SuSa
Banned via Administration
Theorycraft is practical, realistic, and can be applied to matchups. Contrary to the ever-so-wide that all theorycraft is bad and only proven data in matches should matter. That is why I created this thread, and I hope you read the entire thing before commenting.
As mentioned in my previous thread about matchups I was interested in making this thread but wanted to make sure people read it. I've decided to go ahead and make this thread.
Be prepared for one hell of a read. Skimping out on the content will lead to misconceptions or misunderstandings of what I'm trying to get across here.
I'm going to go under the impression that everyone has an idea of what theorycrafting is. While many disagree with the idea of it and want in-game data to support arguments and many other things - I will attempt to show people how important theorycraft is.
Another thing before we start, take all theorycraft with a grain of salt. Very rarely is theorycrafting perfect, so you always have to keep this in mind.
THESE ARE MY VIEWS FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE WITH THEM!!!
I divide theorycrafting into three levels. These levels are
- Theoretical
- Practical
- Realistic
Now many of you may think that makes very sense. Isn't all theorycraft "theoretical"? Well... this is why this thread is going to be long. I will begin to explain these three levels, and how to properly apply theorycraft to matches.
Theoretical
Theoretical theorycraft (how weird does that sound when you say it?) is theorycraft which has been proven to be as such. Just theorycraft. It's only theoretically possible but not humanly possible.
Here is a quick example:
Meta Knight can shut down Sonic using only Dtilt and Up-B
This, in theory, is true. But it is not realistically possible. This should be fairly obvious, but that is because I used an extreme example for that purpose. Theoretical theorycraft is, in theory, perfectly true. However you can see why using this strong of theorycraft is bad.
At all costs, you want to avoid using theorycraft of this level. It is simply unrealistic.
Practical
Practical theorycraft is within the realms of possibility, but deals with human factors that are not measurable or hard to take into account. At this level, things have to be taken with a large grain of salt. While the theory is practical, it's still not realistic. Practically - I should be able to powershield every move in the game that takes longer than 12~ frames - the average human reaction time.
However as many matches have shown, this only holds true to an extent. There are other factors that occur which make this theory have holes. It's perfectly find to state what I did, and it is backed with data, but it will not 100% always be true.
Many people, myself included, use this level of theorycraft - and it's perfectly valid. It's the interpretation and how you state the data that causes problems and arguments to occur. Both parties need to have the initial understanding that this theory is more of a "% of the time" than an "always" (which is what theoretical theorycraft is).
Your example:
I can practically powershield 90% of Ganon's moveset and therefore should never lose to a Ganon if I play off reaction. This is true to a large degree, but that would mean I should always JV-4 a Ganon. I have a few times, but it's not always the case and I have come very close to losing to Ganon's.
I can't really think of a better way to say anything I have, and I've repeated myself a few times to try and make a point... so I'll leave on my example and this statement.
Realistic
Realistic theorycraft isn't even theorycraft in a sense..... It's usually backed by data and facts that are measureable and cannot be disputed, but given it's context I consider it a part of theorycraft.
An example being:
Mario dies at 108% from Snake's utilt when it is fresh if Mario has perfect DI. This is far earlier than Mario can kill Snake.
Would you agree that is a fact? Or would you consider it theory? I myself consider it a little bit of both, especially because of the second statement. The second statement could be proven false if I can gimp or spike Snake before 108% is that right? Other's would argue "Well duh, but we're speaking about on the stage with an attack" and blah blah blah. This is why it becomes theorycraft.
If I just stated the first part, is it fact or theory? I would still consider it both.
How to apply Theorycraft
Okay, so I split theorycraft into three levels. Now how do you use it?
- Do not use theoretical theorycraft. Ever.
- Try to restrict your use of Practical Theorycraft
- Make sure your using correct data for Realistic Theorycraft
Outside of that list, which should be a no brainer, let's go over one last aspect of theorycraft that is extremely important......
BE ABLE TO ARGUE BOTH SIDES
If you do not know your opponents options in a given scenario, your theorycraft will be flawed! This means before you even attempt to theorycraft in the "Practical" area, study your opponents character. Make sure you know enough of their options to compare to your own, make sure it falls into a realistic human capability; and then you can argue it.
This is where most people fail in their theorycraft. They are ignorant of the other sides options and do not take them into account when they theorycraft. This makes their theorycraft completely worthless!
:leek: