Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[bobson]

All debates are about winning. Nobody debates to lose or just for the sake of debating.

Debates are about finding the truth or at least a compromise each party can agree on. If either side is only focused on winning, it's absolutely meaningless and no conclusion can ever be reached.

 

[Sky`]

Throwing out the exact details of this graph (And attempting to haul the thread roughly back on topic. Hah, I crack myself up sometimes...) it seems like it could be realistic.

There may be some characters that perform at nearly a flat line level compared to others -- if you play a bad X, a bad Y will beat you. If you play a perfect X, a perfect Y will still beat you.

But what if the character has a number of odd techniques? Say, Yoshi. So they'll start off about even with the characters that don't have powerful kill moves (Face it, bad players do best with the characters that have one or two really obvious, usable power hits). But then middle skill he'll start to suffer, as people figure out the better characters. His line is likely to actually drop here (At least in relation to everyone else), because his weaknesses will start to be exposed and the players won't be good enough to handle them. Then you get to a good level, and start using pivot grabs, his pseudo wavedash, etc. and suddenly his line jumps up a ways as he can handle matchups that he couldn't when he just charged into things. But it ends there -- going to perfectly played doesn't really unlock more for him, so he'd stay about the same or drop a little as other characters gained the ability to work around his odd behaviors.

Why is this argument fixated so much on one example and/or saying it's not even realistic that a character's line can jump that way, instead of even looking at how it might work out? It seems like it would be an interesting thing to have if possible (Of course, it's not likely to be realistically possible -- we can barely agree on matchups, and this is even more complex)

See, people seem to forget, that matchups in terms of Character VS Character aren't concrete. I say this, because as levels change, so do the matchups.

Peach, at rest, has no unwinnable matchups. The worst she has, is 40-60, and she has maybe two of those. So it seems like she can win tournaments just fine, right?

Wrong. She does not perform "well" On any of the neutrals, (Except Battlefield) and even then, there's a character higher than her on the tier list that performs much better than her on any given neutral.

EX: ROB Vs Peach in my opinion, is in Peaches favor, 55-45. However, ROB vs Peach on FD switches, from 55-45 to 40-60. Why? Peach has some very good projectiles, but nothing that can reach ROB. Rob's projectiles all have a horizontal trajectory, which makes FD like a Playground to him. Not only can he out camp Peach, but he can also keep her at bay, the entire match. It becomes a death trap, especially considering that Killing ROB becomes very tedious. Peaches are used to toading those Nairs when they come back from the stage, or those nice Usmashes, but those don't happen as often on FD. It's just a much harder matchup for her on that level.

I think that's what defines D tier and below. So many disadvantages on different levels with different characters that the other player is going to exploit to win. =/

However, I'd like to state, that because the Tier list isn't concrete, it's really hard to say who's in that D tier or not. I think that ZSS is going to move up, making her semi-Viable for tournaments.

But if you ask me, there are only 4 characters out of the whole cast who can just flat out do it alone, with no question, and those are as follows.
MK
Snake
Falco
Wario.

Beyond that, making it alone becomes a chore. That's why picking up a sub is suggested for Tiers like A and B and C. They can probably do it alone, that's why it's just suggested. But for D tier and below, there's just no way that you're winning it alone. =/

(Yeah, I understand that Wario isn't in a high tier yet, but he will shift soon.)

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, much though I love your constant arrogance, stubborness, and complete disregard for the opinions of others, it's about time you stopped doing this sort of thing. If you want debates, I do believe that there is a WHOLE SUB-BOARD for that sort of thing, where you and your friends can debate each other on logic for days.

So absolutely no debate can be held outside of the Debate Hall? I didn't know that!

However, at this moment, all you are doing is causing more trouble and butthurt than the most skilled of trolls. You do not contribute to a thread, all you do is derail and lengthen it considerably.

Only because people have skin the thickness of blueberry skin. Please read my posts aimed towards people against whom I have yet to debate (either in the thread or on the boards in general). They were quite tame and actually very nice.

It's only after numerous encounters that I give up hope on someone and drop the whole "Let's stay overly nice in order to not upset people"-facade and even then I stay civil. There is only butthurt because some people think that statements such as "Your facts are flawed" are ad hominems and flames and overreact.

Yuna. This **** needs to stop happening. I don't care if you think it's wrong and it's flawed beyond belief, but I have to say, you're NOT HELPING.

I'm helping plenty. Most debates I participate in, I'm the driving force behind. Why? Because a lot of people just ignore the opposing side when they cannot refute their posts. With me, they get so mad they can't ignore me.

If you want to debate somebody so much about a topic which you hold dear, again, just go over to that little sub-board and enjoy yourself.

Please show me where it says that the Tactical Boards are not for debates, ever.

But not here.

Who died and made you dictator of the rules of the Tactical Boards?

Yuna, what ever happened to debating being geared more toward truth-seeking, rather than just winning/competing?

Ah, but seeking the truth is implied. We assume we know the truth and therefore we debate to win because if we win, the truth wins!

However, debates can be about seeking the truth when neither side is sure of what the truth is, sure. But most debates are about winning. Very few debates, neither here on SWF or in the real world, are about two sides, neither of which believe they know the truth, trying to seek out the truth together.

However, it is the reason that we nitpick that really makes me question why.

I do to because I seek the truth. Either I know I know the truth or I at least believe I do and try to prove it to the opposition by picking apart their arguments or I debate subjects which i admit to knowing very little about and wait for the opposition to try to prove their standpoint (at which point I will concede) or admit defeat to my logic alone (which happens) despite my insight because they just cannot build good enough arguments (this would be one of those pesky truth-seeking debates).

Rather than nitpick to correct errors in each others' words for the sake of truth-seeking, we do it solely to win, to leave a "haha you're wrong and stupid, and I'm not!" impression, if you will.

Why can it not be both? If I prove the opposition wrong, I win and my truth will be established as the truth. If the opposition can prove me wrong, they will prove me wrong and their truth will be established as the truth. On smaller scales, if I prove the opposition wrong on selective points or vice versa, we will have sought out the truth as well.

We're both doing it to win and seeking out the truth. If I was right all along, yay me. If I was wrong, I will learn something new. I will not have a taste of the sweet, sweet taste of man jui... I mean victory, but a truth will have been established nonetheless.

Why can't it be both?

So yes, the actions and words are not what I question, but rather the intent behind them. Why?

Just as my posts are layered with traps, my reasons for debating are numerous. I'm also great at coordination and multitasking.

It can be to simply win a debate, to help the community along (such as in cases of cries for bans and the spreading of misinformation) or simply to play Devil's Advocate and force people to use better arguments (there was this one debate about Steet Fighter III: 3rd Strike on this very board (don't ask me how it came up) where I readily admitted to having almost no insight into the game's tiers, but where I nonetheless could pick apart one side's arguments and force them to use better ones).

Debates are about finding the truth or at least a compromise each party can agree on. If either side is only focused on winning, it's absolutely meaningless and no conclusion can ever be reached.

I never said debates were only about winning.

 

[Eddie G]

I see, your honesty is all that I required. Thank you for shedding some light on your intents of debating for me.

 

[Sky`]

I know where this is going next.
"BUT U JUST SAID "Debate are about winning." U CONTRADICTED UR SELF!"

And then you're going to point out that you were just generalizing, and you didn't specify each aspect of debating. And you even included in your next post, th eword, "Only"

And yadda yadda yadda. Lets skip that. xD

 

[SaltyKracka]

So absolutely no debate can be held outside of the Debate Hall? I didn't know that!

There's a lot you don't know.

Only because people have skin the thickness of blueberry skin. Please read my posts aimed towards people against whom I have yet to debate (either in the thread or on the boards in general). They were quite tame and actually very nice.

Yuna, if I hadn't been reading this thread for the past few days, I wouldn't be able to follow at all. You tend to generate streched pages, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's only after numerous encounters that I give up hope on someone and drop the whole "Let's stay overly nice in order to not upset people"-facade and even then I stay civil. There is only butthurt because some people think that statements such as "Your facts are flawed" are ad hominems and flames and overreact.

Yuna, one of the things about claiming somebody's facts are flawed is that you have to PROVE them so, otherwise it's an attack on their integrity.

I'm helping plenty. Most debates I participate in, I'm the driving force behind. Why? Because a lot of people just ignore the opposing side when they cannot refute their posts. With me, they get so mad they can't ignore me.

You help plenty WHEN there is already a debate. There was not one here, and you began it, when you could just have easily have done it on the Peach boards, where it would have fitted much better.

Please show me where it says that the Tactical Boards are not for debates, ever.

There is a difference between saying that there is a much better place for debates then here, and saying that there can be no debates here.

Who died and made you dictator of the rules of the Tactical Boards?

That was an appeal. It may not have ended in any of the polite phrases you seem to disdain, but it was an appeal.

 

[Eddie G]

I know where this is going next.
"BUT U JUST SAID "Debate are about winning." U CONTRADICTED UR SELF!"

And then you're going to point out that you were just generalizing, and you didn't specify each aspect of debating. And you even included in your next post, th eword, "Only"

And yadda yadda yadda. Lets skip that. xD

No U Sky`. XD

Nah, I take his word for it. If anything, I know how it is to say one thing when you mean something totally different. I can't assume anything based on what he initially said.

 

[salaboB]

See, people seem to forget, that matchups in terms of Character VS Character aren't concrete. I say this, because as levels change, so do the matchups.

Right, but ability to take advantage of those matchups tends to be at certain levels.

A Peach player that can't take advantage of her tricks will not do nearly so well in any of her matchups as one that can. So wherever the skill level that those kick in at will be a jump for her. And then another jump where those become so ingrained into the playing that they can be used for mindgames without having to plan to do them (Which leads to a greater chance of predictability) as they get up to that level. I'd say bad is before you get any of the ATs, okay-well is starting to use them but still having to think about what you're doing, amazing has them as mindgames, and perfect provides no significant advantage to the Peach player -- other characters will outstrip her as their players become familiar enough to overcome anything she can try against her bad matchups.

So while a given matchup may have one character well over another, general "What can you do with this character?" can be charted against the entire cast.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, one of the things about claiming somebody's facts are flawed is that you have to PROVE them so, otherwise it's an attack on their integrity.

I do?

You help plenty WHEN there is already a debate. There was not one here, and you began it, when you could just have easily have done it on the Peach boards, where it would have fitted much better.

Ah, but that's another thing entirely. This thread was means to illustrate a concept. I proved that concept total baloney pages back (no one fought me on it) and all that remained was the debate of whether or not Peach was viable.

All I did was state that the OP's concept was bogus and that the graph was misleading because it implied Peach was viable. Other people chose to debate that she was, in fact, viable. I did not start the debate on Peach's viability (on purpose).

There is a difference between saying that there is a much better place for debates then here, and saying that there can be no debates here.

You specifically told me to get out of this forum section and go to the Debate Hall. That is implying I should not debate on the Tactical boards.

That was an appeal. It may not have ended in any of the polite phrases you seem to disdain, but it was an appeal.

Still, you worded it wrong. If you indeed meant to appeal for me to not start unnecessary debates in threads that do not call for debates.

I do this sometimes (rarely) because sometimes people will perpetuate untruths and I don't want those untruths to spread further so I have to counter-argue them. But that's very rare. You said that I was "not helping" and to go to the "debate hall".

It was perfectly acceptable for me to interpret this as you telling me to stop debating on the Tactical boards.

 

[Sky`]

Right, but ability to take advantage of those matchups tends to be at certain levels.

A Peach player that can't take advantage of her tricks will not do nearly so well in any of her matchups as one that can. So wherever the skill level that those kick in at will be a jump for her. And then another jump where those become so ingrained into the playing that they can be used for mindgames without having to plan to do them (Which leads to a greater chance of predictability) as they get up to that level. I'd say bad is before you get any of the ATs, okay-well is starting to use them but still having to think about what you're doing, amazing has them as mindgames, and perfect provides no significant advantage to the Peach player -- other characters will outstrip her as their players become familiar enough to overcome anything she can try against her bad matchups.

So while a given matchup may have one character well over another, general "What can you do with this character?" can be charted against the entire cast.

And that's just why she's currently D tier.

Because her AT's consist of the same things you see from everybody else. The only thing that she has, beyond Wavepulling, is Turnip Canceling. Though useful, they are not match breaking. And her AT's are then checkmated by the AT's of others. Her glidetossing is put to shame by a large quantity of those who can Glide toss. Stuff like that.

I've beaten some of the best top tiers in my region. And it gets to a point where her petty AT's are just laughed at, when you try to apply them.

It's just an intense match for Peach, all the time.

Maybe one day, she'll move up to C tier. I'll be the one to do it, if that's the case,
But as it stands now, as it stands in terms of what we know of this game, and what we know of her, she doesn't stand a chance at a regional. Winning, that is.

 

[Brinzy]

No, you couldn't be more mistaken. Also, how is your silly little comparison between me and "some nobody-writer from Montana" even supposed to relate to what I'm trying to say? Or are you trying to be Yuna Jr. and reel me in with your "logical insight" and a topping of insult?

Are these oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game not just mere squabbles or continuous instances of one person trying to one-up another? Am I wrong to view these as such? Please, elaborate on your point a little further for me, seeing as you were quick to jump the gun on this.

First, do not refer to me as "Yuna Jr." I haven't called you "<insert myriad of posters who continuously say silly things> Jr."

My "silly comparison" is that you're someone who is on the outside of everything and trying to sit on a pedestal and look down upon the little people by posting something like, "lol, this is squabbling", when you're not saying anything decent yourself, thus adding to the squabbling that you're mocking. That's what nobody-writers tend to do. That's what you're doing.

You further proved my point with the way you're going on about "oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game." Who cares if it's about a video game? You're making it sound like we do this for a living. This thread is discussing something that deals with character/player skill relationship when it comes to tournaments... which involve money. It's an important thing to "squabble" about because this attempted to show that someone playing at a certain level of play with a certain character/tier has a certain chance at winning.

If the fact that we're discussing something that involves a, dare I say it, video game bothers you so much on a site dedicated to a certain video game series, why the hell are you on it? Try to not sound like you're on a pedestal when/if you respond to me.

Debates are about finding the truth or at least a compromise each party can agree on. If either side is only focused on winning, it's absolutely meaningless and no conclusion can ever be reached.

Compromise = partial-win

Finding the truth = win (and most important)

Debating = winning (but it isn't the whole thing, as the truth is obviously the important part)

 

[Sky`]

First, do not refer to me as "Yuna Jr." I haven't called you "<insert myriad of posters who continuously say silly things> Jr."

My "silly comparison" is that you're someone who is on the outside of everything and trying to sit on a pedestal and look down upon the little people by posting something like, "lol, this is squabbling", when you're not saying anything decent yourself, thus adding to the squabbling that you're mocking. That's what nobody-writers tend to do. That's what you're doing.

You further proved my point with the way you're going on about "oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game." Who cares if it's about a video game? You're making it sound like we do this for a living. This thread is discussing something that deals with character/player skill relationship when it comes to tournaments... which involve money. It's an important thing to "squabble" about because this attempted to show that someone playing at a certain level of play with a certain character/tier has a certain chance at winning.

If the fact that we're discussing something that involves a, dare I say it, video game bothers you so much on a site dedicated to a certain video game series, why the hell are you on it? Try to not sound like you're on a pedestal when/if you respond to me.



Compromise = partial-win

Finding the truth = win (and most important)

Debating = winning (but it isn't the whole thing, as the truth is obviously the important part)

Oh.

Wow.

O_o

 

[bobson]

Finding the truth = win (and most important)

You can lose a debate and still find the truth. You can win a debate and still be wrong.

 

[Brinzy]

In philosophy, things are debated to find truth. In many cases, you read excerpts from contemporary times about the same argument, and both sides, at one point or another, "out-debate" their opponent. The truth, when it is found, drops in the barrel because it is no longer something that needs to be debated for the time being, unless something new occurs.

If you "win" a debate, you still may be wrong with the truth (as you said, which I can agree with). However, debating also promotes the search of the truth, and once it is found, things solidify. That is why I said "debating = winning", because it'll ultimately lead to the truth, unless 1) no human can ever know, or 2) people who debate just go, "Ok, you win, let's not talk about it anymore and sit idly by without ever really knowing."

 

[Levitas]

If the person who's wrong wins the debate, then the person who's right is doing a crappy job.

 

[Brinzy]

Exactly. That is why debate is encouraged so someone who is right and can do a good job at proving the truth can come along.

"Squabbling" is not a smart way to put it.

 

[bobson]

That is why I said "debating = winning", because it'll ultimately lead to the truth, unless 1) no human can ever know, or 2) people who debate just go, "Ok, you win, let's not talk about it anymore and sit idly by without ever really knowing."

Or 3) both sides are partially right but refuse to acknowledge each other's points because they would lose the debate, or 4) both sides are just plain wrong or cannot be right (in the case of highly subjective arguments) yet continue to argue because they need to win the debate.
A lot of debates go down these paths.

If the person who's wrong wins the debate, then the person who's right is doing a crappy job.

It's not hard to lose a debate while being right if the majority of the people involved in it have already decided their stance. Compare walking into a Klan meeting and debating that blacks have the same worth as whites.

 

[Brinzy]

Or 3) both sides are partially right but refuse to acknowledge each other's points because they would lose the debate, or 4) both sides are just plain wrong or cannot be right (in the case of highly subjective arguments) yet continue to argue because they need to win the debate.
A lot of debates go down these paths.

3) If someone refuses to acknowledge the other side's good points, then they are not good at debating, are they? If what I say is true in that finding the truth is a better victory than a debate is, then why would it matter if you lost a debate, so long as you really have the truth? People don't always think this way, so yeah, in an imperfect world, what you say holds true, but assuming we're talking about good debating, this shouldn't be a big issue.

4) If both sides are wrong (which is rarely the case in an "is vs. isn't" debate), then sure, you're correct. A lot of debates have a right side. Sure, if you and I debated about a mathematical concept found in graduate-level math, it is likely that we'd both be wrong, but that's not the type of debate we're in. Our debate wouldn't even happen because there would be a side that says, "Hey, it's like this and it is proven." We're talking about something that can be understood well enough to the point where people can take a side and argue it without being completely ignorant about the subject. There really are only two sides to any given discussion going on in this thread.


Also, while you're correct in that a lot of debates fail to deliver the truth or a way to the truth, the debates that get people who can effectively argue their side are really the important ones to consider.

 

[SaltyKracka]

I do?

Very funny.

Ah, but that's another thing entirely. This thread was means to illustrate a concept. I proved that concept total baloney pages back (no one fought me on it) and all that remained was the debate of whether or not Peach was viable.

I would say that it's not the concept is baloney so much as Edreeses' graph was totally wrong and criminally exaggerated.

All I did was state that the OP's concept was bogus and that the graph was misleading because it implied Peach was viable. Other people chose to debate that she was, in fact, viable. I did not start the debate on Peach's viability (on purpose).

A debate which you COULD have simply stopped here and moved to a thread in the Peach boards, eh?

You specifically told me to get out of this forum section and go to the Debate Hall. That is implying I should not debate on the Tactical boards.

You shouldn't. This is not to say you won't, but you shouldn't indulge in your debates here.

Still, you worded it wrong. If you indeed meant to appeal for me to not start unnecessary debates in threads that do not call for debates.

Such as this one.

I do this sometimes (rarely) because sometimes people will perpetuate untruths and I don't want those untruths to spread further so I have to counter-argue them. But that's very rare. You said that I was "not helping" and to go to the "debate hall".

And why not? It's very simple to say to people that you will continue this elsewhere.

It was perfectly acceptable for me to interpret this as you telling me to stop debating on the Tactical boards.

Asking you. But whatever. Just think before you do it next time, K'?

 

[JigglyZelda003]

@Saltykracka
but wouldn't it be better to discuss here anyway so lots of other people not just peachs see it mainly? i mean how often do you go to the peach boards?

 

[Eddie G]

First, do not refer to me as "Yuna Jr." I haven't called you "<insert myriad of posters who continuously say silly things> Jr."

My "silly comparison" is that you're someone who is on the outside of everything and trying to sit on a pedestal and look down upon the little people by posting something like, "lol, this is squabbling", when you're not saying anything decent yourself, thus adding to the squabbling that you're mocking. That's what nobody-writers tend to do. That's what you're doing.

You further proved my point with the way you're going on about "oh-so-important SWF arguments about a video game." Who cares if it's about a video game? You're making it sound like we do this for a living. This thread is discussing something that deals with character/player skill relationship when it comes to tournaments... which involve money. It's an important thing to "squabble" about because this attempted to show that someone

Think what you will. There's no point in me trying to further prove why I say what I say, and from where I stand (which is not a position looking down upon others or belittling them, despite my use of the word "squabbling"); Because if I do, there will be further nitpicking at my posts, and that is what I refer to as "squabbling". Your judgments about me and my intentions are mislead.

Think of where I stand as a Socratic way of thinking, not necessarily standing on a pedestal looking down upon the people I speak to, but continuously questioning that which has been established as is. So in saying that, I'm not here to belittle anyone, but rather question the ever-occurring sequences of nitpicking and bickering that often derail a topic. It's no wonder the man was put to death I suppose. Carry on how you wish, but I will say this again...your judgments about me, regardless of the initial impression I have left you, are wrong.

 

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

...does this happen all the time? You're all so off topic...you guys wouldn't last 5 minutes at the Sonic Boards...

So yea, Peach viablity. Meh. Atm I don't think she can win any major tournaments but things may change. I'm not really one to make such huge judgements as my knowledge is pretty limited when it comes to the tourney scene

I reckon she could do well and maybe even win because there isn't anything 'anti Peach' out there like the infinite CG characters like DK suffer from. On the other hand though, because most of her match ups require her to work harder, in a tourney with a high concentration of skill, she isn't going to be winning

 

[Eddie G]

...does this happen all the time? You're all so off topic...you guys wouldn't last 5 minutes at the Sonic Boards...

So yea, Peach viablity. Meh. Atm I don't think she can win any major tournaments but things may change. I'm not really one to make such huge judgements as my knowledge is pretty limited when it comes to the tourney scene

I reckon she could do well and maybe even win because there isn't anything 'anti Peach' out there like the infinite CG characters like DK suffer from. On the other hand though, because most of her match ups require her to work harder, in a tourney with a high concentration of skill, she isn't going to be winning

^ This right here.

This is the established truth right now, Peach will not win any major tournaments...alone. However, like anything else, this is subject to change, stay the same, or get worse later on. Well said.

<3 you Rickerdy

 

[SaltyKracka]

@Saltykracka
but wouldn't it be better to discuss here anyway so lots of other people not just peachs see it mainly? i mean how often do you go to the peach boards?

Exactly my point. This whole debate began as an argument over Peach's viability, and it should have ended there. Instead, thanks to some careless remarks by Yuna, everybody's arguing about who said what, and who's right and who's wrong, and other things not related to the OP in the slightest. It's really rather silly how it just ballooned.

 

[DrGonzoPhD]

I guess you could say that some characters simply "plateau" earlier than others (a lower tier character) when it comes to their built-in attributes, and a player must be at a very high skill level in order to overcome that. I always figured this was a well-known aspect of Smash and fighting games in general.

 

[Sky`]

Peach is not that great of a character, there aren't any if, ands, or buts about it.

/end.

 

[GodAtHand]

*Jumps in and goes what could be even more off-topic*

Someone should make a chart like that for Zelda/Sheik. You would need like... a million different lines. One for just Zelda bad through perfect, one for just sheik bad through perfect. And then a bunch for every combination of the two like Perfect Zelda/Bad Sheik and etc.

Someone get to it!

 

[Natch]

Oh man. Thats not something you say in public.

But...but...it's....Yuna. Everybody loves Yuna.

 

[Eddie G]

Peach is not that great of a character, there aren't any if, ands, or buts about it.

/end.

No pun intended on "buts" right? Because her *** is bangin'! XD

 

[SinkingHigher]

I have to disagree.

My falcon (who I do not main or second) has beaten experienced MKs many times.

Meh, I take this graph as serious as a horoscope.

 

[Sky`]

I have to disagree.

My falcon (who I do not main or second) has beaten experienced MKs many times.

Meh, I take this graph as serious as a horoscope.

Define Experienced MKs?

And nobody is saying that Characters can't be MK...
We're saying that many can't win a regional tournament alone. No subs.

 

[salaboB]

We're saying that many can't win a regional tournament alone. No subs.

Which is all a derail based on someone objecting to what the chart showed, rather than discussing whether such a chart could be accurately (Or even close to accurately) created and would have any worth if so.

 

[Brinzy]

stuff

Think of where I stand as a Socratic way of thinking, not necessarily standing on a pedestal looking down upon the people I speak to, but continuously questioning that which has been established as is.

stuff

To the stuff: if I was wrong, then I was wrong. I merely posted what you appeared to be doing. If I am wrong in my observations, then I guess that makes two of us, because what I quoted from you was "squabbling" when there was no "squabbling."

To the rest of the post: if you want to be thought of that way, then *question.* Do not pass judgment like you nearly always seem to do in these type of threads. Questions are designed to obtain answers, not to deliver them (in most cases).

 

[Eddie G]

To the stuff: if I was wrong, then I was wrong. I merely posted what you appeared to be doing. If I am wrong in my observations, then I guess that makes two of us, because what I quoted from you was "squabbling" when there was no "squabbling."

To the rest of the post: if you want to be thought of that way, then *question.* Do not pass judgment like you nearly always seem to do in these type of threads. Questions are designed to obtain answers, not to deliver them (in most cases).

I specifically quoted these three portions of your post to point out something: You said that you were merely posting what I appeared to be doing, which was your observation if I'm not mistaken. However, what I was doing was making an observation of what I saw, and questioning what it was that I saw. Yes, I can say that I am guilty of passing judgment, however my judgments and questions, although related to a similar topic, do NOT go hand in hand. I know exactly what I'm doing when I begin to post in one of these threads; Passing judgments? Maybe if at all. Questioning what I observe? You bet.

I know people will become butthurt over the way I post, as people do with the way Yuna posts, because there is always someone out there who does not approve of or agree with how someone conducts their business. Do I let that bother me? Of course not. My point with all of this? I will continue posting the way I do, so please spare me your lectures that you love to top your posts with.

 

[Sky`]

Which is all a derail based on someone objecting to what the chart showed, rather than discussing whether such a chart could be accurately (Or even close to accurately) created and would have any worth if so.

A derail it may be, but it's the current topic at hand. Regardless of the tangent, there's no point in ignoring the other great point that was brought up.

 

[salaboB]

A derail it may be, but it's the current topic at hand. Regardless of the tangent, there's no point in ignoring the other great point that was brought up.

What, that the chart isn't accurate so you can't master Peach then win tournies with just her?

I believe we knew that from Edreeses saying "I threw this together in 5 minutes."

 

[Sky`]

What, that the chart isn't accurate so you can't master Peach then win tournies with just her?

I believe we knew that from Edreeses saying "I threw this together in 5 minutes."

No, somebody decided to state that Peach is a viable tournament character.

Clearly, a false statement. so we discussed it.

 

[FB Dj_Iskascribble]

Is he saying that a perfect peach beats a perfect snake? Thats what it appears to say on the graph.

 

[BentoBox]

*Ignored* :[

 

[salaboB]

*Ignored* :[

Don't be reasonable and maybe you won't get ignored. (It works for everyone else...)