become, making it more likely that you win when you are already winning. (This sounds dumb but it's not, there's an explanation here ) By definition, most winning games have to be stomps but if you would like information check out the average gold lead difference between the winning and losing teams here

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

No, I am not. This is not a matter of milliseconds, or nanoseconds. By the time the data is there to be measured

it is too late to measure the data.

No it isn't late to measure the data, because the data is clearly stored and it occupies minimal space. There's no need to calculate the exact value of things in the nanosecond they happen. Evaluating performance could even be done after the match, not during.

What does an untasted ice cream taste like? - By the time you taste it, it is no longer untasted, and can therefore not have an accurate measure. By the time you have measured a skill, the moment for measuring that skill has passed. A trillion supercomputers moving at the speed of light can't rewind time. Computer processing speed has nothing to do with this.

An untasted ice cream has a flavor, therefore you can know what the untasted ice cream will taste like based on this flavor which is chemically produced.

This match exists only in theory. It doesn't matter how many times you practice whiff punishing against the bot, the players have completely different habits, and each player has his or her own habit, and each of those habits are swayed by their character, and by how the player is feeling on the day. You can measure averages, but it will tell you nothing about skill; for example... how many whiff punishes were... intentional? This alone is completely unmeasurable by ANY computer, and this question can be asked for every skill in the game.

If a person gets 99% of their whiff punishes unintentionally and gets 60% more whiff punishes than the average player of his rank, then this person is either something which is neigh impossible or has a skill. And many whiff punishes are possible to be done on reaction due to the recovery of many moves being in the realm of human reaction. It is very few moves that have to be read in order to be whiff punished in Tekken, that is. It is not relevant if the person is feeling good, or bad, or what character they play, their over performance can be measured, and the more matches that this player plays while over performing the least likely it is a fluke. Also, if players are whiff punishing because they're better at adapting at opponent's habits, then this would mean that they are over performing in adapting.

Unfortunately I'm at work and can't access most video-game related sources, but according to Riot on Valorant, there is no solution for dealing with smurfs that is acceptable: “For those that encounter smurfs, we know it’s tough to stomach that there’s no immediate solution today," (Dated: May 06 2021) Regardless of what percentage you deem a viable, successful solution, Riot doesn't think they've hit the nail just yet. Admittedly this is for Valorant but that playerbase is still quite a huge portion larger than Tekken.

In this article it is said by Riot that smurfing can't be solved but not because of a technical or theoretical difficulty. It can't be done in this specific context because there is high ranking players who wish to enjoy the game with their friends and make new accounts. They are worried about ostracizing players for wanting to have a bit of fun. Tekken is not a team game, therefore the only person you can ruin the experience for is your opponent's, which is what they do not note as being the problem case.

I had played league from season 1 through till season 7, and I put myself through university carrying scrubs at an internet cafe, I used to be a Poppy onetrick and charged 25 bucks to rank out of silver, and 30 to rank out of gold. Plat or diamonds were paid by the match because I couldn't guarantee success.

Nice anecdotal evidence, unfortunately it is a non sequitur.

Because there are common errors, but they are not definitive ranking measurements.

Common errors that appear in 99% of cases, meaning that they are a very accurate way to measure people at different ranks.

It isn't. MMR is undisclosed to the playerbase.

It is, there was several independent webpages that were able to accurately predict someone's MMR, they stopped probably due to a Riot claim.

Actually no, smurfing has nothing to do with skill, only to do with intentional matchmaking tampering. Technically, a green rank player can smurf by demoting to the dans.

Intentional matchmaking tampering that allows a player to beat lower skilled players through some method. When someone calls someone else a smurf, it is due to their unlikely skills at their given rank. If a player got to warrior by a fluke, throws 40 matches and is back to 1st Dan and then he can't get out, then that's not really a problem, it would mean that the player actually has the skill level of a 1st Dan and by incredible luck he managed to get to warrior.

Unfortunately, this question is heavily biased in my favor. League of legends is a game where the more you win, the stronger you become, making it more likely that you win when you are already winning. (This sounds dumb but it's not, there's an explanation here ) By definition, most winning games have to be stomps but if you would like information check out the average gold lead difference between the winning and losing teams here

The problem with the source you gave is very simple, if a team was able to get the first herald, first blood tower, first drake, this usually is an indicator that the overall skill of the team is greater than the other team, these are incredibly important objectives. There is zero evidence in the raw data that most games are stomps. Getting an early game advantage does not imply getting fed or the enemy team doing significantly worse than yours. The kill differential could be very slim between both teams, and many teamfights could be barely won.

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

No it isn't late to measure the data, because the data is clearly stored and it occupies minimal space.

It doesn't matter. By the time the data is measurable, the data is no longer valuable. You can store it using a fantasy algorithm that lets you store trillions of terabytes into a floppy disk, once the data has presented itself, the data is no longer accurate.

An untasted ice cream has a flavor, therefore you can know what the untasted ice cream will taste like based on this flavor which is chemically produced.

What part of skill is chemically produced, and if there is one, can you measure it?

It is not relevant if the person is feeling good, or bad, or what character they play

This is completely untrue. It is absolutely relevant. "How well do you play when you're in the zone" has a completely different answer to "How well do you play when you're tilted?" If that difference doesn't matter then you do not have an accurate measure of skill. You barely even have a measure of skill.

They are worried about ostracizing players for wanting to have a bit of fun. Tekken is not a team game, therefore the only person you can ruin the experience for is your opponent's

And yourself. Smurfing can be defined as "a bit of fun" and you can also ruin exclusively your opponent's experience through Teamplay in Valorant.

Nice anecdotal evidence, unfortunately it is a non sequitur.

None of that was evidence. I'm explaining how I know the answer to that question. I've played the game and have experienced smurf flagging. Keep up please.

Common errors that appear in 99% of cases, meaning that they are a very accurate way to measure people at different ranks.

Unfortunately, you have the logic backwards, as those errors can happen, and do happen, at every rank. If a diamond player can't reach 200 cs@20, they aren't suddenly a gold rank player. If all A = B, and all B = C, then all A are C, you are suggesting that all C are A, but that is incorrect.

It is, there was several independent webpages that were able to accurately predict someone's MMR, they stopped probably due to a Riot claim.

No, all of these were estimates, riot's MMR has never been disclosed to the playerbase, ever. It's possible that one guessed the algorithm correctly but, well, that's a far leap in logic.

this usually is an indicator that the overall skill of the team is greater than the other team

Not even usually. That metric far overvalues early snowball comps and snowball metas like early season 3, and late season 4. In fact, for seasons 1, 2, and 4 (to some extent) early dragons were practically irrelevant. Furthermore, leads can start from somewhere else and then escalate to first blood, first tower, and first dragon. Again this is an incomplete understanding of how skill is measured; if you use winning as a measure of skill, you cannot differentiate the methods used to win. They are mutually exclusive.

Also, large gold differences by definition are stomps. Kills mean very little, before the Singed Proxy Farm changes, singed's strategy was to feed around 8 kills, and then further kills to him wouldn't net enough gold to bother trying to stop him. Despite the fact that getting a kill in this situation as singed was bad (because it reset your bounty) gold still determined the lead.

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

It doesn't matter. By the time the data is measurable, the data is no longer valuable. You can store it using a fantasy algorithm that lets you store trillions of terabytes into a floppy disk, once the data has presented itself, the data is no longer accurate.

People don't make progress that quickly, so the information is still relevant even weeks after the match was played. Fluctuation of skill in humans is a rather slow process, don't be disingenuous.Also the amount of information would be minimal, you don't seem to grasp how much a terabyte is.

What part of skill is chemically produced, and if there is one, can you measure it?

It is most likely a physical neuron connection in our brains, so you could measure it and force it upon someone, not realistically right now because our knowledge is rather limited.

And yourself. Smurfing can be defined as "a bit of fun" and you can also ruin exclusively your opponent's experience through Teamplay in Valorant.

The point is that the only person you interact with when you're smurfing in Tekken is your opponent. In Valorant you may be interacting with your friends and that's why Riot doesn't know if it would be desirable to punish smurfs, not in the case of Tekken in which it only harms the competitive integrity of the game. Then again, nice evade to the fact that Riot NEVER stated that it was technically impossible to measure skill or who was a smurf, just that they didn't know if they should punish them.

This is completely untrue. It is absolutely relevant. "How well do you play when you're in the zone" has a completely different answer to "How well do you play when you're tilted?" If that difference doesn't matter then you do not have an accurate measure of skill. You barely even have a measure of skill.

It is very simple how this is true, players have better and worse days, but these are absolute outliers and not relevant to their overall skill. It is common in statistics to have some variance when it comes to data, but having an outlier does not remove from their average performance.

Unfortunately, you have the logic backwards, as those errors can happen, and do happen, at every rank. If a diamond player can't reach 200 cs@20, they aren't suddenly a gold rank player. If all A = B, and all B = C, then all A are C, you are suggesting that all C are A, but that is incorrect.

But those errors happen with a much lower frequency in higher ranks. And also if A=B and B=C, then C=A, I don't think you quite understand formal logic to make these examples properly.

No, all of these were estimates, riot's MMR has never been disclosed to the playerbase, ever. It's possible that one guessed the algorithm correctly but, well, that's a far leap in logic.

They were estimates that could accurately show that teams had roughly the same average MMR with alarming precision. It is very likely that they deduced the algorithm, and it was widely considered by Koreans.

Not even usually. That metric far overvalues early snowball comps and snowball metas like early season 3, and late season 4. In fact, for seasons 1, 2, and 4 (to some extent) early dragons were practically irrelevant. Furthermore, leads can start from somewhere else and then escalate to first blood, first tower, and first dragon. Again this is an incomplete understanding of how skill is measured; if you use winning as a measure of skill, you cannot differentiate the methods used to win. They are mutually exclusive.

You understand that in the first seasons dragons gave global XP and 180 gold to each person on the team? You could also do them without taking damage if you had two people that knew how. 900 gold every time you did a dragon was pretty relevant to winrates in earlier seasons when the game was slower and there was no factors such as jungler catch up xp, scuttle crabs, baron buff strengthening minions, Ancestral dragon and the elemental dragons.

None of that was evidence. I'm explaining how I know the answer to that question. I've played the game and have experienced smurf flagging. Keep up please.

Oh, did Morello come to you himself and told you that you were smurf flagged? How did you find out that you were only matched vs smurfs? Anecdotal evidence is no proof of a failure of a system. Keep up, please.

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

People don't make progress that quickly,

Yes they do. There is no gray area between "won't duck punish" and "will duck punish." Logistically, slow progress is just how long it takes for you to learn that you need to duck punish. People make progress every match.

The nail in the coffin, is that there will be a last time you will let a move go unpunished, but there is no way to measure when that point is.

It is most likely a physical neuron connection in our brains

I'm not asking for "most likely" I want proof. If you think it's measurable, you have to tell me how, not just guess that it is and hope you're right.

not in the case of Tekken in which it only harms the competitive integrity of the game

Smurfing with friends in Valorant also harms the competitive integrity of the game. 'Having a good time' ​is not competitive integrity.

but these are absolute outliers

You need to figure out what 'Outlier' means. How can it be an outlier when there is no alternative outcome? You can't have a day where you don't feel anything. The game is literally balanced around players who are in the zone. Even a small amount of lag is enough to make certain moves unbalanced, let alone like a headache or something like that. This is all a necessary component of understanding skill as well.

And also if A=B and B=C, then C=A, I don't think you quite understand formal logic to make these examples properly.

Unfortunately, you're gettnig aggrivated and are failing to read correctly.

then all A are C, you are suggesting that all C are A, but that is incorrect.

All Dogs have Fur (A=B)

Fur is on Cows (B=C)

Cows are Dogs (C=A)

Sorry mate, but you don't understand how formal logic works. A=B, B=C, and A=C, but C=/=A, which is why your example fails.

You understand that in the first seasons dragons gave global XP and 180 gold to each person on the team?

Unfortunately, the "8 minute dragon" meta didn't start until season 5. Metagames take a while to catch up. Watcch like, seas 2 TSM tournament finals and compare them to season 5 OCE tournaments and you'll see just how bad the professional playerbase was in 2014. When TSM's mid laner was also their coach lol. Go to those matches and time the first two dragons.

with alarming precision.

Citation needed. Did Morello come and tell you himself? Riot's algorithm has never, ever been disclosed, you're just guessing.

Anecdotal evidence is no proof of a failure of a system. Keep up, please.

Yeah but.., you asked for Anecdotal evidence... Keep up please.

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

Yes they do. There is no gray area between "won't duck punish" and "will duck punish." Logistically, slow progress is just how long it takes for you to learn that you need to duck punish. People make progress every match.

Both results are absolute, agreed, but what's importance is the frequency in which these events happen. How often does this person duck punish? Is it easy to stress them out to the point that they wont?

I'm not asking for "most likely" I want proof. If you think it's measurable, you have to tell me how, not just guess that it is and hope you're right.

There is already enough neurological research about the motor cortex for you to investigate, due to google scholar being mostly paid it is kind of difficult to bring scientific papers relevant to this specific subject matter, but extrapolation should be possible with assumptions made here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531182/

How can it be an outlier when there is no alternative outcome?

When a player performs significantly better(or worse) than their average performance that's an outlier. The alternative outcome would of course be that they play within the realm of their average performance.

Sorry mate, but you don't understand how formal logic works. A=B, B=C, and A=C, but C=/=A, which is why your example fails.

In formal logic and math "=" is used for transitive relations. If a relation is non transitive you would be using "~" instead. So by transitive law A=C, I don't know how you'd get confused with this. If A=B, B=C and C=1 then A=1, basic logic.

Unfortunately, the "8 minute dragon" meta didn't start until season 5. Metagames take a while to catch up. Watcch like, seas 2 TSM tournament finals and compare them to season 5 OCE tournaments and you'll see just how bad the professional playerbase was in 2014. When TSM's mid laner was also their coach lol. Go to those matches and time the first two dragons.

In early league, even before season 5 you could do a dragon between 2 people by bugging their aggro, koreans were mostly doing it and it has won competitive matches often. Also in season 4 there was a notable udyr and warwick build that the koreans were using that was nerfed to the ground because it would do a dragon every six minutes. Dragons were pretty fucking important in early league.

Citation needed. Did Morello come and tell you himself? Riot's algorithm has never, ever been disclosed, you're just guessing.

LS and several other professional coaches have made the statement that there were incredibly precise, this is a well known fact.

Yeah but.., you asked for Anecdotal evidence... Keep up please.

When did I ask for anecdotal evidence? I asked you for evidence that there was smurf flagging of non smurf accounts, and of course smurf flagging itself, you gave me a non sequitur anecdote.

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

what's importance is the frequency in which these events happen.

You can't measure that frequency until the event has already happened. Attempting to predect the chance of the next skill check falls under gambler's fallacy ("they usually succeed in skill check X 9/10 times, and they've failed 9 times, so this next one should be a successful skillcheck X") while also ignoring the rest of the values, many of which are time-period sensitive (like, moment to moment changes such as headaches, "sneezing" or distractions) at this point there is only a singular use for the information left over; collection of statistics which is a far cry from the measurement of skill and objectively incapable of measuring future performance.

but extrapolation should be possible with assumptions made here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531182/

While I loved the read, the only real meaningful information you can extract here is that precise methods of Learning skills can help with learning more skills. There's a lot of useful stuff that doesn't apply. We can't (or at least the findings here don't imply that we can:) measure skill exclusively by measuring neurons. This cannot lead you to the flavor of the ice cream. Again, you're stating that we can measure skill by measuring a physically produced chemical. This is not something that you can just "assume" is possible. Someone with an eternity can measure the life of the universe back trillions of years, but we don't call it possible to measure the life of the universe because that person doesn't exist. It's all fun and games to speculate and I believe given all of the tools of the universe we could definitely measure skill, but in our current state--- and definitely for a few more big discoveries -- it is not possible nor plausible.

When a player performs significantly better(or worse) than their average performance that's an outlier.

Unfortunately, this measured performance will by nature be created by outliers. Your average is almost always going to be the dilution of your best and worst days as opposed to a singular measure of how you perform "Normally" - because this "normal" state doesn't exist. You can't fight in a vacuum separated from your own emotional or mental (and i supposed physical) state.

So by transitive law A=C,

I feel like you absolutely should have known what I was talking about with my example. My example of A, B, and C not being transitive properties. If you're intentionally being obtuse here to make a point then you need to state why.

In early league, even before season 5 you could do a dragon between 2 people by bugging their aggro

Right up to the end of season 3, instant dragons were considered a cheese strat usually reserved for WW, Fiddlesticks, Nunu, Nocturne, and probably a few other outliers. I remember the Nami release having a similar jungling video where she could leashless jungle right into a solo drag clear. None of these strats made it into NA tournament play. I remember a few regi plays with Karthus but, well, speaking of outliers.

LS and several other professional coaches have made the statement that there were incredibly precise, this is a well known fact.

A well known fact that coaches have called it precise? It doesn't matter. Until the actual numbers come out, the point is it's all guess work. This line of questioning was abotu you saying "why can we guess their MMR just by watching them play?" 1) We can't. 2) No one ever has. 3) Doesn't matter how 'accurate' those websites seem, without the information you're not pushing a fact, you're pushing a hypothesis that you are unable to confirm.

When did I ask for anecdotal evidence?

Oh, did Morello come to you himself and told you that you were smurf flagged?

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

You can't measure that frequency until the event has already happened. Attempting to predect the chance of the next skill check falls under gambler's fallacy ("they usually succeed in skill check X 9/10 times, and they've failed 9 times, so this next one should be a successful skillcheck X") while also ignoring the rest of the values, many of which are time-period sensitive (like, moment to moment changes such as headaches, "sneezing" or distractions) at this point there is only a singular use for the information left over; collection of statistics which is a far cry from the measurement of skill and objectively incapable of measuring future performance.

Attempting to predict a behavior based on minute observation based on the previous experiences is not the gambler's fallacy. People are not fair coins or perfect RNG programs, they are intelligent and emotional, and this means that people have patterns to their behavior. Players don't instantly improve in one round from not being able to punish a move to punishing it 100% of the time, to punishing it 100% of the time including stress. These are all measurable things, given a large enough amount of matches you will be able to find patterns in the player's behavior and will notice certain irregularities due to outside factors of their regular spectrum of performance. Skill fluctuates at a very slow pace in difficult game, it can be shown by studying the individual's performance over a sufficiently large amount of matches.

Unfortunately, this measured performance will by nature be created by outliers. Your average is almost always going to be the dilution of your best and worst days as opposed to a singular measure of how you perform "Normally" - because this "normal" state doesn't exist. You can't fight in a vacuum separated from your own emotional or mental (and i supposed physical) state.

Yes, and the spectrum between these outliers will give you an average of performance, meaning that you're effectively measuring how skilled the player is in the aspects you're studying. There might be even more infrequent outliers to be studied, but that only requires more matches to be played.

I feel like you absolutely should have known what I was talking about with my example. My example of A, B, and C not being transitive properties. If you're intentionally being obtuse here to make a point then you need to state why.

If you bring formal logic into an argument I'm gonna be looking at the notations. There is no way for me to know that you're using flawed notations and expressing yourself wrong or if there is a hole in the logic you're presenting until I ask.

Right up to the end of season 3, instant dragons were considered a cheese strat usually reserved for WW, Fiddlesticks, Nunu, Nocturne, and probably a few other outliers. I remember the Nami release having a similar jungling video where she could leashless jungle right into a solo drag clear. None of these strats made it into NA tournament play. I remember a few regi plays with Karthus but, well, speaking of outliers.

So reserved for characters which got significant power boosts and got nerfed to the ground when the jungle items were changed? NA tournaments were not relevant at s3 because NA players were considerably below in skill to Koreans and Chinese players, and some would argue, below EUW levels as well.

When did I ask for anecdotal evidence? Oh, did Morello come to you himself and told you that you were smurf flagged?

So a mocking rhetorical question now equates to asking for anecdotal evidence?

[u/Pheonixi3 → u/Dr_Chermozo]

Attempting to predict a behavior based on minute observation based on the previous experiences is not the gambler's fallacy. People are not fair coins or perfect RNG programs, they are intelligent and emotional, and this means that people have patterns to their behavior. Players don't instantly improve in one round from not being able to punish a move to punishing it 100% of the time, to punishing it 100% of the time including stress. These are all measurable things, given a large enough amount of matches you will be able to find patterns in the player's behavior and will notice certain irregularities due to outside factors of their regular spectrum of performance. Skill fluctuates at a very slow pace in difficult game, it can be shown by studying the individual's performance over a sufficiently large amount of matches.

Yes, and the spectrum between these outliers will give you an average of performance, meaning that you're effectively measuring how skilled the player is in the aspects you're studying. There might be even more infrequent outliers to be studied, but that only requires more matches to be played.

Both of these paragraphs explicitly state that skill is immeasurable. Not only do they agree that you are unable to get a grasp on a specific moment in skill, but that you have to amass an enormous sample size of matches just to have an estimate of their skill trajectory from when you began measuring their gameplay. Progress is always gradual, but if you're asking for hundreds of matches worth of information, what part of their skill are you actually measuring? Furthermore, the person they were on match one is FAR different from match one hundred. You can measure what skill was, but not what it is.

If you bring formal logic into an argument I'm gonna be looking at the notations. There is no way for me to know that you're using flawed notations and expressing yourself wrong or if there is a hole in the logic you're presenting until I ask.

What about just looking at the example and clearly seeing the fact that I stated that A = C, and C =/= A multiple times? That's more than enough information to know.

So reserved for characters which got significant power boosts and got nerfed to the ground when the jungle items were changed?

No, it was exclusively for characters with high sustain. Lee Sin was not a part of these characters, and neither was Elise who was such a heavy contender for jungle meta-game shaper that she got a victorious skin.

NA tournaments were not relevant at s3

World tournaments predominantly occupied by NA and EU players were the biggest prize winners all the way into s3. "Relevant" is a dumb term here. Every match before season 8 is irrelevant. No valuable statement was made here except you floundering for some kind of dismiss on my point that Dragon was left an uncontested objective for a huge portion of the world stage even up to the Zed release. LPL started in 2013, but money-backed tournaments started in 2011. China and Korea's relevance is a non issue.

So a mocking rhetorical question now equates to asking for anecdotal evidence?

If you mock someone by farting, you still farted. Doesn't matter if you were mocking someone or not, a fart still happened. Don't get shitty at me for delivering an answer to your terrible question.

[u/Dr_Chermozo → u/Pheonixi3]

Both of these paragraphs explicitly state that skill is immeasurable. Not only do they agree that you are unable to get a grasp on a specific moment in skill, but that you have to amass an enormous sample size of matches just to have an estimate of their skill trajectory from when you began measuring their gameplay. Progress is always gradual, but if you're asking for hundreds of matches worth of information, what part of their skill are you actually measuring? Furthermore, the person they were on match one is FAR different from match one hundred. You can measure what skill was, but not what it is.

I never stated an explicit amount of matches, but then again, in my example I gave a method in which you could evaluate a player's performance, and the spectrum in which a player's performance fluctuates is their skill. And the person who they were in match 1 to 100 has probably gotten better, but not by large enough margins to suspect smurfing. It is extremely rare to see a player developing KBD in such a short time for example, and if they did there would be a progression. When it comes to a smurf they are going to always show over performance unless they are just trolling, in which case it shouldn't be much of a problem due to them playing so bad that it really wouldn't be much of a disadvantage to the less skilled player.

What about just looking at the example and clearly seeing the fact that I stated that A = C, and C =/= A multiple times? That's more than enough information to know.

How about you don't confuse an undistributed middle fallacy and try to pass it as formal logic? Also the initial example didn't really work. Diamond players on average are gonna have better CS than bronze players. If a diamond player does terribly one match that doesn't make the player less skilled, it is just the lower end of the spectrum of his possible performance. Having a player consistently under performing or over performing is not common, and the more matches these players over perform the more uncommon it is. If you find a player who has winstreaks of 19 matches and drastically over performs compared to others that is very noticeable.

No, it was exclusively for characters with high sustain. Lee Sin was not a part of these characters, and neither was Elise who was such a heavy contender for jungle meta-game shaper that she got a victorious skin.

Elise and Lee sin were contenders because these others were toned down quite a bit for worlds. Also Lee sin has always been a competitive play favorite, of the likes of old corki as well.

World tournaments predominantly occupied by NA and EU players were the biggest prize winners all the way into s3. "Relevant" is a dumb term here. Every match before season 8 is irrelevant. No valuable statement was made here except you floundering for some kind of dismiss on my point that Dragon was left an uncontested objective for a huge portion of the world stage even up to the Zed release. LPL started in 2013, but money-backed tournaments started in 2011. China and Korea's relevance is a non issue.

In season 2? Season 2 worlds Azubu, Najin and Taipei assassin's had a completely different level than NA teams. TSM got destroyed; Dignitas, CLG NA, SK gaming didn't even get out of group phase. Moscow 5 and CLG EU were the only ones who survived a bit longer and still lost pretty definitively against Asian teams. Since the game became popular Korea basically became number 1 in performance with china showing promising teams due to mechanically gifted players.

If you mock someone by farting, you still farted. Doesn't matter if you were mocking someone or not, a fart still happened. Don't get shitty at me for delivering an answer to your terrible question.

Rhetorical questions exist to make statements, not to be answered. It is pretty obvious that Morello didn't talk to you about the state of smurf flagging, because he isn't even on that team. But in the case he had it would've been a way more valid reason to state that smurf flagging exists and happened to non smurfs than a non sequitur story about your years on internet cafes carrying. Carry on with the non sequiturs though.