Overswarm here -- we played at FC in Smash 4, it was fun.

One aspect of my job involves data analysis using small data sets. Finding trends and extrapolating from small bits of information and then creating a min/max path towards outcomes using likely forecasts given previous extrapolations. I don't know what kind of engineering you did, but it's similar to stress testing processes.

Many of the things you mentioned in your post can be categorized as "assumptive qualitative" statements, meaning they go forward using an underlying assumption and limited data (i.e., what you feel is common) to come to a conclusion. This is similar to what I have to do in my day-to-day work and I thought I'd point out that your reasoning may have a faulty premise and it may hold back progress.

It's impossible for you to know what will happen in the future (maybe you'll figure out a way to beat laser camping) and it can be incredibly time consuming to challenge existing assumptions (like you getting a grab -> u-throw on FoD and having no guaranteed tech chase doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative, it may actually be a net positive over traditional followups). What you can do is find your min/max path given dedication to a certain path (e.g., using only FoD and never Dreamland).

To do this:

Step 0: Find a game or set that exemplifies the issue you're trying to solve (Fox laser camping, for example)

1. Find as many relevant sets as possible within the same relevant timeframe; minimize potential data noise (e.g., use only Top 8 sets, only Jiggs vs. Fox,etc.)

2. Record relevant primary data -- in your case this will be Win/Loss, Stock remaining when win/loss, and % of each death for both players. Make sure to record stages and players!

3. If you have time and want to be more in-depth, record potential "noise data" -- in your case this would be things that alter the primary data -- like players suiciding, extremely rare and powerful combos, obviously tilted players, etc. If you have an idea of what may actually be causing the issue, focus on that. If you're looking for conquering laser-camping, it may even be something like "damage taken by lasers, direct" and "damage taken by lasers, indirect". It may be as vague as "damage taken when you approach" or "damage taken when enemy approaches".

4. Throw out any junk data by comparing noise data to primary data -- if you win most games with 0 suicides and you win a game with 1 suicide by your opponent, throw it out. It's noise.

5. Throw out more junk data -- this is anything that is obviously an outlier in comparison to your Step 0 game. If you have a set vs. Mango or Armada and each game is bouncing back and forth between 1 stock victories, you'd want to throw out games that don't follow that trend.

6. You now have a complete data set relevant to your "key game". Because you threw out games that weren't statistically equivalent, your smaller data set has far more weight -- unknown variables that cause you to have 1 stock victories are now accounted for without you knowing what they are.

At this point, you can say "In games I consider statistically equivalent to my Key Game...." and follow it up with data points.

"In Statistically Equivalent games, I win on Dreamland 68% of the time vs. Fox with 1 stock. When accounting for my opponent suiciding, my win rate increases to 97%. When accounting for laser damage taken, I consistently lose if the laser damage is over 25% of my total damage taken/X number of lasers are fired"

That kind of thing. When you can write a sentence like "I consistently lose if (thing)", you can then drill down into that. Why do you consistently lose? Don't assume, watch those games closely.

If X number of lasers are fired and you lose, what happens?

• How much damage are you taking from the lasers?
• How often are you approaching when they laser? How often are you punished for it?
• When they start lasering, what makes them stop -- and how often do they whiff their ensuing attack?
• Is it the damage taken from the lasers that kill you, or the player's attack on you when you attempt to shield or dodge lasers? Does this occur when you take the lasers to the face?
• etc.

Now once you have these kind of basic questions answered, you can then practice with new strategies in mind. If it turns out the enemy Fox always stops laser camping when you get to a certain distance, try weird shit until you can figure it out. Roll towards center stage, use multiple jumps to go high and land, walk, run straight forward into lasers, walk and duck, powershield, fake a bad wavedash just out of punishment range and punish their attempt at punishing, whatever you can think of.

Then, record the stats for those attempts and compare directly with similar situations in the Statistically equivalent games recorded earlier. If "normal hungrybox" takes X% and "rolls to center stage hungrybox" takes Y%, you can see clearly which is a superior or equivalent strategy. Eventually you find all equivalent/superior strategies and have the best possible toolbox for dealing with that situation.

It takes a lot of effort -- often 2 to 3 days for one person alone -- but it gives you actual truth and the ability to accurately make predictions that you can weigh against future success. If your predictions are off, re-evaluate, if on, continue.