Yuna, don't contradict yourself.
If we are talking about characters who can win major tournaments, we need to see which characters have WON major tournaments. You cannot discredit Azen's achievements with Lucario for being Azen because he has one of the only solid records of wins in major tournaments.
What part of "I am not discrediting Azen at all, but you cannot just look at Azen's achievements alone in the face of possibly
no one replicating his prowess or even coming close to and say 'Because Azen can do well with Lucario, Lucario is obviously X good" was too Norwegian for dig å skjonne?
No more "Azen is special" BS. He wins major tournaments. He did it with a character. It doesn't matter if anyone can replicate him or not. The same goes for the records of M2K, NinjaLink, Ally, and anyone else who has won major tournaments.
But you see, with Meta Knight, Snake and Diddy Kong, we have
several of each running around winning and generally doing very well at tournaments. With Lucario, we have only Azen (my argument - I might be slightly off since there might be Lucarios out there being able to do quite well for themselves, but that's for the opposition to prove).
This is the same principle as the "Marth is the only character in Melee capable of consistently winning tournaments!" BS. No, tournament results based on a
very select few players (in this case
one) is not the be-all and end-all of
character viability.
Oh god.. Here we go .. Now hes going to start arguing about Lucario.
Yuna came into a thread about an anti Bowser Challenge to quote my post after saying Toon Link, Meta Knight, and Peach to say Peach doesn't have combos she has strings..
Ill show him some god **** combos....
It is your own fault for not knowing the difference between strings and combos and for
lying about how Peach, apparently in your delusional mind, has combos coming out of the wazoo.
If something is admitted to not being totally accurate how on earth can it be presented as factual? If something is admitted to not be totally accurate, why would you even consider interpreting it as factual?
Something can be factual but still inaccurate. As in, it can be based on facts, but just be slightly off.
The OP seems to be claiming that at the highest possible level of play, Peach is better than Snake. It defends this perceived claim by stating that it's not entirely accurate. The interpretation here would be that in reality, Peach, while not better than Snake, at least comes close to being that good.
I'll requote Edrees again here:
Inconsequential. Nowhere does it say that it's just a BS representation of a concept. It's presented as at least partially fact based. Stating very little time was spent on it means nothing.
I think that speaks for itself.
"It's a rough
estimate" = "It's a rough approximation, Peach is somewhere near that area"
He does not say that everything was
pulled out of his behind. He seems to be implying that the graph is somewhat kinda accuratish.
I stopped reading after this and you'll probably just be repeating yourself.
lock the thread, it's not a debate anymore, it's a flame war of one guy who can not except the fact that edreeses was trying to share something fun with the community and he had to turn it into the bible like every word said in it was true.
You need to look up what a flame really is. I have never been punished for flaming here on SWF (despite having on several occasions,
such as now, debated
moderators (such as Edrees)). Why? Because I'm smart and I don't flame.
you said that no one below edreese had notable skill as a peach player.
No I didn't. Quote me what part of my post you're hallucinating this from.
all of these people in their areas are well known with peach, no one does that unless they are skilled as players.
Again, quote me.
as for the op thing, it was obvious that he intended this as his own thoughts on the subject, it was never meant to be pure fact.
No it's not.
No he didn't.
What else os he supposed to do then if people are still too ******** to listen and decide that he's tricking them and its actually pure fact??? Does he really have to make a disclaimer in bold letters to clarify?
How about actually say that it's not factual instead of saying that it merely isn't
entirely accurate, which implies that it's at least
somewhat accurate (which it
isn't)?!
you still haven't answered where your previous "objective analysis" is coming from. do you have a place to review tourney results?
The tourney results people pull out to try to prove their point. Like the ones you did. They did not prove Peach was viable. They proved the opposite. I have yet to encounter any tournament results to support the delusion that Peach is a viable character in Brawl.
is it a product of your own experiences? do you even play brawl competitively?
No. Because no one in Sweden plays Peach Competitively. Yes.
socal btw has plenty of good players on par with some of the top people, its not filled with local noobs by any means.
How many? And how many of these can your venerable Peach players consistently beat?
He's just saying that one player != one character's potential. Lucario's cool and all, but he's not like Metaknight or Snake with quite a few players than win tournies. Even UmbreonMow somewhere said that Lucario's position is largely due to Azen.
That's because unlike
certain people, UmbreaonMow is, you know, smart, logical and capable of
objective analysis.
i think it would change your mind.
