Here are some additional figures which might help convey some of the differences (and similarities) of these masterful 1.17M games. There were some distinct techniques employed in the games that may not be apparent by the final scores or similar level averages. I've added data points for Deans 1.206 to figures 1 and 3 (added a line to Jeremy's running-pace graph) to address some of the discussions around the implications of these games on the 1.2M barrier (specifically on an Arcade Machine). Below the figures, I've added a discussion about why I feel these games were played, in their respective "styles" and why I feel that these games alone are not a good reflection of ones "potential to reach 1.2" which seems to be the hot ticket around here these days
Figures 1 and 2 (and supporting data)
Figure 3 (edited Jeremys' graph)
Figure 1 shows raw level scoring for each of the levels 5-21. This data shows that Robbie had a few drastically higher level scores, specifically towards the beginning of the run and again at the end. Also, there were at least 3 separate times where Robbies' level scores dipped well under the average (and actual low) of Wes' scores. Wes had a slight "pace-trough" towards the end of his game, but his level averages were more consistent throughout, they also steadily rose again over the last 3 levels.
Figure 2 shows the variance of the data set when compared using categorical scoring ranges. The figure shows that Robbie had a much greater variance (and S.D. (standard dev. (
) )), in his level scores. Wes had the highest central tendency and consequently the lowest S.D. The mode of this categorical data set shows that Robbie actually carried a higher "realistic" level scoring by almost 2K/level; he had a few very low levels that brought the average way down.
Figure 3 shows the raw pace for the entire game (death points included). In this figure you can see that both Robbies'- and Deans'-trendlines follow a similar curve, but that the 1.2 game was simply a bigger version of the same curve. Wes' trendline is nearly linear, with a few slight inclines along the way (until the denouement at the end) and does not mirror the other 2 trendlines.
The first thing to consider about these 2 games is that the first game was played with the intention of getting a 1.1M score for the event
and that the 2nd score was achieved in response
to the new Arcade WR. These situations are drastically different with regards to the states of mind (and states of aggression, with regard to playing technique) at the time of their play.
Wes was simply grinding along at a "reasonably safe" 1.1M pace, he had taken his usual warp start of ~125K (and no headaches). It was a game laden with strong risk analysis, a cool temper, and a steadily rising pace as a product of perfect decision making, accessory-screen-efficiency, smooth execution and some decent randomness. Wes has spent many hours in the past months playing at significantly higher paces, even crossing the 800K barrier at or over 1.2M pace a few times. Wes is familiar with playing at 1.2M and VERY comfortable playing at paces below that (Mr. 1.1M first man... how fft.). Anyway, now he's over halfway, on roughly 1.13M pace, with all his men in reserve (remember 1.136 was the current #1 in the tourney) and he realizes that if he can just stay alive to finish the game he can get the 1st place tourney score, the sacs will only be gravy on top. Wes continues on, in his state of Zen, and with a few more good levels as he's closing in on the end, is now primed for a well deserved cash-in and monstrous jump up the top 10. I can't imagine Wes ever expected to get 37+ in sac points, so I doubt he actually thought he was going to break the WR as he played through that game, (let alone a PB that he could potentially walk away from and remain content about), possibly only at the very end, perhaps that helped? The small range of level scores is a direct product of the well-executed play to achieve 1.1M and the tiny S.D. shows how well Wes understands 1.1M scoring.
Robbie's game was played with specific intent; the pace was 1.17+ or bust, there was no other option. This means he had to go for at least a moderate 130ish start, he had to max press every barrel that he could, he should've probably also always used the risky pie factory strategy, collected 3rd prize springs, etc. Robbie got a nicely sized ~135K start (well above the starts on his last pb's) and then was off to the races attempting to maximize every single screen. A few early level scores above 61K were good to build the pace and confidence for this game. He got a lot of strong cooperativity on the pies and few really large levels to help keep his pace up, while buffering the "bad" levels. The run had a few low scoring levels, lower than any of Wes' and a few "screwings", if only of the delaying type. Robbie is also VERY comfortable playing at paces basically right up to 1.15, his last few records have all been roughly on that pace, as well as a few tournament games that didn't go all the way to L=22; comfortable means cruise control, basically. Robbie is also very well adept at playing at 1.2 pace, he's been working on it for months now (the ability to consistently score in that range), for at least as long as Wes. This game was played with intent, with a target score, and possibly most importantly
to reclaim a title that no more than 5 other people have ever held (so who knows what losing it feels like.. (
<luckman> <chien> <copie> ) The reason there was such variance in the level scores for Robbie is because he was playing all out (although that doesn't completely explain the low level outliers), you can't get a 62K+ level if you're not trying for it. This also explains why his line follows a similar path as Deans 1.2 game, it was played with a target score in mind, and is likely why his pace fell so sharply at the end: he simply wanted the record back and the WR bounty
. Had he maintained roughly a 59K average over the last 4 levels he would've gotten close to 1.19, so this game definitely had higher scoring potential than Wes' game. I'm sure Robbie thought there was a chance for 1.2 for at least the first half of the game, but I'd almost think the record was more important to him and he "put it aside".
Wes and Robbie are both beasts at DK (duh).
This game shouldn't be used to judge Wes' potential (or relative readiness) to achieve 1.2M. The games he's played at or over 1.2 pace are those that should be critiqued; Wes has gone to 800K and beyond on 1.2M+ pace multiple times. He can carry a very high level average and has had multiple games with well over 800K on his first man (not at 1.2 pace). If you look at figure 1 you will see that Wes had the lowest S.D. in his data set (compared both to Dean and Robbie), I propose a combination of 3 reasons for this. The first would be favorable randomness in the level sampling, simply getting some decent cooperativity in general. The 2nd would be due to playing at a slightly lower pace, because of a lower inherent risk set, however this doesn't explain the lack of low scoring levels. The final reason, IMO, Wes is so good at "cruising at 1.1M" pace, that his playstyle is buffered against relatively bad levels, or high amounts of risk; that's why he got 3 sacs at 1.1M pace!
. No one will ever get 3 sacs on 1.1M pace when they're playing all out, EVER. That's essentially saying someone is going to achieve their 2nd KS as a first man KS, but it would actually be way way
harder than that hypothetical feat.
When you look at figure 3 you can see that Robbie and Dean had averages that both followed the same general trendline; this is a product of playing for a specific target score. You know the brain is going to get tired, and the favorability isn't going to last, we can't all count on 38+K in sacs
(lo gotems Copie
<3 ) so you frontload as much as possible (start and level average). The playing style that we saw in Robbies' game is similar to the style used by Dean, it shows that he can carry a high level average for a long enough time to hit a target score, even with inevitable "pace deflation" at the end, but Robbie played that way out of necessity to reclaim the bounty and the record. This game goes a good way to show that Robbie has the mental fortitude for 1.2 (and obviously the skills).
There's 4 main factors that go into actually attaining the 1.2 (besides knowing how to score over 60K per level consistently); start, max level scoring, stamina and the "intangibles" (wags lits it i'd reckon, pls come back sir
Starts: Both Robbie and Wes have gotten near or over 140K, Wes actually broke 140K twice. At this point, whether it's the arcade WR or the MAME WR, you're gonna need a big start. Slight advantage Copeland
Max Level Scoring potential: Robbie has gotten a 69.9 and not surprisingly so has Wes, I realize there is some luck in this number, but it's a good indication of how far they're willing to dissect a level for its potential points. Tie.
Stamina: Wes and Robbie have both taken many a game deep without steep pace deflations (specifically in tournament settings and below 1.1M pace). They also both have gone deep on the more "taxing" 1.14ish pace, which requires significantly larger tanks in which to store the mental fortitude. They've both had 600K at the halfway point more than once, and can average high scoring on the 2nd half of the game as well (look at Wes' curve at the end of fig. 1, prior to the sacs), Robbie also has inflated pace at the end of big-league games in the past. Both have gotten to 21-5 on their first man, however Wes has done so at 1.13 pace and Robbie had done it closer to "only" 1.03 (
) . I might give a slight advantage to Wes , simply based on the 1.1M first man vs. 1.03M first man and the inherent difference in skill associated with those massive milestones. (or an outright TIE
Intangibles: Wes has done quite a lot in a very small amount of time. He's developed new strategies for the bottom hammer on barrel boards and has his own unique method of grouping. He has a dedication and training/learning/practice regiment that is essentially unmatched in the current DK scene. Robbie has been around longer and progressed at a relatively slower rate (when compared to Wes, fk who hasn't..). Robbie has always more than shattered the status quo for what could be expected from him, he really turned the page right around qualifying time for KO3, that is when the Lakeman began to evolve into its current form. He has also developed multiple new strategies for increased scoring and safety. Both players have what it takes to stay married to the game, on a micro- and macroscopic scale; to the dedication of repetition with ultimate purpose and to keep ones head in that specific game when things look bleak at best but the points are "there". So.. another tie?
If Wes has a slight advantage on start scores, but Robbie has more games over 1.1M and they're even on Stamina and the Intagibles (although Wes' learning curve has been much steeper to date) then where does that leave us?
From my standpoint, It leaves us with a near dead heat, and any advantage that Robbie may currently have in skill will likely soon be gone as a product of the learning curve and motivation of Wes. So If they both started going 100% today, then Robbie might have the better chance for the next 2 weeks, but at that point its truly a dead heat at best.
Finally I want to discuss why I added the data from Deans 1.2M game to this analysis. To get 1.2M you need to not have bad levels as much as you need to have a solid start and great scoring the whole way; this is achieved with buffering, discussed above regarding Wes' game (and it speaks volumes of Deans mastery of 1.2 pace). The way some may argue that Robbies' version of 1.17 was "superior" to Wes' can be paralleled with the curve of Deans' 1.17 to Robbies' "assault on 1.17", you would see a line that nearly mirrored that of Wes' game,linear, with a higher starting Y-value, indicating the mastery of that specific pace and the required buffering. Wes' trendline showed an absolute mastery of 1.1 pace, just as Deans trendline would show the mastery of 1.17.
When comparing the S.D. of the level scores in the games, it should be noted that both Dean and Robbie had a few scores that really affected the overall range and S.D. (a 68.8 and a 52, respectively). However, the data shows that Wes had the least variance in level scores and Robbie had the greatest. Although Dean had a higher value than Wes, I'd reckon it was mostly a product of the 68.8 outlier, and it shows just how consistent (or well-buffered) your play needs to be for 1.2M. Dean Basically averages the buffering mastery of Wes' game, with a raw scoring average at or above that of Robbies' for the entire game.
The reality is that you need to score at least as good as Robbie did on his best levels, with highly aggressive front-loading strategies and then average roughly another 1.7K per level for the entire game, or you need to not have "pace deflation" over the last few levels of any type. There is no room for low level scores, period. Figure 1 shows the idea of pace "buffering" pretty well, Dean never had a single level below any of the 17 levels played by Wes or Robbie. Although these scores were very large, they still were a long way from 1.2 and trying to compare them to each other or to 1.2 is basically apples to oranges or grapes; they were played with entirely different intent under entirely different circumstances. So basically, you need Robbies scoring mixed with Wes' consistency to make the 1.2 a reality.
I would challenge anyone to reach 600K at the half-way point and then review these games before attempting to provide critiques about the possibility of 1.2 by these players, or on the arcade platform in general. I expect no less than 3 different players with a 1.2M score before all the dust settles, I won't give a timeframe, unless of course the Lakeman decides not to get it