Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[bobson]

I figure this little mechanic+buffering makes it possible. If you make a button input, smash will check for the next 5 or so frames to see if it is applicable. If you were trying to preform a series of moves and get grabbed instead, the game would read those inputs as you trying to mash out of the grab.

Buffering may very well explain the discrepancies with the data. I don't think anyone took it into account.

 

[Hive]

Buffering may very well explain the discrepancies with the data. I don't think anyone took it into account.

yea i think so too^^ i'll try to get the numbers for that soon as i can kk?

 

[Natch]

Buffering may very well explain the discrepancies with the data. I don't think anyone took it into account.

Really? I just kinda thought that up on the spot. Makes sense, you know? If you can buffer commands during DDD's pummel, you can buffer commands and have them change when you get grabbed. It's how Ike Nair suicides, accidental techs, and instantaneous grab breaks occur(I say all instantanaeous grab breaks because nobody knows exactly how they work, so I figure it's impossible to do one on purpose.)

 

[SaltyKracka]

Really? I just kinda thought that up on the spot. Makes sense, you know? If you can buffer commands during DDD's pummel, you can buffer commands and have them change when you get grabbed. It's how Ike Nair suicides, accidental techs, and instantaneous grab breaks occur(I say all instantanaeous grab breaks because nobody knows exactly how they work, so I figure it's impossible to do one on purpose.)

Funny, I always got the impression that the only way to consistently do immediate grab breaks is to get dash-grabbed right near the edge.

Or was it to grab a character running right at you while you're at the edge, get pushed off by their momentum, and have them grab-break?

I think it's probably the latter.

 

[Natch]

Funny, I always got the impression that the only way to consistently do immediate grab breaks is to get dash-grabbed right near the edge.

Or was it to grab a character running right at you while you're at the edge, get pushed off by their momentum, and have them grab-break?

I think it's probably the latter.

You're right, I've seen that happen too. Honestly, not much is known about the instantanaeous grab break. This just shows there are multiple theories out there.

 

[Dantarion]

I have never seen a unmoving instantaneous grab break.

Most of the time, I have my back to the edge, I shield grab someone, and the force of the attack makes me slide off the edge. Then the game is like "o ****, youre in the air" and breaks the grab apart. If you aren't expecting it, you can SD so easy too

I have a replay saved where I was having an Ike ditto, and I kept shield grabbing f-airs near the edge and SD'ing.

 

[The_Prince]

Point taken, but the curve would actually be very different for each individual character. In effect, it's a graph of the maximum and minimum current potentials of a character.

 

[Yuna]

peach is a good character imo, but i don't think anymore that she will win a major
tournament. why did i change my mind? because i trust sky's as well as other peach's experiences, and experience does matter in debate.

Then you have no idea what's important for debates. Also, do you not trust Dark.pch at all? He's also very talented and experienced, yet he claims Peach is perfectly viable.

So experience obviously does not mean wisdom. Which is why in debates, all that matters are arguments, logic and whatever.

f you have the opportunity to argue with a physicist about general relativity or something, of course it makes sense to take into account his opinions over your own prejudices.

No, not really. Especially not when you have another scientist standing nearby disputing the physicist. For all I know, the physicist could be wrong while the scientist was right.

You had absolute no problems opposing me and my arguments but the second Sky` walked in repeated exactly what I had been trying to get through your head for days, all of a sudden, you bent over and just took it. Because it's Sky`! How could he possibly be wrong about Peach?

But I was wrong, apparently. At least my reasoning and my arguments were flimsy, according to you. You yourself claimed that my case was shoddily built. So Sky`'s arguments, logic and reasoning apparently meant squat to you. All that you needed to be cured from your delusion of Peach's viability was Sky`saying "Peach isn't viable".

Apparently, that was all the "debate" you needed.

they are more specialized to know that info. I don't know the full reasons why peach doesn't win, but i can admit that peach mains probably have a better understanding than me, or you for that matter.

But you refuse to admit that I have a very keen understanding on Peach's viability. In the same breath as you admitted defeat, you claimed you saw yourself perfectly justified in opposing me in this debate because, apparently, I was arguing my case badly.

Which against goes to show how all you needed from this debate was a notable Peach telling you you were wrong. That's not debating, that's just waiting for an authority figure to dictate your views and opinions for you.

debates should matter on logic and facts, you are correct, but you're also missing the point that logic and facts are both based on observation.

Logic and facts can be just cold hard logic and facts. Observation only plays into it when ignorance is involved, when one is too ignorant to see things for what they are and interpret the facts wrong.

Also, are you admitting to sucking at "observing" facts and logic? After all, you "observed" the facts all wrong. You claimed Peach's tournament results prove her viability. Obviously, that was wrong. So you "observed" the facts wrong, thus you know too little about Competitive Smash and Competitive gaming to accurately "observe" the facts.

and there is a limit to how much conjecturing about about limited tourney results leads to substantial claims.

No there isn't. Not in this case when the tournament results clearly went against you.

lol and sure your opinions might have been "based on fact and logic", but so were mine. that doesn't make them anything other than opinions though ^^ at least not here.

But since your opinions (conclusions) were flawed, it means your logic and "facts" were flawed, yet you had the utmost conviction you were right despite more experienced people telling you otherwise. This should tell you something:
Introspection is needed. Trust your seniors better. You were wrong. Learn more about Smash before arguing it. Train your logical thinking.

also, "viable" can really be taken into many lights....

I specifically said, 29 times over, that for this case, viability was to mean "capable of winning major tournaments". Seeing as how you yourself tried to argue Peach stood a **** good chance at winning major tournaments, you cannot hide behind the "Viability can mean several things"-argument.

You knew what you were arguing. Backtracking now to save face will not help you against me.

it wasn't your "remarkable wit" that won me over lol ^^, i would stop claiming this...

I'm sorry, what are you hallucinating (a pandemic here on SWF and a chronic condition for you) now? When did iever claim I "won you over with my remarkable wit"? Please quote me (and I've noticed how you've never been able to quote me when I've asked you to).

Read my posts better.

but even if maybe you are you don't need to openly declare it constantly.

You call once a month (at most) "constantly"? Especially when I average 50 posts or so a week?

and if i am as idiotic as you make me out to be you should take no pride in slamming my arguments (i'm not).

I have never claimed you were idiotic. I have tried to prove you were wrong, highly misguided, used flawed reasoning, logic and facts and are ignorant about debate, Competitive Smash, Competitive gaming and whatnot.

You debating of Smash is flawed because you do not know enough about Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash to sufficiently debate either. Your knowledge is too limited for you to make the right "observations" when it comes to the facts.

Also, you often hallucinate when reading my posts. I'd suggest you stop doing that.

It was even fun arguing for awhile though you know? i WILL get mad when you start to insult me though.

People get insulted by the smallest thing. I'm not openly insulting you, I'm attacking your arguments, logic, reasoning, fact and maybe even the scope of your insight into Smash. None of these are openly insulting, especially since all of these can be trained and expanded upon.

When presenting flimsy arguments in debate, your arguments are going to be picked apart.

(try to be more courteous... this isn't the first time either, you always do this in debates <.<.)

If I present perfectly valid arguments and the opposition is unable to understand my arguments due to a lack of logic, reasoning or simply a lack of insight, what can I do but attack their logic, reasoning and insight to show to them that they do not understand my arguments because of a fault that lies with them and not with my arguments?

After all, you insisted for days, convinced you were right, that my arguments were flimsy and/or flawed when in fact they were not. I countered with arguing that your arguments were flimsy and/or flawed. And since you ultimately admitted defeat, you are tacitly admitting to your arguments being flimsy and/or flawed. Thus I was right and all I did was trying to prove you wrong by stating cold hard facts.

I have yet to be infractioned for not be courteous enough. Grow thicker skin.

i shouldn't have said your arguments were stupid either...

See, this is where you and I differ. You called my arguments stupid. I merely called yours flawed.

its not that i disagreed with you, i guess more than anything i was just angry with what you said.

If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the debates. When debating, keep a cool head. Argue with cold hard facts, logic and reasoning.

some of your arguments were legit in my opinion, but that's not to say that i thought they were genius either... just small arguments really. constantly talking crap to everyone in tactical threads just makes you sound like an ******* though.

I don't talk crap about people. I merely reduce their flimsily constructed posts and arguments to rubble. It's called debating. Grow thicker skin.

either way in terms of efficiency this kind of stuff is unproductive to the debate.

No it's not. This is what goes on in debates all the time. The attacking of logic, arguments and reasoning. It's kinda the main point of debates.

my reasons for arguing the tourney stats wasn't a "stupid" response though.

Why do you keep on hallucinating?! I have never used the word "stupid" when replying to you.

you hadn't presented enough counterevidence to convince me otherwise...

Yes, because your reasoning, logic and grasp of the facts were limited. You simply did not understand the evidence to such a level you could see how they demolished your arguments.

i know peach hasn't won any major tournies, but i still thought that she had the capacity to over enough time due to her having reasonably good all around matchups (though improbable when taken in light of a single tourney).

Odds do not stack up. If your chances are low in singular tournaments, your chances will still be low when you look at the results of 29,000 tournaments.

Also, nobody cares if a character can, by some stroke of luck, win a single major tournament once. We only care about their potential, what they are expected to be able to do overall.

maybe that's wrong, but it was still a legitimate arguement

It's a standpoint. It's not legitimate as it is, at this moment, incorrect. Peach does not stand a reasonable chance at winning major tournaments.

Standpoints are OK. In order for them to be legit in debate, you need actual evidence and facts to back yourself up. You believed yourself to be in possession of such because of your lack of insight into the matter.

and i didn't really see any reason to think otherwise til i got actual insight with someone who plays her.

So no matter what anyone said, as long as no highly regarded Peach player corroborated with them (even in the face of no Peach player opposing them), it would not have mattered to you?

i noticed you posted earlier that i should be ashamed lol. i'm not, i said my mind and was corrected, no harm in that, that is the point of any debate.

Stop hallucinating. Quote, please. I went all the way back top page 10 and CTRL + F:ed "shame". Zero hits.

if two drunk guys are fighting in a bar or something over politics it doesn't really matter who was right in the long run if none of them has the capacity to change anything about it lol.

But if this debate was meaningless, why did you even enter it?

look, yuna, i really want to get past this, please lay off, and i will too.

The problem is that you refuse to admit just how much "blame" lies with you for this. You tried to blame me for you being wrong by stating how you weren't really wrong, how your facts, reasoning and logic weren't really that flawed and that it was my (in your eyes) flawed facts, reasoning and logic that got you to enter the debate and oppose me so fiercely, as opposed to how I was right about everything, how my facts, reasoning and logic were sound and it was all you being wrong due to your limited insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash.
all of this in the long run

edit also "bovine manure" lol? nope. nice try. trust me, there is no intelligent way to say "cow ****" lol

Do you know what acronym "BS" stands for? Since the 2nd part of that term is censored, I have elected to use "bovine manure" as an euphemism.

Is there such a thing as a real "truth", or is this "truth" he spells out merely that which has been established by man as "truth"? Come now, logic, "educated arguments", all mere tools for one to squabble on with throughout life. Yuna is good at explaining his cases, but are they really this "truth" that is really "true", or nothing more than what has widely been established as such? My same questions apply to "facts" as well.

In this case, it's the established truth. Whatever the real truth might be, we cannot know for sure if our current truth concerning this case and Smash in general is true. Because our perception of the truth might be founded on flawed facts. After all, for years, it was believed that Sheik was better than Marth and Fox. That was our truth based on solid facts.

But overtime, those facts were proven flawed and/or faulty and thus our perception of the truth changed. We can only argue our current perception of the truth concerning Smash because unlike clearly definable things such as "Yuna's hair is dyed brown with blue and purple highlights (2 of each)", we cannot state for certain whether or not Peach is viable or not because the facts might change tomorrow.

Is uncertainty not the only certainty?

@ Thread- I agree with Hive on a certain point. Yuna, you display intelligence that is rarely seen on these boards, but my suggestion to you is to continue to display that intelligence within your arguments, not to continuously showcase it outside of the squabble.

I always do it within my arguments. The only reason why I'm "going after Hive" right now is to try to teach him to look past his ego and admit to having been wrong on so many levels.

If he finally admits to it, he might be able to work past it and become a better debater for it.

Yuna, the reason why you needed to actually name a few good Diddy Kong users that are not Ninja Link is because I knew that you couldn't. Frankly, I know that you know very little about competitve Brawl, and so you strawman your way through debates.

I could. If I wanted to. The problem is that you've given me insufficient reason to since you didn't really prove there are multiple Lucario-players doing well in tournaments. You just named two people. I want tournament results.

And it's not whether or not they can do well, because I never argued that. I argued that no Lucario-player is coming even close to doing as well as Azen. You strawmanned me on this into something easier to prove.

I know you didn't know the MK jump thing, you had four different tiers of mains, you talk about tournament results when you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening in the tournament scene

Wow, I was off by one jump! It's not four different tiers of mains. You do not understand what the word "main" means if you believe this. You have a much more superficial grasp of tournament results than I do.

you still don't understand the true severity of the DK D3 matchup,

O RLY? Proof of this? I grasp the severity quite clearly. I just disagree with you on that it needs bans. Because according to the principles of Competitive gaming, being an unwinnable match-up =/= a ban is warranted.

Yet again you distort the facts and strawman arguments. Please show me using quotes how I do not grasp the true severity of the DK vs. D3 match-up, o speaker of truths and facts.

and when you argued Ivysaur's move range and priority with me, you were wrong with conviction.

We barely argued Ivysaur's move range and priority. It was a passing argument. And it wasn't really about range and priority, it was about character potential in general, of which Ivysaur has very little.

Please pull up quotes instead of relying on your clearly flawed memory (with my sig in plain sight, you claimed it had 12 characters when it only had 10).

You claimed that people other than Ninja Link are taking Diddy to that level of the metagame when you contrasted Diddy with Lucario.

No I didn't. When did I do this? Please quote me. You're hallucinating as usual.

It should have been easy for you to at least name a couple of good Diddy users.

I can if i want to. You have yet to give me sufficient reason to. You digging yourself a deeper hole is not really helping your case. Now please quote me.

Like CoT4? LeeM got 5th (/289) with Lucario while you brushed the character off just a few weeks ago because Azen apparently skews results.

No I didn't. Learn to read better. I never brushed him off. I stated that Lucario is indeed viabl..ish. He's quite good, just not as good as the most viable characters in the game.

Vex made it to 9th place with Bowser knocking azen into losers, iirc. I doubt he went Bowser all the way as he does have a D3 in his pocket, but what does this really say about viable characters in general?

That some of the best players in the world can take viable characters quite far against less good players? There's a reason why at some point or another, players of unviable characters switch them out.

Because you have D/E/F tiers placing REALLY well in tournaments with high concentrations of skill (neo, chu, azen, forte, etc) but I have a feeling you'd brush these examples off.

Staring yourself blind at tournament results will not help you if you stare yourself blind only at D/E/F tiers. After all, maybe all the people they went up against to reach that placement were bad players or just unfamiliar with the match-up. Or they counterpicked or played more than one character. Simply having one character named as one of their used characters does not tell you for how long said characters were used in the tournament.

The best players in the world doing well against inferior players with low tiers mean squat, especially not if it's freak occurences and not trends. If only a select few can do it while others fail miserably, then that indicates it's the player skill in play, not character potential.

Getting up and arms about how X players got 5th playing Y character means squat if he had to drop that character halfway through the tournament.

You know, while I'm sure he appreciates how you've got his back -- you're just wrong.

Yuna doesn't stop as long as someone will argue against him, but there's an awfully lot of points he makes where he's just dead wrong but never holds to one point long enough to have to address it. (Now I wait for his response of "Show me these", which I won't do simply because no matter how many mistakes, misreadings, or errors I find for him he blows it off and claims I make more -- somehow that removes him making them?)

Stop lying. I stop when people admit defeat, realize they are wrong or when I deem people irredeemable in terms of stupidity and just let them go on their merry way with their delusions.

I know I used to agree with you and disagree with Yuna, but now I see where he comes from. It's not as bad as it looks, trust me. It's not even bad. It's good.

Aw. that's cute.

Which Lee has done.

Bloodhawk and Milln are also notable names, however I'm not entirely familiar with how well these two have been doing.

Really? Lee consistently takes Top 3 or Top 5 at tournaments of roughly equal concentration of skill as the ones Azen takes Top 3 or Top 5 at?

If he's to be as informed as he asserts to be, taking a minute of his day to check the results wouldn't have killed him. I managed just fine ^_^.

Why would I check the tournament results of tournaments which finished just a few days ago? Why should I have to check the results of every single tournament? I need trends, not isolated incidents.

Hence why I followed that by asking Yuna if what he considered viable are characters that have no solid counters (maps or character wise)~ I can't even recall the last Falco placing really well in a tournament.

Being viable means both theoretically and practically. Falco is quite viable theoretically. The fact that he often doesn't place high is due to character popularity.

No, Azen did not make top 8. And 9th over 280 entrants is nothing to brush off, kthx. And no johns.

Show us trends, not isolated incidents.

@natch- look i haven't provoked you at all, you're being a jerk.

No, he's stating facts. You do have a superficial grasp of Competitive gaming, which is why you "observed" the facts the wrong way.

If I may, I'd like to try to address the thesis of this thread.

All this thread is saying, is that there's a difference between tournament-derived tier lists (where we have a ranking function on the basis of placements), and theoretical tier lists.

No, the thread is really arguing that depending on the skill level, low tiers perform differently, implying that the higher up you go, the better Low Tiers will perform (which is preposterous).

Stop meat-riding Yuna, Natch.

But I'm a bottom!

 

[BentoBox]

Boss doesn't just play scrubs to place how he does. You pretty much have NL as the only Diddy that really places consistently in major tournaments. Well the same goes for Boss and his plumbers. Since I have now learned that one player can generate a trend...

Oh and why label anything as an isolated incident? You need results to generate trends. This is one of them. When I brought up falco, you appealed to theoretical knowledge because there are currently no trends indicating that he is indeed that good. Why does he get special treatment?

 

[Yuna]

Boss doesn't just play scrubs to place how he does. You pretty much have NL as the only Diddy that really places consistently in major tournaments. Well the same goes for Boss and his plumbers. Since I have now learned that one player can generate a trend...

Ah, but Diddy is theoretically more viable than Lucario (and the plumbers especially). Viability is also theoretical. Due to Brawl's tierwhoredness, very few characters are played (relatively speaking).

And I never ever stated that many Diddy Kong place well in tournaments. Please quote me where I do.

Also, please quote me where I used the term "Scrubs". I said people of lesser skill than the player. You can be playing on a high level, even one of the highest, yet be at such a level someone can do well against you with a low tier with a bad match-up against you if you're not good enough. You do not have to be a Scrub for it to work.

Please stop hallucinatingb and strawmanning.

 

[BentoBox]

I never said that you claimed that many Diddys placed well in tournaments. I'm simply questioning your quest for trends when the only characters to portray of such success are MK and Snake afaik. If I'm wrong, then PROVE IT.

And I can't quite discern where to draw the line between theory and valid practical experience. Will you be singing whatever song the current Tier list displays?

And I did not use the word scrub by its sirlin-esque definition, so I'll disregard your 3rd paragraph. You sure like to grasp at straws ;].

Am I really hallucinating you implying things I never said? Wait, no I'm not.

 

[Sukai]

Then you have no idea what's important for debates. Also, do you not trust Dark.pch at all? He's also very talented and experienced, yet he claims Peach is perfectly viable.

So experience obviously does not mean wisdom. Which is why in debates, all that matters are arguments, logic and whatever.

Logic can be flawed without the experience to back it up.
Experience does equal wisdom, but only if interpreted correctly.
How do you interpret it right? Through input based on more experience.
Are you telling me, you've never applied experience to what you know, or base what you know on your interpretations on past experiences?

No, not really. Especially not when you have another scientist standing nearby disputing the physicist. For all I know, the physicist could be wrong while the scientist was right.

You had absolute no problems opposing me and my arguments but the second Sky` walked in repeated exactly what I had been trying to get through your head for days, all of a sudden, you bent over and just took it. Because it's Sky`! How could he possibly be wrong about Peach?

But I was wrong, apparently. At least my reasoning and my arguments were flimsy, according to you. You yourself claimed that my case was shoddily built. So Sky`'s arguments, logic and reasoning apparently meant squat to you. All that you needed to be cured from your delusion of Peach's viability was Sky`saying "Peach isn't viable".

Apparently, that was all the "debate" you needed.

Sometimes a second opinion makes your argument more credible. One thing thats better than an experienced person's opinion, is another experienced person's input that coincides with what the first person says.
Lay off, man.

But you refuse to admit that I have a very keen understanding on Peach's viability. In the same breath as you admitted defeat, you claimed you saw yourself perfectly justified in opposing me in this debate because, apparently, I was arguing my case badly.

Which against goes to show how all you needed from this debate was a notable Peach telling you you were wrong. That's not debating, that's just waiting for an authority figure to dictate your views and opinions for you.

But th---well, yeah it kinda looks like that....

Logic and facts can be just cold hard logic and facts. Observation only plays into it when ignorance is involved, when one is too ignorant to see things for what they are and interpret the facts wrong.

Also, are you admitting to sucking at "observing" facts and logic? After all, you "observed" the facts all wrong. You claimed Peach's tournament results prove her viability. Obviously, that was wrong. So you "observed" the facts wrong, thus you know too little about Competitive Smash and Competitive gaming to accurately "observe" the facts.

Observation is one of 3 elements that determine truth and facts.
Observation, Trial and Error (not exactly in that order). Of course a single observation isn't credible, even if it may be correct, more observations and more analogies based on that, can help change around and correct what is soon to be considered facts and truth.

Observation is what determines alot of decisions, but nothing to the extent of being truth and facts, the prime rule about truth and facts is that they don't change, they aren't bound to the element of change under normal circumstances. A flower is a flower, at not point during natural growth will it turn into an animal of spontaneously burst into flames, so a flower is not subject to change upon natural circumstances.

Or a better example, the all too popular Tier list. The tiers are based on observation, several observation and interpretations based on them, it doesn't make the tier list cold hard facts, because they are always subject to change, and they do.

I guess my point is....you're both kinda wrong. Peach may not be viable in tournaments, but one day she might be. You'll never know. :P

No there isn't.

Yyyyeah there kinda are.....

Not in this case when the tournament results clearly went against you.

No comment.

But since your opinions (conclusions) were flawed, it means your logic and "facts" were flawed, yet you had the utmost conviction you were right despite more experienced people telling you otherwise. This should tell you something:
Introspection is needed. Trust your seniors better. You were wrong. Learn more about Smash before arguing it. Train your logical thinking.

Here's a tip: Pep talk doesn't really work when you're being a **** about it.
Try easing up on him. And if he's truely wrong, then let experience prove him wrong, not your opinions.

I specifically said, 29 times over, that for this case, viability was to mean "capable of winning major tournaments". Seeing as how you yourself tried to argue Peach stood a **** good chance at winning major tournaments, you cannot hide behind the "Viability can mean several things"-argument.

You knew what you were arguing. Backtracking now to save face will not help you against me.

hahaha, he got you there Hive.

I'm sorry, what are you hallucinating (a pandemic here on SWF and a chronic condition for you) now? When did iever claim I "won you over with my remarkable wit"? Please quote me (and I've noticed how you've never been able to quote me when I've asked you to).

Read my posts better.

No comment.

You call once a month (at most) "constantly"? Especially when I average 50 posts or so a week?

Consistency pulls no merit on repetitiveness. Well, it kinda does in this case.

I have never claimed you were idiotic.

You sure imply it pretty loudly.

I have tried to prove you were wrong, highly misguided, used flawed reasoning, logic and facts and are ignorant about debate, Competitive Smash, Competitive gaming and whatnot.

You debating of Smash is flawed because you do not know enough about Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash to sufficiently debate either. Your knowledge is too limited for you to make the right "observations" when it comes to the facts.

Also, you often hallucinate when reading my posts. I'd suggest you stop doing that.

^Case and point.^

People get insulted by the smallest thing. I'm not openly insulting you, I'm attacking your arguments, logic, reasoning, fact and maybe even the scope of your insight into Smash. None of these are openly insulting, especially since all of these can be trained and expanded upon.

When presenting flimsy arguments in debate, your arguments are going to be picked apart.

Another point for Yuna.

[/I]If I present perfectly valid arguments and the opposition is unable to understand my arguments due to a lack of logic, reasoning or simply a lack of insight, what can I do but attack their logic, reasoning and insight to show to them that they do not understand my arguments because of a fault that lies with them and not with my arguments?

Be nicer about it.
This is SWF, not a courtroom.

After all, you insisted for days, convinced you were right, that my arguments were flimsy and/or flawed when in fact they were not. I countered with arguing that your arguments were flimsy and/or flawed. And since you ultimately admitted defeat, you are tacitly admitting to your arguments being flimsy and/or flawed. Thus I was right and all I did was trying to prove you wrong by stating cold hard facts.

I have yet to be infractioned for not being (fixed) :P courteous enough. Grow thicker skin.

Sadly being mean, but arguably correct isn't a rule breaker here in SWF.
And to Yuna, thats all that matters.

See, this is where you and I differ.

Not where he said Peach was viable in tourneys.......

You called my arguments stupid. I merely called yours flawed.

pwnt.

If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the debates.

Or don't respond when Yuna enters the discussion! (joking)

When debating, keep a cool head. Argue with cold hard facts, logic and reasoning.

And don't forget to be a jerk about it. Pull no punches, insult their intelligence.

I don't talk crap about people. I merely reduce their flimsily constructed posts and arguments to rubble. It's called

Or you at least try.

debating. Grow thicker skin.

He got you there, gotta learn to take a few hits.

No it's not. This is what goes on in debates all the time. The attacking of logic, arguments and reasoning. It's kinda the main point of debates.

Noooooo.
The main point of debates are to voice and support your opinion, the method of making it more credible is attacking others' logic, argument and reasoning.

Why do you keep on hallucinating?! I have never used the word "stupid" when replying to you.

>.>

Yes, because your reasoning, logic and grasp of the facts were limited. You simply did not understand the evidence to such a level you could see how they demolished your arguments.

Can you blame him then?
It take intelligence to comprehend intelligence.

Odds do not stack up. If your chances are low in singular tournaments, your chances will still be low when you look at the results of 29,000 tournaments.

Also, nobody cares if a character can, by some stroke of luck, win a single major tournament once. We only care about their potential, what they are expected to be able to do overall.

You know, under a funny technical context, this voids your argument.

It's a standpoint. It's not legitimate as it is, at this moment, incorrect. Peach does not stand a reasonable chance at winning major tournaments.

Standpoints are OK. In order for them to be legit in debate, you need actual evidence and facts to back yourself up. You believed yourself to be in possession of such because of your lack of insight into the matter.

Again, can you blame him? It's not like he knew it was wrong, if he did then....well........

So no matter what anyone said, as long as no highly regarded Peach player corroborated with them (even in the face of no Peach player opposing them), it would not have mattered to you?

o i c wut u did thar.

Stop hallucinating. Quote, please. I went all the way back top page 10 and CTRL + F:ed "shame". Zero hits.

No comment.

But if this debate was meaningless, why did you even enter it?

It's not meaningless.
He put it in the context that a change was needed on your (both of you) immediate behalves.
That wasn't the objective of this discussion, was it?

The problem is that you refuse to admit just how much "blame" lies with you for this. You tried to blame me for you being wrong by stating how you weren't really wrong, how your facts, reasoning and logic weren't really that flawed and that it was my (in your eyes) flawed facts, reasoning and logic that got you to enter the debate and oppose me so fiercely, as opposed to how I was right about everything, how my facts, reasoning and logic were sound and it was all you being wrong due to your limited insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash.
all of this in the long run

He admitted defeat, cut him some slack, it's one thing to win a discussion, but don't rub it in, that adds to the "you being a **** about it" part.

Do you know what acronym "BS" stands for? Since the 2nd part of that term is censored, I have elected to use "bovine manure" as an euphemism.

Bovine manure is the intelligent way to say it, but why sound sophisticated when saying BS, thats kinda pointless and only stroke's one's ego to sound smart and complex.
But I prefer the eccentric path, so thats just my opinion.

In this case, it's the established truth. Whatever the real truth might be, we cannot know for sure if our current truth concerning this case and Smash in general is true. Because our perception of the truth might be founded on flawed facts. After all, for years, it was believed that Sheik was better than Marth and Fox. That was our truth based on solid facts.

Noooooooooo.
That was what you all believed to be truth based on the observation given. Again, observation is what determines alot of decisions, but nothing to the extent of being truth and facts.
It was flawed, and because it was subject to change, it wasn't the truth. At the same time, because no one knew it was the truth, everyone regarded it to be the truth, because like our good friend Hive here, you all did not know you were wrong, nor that your logic was flawed.
"Established truth" my friend is what Hive was going off of. It's not justified because the SBR is guilty of the same crime.

But overtime, those facts were proven flawed and/or faulty and thus our perception of the truth changed.

Therefore exempting it from being facts.

We can only argue our current perception of the truth concerning Smash because unlike clearly definable things such as "Yuna's hair is dyed brown with blue and purple highlights (2 of each)", we cannot state for certain whether or not Peach is viable or not because the facts might change tomorrow.

Facts don't change, if they do, they're not facts, but an interpretation based on what was researched that everyone regarded as fact, because it has yet to be proven wrong. :P

Is uncertainty not the only certainty?

Certainty is relative.
Alot of things people are uncertain about, and they don't know if it may change tomorrow. That being said, if data is rendered conclusive (like the Melee tier list for example), certainty pulls no merit.
Certainty is not always put into research, though it should.

I always do it within my arguments. The only reason why I'm "going after Hive" right now is to try to teach him to look past his ego and admit to having been wrong on so many levels.

Again, kindness helps.

If he finally admits to it, he might be able to work past it and become a better debater for it.

Pretty much.

I could. If I wanted to. The problem is that you've given me insufficient reason to since you didn't really prove there are multiple Lucario-players doing well in tournaments. You just named two people. I want tournament results.

And it's not whether or not they can do well, because I never argued that. I argued that no Lucario-player is coming even close to doing as well as Azen. You strawmanned me on this into something easier to prove.

Take notes kids, this is how a pro does it, they disregard any lack of credit on their end and take an alternative route to their point, then use johns for failing to comply to the first path. :P

Wow, I was off by one jump! It's not four different tiers of mains. You do not understand what the word "main" means if you believe this. You have a much more superficial grasp of tournament results than I do.

But you can't deny that physically being there helps your perception on things.

O RLY? Proof of this? I grasp the severity quite clearly. I just disagree with you on that it needs bans. Because according to the principles of Competitive gaming, being an unwinnable match-up =/= a ban is warranted.

Yet again you distort the facts and strawman arguments. Please show me using quotes how I do not grasp the true severity of the DK vs. D3 match-up, o speaker of truths and facts.

No comment, because I know too little about this debate.

We barely argued Ivysaur's move range and priority. It was a passing argument. And it wasn't really about range and priority, it was about character potential in general, of which Ivysaur has very little.

Please pull up quotes instead of relying on your clearly flawed memory (with my sig in plain sight, you claimed it had 12 characters when it only had 10).

Dude, perception that is not exactly the same as yours is not flawed, now you're using that word way too loosely.
Be a kind debater, acknowledge a different opinion, stop calling everybody's opinion that disagrees with yours "flawed".

No I didn't. When did I do this? Please quote me. You're hallucinating as usual.

I like how you pretentiously bold flawed and hallucinating like it's necessary to do so each and every time.

I can if i want to. You have yet to give me sufficient reason to. You digging yourself a deeper hole is not really helping your case. Now please quote me.

Just humor him, name some.

No I didn't. Learn to read better. I never brushed him off. I stated that Lucario is indeed viabl..ish. He's quite good, just not as good as the most viable characters in the game.

There is no viable-ish, either he is or he isn't, such things which I think doesn't suit a Character vs Player discussion very well, not that it's problematic in any case.
But thats just me.

That some of the best players in the world can take viable characters quite far against less good players? There's a reason why at some point or another, players of unviable characters switch them out.

Thats kinda true, but the fact that these characters are un-viable, convinces them to switch out, thus leaving little chance for these characters to become viable based on observation.
Kind of an oxymoron.
They're not viable because no one plays them that far---because they're not viable.
Nah, oxymoron isn't the word for it......
*thinks*

Staring yourself blind at tournament results will not help you if you stare yourself blind only at D/E/F tiers. After all, maybe all the people they went up against to reach that placement were bad players or just unfamiliar with the match-up. Or they counterpicked or played more than one character. Simply having one character named as one of their used characters does not tell you for how long said characters were used in the tournament.

The best players in the world doing well against inferior players with low tiers mean squat, especially not if it's freak occurences and not trends. If only a select few can do it while others fail miserably, then that indicates it's the player skill in play, not character potential.

Getting up and arms about how X players got 5th playing Y character means squat if he had to drop that character halfway through the tournament.

Wait, what?
I once heard someone simplify a low tier vs high tier fight, that if the lower tier character wins, the player clearly has a much greater deal of skill, because character potential somehow limits player potential. On the flipside, if a low tier and high tier character duke it out evenly and the lower tier loses, the lower tier player is of equal skill, and his only set back was that he used a lower tier character. If he chose a higher tier guy, then he might have won, or his chances of winning would have increased. He took no pull of practice and knowledge into the discussion.
Pretty meaning that by general principle, if he owns with CF, he'll **** with MK, even with having little to no experience playing as MK.
Although a completely inaccurate summary of general skill, it did hold some truth to it.
It doesn't mean squat, if you win or lose with a character vs any other, it's never squat, and it always means something. So Ally lost to M2k, would he had won if he picked Meta Knight and not Snake? Does losing mean you're an inferior player, flat out, no johns?
If you answer yes to this, the you input on this subject is really null and void.

Stop lying. I stop when people admit defeat, realize they are wrong or when I deem people irredeemable in terms of stupidity and just let them go on their merry way with their delusions.

Thats not what you did with Hive.

Aw. that's cute.

...

Really? Lee consistently takes Top 3 or Top 5 at tournaments of roughly equal concentration of skill as the ones Azen takes Top 3 or Top 5 at?

No comment.

Why would I check the tournament results of tournaments which finished just a few days ago? Why should I have to check the results of every single tournament? I need trends, not isolated incidents.

Like it or not, isolate accidents count. it may even grow to be a" trend".

Being viable means both theoretically and practically. Falco is quite viable theoretically. The fact that he often doesn't place high is due to character popularity.

Then...he's not viable.....

Show us trends, not isolated incidents.

They count!

No, he's stating facts. You do have a superficial grasp of Competitive gaming, which is why you "observed" the facts the wrong way.

No comment. I already made my point on this.

No, the thread is really arguing that depending on the skill level, low tiers perform differently, implying that the higher up you go, the better Low Tiers will perform (which is preposterous).

It is.
But granted it is possible that a great player can come in and introduce a new playstyle to a character who was considered just plain bad. Chu Dat did that with Melee Ice Climbers.

But I'm a bottom!

What?

 

[Browny]

people still trying to argue with Yuna?
lol dont you get it, you will never win, Yuna will just keep on going forever until you give up

 

[Sukai]

I'm not arguing!
I just came in and threw my two cents in.

 

[Zhamy]

Experience does equal wisdom, but only if interpreted correctly.

No. Experience is a factor that is applied toward gaining wisdom. Experience does not directly translate into wisdom.

Are you telling me, you've never applied experience to what you know, or base what you know on your interpretations on past experiences?

No, and you need to stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Sometimes a second opinion makes your argument more credible.

Except that Yuna's argument isn't based off of opinion.

Observation is one of 3 elements that determine truth and facts.
Observation, Trial and Error (not exactly in that order). Of course a single observation isn't credible, even if it may be correct, more observations and more analogies based on that, can help change around and correct what is soon to be considered facts and truth.

Observation is what determines alot of decisions, but nothing to the extent of being truth and facts, the prime rule about truth and facts is that they don't change, they aren't bound to the element of change under normal circumstances. A flower is a flower, at not point during natural growth will it turn into an animal of spontaneously burst into flames, so a flower is not subject to change upon natural circumstances.

Or a better example, the all too popular Tier list. The tiers are based on observation, several observation and interpretations based on them, it doesn't make the tier list cold hard facts, because they are always subject to change, and they do.

I guess my point is....you're both kinda wrong. Peach may not be viable in tournaments, but one day she might be. You'll never know.

Schrodinger says hi. There are far too many blanket assumptions in that section for it to be taken seriously.

Here's a tip: Pep talk doesn't really work when you're being a **** about it.
Try easing up on him. And if he's truely wrong, then let experience prove him wrong, not your opinions.

That was not a pep talk. What easing up is there to do? It's a logical debate. What, is Yuna supposed to stop presenting facts to "ease up on him?" And you are again confusing fact and opinion.

No comment.

If you have no comment, then why waste anyone's time?

Be nicer about it.
This is SWF, not a courtroom.

You say "This is SWF" as if there's an unwritten rule about how serious or light the subject matter is. Your perception of SWF is not the same as Yuna's.

Noooooo.
The main point of debates are to voice and support your opinion, the method of making it more credible is attacking others' logic, argument and reasoning.

You are again wrong. The main point of a debate is to criticize and question arguments. You can voice and support your opinion in a discussion without having a debate. Say what you mean.

Noooooooooo.
That was what you all believed to be truth based on the observation given. Again, observation is what determines alot of decisions, but nothing to the extent of being truth and facts.
It was flawed, and because it was subject to change, it wasn't the truth. At the same time, because no one knew it was the truth, everyone regarded it to be the truth, because like our good friend Hive here, you all did not know you were wrong, nor that your logic was flawed.
"Established truth" my friend is what Hive was going off of. It's not justified because the SBR is guilty of the same crime.

Where are you getting your perception of truth from? Furthermore, where does "truth" as you define it come into play? Yuna's argument concerns, for the most part, facts.

Therefore exempting it from being facts.

Counterexample. Fact: Zhamy's cat is alive. Fact: Zhamy's cat is now dead. You can argue as you wish with technicalities, but the state of the cat's existence changed, and is true in both cases. Facts can be assigned a time and setting.

Certainty is relative.
Alot of things people are uncertain about, and they don't know if it may change tomorrow. That being said, if data is rendered conclusive (like the Melee tier list for example), certainty pulls no merit.
Certainty is not always put into research, though it should.

You are not talking about certainty as it is defined.

The rest of your "debate" or "discussion" or "argument," or however, you choose to define it, is on as much shaky ground, because you don't understand the definitions of the words you are using.

 

[Yuna]

I never said that you claimed that many Diddys placed well in tournaments. I'm simply questioning your quest for trends when the only characters to portray of such success are MK and Snake afaik. If I'm wrong, then PROVE IT.

I've merely claimed that Diddy Kong places well reasonable often and when wielded by more players than Lucario, who pretty much only have Azen + maybe Lee to a lesser extent. That is all.

I can't quite discern where to draw the line between theory and valid practical experience. Will you be singing whatever song the current Tier list displays?

Theory? It's the currently known metagame, what we know the character is capable of. Azen is a special case because of his mindgames. The reason why he's able to take so many characters much further than others is because of his use of mindgames.

It's not the character potential in play, it's Azen's mindgames. Because what does Azen do when playing Lucario that's so much different on a technical level than other Lucario players? Meanwhile, we know that Diddy Kong has various banana locks, combos, etc., things that are usable by everyone. It's just that comparatively few players lay Diddy, yet Diddy places well quite often.

I did not use the word scrub by its sirlin-esque definition, so I'll disregard your 3rd paragraph. You sure like to grasp at straws ;].

Neither did I. "Lower skill level than M2K" =/= Scrub by any definition

You can be on such a level Boss can win over you with the Marios despite your character having an advantageous matchup against him and still not be a Scrub.

Am I really hallucinating you implying things I never said? Wait, no I'm not.

Your presenting your arguments in such a way you're implying I said things I never said.

 

[ExCeL 52]

But his meat is so fun to ride!

Oh man. Thats not something you say in public.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Boss doesn't just play scrubs to place how he does. You pretty much have NL as the only Diddy that really places consistently in major tournaments. Well the same goes for Boss and his plumbers. Since I have now learned that one player can generate a trend...

No...

1.) When did Boss ever win money using Mario in tournament? If you talk about placing top8 then Mario may be viable like almost ever other character. But this is not what being "viable" is all about. If he wins money in a tournament by using Mario you could say he's viable but he never does. His best result ever was IIRC at Cataclysm4, where he never won when using Mario - he basically went Luigi against Ally, Azen and pretty much everybody else. He got 4th using Luigi...so you could say that Luigi is borderline viable. But please show me the results of a Brawl tournament where Boss won money by using Mario.

2.) There are indeed more Diddy Kong players than Lucario players. Before Lee Martin picked up Lucario all his placings indeed came from Azen alone. This is a fact. Even now these two are basically the only players who win or place top3 with Lucario. So yes, Lucarios high placings are trends based on two very dominant players (Lee Martin wins basically every tournament he goes to in the south and Azen is MD/VAs best player), unless you can show me results of other players.
Diddy Kongs success on the other hand is certainly not only based on NL. There are many Diddy Players, who are among the best and most successful players: WC has Nanerz and TC1, the south has Le_thien and Fliphopper, MW has AZ and EC has NL. Every region has at least one Diddy Kong player who is able to win money, which is more or less the main requirement for counting as viable.
If anybody says that Diddy Kong is more viable than Lucario he has enough facts to back that claim up. Lucarios success is a trend based on the success of two extraordinarily talented players (until proven otherwise) while Diddy Kongs succes is the result of him being a more viable, better character...at least until Lucario besomes as popular and results change in Lucarios favour but right now this isn't the case and it's unlikely to change.

 

[bobson]

1.) When did Boss ever win money using Mario in tournament? If you talk about placing top8 then Mario may be viable like almost ever other character. But this is not what being "viable" is all about. If he wins money in a tournament by using Mario you could say he's viable but he never does. His best result ever was IIRC at Cataclysm4, where he never won when using Mario - he basically went Luigi against Ally, Azen and pretty much everybody else. He got 4th using Luigi...so you could say that Luigi is borderline viable. But please show me the results of a Brawl tournament where Boss won money by using Mario.

Boss tends to switch from Mario to Luigi or vice versa whenever he loses a match as either of them rather than off of a "Snake? LUIGI TIME"-styled counterpick system, so finding a tournament where he only used Mario would be the same as finding one where he never lost a single match. And even then he might switch for the hell of it.
Still, though, his continued losses with Mario versus his wins with Luigi give a good idea of Mario's chances at the upper echelons of play.

 

[MrPorn]

That skill list isn't accurate at all, I could take the beefiest Peaches with halve of the characters in the **** game.

 

[Yuna]

No...

1.) When did Boss ever win money using Mario in tournament? If you talk about placing top8 then Mario may be viable like almost ever other character. But this is not what being "viable" is all about. If he wins money in a tournament by using Mario you could say he's viable but he never does. His best result ever was IIRC at Cataclysm4, where he never won when using Mario - he basically went Luigi against Ally, Azen and pretty much everybody else. He got 4th using Luigi...so you could say that Luigi is borderline viable. But please show me the results of a Brawl tournament where Boss won money by using Mario.

2.) There are indeed more Diddy Kong players than Lucario players. Before Lee Martin picked up Lucario all his placings indeed came from Azen alone. This is a fact. Even now these two are basically the only players who win or place top3 with Lucario. So yes, Lucarios high placings are trends based on two very dominant players (Lee Martin wins basically every tournament he goes to in the south and Azen is MD/VAs best player), unless you can show me results of other players.
Diddy Kongs success on the other hand is certainly not only based on NL. There are many Diddy Players, who are among the best and most successful players: WC has Nanerz and TC1, the south has Le_thien and Fliphopper, MW has AZ and EC has NL. Every region has at least one Diddy Kong player who is able to win money, which is more or less the main requirement for counting as viable.
If anybody says that Diddy Kong is more viable than Lucario he has enough facts to back that claim up. Lucarios success is a trend based on the success of two extraordinarily talented players (until proven otherwise) while Diddy Kongs succes is the result of him being a more viable, better character...at least until Lucario besomes as popular and results change in Lucarios favour but right now this isn't the case and it's unlikely to change.

No, you're ruining my traps!

 

[Hive]

Then you have no idea what's important for debates. Also, do you not trust Dark.pch at all? He's also very talented and experienced, yet he claims Peach is perfectly viable.

So experience obviously does not mean wisdom. Which is why in debates, all that matters are arguments, logic and whatever.


No, not really. Especially not when you have another scientist standing nearby disputing the physicist. For all I know, the physicist could be wrong while the scientist was right.

yea but even here you have to make an absurd example about how now there is a scientist suddenly involved. the connection between being experienced and having good insights is obvious. and your ideas yuna, don't mean as much as someone who actually mains peach and has competitive peach exp. exp=good insights. you should try it.
if you have two peach mains then yea they can each back up their data accordingly, but you can't be naive enough to think you know better than some of the top peach mains on how well peach does in tourney.

You had absolute no problems opposing me and my arguments but the second Sky` walked in repeated exactly what I had been trying to get through your head for days, all of a sudden, you bent over and just took it. Because it's Sky`! How could he possibly be wrong about Peach?

sky didn't mimic what you were saying yuna. all you were doing was conjecturing about the limited tourney data in the peach thread. sky actually explained the matchups and stage counters that make her unviable. AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, with experience and insight into peach to back it up. Him having actually played tournies with peach is more relevant then looking at tier lists and limited tourney data.

But I was wrong, apparently. At least my reasoning and my arguments were flimsy, according to you. You yourself claimed that my case was shoddily built. So Sky`'s arguments, logic and reasoning apparently meant squat to you. All that you needed to be cured from your delusion of Peach's viability was Sky`saying "Peach isn't viable".

Apparently, that was all the "debate" you needed.[/yuna]

you know what yuna? i really wanted to stop this immature crap with you. i even told you that saying all of your arguments wasn't legitimate wasn't fair. they still aren't as useful as someone who has exp on the subject, imo, but seriously. why are you even bringing this up again, except to provoke an outdated and unproductive response that i've already said wasn't fair? And yea, you were an ******* to me as well (the point)? the entire point was to stop this stupid "he said she said" bs with you.

But you refuse to admit that I have a very keen understanding on Peach's viability. In the same breath as you admitted defeat, you claimed you saw yourself perfectly justified in opposing me in this debate because, apparently, I was arguing my case badly.

Which against goes to show how all you needed from this debate was a notable Peach telling you you were wrong. That's not debating, that's just waiting for an authority figure to dictate your views and opinions for you.

WHY you don't have a keen understanding on peach? let's see, its because:
A) you have never played a good peach
B) you have watched limited vids of good peaches
C) you don't even play peach
D) and you have limited insights into her strengths and weakness both in total and matchup specific.

An outsider doesn't have as much insight into peach as someone who actually competitively mains peach. Even you must admit that trying to justify your own outside prejudices to try to look like an authority on peach is stupid if you're trying to do it over someone who actually mains peach competitively.

Logic and facts can be just cold hard logic and facts. Observation only plays into it when ignorance is involved, when one is too ignorant to see things for what they are and interpret the facts wrong.

Your opinions are anything but facts. They could be "based on cold hard logic and facts" or whatever, but you are still adding your own prejudices to them.
You might as well say "based on a true story." that doesn't mean its objectively factual though.

Also, are you admitting to sucking at "observing" facts and logic? After all, you "observed" the facts all wrong. You claimed Peach's tournament results prove her viability. Obviously, that was wrong. So you "observed" the facts wrong, thus you know too little about Competitive Smash and Competitive gaming to accurately "observe" the facts.

no I'M NOT admitting to sucking at observing facts and logic. I'M ADMITTING that a competitive peach main has more insights into the facts and logic behind peach's viability than I do or you do. just bc i think someone has more insight then me doesn't mean i don't have any insight at all. that was a careless argument.

No there isn't. Not in this case when the tournament results clearly went against you.

the tournamnet data didn't go against what i was saying. i said peach had the capacity to win a large scale tournament though it was improbable. there were two big tourneys in the tourney data, that's hardly "proof" that she won't ever win a major tourney.

But since your opinions (conclusions) were flawed, it means your logic and "facts" were flawed, yet you had the utmost conviction you were right despite more experienced people telling you otherwise. This should tell you something:
Introspection is needed. Trust your seniors better. You were wrong. Learn more about Smash before arguing it. Train your logical thinking.

my conclusions were based off of limited data. yea I was wrong, and when better data/insight was added i changed my mind. that doesn't mean my assumptions were based off of flawed evidence though, it means that i adjusted my opinions for new insights.

I specifically said, 29 times over, that for this case, viability was to mean "capable of winning major tournaments". Seeing as how you yourself tried to argue Peach stood a **** good chance at winning major tournaments, you cannot hide behind the "Viability can mean several things"-argument.

i'm not. and i did argue peaches capacity to win a tourney too.

You know what your problem is yuna? you keep seeing this as some sort of "I winz the internet" debate so you can say "zomg i won." In reality winning and losing in a thread like this is POINTLESS in the long run. The ONLY lasting thing this thread contributes is the truth of the conclusion. you should focus more on that than rhetoric and "there, see? don't i win now?!" type arguments.

You knew what you were arguing. Backtracking now to save face will not help you against me.

i didn't change my mind because of your arguments yuna. your conclusion i think was right in the long run, but it wasn't bc of anything you said. You have limited insight on this subject and your arguments definitely didn't show any objective, uncounterable evidence. like you are trying to pretend after the fact.
again.

I'm sorry, what are you hallucinating (a pandemic here on SWF and a chronic condition for you) now? When did iever claim I "won you over with my remarkable wit"? Please quote me (and I've noticed how you've never been able to quote me when I've asked you to).

you have stroked your ego in like every post in this thread<.<

I have never claimed you were idiotic. I have tried to prove you were wrong, highly misguided, used flawed reasoning, logic and facts and are ignorant about debate, Competitive Smash, Competitive gaming and whatnot.

lol so i'm just ignorant and have bad reasoning and am misguided as opposed to idiotic? well that's a relief <.<
seriously this isn't about trading immature insults with you yuna, its unproductive and it needs to stop.

You debating of Smash is flawed because you do not know enough about Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash to sufficiently debate either. Your knowledge is too limited for you to make the right "observations" when it comes to the facts.

you say right here experience matters! yay! now why can't you admit that a peach main has better insight than you on peach's viability???
and i do have exp with smash competitively you have no idea what i have experience with yuna..

People get insulted by the smallest thing. I'm not openly insulting you, I'm attacking your arguments, logic, reasoning, fact and maybe even the scope of your insight into Smash. None of these are openly insulting, especially since all of these can be trained and expanded upon.

but you are being insulting, you keep saying i'm ignorant and have no knowledge. how is that not insulting? @.@ if i said the same about you you would be up in arms!

I don't talk crap about people. I merely reduce their flimsily constructed posts and arguments to rubble. It's called debating. Grow thicker skin.

No, you are being an *******. you call people stupid and claim to be an authority on everything just bc you disagree with them. and i'm not referring to me here. i'm talking how you like to argue to everyone. i have specifically seen you call people stupid and "lacking knowledge" just bc you disagree with them.
my points were legit! they were wrong, but they WERE legit arguments. YOURS were too! I'm saying this again so you won't keep bringing that up. just because i thought peach had the capacity to be viable in a major tourney (although improbably that she would win a single one) is not as ignorant and lacking of competitive knowledge as you would like to make it sound like. its not that flawed of an argument and it certainly it wasn't based on nothing.

Also, nobody cares if a character can, by some stroke of luck, win a single major tournament once. We only care about their potential, what they are expected to be able to do overall.

and i was arguing that peach had the capacity to win a major tourney over enough time. which was the entire point. i'm surprised you found my points to be "so flawed" when you didn't even grasp this point...

It's a standpoint. It's not legitimate as it is, at this moment, incorrect. Peach does not stand a reasonable chance at winning major tournaments.

I wasn't even arguing that! i told before it was improbable in the context of a single tourney.


this whole thing is stupid.[/U] do we really need to keep arguing this? this should have dropped pages ago. I TRIED to drop this pages ago. but you keep bringing it up. And FOR WHAT? its totally unproductive to anything. do i really need to keep going down your arguments one by one? seriously.

edit: (bleck i hate multiquotes! )

 

[Darknid]

lol **** peach

 

[Yuna]

yea but even here you have to make an absurd example about how now there is a scientist suddenly involved. the connection between being experienced and having good insights is obvious. and your ideas yuna, don't mean as much as someone who actually mains peach and has competitive peach exp. exp=good insights. you should try it.

You still don't get it, do you?! It's not about ideas, opinions or whatever. It's about facts. It's about how well one can substantiate one's arguments and opinions and ideas using facts in a debate.

And if Sky` and I use the same facts, then we're both equally right regardless of who mains who!

 

[Hive]

but you don't use the same facts...
you were basing your insights off of limited tourney data in the peach thread, sky was using his insights as a competitive peach players and his experience with tournaments personally. its not the same...
he just has more insight than you.
and again, i'm not going to keep doing this. this is totally unproductive to anything. and has been for quite awhile now. agree to disagree, and let's drop it...

 

[Yuna]

but you don't use the same facts...
you were basing your insights off of limited tourney data in the peach thread, sky was using his insights as a competitive peach players and his experience with tournaments personally. its not the same...
he just has more insight than you.
and again, i'm not going to keep doing this. this is totally unproductive to anything. and has been for quite awhile now. agree to disagree, and let's drop it...

Peach used the **** friggin' facts as I did. He just added a little stuff about two specific stages! Other than that, he said absolutely nothing I had not already said.

So what if Sky is a Competitive Peach player? If he cannot sufficiently justify his standpoint, why should you care? Maybe he's just plain wrong? How come you bend over and just take it just because it's a Peach player instead of demanding actual facts?

But I've had it with you. Several days of trying to get you to see reason has given me as much as when I last attempted to do the same thing a few months back, nothing. You still think you were right and that my arguments were flimsy and that yours were justified and that your tournament results proved something or whatever.

Fine. Continue on leading that existence. Continue debating in the same way using the same arguments, logic, reasoning and facts.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Yuna, you're still around....still pwnting noobs in debates?

On topic though...this Chart seems a little bias...

 

[Hive]

But I've had it with you. Several days of trying to get you to see reason has given me as much as when I last attempted to do the same thing a few months back, nothing. You still think you were right and that my arguments were flimsy and that yours were justified and that your tournament results proved something or whatever.

you arguments weren't conclusive, and were limited by the data that we were interpreting and your insights. i didn't say they were flawed.
and i'm saying my arguments were legitimate questions from the data available. i'm not saying that they were right (they weren't imo).

Fine. Continue on leading that existence. Continue debating in the same way using the same arguments, logic, reasoning and facts.

guess i'll have to suffer lol ^^
seriously, thanx, this needed to stop.

 

[Surri-Sama]

When you agree to stop argueing...dont post another arguement in the same post ^_-

 

[BentoBox]

No...

1.) When did Boss ever win money using Mario in tournament? If you talk about placing top8 then Mario may be viable like almost ever other character. But this is not what being "viable" is all about. If he wins money in a tournament by using Mario you could say he's viable but he never does. His best result ever was IIRC at Cataclysm4, where he never won when using Mario - he basically went Luigi against Ally, Azen and pretty much everybody else. He got 4th using Luigi...so you could say that Luigi is borderline viable. But please show me the results of a Brawl tournament where Boss won money by using Mario.

Okay, I see how it is :3

2.) There are indeed more Diddy Kong players than Lucario players. Before Lee Martin picked up Lucario all his placings indeed came from Azen alone. This is a fact. Even now these two are basically the only players who win or place top3 with Lucario. So yes, Lucarios high placings are trends based on two very dominant players (Lee Martin wins basically every tournament he goes to in the south and Azen is MD/VAs best player), unless you can show me results of other players.
Diddy Kongs success on the other hand is certainly not only based on NL. There are many Diddy Players, who are among the best and most successful players: WC has Nanerz and TC1, the south has Le_thien and Fliphopper, MW has AZ and EC has NL. Every region has at least one Diddy Kong player who is able to win money, which is more or less the main requirement for counting as viable.
If anybody says that Diddy Kong is more viable than Lucario he has enough facts to back that claim up. Lucarios success is a trend based on the success of two extraordinarily talented players (until proven otherwise) while Diddy Kongs succes is the result of him being a more viable, better character...at least until Lucario besomes as popular and results change in Lucarios favour but right now this isn't the case and it's unlikely to change.

Le THieN/??
Singles:
-2nd out of 30 @ 3/21 Tau Kappa Omega Nintendo Wii Tournament, Norman, OK; $20
-4th out of 56 @ 6/14 OKGamers' TnT & Joe Momma's SSBB Tourney, Tulsa, OK
-2nd out of 21 @ 7/2 Bwett & Fogo's Bi-Weekly Dallas Tournament, Dallas, TX; $5
-3rd out of 32 @ 7/17 Midnight Gaming Championship, Oklahoma City, OK
-1st out of 34 @ 7/26 HxC LAN Center Promo Tourney, Oklahoma City, OK; $100 GameStop Gift Card
-1st out of 40 @ 8/2 Midnight Gaming Championship, Oklahoma City, OK; $100, $25 McDonald's Gift Card and MGC T-shirt
-2nd out of 32 @ 8/30 HxC Promo Tourney #3, Oklahoma City, OK; $100
-2nd out of 34 @ 9/6 Got Owned?, Stillwater, OK; $45
-17th out of 112 @ 10/4 HOBO 11, Houston, TX
-He also did get 3rd at OH SNAP

Nanerz/Nanrz
Singles:
-13th out of 30 @ March 15th 08, CGC SFSU Brawl Singles # 1
-9th out of 23 @ March 28th 08, CGC SFSU Brawl Singles # 2
-1st out of 46 @ March 29th 08 , Pnt San Lorenzo's first brawl tourny 130$
-9th out of 147 @ April 5 – 6 08, Capital Brawl
-3rd out of 40 @April 12, 2008, CGC SFSU Brawl Singles # 3 45$
-3rd out of 38 @ April 20 08, Brawlin @ da Grapevine 20$
-4th out of 29 @ May 10th 08, CGC SFSU Brawl Singles # 5

Is this your definition of large scale tournaments, Yuna, Gheb? You do have to realize that -ALL- results are taken into account and not just the ones you are yourself filtering out. Do you know if there was a high concentration of skill present at each of these events? Since the number of entrants and the pool money aren't telling enough, I want to know where it is that you guys saw Diddy win anything BIG, that doesn't have NL written on it. When and where did AZ place in the money and who did he beat?

I'd write more but I g2g to class.

edit: I can provide the same type of results for Peach (not because I think she's viable but simply to prove that these results do not mean much, as YOU have been telling me). Until proven otherwise, Diddy is, too, part of the "viable like almost ever other character" group. Does he have a higher chance of making it up there? Sure, but that's irrelevant. Every character in C+ has that potential. Sadly, results do not yet reflect such a reality.

SHOW ME those trends you are referring to.

 

[Sky`]

Peach used the **** friggin' facts as I did. He just added a little stuff about two specific stages! Other than that, he said absolutely nothing I had not already said.

So what if Sky is a Competitive Peach player? If he cannot sufficiently justify his standpoint, why should you care? Maybe he's just plain wrong? How come you bend over and just take it just because it's a Peach player instead of demanding actual facts?

But I've had it with you. Several days of trying to get you to see reason has given me as much as when I last attempted to do the same thing a few months back, nothing. You still think you were right and that my arguments were flimsy and that yours were justified and that your tournament results proved something or whatever.

Fine. Continue on leading that existence. Continue debating in the same way using the same arguments, logic, reasoning and facts.

lol@calling me Peach. xD

I think this argument can end with the following.

"Peach is not viable in tournaments if you are looking to place first, or even top five. She's not now, and she probably won't be viable anytime soon, if at all."

Yuna and I are on the same standpoint, with the same facts, the only difference between us, is that I actually Main her.

So From Hive's side, I get what she's saying. It's like, it's hard to take the word, or merrit, from somebody with out the experience and knowledge. Not saying you don't Yuna, but In terms of IRL experience, It's obvious that I have more than you, for the simple reason that I main peach, and you don't. XD

But Also, Hive, from Yuna's side, He's completely right. It doesn't reaaaaly matter either way. EX. Drk Pch says that Peach is viable in tournament, and that she can win first in a regional. He's been Maining Peach since Melee, so he's had much more Peach maining Exp than I have. However, it's clear that his opinion is misguided and ignorant. What it comes down to, is who's got the facts to back up their claims. And Yuna is trying to convey, that regardless of whether or not he plays peach, he's got the facts to support his claim, stating that peach isn't Viable in tournament. The only thing I offered to this topic, is the very same claim, with similar evidence, only I main peach, so when I argue for something that's actually correct, My words probably hit harder, cause I've been there, and done that.


Those are my two cents. :3

 

[salaboB]

But Also, Hive, from Yuna's side, He's completely right.

What he's saying may be right, but he drives the majority of his arguments by "Your reasoning is flawed" without properly taking apart their point, and lacking evidence that can be quoted in support of his own.

Find where Yuna outlines anything explaining succinctly that an only-Peach can't realistically be expected to win tournaments because at the top level of play she'll be counterpicked too hard by people who have multiple characters they can play. In fact, I just went to look at his first post to see (Since an excellent place for a great debater to crush the opposing argument is going to be the opening statement) and all he says is "Peach can't beat Snake." He doesn't mention how Peach fares on the first round (Whether she can get that critical first win or not), whether she can get CP'ed on stages (Like you did), whether she can CP anyone else to other stages (Like you clarified). He just says "Snake beats Peach." How is this suddenly a well defended point that proves Peach can't win tournaments?

Basically, he only gives his argument one fact at a time, and then backing up each fact are almost always veiled insults or pats on his back about how smart he is. And the facts actually don't stand up by themselves, many of them can be taken apart as Hive did.

 

[Panix]

50 bucks says that if M2K learned peach and played with her in tourney's he'd place first in 1 or anthor.

 

[Yuna]

Find where Yuna outlines anything explaining succinctly that an only-Peach can't realistically be expected to win tournaments because at the top level of play she'll be counterpicked too hard by people who have multiple characters they can play.

"She has multiple problematic match-ups?" (paraphrase)

In fact, I just went to look at his first post to see (Since an excellent place for a great debater to crush the opposing argument is going to be the opening statement) and all he says is "Peach can't beat Snake."

That was me stating my case clumsily. It was not supposed to say "Peach cannot beat Snake", it was supposed to say "Peach cannot outperform Snake". I started out by stating that Peach does not have greater potential than Snake. Then I mistyped a single sentence. Then I went back to talking about potential.

My first post was never meant to delve into the Peach vs. Snake match-up. That was a mistyping on my part.

Basically, he only gives his argument one fact at a time, and then backing up each fact are almost always veiled insults

I stay simplistic due to the simplistic nature of a great number of posters on this forum. When prompted and if needed, I will add new arguments. It's not a veiled insult to merely pick someone's post apart.

or pats on his back about how smart he is.

Don't lie. "Almost always" my tuchas. I rarely ever address my own "greatness". It is almost always someone claiming my ego is huge and me countering with how I can afford it. In other words, they brought it up. I usually don't.

And the facts actually don't stand up by themselves, many of them can be taken apart as Hive did.

Hive didn't take apart a single one of my facts. Stop lying.

50 bucks says that if M2K learned peach and played with her in tourney's he'd place first in 1 or anthor.

500 bucks says M2K's Peach will never take a major tournament with the best players in the United States present.

 

[BentoBox]

1k says that the top spots (those that matter) will go to MKs and the rare Snake. And those who do get that far with other characters are simply not representative enough of the current "trends", so they are not to be used as supporting evidence. Case closed.

 

[RPK]

Okay, I see how it is :3






Is this your definition of large scale tournaments, Yuna, Gheb? You do have to realize that -ALL- results are taken into account and not just the ones you are yourself filtering out. Do you know if there was a high concentration of skill present at each of these events? Since the number of entrants and the pool money aren't telling enough, I want to know where it is that you guys saw Diddy win anything BIG, that doesn't have NL written on it. When and where did AZ place in the money and who did he beat?

I'd write more but I g2g to class.

edit: I can provide the same type of results for Peach (not because I think she's viable but simply to prove that these results do not mean much, as YOU have been telling me). Until proven otherwise, Diddy is, too, part of the "viable like almost ever other character" group. Does he have a higher chance of making it up there? Sure, but that's irrelevant. Every character in C+ has that potential. Sadly, results do not yet reflect such a reality.

SHOW ME those trends you are referring to.

WCSL...N4nerz took 3rd place. In addition, your results for him are all the way back from May and dont go up till recent like you did for the Lucario player. I just dont see that as fair. =\ Also, you should take TC1 into account...

 

[.Kiyo]

Hmm, this is a fairly accurate representation of how skill of character and player range. I wonder what that means for Jigglypuff... hmm...

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No...

1.) When did Boss ever win money using Mario in tournament? If you talk about placing top8 then Mario may be viable like almost ever other character. But this is not what being "viable" is all about. If he wins money in a tournament by using Mario you could say he's viable but he never does. His best result ever was IIRC at Cataclysm4, where he never won when using Mario - he basically went Luigi against Ally, Azen and pretty much everybody else. He got 4th using Luigi...so you could say that Luigi is borderline viable. But please show me the results of a Brawl tournament where Boss won money by using Mario.

2.) There are indeed more Diddy Kong players than Lucario players. Before Lee Martin picked up Lucario all his placings indeed came from Azen alone. This is a fact. Even now these two are basically the only players who win or place top3 with Lucario. So yes, Lucarios high placings are trends based on two very dominant players (Lee Martin wins basically every tournament he goes to in the south and Azen is MD/VAs best player), unless you can show me results of other players.
Diddy Kongs success on the other hand is certainly not only based on NL. There are many Diddy Players, who are among the best and most successful players: WC has Nanerz and TC1, the south has Le_thien and Fliphopper, MW has AZ and EC has NL. Every region has at least one Diddy Kong player who is able to win money, which is more or less the main requirement for counting as viable.
If anybody says that Diddy Kong is more viable than Lucario he has enough facts to back that claim up. Lucarios success is a trend based on the success of two extraordinarily talented players (until proven otherwise) while Diddy Kongs succes is the result of him being a more viable, better character...at least until Lucario besomes as popular and results change in Lucarios favour but right now this isn't the case and it's unlikely to change.

No, you're ruining my traps!

So you claim you actually know this Yuna?

Then why on earth didn't you just say so? I always assumed that you never answer my questions because you don't actually know the answer. After all, there is no reason an intelligent debater would try to avoid facts that prove his opposition wrong. Unless, of course, he has no idea what he was talking about.

 

[BentoBox]

Yuna does not know what he is talking about.

WCSL...N4nerz took 3rd place. In addition, your results for him are all the way back from May and dont go up till recent like you did for the Lucario player. I just dont see that as fair. =\ Also, you should take TC1 into account...

I looked at their ranking thread in the Diddy section and ran a search on TC1 in T.results section, couldn't find much. Give me those rankings in big scale tournaments, the only ones that matter, because Yuna said so.

 

[Brinzy]

1k says that the top spots (those that matter) will go to MKs and the rare Snake. And those who do get that far with other characters are simply not representative enough of the current "trends", so they are not to be used as supporting evidence. Case closed.

If this was sarcasm, then you need to show it better.

Clearly if other characters do win often enough (which is merely relatively "rare" but not something completely uncommon in itself), those results will be used as evidence that they are viable. More than one Wario wins tournaments (though I have not researched the top tournaments around since I simply do not care), so that's evidence enough that Wario is viable.

The best player using Peach and winning shows that Peach can win when used by a player of significantly higher skill than his opponent. A good selection of Peach players placing well would show that Peach is viable. M2K winning with Peach wouldn't show much.