Board 8 > Contest Stats and Discussion - Part 1272

(+) Yeah! (+)

LeonhartFour posted...

People attempted to rally for it, but that's not really the type of game you can rally for.

UltimaterializerX posted...

LOL x-stats would have never predicted how the 2015 contest played out.

spoilers nobody uses X-Stats to predict everything 100% down the line and nobody thinks they're infallible, even the people who make them (like me)

Is there even a point to using x-stats to make predictions, anymore? we have averaged like 1 contest every other year for a while now and vote totals have gradually dropped overtime to where I wouldn't bother using the 2010 xstats as a guideline to help me fiil in another character bracket.
---

GotD held up very well in the previous games contest outside of rallied matches and spill over from rallied matches.
---

GotD 2010 results were extremely transitive to 2015, barring a few outliers.
---

I will be using my own set of proprietary adjusted unextrapolated extrapolated standings going forward. My new process of unextrapolation will be able to ensure that CT is always at the top of the list.
---

Januzaj_Dragon posted...

Giant2005 posted...

Do you think 98 would have still taken down 92 if Pokemon was in 96 where it belongs?

If you take out OoT and left Pokemon in 98 it would still take out 92 and probably be one of the fav to win it though it would be debatable. People consider Pokemon RBY the 2nd strongest game on this site while others say it's either FF7 or CT. I personally think RBY would beat FF7 and CT 1v1. It's irrelevant as OoT is also a 98 game and that is the obvious and clear #1 game on this site by some distance not including shitty rallies and outside influence.

And 98 is by far the best year in gaming in terms of quality and quantity. So I have no issues of it winning.

It's far from obvious that OoT would've won the last contest on natural strength. Many people think CT was our top game in GameFAQs natural strength.

As for myself, I don't really know, but it's possible CT was #1.

red sox 777 posted...

I will be using my own set of proprietary adjusted unextrapolated extrapolated standings going forward. My new process of unextrapolation will be able to ensure that CT is always at the top of the list.

What in the world is unextrapolated extrapolated? :) Why not just call it unextapolated?

red sox 777 posted...

I will be using my own set of proprietary adjusted unextrapolated extrapolated standings going forward. My new process of unextrapolation will be able to ensure that CT is always at the top of the list.

It already is though! By a lot!
---

creativename posted...

It's far from obvious that OoT would've won the last contest on natural strength. Many people think CT was our top game in GameFAQs natural strength.

As for myself, I don't really know, but it's possible CT was #1.

For the record, I looked closely at CT and OoT in 2015 when making the stats. CT absolutely shredded OoT in every conceivable comparison. Well, shredded by OoT standards - getting 46% on a game when you're OoT is really bad. OoT might have gotten some Nintendo rally or whatever to seal the deal, but in terms of intrinsic strength CT far surpassed it.
---

paulg235 posted...

Is there even a point to using x-stats to make predictions, anymore?

They're still a useful guideline. I wouldn't take them as gospel, of course, but character strengths usually don't vary too wildly year over year, except for weird things like the KHF in 2003 or the Nintendo Boost in 2005, as well as stuff like characters getting new games between contests.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I will be using my own set of proprietary adjusted unextrapolated extrapolated standings going forward. My new process of unextrapolation will be able to ensure that CT is always at the top of the list.

It already is though! By a lot!

Not (projected) to win by enough.
---

also I used the 2008 4-way X-Stats to make Oracle predictions in 2010 and I had the best year in the Oracle I've ever had

good times
---

Man this Cookie guy must be really good. He's at 3rd place in the Guru!

I listen to people talking about x-stats whenever I'm not sure about a pick (as in, "I have no idea what is strongest", not "I'm aware this match is a toss-up").

Usually works.

Wow FFX2 (PS2) is winning against PWAA (NDS) more than I thought it would, FFX2 = Alpha.
---

ME3 > OoT

X-stats are always accurate.

LeonhartFour posted...

also I used the 2008 4-way X-Stats to make Oracle predictions in 2010 and I had the best year in the Oracle I've ever had

good times

Once I started using x-stats in 2003, I dominated in the Oracle and got quite a few #1 picks.

The stats predicted Cloud over Sephiroth with 52%, so if I used them for that match I would've gotten another #1. But I was rooting heavily for Seph so I picked him.

Since then everyone is aware of stats, so it's much harder to get top picks now.

The one time I used stats heavily in my decision making was the last character contest, and I ended up tied for second in Guru as a result.

(Also I forgot FF7 was in the finals of 2004 and not OoT, oops!)
---

The stats are impressively accurate, all things considered. Obviously, when we haven't had a contest of the same type in 5 years, no one should expect pinpoint accuracy. I feel like the 2004 Summer Contest gave the wrong impression, as the 2003 stats predicted it almost perfectly. Basically, use 2003 stats and switch Cloud to Link for the winner and you got more or less a perfect bracket.
---

Well, Link outdoing Cloud's performance on CATS in 2004 would've clued us in that he was back with a vengeance that year.

2004's main problem was all the SFF everywhere making everything ridiculously predictable, except for the people who thought Magus could SFF or rSFF Crono.
---

Giant2005 posted...

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Giant2005 posted...

Is it just me or is this contest starting to look a little rigged?
I mean take 1992 for example, there is no mention of some of the most important games in history.
Like Ultima VII - it pioneered basically everything people loved about Skyrim. Or Virtua Racing which not only pioneered the 3d racing genre, but it is credited with being responsible popularizing 3d in the first place. Those two games are really big deals that were completely ignored - a similar argument could be made for Alone in the Dark pioneering the horror genre, but that is much less significant than the other two omissions.

Ya, I'm sure Ultima 7 and Virtua Racing would have led 1992 to victory over OoT.

It isn't about victory - there are so many 98 fanboys that 98 would probably win regardless. What it is about is having a fair battle.
Also, although it is an unpopular call to make, Ultima Vii is 10x the game that OoT is. Have you ever tried replaying OoT? It can't be done - it is too boring.

I replay OoT (or Master Quest) at least once every 2 years. It is a groundbreaking, outstanding game that defined the 64-bit era. Ultima VII is the 7th Ultima game, a series so garbage, that it turned players off of western RPGs until Morrowind came out.
---

Yuri_LowelI posted...

Keltiq posted...

Ultima VII is definitely a significant game, besides the fact that I've never in my life met somebody who played it. (Which is generally true of PC games that came out before I was born that aren't called "Doom")

However, all the games that ARE listed on 1992 are significant as well - just in a different way. A more important way. They're the games that the "average gamer" is more likely to care about. I think pretty much everybody has some connection to Zelda, or Sonic, or Mario Kart, etc. (Wolfenstein is actually probably the least worthy one there, despite being one of the codifiers of FPS or whatever.)

Everybody has their own games they care about, obviously. But not everybody's interests can be represented simultaneously when you only have room for like six games.

As for OoT, I'd say that it's not a bad game, but it's a "basic" game. All the later 3D Zeldas built on it in some way, so it feels lacking in comparison. Also, whenever I play it I just think "I should play Majora's Mask again" because it's way better and 2000 should have won

Skyward sword and tp are much worse than OoT even now. Basic game argument doesn't work when they didn't build on it enough. Botw is what Zelda should have been going for 10 years ago. That's is the true successor to oots groundbreaking design and vision.

TP had less sidequests than OoT with shitty dark worlds and skyward sword had one of the worst over worlds in a zelda game.

See, I would argue BotW is a huge setback for Zelda. They basically took the Ubisoft open world boilerplate, tacked on a moronic inventory system and an even more insane durability mechanic and slapped the name Zelda on it. I haven't played TP or Skyward Sword, but at least they had dungeons and good game mechanics.

BotW would have been an okay game without the durability stupidity, but as it is, I was extremely disappointed and stopped playing after the first 'dungeon'.
---

Giant2005 posted...

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Giant2005 posted...

Do you think 98 would have still taken down 92 if Pokemon was in 96 where it belongs?

Yes, and 98 would probably still be favored to win the contest. It was a really loaded year.

But is that just a knee-jerk reaction?
ALttP > OoT
Ultima Vii > Baldur's Gate
Wolfenstein 3D > Half-Life
Virtua Racing > Gran Turismo
Alone in the Dark > Resident Evil 2
Dune 2 > Age of Empires

And those are just the direct comparisons. What is left?
Mega Man 4 and 5, Final Fantasy 5, Kirby, Ecco, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario Land 2, Mortal Kombat, Sonic 2, Street Fighter 2 vs MGS, Yoshi, Starcraft, 1080 Snowboarding, Unreal, Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro, NFS 3, FO 2, Grim Fandango, Oddworld

Unless I am forgetting something big about 98, I just don't really see how it would compete with 92 if Pokemon was put in its original release year of 96. Although I could see an argument for 1080 Snowboarding bringing 98 out ahead - 92 really didn't have any sports games to offer.

Bold is where you are so hilariously wrong it hurts. You have just tried to argue your own personal (and also incorrect) opinions over established mainstream support, and more importantly, established GameFAQs pecking order.
---

And to all the people bitching about x-stats, stop being pedantic. They are a tool to be used with common sense, and more often than not, are correct. The most successful people are able to use the x-stats as a guideline, and predict changes/stat adjustments accurately. I relied heavily on the x-stats in GotD, and replaced a few key areas with common sense where the results made no sense (i.e. GSC/Majora) and it won me the Guru that year.
---

Not_Wylvane posted...

The one time I used stats heavily in my decision making was the last character contest, and I ended up tied for second in Guru as a result.

(Also I forgot FF7 was in the finals of 2004 and not OoT, oops!)

That's just it. Favorites brackets always win. Getting in the 95th percentile doesn't mean much.
---

I've checked 168 potential URLs for the match picture and nothing has turned up. Looks like this will be a case where we'll have to wait until the match starts before we can figure out what kind of weird URL format Allen is going to use for the round 3 match pictures.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Favorites brackets always win.

no they don't
---

Link aside, when is it not true?
---

was your 2004 Games Contest bracket a favorites bracket

I don't think Final Fantasy Tactics won that contest

When has it been true? I imagine you're assuming people who picked Draven, Undertale, and L-Block did it as "favorites" brackets, but I don't think any of them ever said "oh I wasn't actually trying to win"
---

There appears to be enough evidence gathered over the years that they often work well; the more interesting question is why they work well.

Presumably they rely on some sort of independence assumption somewhere in the derivation. It would not surprise me if they work well when voters' ranking hierarchy is "reasonably independent" with respect to each other and work poorly otherwise (as would be the case in an overlapping fanbase). That they would be mostly independent is a curiosity in of itself.
---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

And to all the people bitching about x-stats, stop being pedantic. They are a tool to be used with common sense, and more often than not, are correct. The most successful people are able to use the x-stats as a guideline, and predict changes/stat adjustments accurately. I relied heavily on the x-stats in GotD, and replaced a few key areas with common sense where the results made no sense (i.e. GSC/Majora) and it won me the Guru that year.

Is it "people"? Isn't it just Ulti?

LeonhartFour posted...

was your 2004 Games Contest bracket a favorites bracket

I don't think Final Fantasy Tactics won that contest

When has it been true? I imagine you're assuming people who picked Draven, Undertale, and L-Block did it as "favorites" brackets, but I don't think any of them ever said "oh I wasn't actually trying to win"

I made a ton of favorites picks in that contest. FFT > MGS was one of them. I didn't think FFT had a prayer of winning.
---

creativename posted...

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

And to all the people bitching about x-stats, stop being pedantic. They are a tool to be used with common sense, and more often than not, are correct. The most successful people are able to use the x-stats as a guideline, and predict changes/stat adjustments accurately. I relied heavily on the x-stats in GotD, and replaced a few key areas with common sense where the results made no sense (i.e. GSC/Majora) and it won me the Guru that year.

Is it "people"? Isn't it just Ulti?

I see other trolls come up and agree with him from time to time.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

LeonhartFour posted...

was your 2004 Games Contest bracket a favorites bracket

I don't think Final Fantasy Tactics won that contest

When has it been true? I imagine you're assuming people who picked Draven, Undertale, and L-Block did it as "favorites" brackets, but I don't think any of them ever said "oh I wasn't actually trying to win"

I made a ton of favorites picks in that contest. FFT > MGS was one of them. I didn't think FFT had a prayer of winning.

That would explain why you haven't come close to winning a contest since. You managed to luck out in the one contest where we had the least amount of stats going into it, and your brackets have lost ever since.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

LeonhartFour posted...

was your 2004 Games Contest bracket a favorites bracket

I don't think Final Fantasy Tactics won that contest

When has it been true? I imagine you're assuming people who picked Draven, Undertale, and L-Block did it as "favorites" brackets, but I don't think any of them ever said "oh I wasn't actually trying to win"

I made a ton of favorites picks in that contest. FFT > MGS was one of them. I didn't think FFT had a prayer of winning.

FFT lost, so you would have gotten even more points without that prediction.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

I made a ton of favorites picks in that contest.

yeah most people did and still do pick their favorites if they think they have a chance to win

that doesn't make it a favorites bracket
---

Match XXIX – Round 3 – 1995 vs. 2001

Previous Results

1995
Round 1: Defeated 1986, 89.00% - 11.00%
Round 2: Defeated 1987, 52.39% - 47.61%

2001
Round 1: Defeated 2014, 83.17% - 16.83%
Round 2: Defeated 2008, 68.40% - 31.60%

Analysis

Welcome to round 3. Starting from here we will see one match per day. The picture format has also changed slightly with two games or consoles present at once for a total of eight. Despite not being a very deep year 1995 will actually benefit the most from the picture change. This is because its picture from earlier rounds was essentially Chrono Trigger and three games GameFAQs barely played and it clearly showed with 1995 struggling to defeat 1987 last round. Now with more SNES games and possibly the Playstation we get to see 1995’s true strength.

Of course that may not matter because 2001 is an incredibly deep year. Last round it easily doubled 2008, which isn’t exactly a weak year, even if you assume Brawl was SFF by Melee. Outside of 1998 2001 has the deepest pool to dig into. I know Chrono Trigger is a monster, but 1987 did almost win last round. Based on 2015 stats Melee and Final Fantasy X are strong enough to counter Chrono Trigger themselves and while 1995 is getting a better picture draw it isn’t going to be better than 2001.

The only way I can see 1995 threatening would be if consoles matter a lot. The Playstation is probably one of the most popular consoles on GameFAQs and considering no strong games came out for it during that year there will be very little overlap with the other games in the picture. Personally I don’t think consoles will make a huge difference, but if they do 1995 will be the year to benefit the most.

charmander6000’s Bracket: 2001 > 1995

charmander6000’s Prediction: 2001 wins, 58.58% - 41.42%
---

So, of the 4 matches in the next round, which matches have the biggest upset potential?

I would list them (from toss up match to NO chance for an upset) -

1994 > 1991 - I could see this match going either way, especially if consoles make a difference.

1997 > 1996 - FF7 is still a beast (Even if it's not a Top 2 game anymore, it is certainly still Top 5) and I think 1997 has a bit more depth than 1996, which relies mainly on Mario games. But, again, if consoles matter, the N64 could give 1996 the push for an upset.

2001 > 1995 - It's possible Chrono Trigger pulls off a crazy upset, but seems unlikely at this point.

1998 > 2003 - Barring some major shenanigans, the 2003 upset isn't even a possibility.
---

That's sounds about right. 1998 is invincible. 1998 even resists picture sabotage since it's still super strong even if one or two top games are absent. 2001 has an outside chance to lose if the picture is really lopsided in 1995's favour. 1997 is strong but probably has a chance to lose to 1996. 1994 vs 1991 could go either way so I'm not really sure you can even call that an upset.
---

So... I predicted 1998 with 70%. I would have predicted higher if it wasn't for that sleeping pill I took. I wanted to go and change my prediction, but I forgot to make the change the next day... then again, I may not have adjusted it higher after seeing everyone predict such a low percentage. I'm really surprised how low everyone went. In my opinion, 1998 will beat the runner-up with 60%, maybe even as high as 65%.

And, I don't think Chrono Trigger will be much better this round if it's not the first game listed. Everyone's going to want to knock on 1987, but I still say it's pretty strong! ...unless 1995 gets creamed.
---

Wow, only 27.77% had 2003 winning.
---

dang 95 smashing it up
---

this contest
---

You guys and your Chrono Trigger love
---

95 barnstorming out the gate!
---

43_SecretSquirrel35

And this is what I have waited two rounds for. Well, that and user submitted pics.
---

https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/images/byg/r3/1995_l.jpg
https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/images/byg/r3/1995_r.jpg

https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/images/byg/r3/2001_l.jpg
https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/images/byg/r3/2001_r.jpg

So that's the URL format for the Round 3 match pictures. I wasn't expecting 2 sets of match pictures (a left side and right side) for each year.
---

Still no consoles.
---

It really is sad how quickly voting slows down now. We're two minutes in and it's already a trickle. =(
---

Go 1995! Make 1987 look good!
---

Go 95! At least go down swinging!

I don't expect this lead to last but I was expecting 95 to be crushed out of the gate.
---

woot made it on the leaderboard. First time since 2003.
---