Wow, this isn't totally biased at all! Yeah! Peach has close to the potential of Snake and Meta Knight (in fact, you claim she has better potential than Snake)!
Get off it. Peach's potential is highly limited. At the highest level of skill, she's not very viable. If she is, prove it by actually winning tournaments with her, not relying on Azen doing OK-ish with her 'til he runs into certain match-ups.
Peach has very limited resources at her disposal. In order for her to win over Snake, you have to assume that the Peach player is in possession of Azen-level mindgames while the snake is pretty shoddy. It doesn't work that way. Someone of Azen's level playing Snake will always perform vastly better than someone of the same level wielding Peach because while Peach can do some pretty neat stuff, Snake is just that much better than her at pretty much everything.
This is quite pathetic. For over a year now, the Peach fanboys (and it's almost always the Peach fanboys) have been clamoring to any kind of "evidence" that Peach is viable, going as far as to tout her, oh, two minor tournament wins a few months back in the face of one bazillion major loses.
Why do you lie like this? Are you trying to justify your character choice? Are you trying to snare less knowledgeable players into choosing Peach thinking she's on par with Snake and Meta Knight? Are you a masochist and trying to make yourself look like less good players when you win as Peach since she's, apparently, not very far off from MK in terms of potential? Why? Why? Why?
Edrees, I expected better from you.
Yes, MK can lose to CF is CF does almost everything right and MK does almost everything wrong. It doesn't mean that match-up isn't still a 80-20 and CF will most probably lose.
Nowhere does it say "This is just to illustrate a concept". In fact, you specifically say it's to illustrate your opinion of Peach, implying it is your opinion she's close to MK-level in terms of potentiall.
At higher levels, people are less prone to make huge mistakes. Thus, someone having an 80-20 match-up is less likely to see their opponent make 29 huge mistakes which they can take advantage of, all while still suffering from the fact that if they make even one, that might be the match-breaker because the match-up is just that steep.
So your concept is horribly flawed to begin with.
I.e., not a match where an MK dies because they messed up their glide and as a result of that lose the match (even if the MK is being wielded by M2K or whatever).
Get off it. Peach's potential is highly limited. At the highest level of skill, she's not very viable. If she is, prove it by actually winning tournaments with her, not relying on Azen doing OK-ish with her 'til he runs into certain match-ups.
Peach has very limited resources at her disposal. In order for her to win over Snake, you have to assume that the Peach player is in possession of Azen-level mindgames while the snake is pretty shoddy. It doesn't work that way. Someone of Azen's level playing Snake will always perform vastly better than someone of the same level wielding Peach because while Peach can do some pretty neat stuff, Snake is just that much better than her at pretty much everything.
This is quite pathetic. For over a year now, the Peach fanboys (and it's almost always the Peach fanboys) have been clamoring to any kind of "evidence" that Peach is viable, going as far as to tout her, oh, two minor tournament wins a few months back in the face of one bazillion major loses.
Why do you lie like this? Are you trying to justify your character choice? Are you trying to snare less knowledgeable players into choosing Peach thinking she's on par with Snake and Meta Knight? Are you a masochist and trying to make yourself look like less good players when you win as Peach since she's, apparently, not very far off from MK in terms of potential? Why? Why? Why?
Edrees, I expected better from you.
Freak accidents where the MK is obviously ****ty/doing a ****ty job =/= matter. MK played a totally ****ty game. Just look at that last death. Or how he kept, you know, downsmashing at point blank range with CF blatantly shielding, just asking for a shieldgrab.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5DEnaS6alc
Yes, MK can lose to CF is CF does almost everything right and MK does almost everything wrong. It doesn't mean that match-up isn't still a 80-20 and CF will most probably lose.
Backtracking I see. Too bad you didn't say any of this in the OP. You just said that it wasn't totally accurate, i.e. "I might be a bit off".Yes I did overestimate Peach. Because I don't have time to write the equation of a line that perfectly depicts where I think she would go, its guess and check..lol. This was all guesswork, like I said none of this is accurate, its the CONCEPT that I wanted to illustrate.
Nowhere does it say "This is just to illustrate a concept". In fact, you specifically say it's to illustrate your opinion of Peach, implying it is your opinion she's close to MK-level in terms of potentiall.
What, delusion? At the highest level of play, low tiers will suffer more. Because at lower levels, ****ty players who have little experience with match-ups (or good players having a really bad day/match/set) lose to characters against whom they have 80-20 match-ups.I'm not saying a perfectly played low tier can't beat a sucky MK, I just didn't refine the lines to be that accurate. The idea is there for fun. I think it fosters better discussion of tiers.
At higher levels, people are less prone to make huge mistakes. Thus, someone having an 80-20 match-up is less likely to see their opponent make 29 huge mistakes which they can take advantage of, all while still suffering from the fact that if they make even one, that might be the match-breaker because the match-up is just that steep.
So your concept is horribly flawed to begin with.
No one's arguing perfect play. We're arguing highest levels of human play currently exhibited at major tournaments.For example if a tier list is based only on both players playing perfectly at the highest level, do we ignore any tournament results of players playing at in between skill levels? If we include those tournament results where players are not playing perfectly, then we admit a lot of player skill is factored into the tier list. Just saying, it's a thought.
I.e., not a match where an MK dies because they messed up their glide and as a result of that lose the match (even if the MK is being wielded by M2K or whatever).