Arcansi
Smash Champion
I have never been able to play street fighter 4 in any version, as of right now.
And yet I do love the game.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)
- Thread starter ~Firefly~
- Start date
And yet I do love the game.
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,302
But the real point is, I'm very upset with Arcansi and lost some respect for him.
He insisted multiple times that he did not have the means to advance his ruleset through local testing. It took me about 15 minutes in a local scene I'm not a part of to do what he said was impossible.
At 4am no less.
He insisted multiple times that he did not have the means to advance his ruleset through local testing. It took me about 15 minutes in a local scene I'm not a part of to do what he said was impossible.
At 4am no less.
Arcansi
Smash Champion
What do you mean?
You know that this side event will not be possible for somewhere in the ball park of six months looking towards a year, right?
Although your idea of a side-event is something I had not thought of and was likely a good idea.
You know that this side event will not be possible for somewhere in the ball park of six months looking towards a year, right?
Although your idea of a side-event is something I had not thought of and was likely a good idea.
Blue Yoshi
Smash Master
Arcansi, there are tons of reasons why we don't want to use your rules.
1. If we use a different ruleset than other areas, when we travel to their tournaments, we are now using an unfamiliar ruleset and will be unprepared and be destroyed.
2. At high level play, getting a grab is much harder. Low level players are dead easy to grab. Yet at high and mid-high level play, a grab is much harder to get. I rarely get grabbed by any Ice Climbers I faced (Grimice grabs me maybe once a game on average, while in my match vs Busy, he only grabbed me once, but Nana was not there for a chaingrab, so he never chaingrabbed me). So although chaingrabs still retain their similar reward at all levels, at high level play, getting a grab is much harder, and high level players can easily punish grabs well, making it a much bigger risk to the same reward. Don't be offended, but you are still a low level player, and like most low level players, are much easier to grab than higher level players, and therefore, you get chaingrabbed way more often.
3. The rules you are inserting completely ruin several characters. At first glance, it may look like no chaingrabbing allowed doesn't change much, but it changes everything. If Pikachu can't chaingrab anybody, then there is no need to worry about getting grabbed. Fox, among several other characters, will become more aggressive, giving Pikachu a MUCH harder time. Ice Climbers you state are unaffected. I just lol'd at that. Ice Climbers will become low tier. The only thing that Ice Climbers had going for them was their chaingrab. If they can't do that, any aggression at all and they are dead. And then you have tons of other chaingrab characters. Basically, my point for this point is, removing chaingrabs completely changes the entire way the matchup is played, and for some characters, makes them no longer viable in tournament play.
4. Some matchups are even or worse even with a chaingrab. As I already stated, Yoshi with the infinite on Wario is still a Wario advantage with the infinite. You remove the infinite, and now it's even more in Wario's favour, possibly a +3 matchup instead of 0 or +1. While some matchups may be more even, you are making other matchups more impossible, completely countering your entire goal of balancing the game. There are other matchups, some which I said in a previous post, and many others as well, where removing the chaingrab makes a bad matchup even worse.
5. You are removing one low risk high reward factor from the game. Yet, there are tons of other low risk high reward factors that you are not removing. Characters camping, (Falco, Pikachu, Pit and Snake, for example), is a low risk, high reward for that character. Not only does it deal free damage to the other character, it also forces them to approach. Remove the free damage and the forcing of the other character to approach, and you have a completely different matchup. There are other factors like this that completely change a matchup which you are leaving un-changed (planking, gimping, non-grab infinites, etc). You are taking away one specific factor, yet leaving tons of other factors in. Why should this one factor be removed while the others are not?
6. It was said as a joke earlier, but it is a viable reason. Some smashes do 6% damage, while others do 20% damage. How do you balance this? On the same token, Snake has huge range on his tilts. Mario's tilts have no range. Marth has huge range on almost all of his moves. Jigglypuff's range is pitiful for all her moves. How do you balance this? Jigglypuff dies at 1% from a move, Bowser dies at 999% (exaggerating, but you get the idea). How do you balance this? Ike kills characters at 20%. Jigglypuff has no kill moves. How do you balance this? You get the idea. The only way to truly balance the game is to have Dittos only. Therefore, no matter how hard you try, the game will never be truly balanced.
7. As you stated before, some people are happy with the current ruleset and don't want to change it. Very few people are completely opposed to any change what-so-ever. However, seeing as a few do exist, and I was missing one point to get 9 points, I'm putting this in as well.
8. Some people simply do not like your rules and prefer the current ruleset. It is called a personal preference. Everybody here is open to new ideas for rules, but that doesn't mean we must accept every rule that comes into play. You complain that we do not want to use your rules. What if some new person shows up and says we must do coin matches only? Do we have to accept these rules and use them? Most people will not want to do a coin match, as they prefer to do stock matches instead. People have a personal preference, and regardless of their reasoning, logical or illogical, their personal preference is their personal preference. And this point leads to the next, last, and possibly most important point:
9. Majority rules. It doesn't matter what the situation is, if the majority wants a certain ruleset, then that is the ruleset that will be used. I'm sure over half the people here have a problem with parts of the ruleset. Yet, due to the majority wanting that particular rule the way it is, they have to deal with it and adapt. I, for example, have several problems with the ruleset. Yet, in each case, the majority has voted that the rule was fine the way it is, so I had to adapt. In the case of your ruleset, the VAST majority do not want to use your ruleset. Therefore, by majority rules, your ruleset is not used. This does not mean that they are unwilling to change the rules, this simply means that they do not wish to use your specific rules.
If someone does not want to use your ruleset, that is their opinion. Most people do not want to use your ruleset, and that is their opinion. No matter what their reason is, logical or not, they do not want to use your ruleset. And since majority rules, your ruleset will not be used.
You basically have four options that I can think of knowing this:
1. Give up and leave entirely because nobody is doing it your way (don't do this, I'm just listing this as an option before someone says I forgot it)
2. Continue to force in your ruleset as it is.
3. Modify your ruleset so that maybe people will actually like it. Try to keep the essential idea you are trying to get, but compensate and change it such that people may actually like it. For example, in the past, there was a rule where unassisted standing infinites (i.e. no wall, etc) were not allowed (this banned DDD's infinite on DK, Mario, Samus, Luigi, and Bowser, as well as Marth's on Ness and Lucas, among other standing infinites. IC infinites are not considered standing, so they were all still legal). Another rule was no infinites can go past 150% (at this point, you're basically dead anyways, but I'm just stating examples here). So maybe we don't agree with your ruleset now (I believe it's 3 grabs max), but figure out what your essential goal is (e.g. removing standing infinites or standing chaingrabs) and suggest that. Essentially, what happens is you suggest a rule, people say what they dislike about it, you modify that, they critique it again, you keep modifying it, and eventually you get to a ruleset that a majority likes, and it will get used.
Something to keep in mind for this option is you are trying to add or modify a rule in the current ruleset. The priority is on the current ruleset, and you have to create a rule that people are willing to add or modify into the current ruleset. As of now, nobody wants to use your current rule. Maybe modify it, taking the advice people have given, and you might get a better greeting.
4. Leaving the current ruleset as it is, and trying to make your ruleset a side event at a tournament. This way, your ruleset gets used exactly how it is, and people can still enjoy brawl the way they want, meaning everyone's happy.
5. Not bother with changing the rules and just playing with the current ruleset, discarding all effort in changing the rules and just playing the game the way everyone else wants to.
If I know you at all, I know you will go with option 2 or 3 (I heavily encourage option 3). As of this point, nobody likes your current ruleset. People have stated several reasons, some logical, some illogical, but no matter what the reason is, you should try to take them all (or as many as possible) into consideration, and try modifying your rule so that people will actually like it. Believe me, you are not the only person who hates chaingrabs and infinites. Tons of people hate the Ice Climbers just because of their infinites. But as your current rule suggestion goes, nobody likes it, as it takes way too much away from the game. So try modifying it a little, and maybe you will get some support, and maybe, if enough people like it, it may be used.
Also keep in mind that most people do not like sudden changes. Maybe they need to ease their way into the new ruleset. If your goal is to remove all chaingrabs entirely, maybe try removing one thing at a time, for example, standing infinites first, and working your way from there. Sure, some matchups may be affected by this, but nowhere near as much as it will get affected if you removed all chaingrabs right away. Start somewhere, and slowly move your way towards what you are trying to achieve (keeping in mind that majority rules, so people have to be willing to take the steps).
Either that, or simply try to make your ruleset a side event. Sure, there may be no money in the pot, but you can have your ruleset done the way you want it. Keep in mind that there are probably tens of potential side events that could happen in a tournament (e.g. allbrawl, brawl minus, 64, melee, low tiers, Falcon only, the list goes on), so it won't be a consistently done side event (I think it's been about a year since there's been 64 singles, and I always ask for that for example). But one tourney, it will be used, and it can be analyzed and a decision can be made on what was good and bad, and maybe the rules can be modified from just having it as a side event. But as always, majority rules, and if the majority wants a different side event, a different one will happen. But if you want it to be a side event, eventually it will happen.
Anyways, I'm dead tired, so I'll end my post there before I fall asleep while posting. Hopefully this is helpful for you Arcansi. Your intentions are all great, trying to changing the game for the better. However, your approach in doing so is not. Try a different approach, one of the two I suggested, and maybe you will see better results. I can tell you right now, you keep doing it the way you are currently doing it, you will see the same results you've seen so far. Change your approach, and you'll see a change in the response.
1. If we use a different ruleset than other areas, when we travel to their tournaments, we are now using an unfamiliar ruleset and will be unprepared and be destroyed.
2. At high level play, getting a grab is much harder. Low level players are dead easy to grab. Yet at high and mid-high level play, a grab is much harder to get. I rarely get grabbed by any Ice Climbers I faced (Grimice grabs me maybe once a game on average, while in my match vs Busy, he only grabbed me once, but Nana was not there for a chaingrab, so he never chaingrabbed me). So although chaingrabs still retain their similar reward at all levels, at high level play, getting a grab is much harder, and high level players can easily punish grabs well, making it a much bigger risk to the same reward. Don't be offended, but you are still a low level player, and like most low level players, are much easier to grab than higher level players, and therefore, you get chaingrabbed way more often.
3. The rules you are inserting completely ruin several characters. At first glance, it may look like no chaingrabbing allowed doesn't change much, but it changes everything. If Pikachu can't chaingrab anybody, then there is no need to worry about getting grabbed. Fox, among several other characters, will become more aggressive, giving Pikachu a MUCH harder time. Ice Climbers you state are unaffected. I just lol'd at that. Ice Climbers will become low tier. The only thing that Ice Climbers had going for them was their chaingrab. If they can't do that, any aggression at all and they are dead. And then you have tons of other chaingrab characters. Basically, my point for this point is, removing chaingrabs completely changes the entire way the matchup is played, and for some characters, makes them no longer viable in tournament play.
4. Some matchups are even or worse even with a chaingrab. As I already stated, Yoshi with the infinite on Wario is still a Wario advantage with the infinite. You remove the infinite, and now it's even more in Wario's favour, possibly a +3 matchup instead of 0 or +1. While some matchups may be more even, you are making other matchups more impossible, completely countering your entire goal of balancing the game. There are other matchups, some which I said in a previous post, and many others as well, where removing the chaingrab makes a bad matchup even worse.
5. You are removing one low risk high reward factor from the game. Yet, there are tons of other low risk high reward factors that you are not removing. Characters camping, (Falco, Pikachu, Pit and Snake, for example), is a low risk, high reward for that character. Not only does it deal free damage to the other character, it also forces them to approach. Remove the free damage and the forcing of the other character to approach, and you have a completely different matchup. There are other factors like this that completely change a matchup which you are leaving un-changed (planking, gimping, non-grab infinites, etc). You are taking away one specific factor, yet leaving tons of other factors in. Why should this one factor be removed while the others are not?
6. It was said as a joke earlier, but it is a viable reason. Some smashes do 6% damage, while others do 20% damage. How do you balance this? On the same token, Snake has huge range on his tilts. Mario's tilts have no range. Marth has huge range on almost all of his moves. Jigglypuff's range is pitiful for all her moves. How do you balance this? Jigglypuff dies at 1% from a move, Bowser dies at 999% (exaggerating, but you get the idea). How do you balance this? Ike kills characters at 20%. Jigglypuff has no kill moves. How do you balance this? You get the idea. The only way to truly balance the game is to have Dittos only. Therefore, no matter how hard you try, the game will never be truly balanced.
7. As you stated before, some people are happy with the current ruleset and don't want to change it. Very few people are completely opposed to any change what-so-ever. However, seeing as a few do exist, and I was missing one point to get 9 points, I'm putting this in as well.
8. Some people simply do not like your rules and prefer the current ruleset. It is called a personal preference. Everybody here is open to new ideas for rules, but that doesn't mean we must accept every rule that comes into play. You complain that we do not want to use your rules. What if some new person shows up and says we must do coin matches only? Do we have to accept these rules and use them? Most people will not want to do a coin match, as they prefer to do stock matches instead. People have a personal preference, and regardless of their reasoning, logical or illogical, their personal preference is their personal preference. And this point leads to the next, last, and possibly most important point:
9. Majority rules. It doesn't matter what the situation is, if the majority wants a certain ruleset, then that is the ruleset that will be used. I'm sure over half the people here have a problem with parts of the ruleset. Yet, due to the majority wanting that particular rule the way it is, they have to deal with it and adapt. I, for example, have several problems with the ruleset. Yet, in each case, the majority has voted that the rule was fine the way it is, so I had to adapt. In the case of your ruleset, the VAST majority do not want to use your ruleset. Therefore, by majority rules, your ruleset is not used. This does not mean that they are unwilling to change the rules, this simply means that they do not wish to use your specific rules.
If someone does not want to use your ruleset, that is their opinion. Most people do not want to use your ruleset, and that is their opinion. No matter what their reason is, logical or not, they do not want to use your ruleset. And since majority rules, your ruleset will not be used.
You basically have four options that I can think of knowing this:
1. Give up and leave entirely because nobody is doing it your way (don't do this, I'm just listing this as an option before someone says I forgot it)
2. Continue to force in your ruleset as it is.
3. Modify your ruleset so that maybe people will actually like it. Try to keep the essential idea you are trying to get, but compensate and change it such that people may actually like it. For example, in the past, there was a rule where unassisted standing infinites (i.e. no wall, etc) were not allowed (this banned DDD's infinite on DK, Mario, Samus, Luigi, and Bowser, as well as Marth's on Ness and Lucas, among other standing infinites. IC infinites are not considered standing, so they were all still legal). Another rule was no infinites can go past 150% (at this point, you're basically dead anyways, but I'm just stating examples here). So maybe we don't agree with your ruleset now (I believe it's 3 grabs max), but figure out what your essential goal is (e.g. removing standing infinites or standing chaingrabs) and suggest that. Essentially, what happens is you suggest a rule, people say what they dislike about it, you modify that, they critique it again, you keep modifying it, and eventually you get to a ruleset that a majority likes, and it will get used.
Something to keep in mind for this option is you are trying to add or modify a rule in the current ruleset. The priority is on the current ruleset, and you have to create a rule that people are willing to add or modify into the current ruleset. As of now, nobody wants to use your current rule. Maybe modify it, taking the advice people have given, and you might get a better greeting.
4. Leaving the current ruleset as it is, and trying to make your ruleset a side event at a tournament. This way, your ruleset gets used exactly how it is, and people can still enjoy brawl the way they want, meaning everyone's happy.
5. Not bother with changing the rules and just playing with the current ruleset, discarding all effort in changing the rules and just playing the game the way everyone else wants to.
If I know you at all, I know you will go with option 2 or 3 (I heavily encourage option 3). As of this point, nobody likes your current ruleset. People have stated several reasons, some logical, some illogical, but no matter what the reason is, you should try to take them all (or as many as possible) into consideration, and try modifying your rule so that people will actually like it. Believe me, you are not the only person who hates chaingrabs and infinites. Tons of people hate the Ice Climbers just because of their infinites. But as your current rule suggestion goes, nobody likes it, as it takes way too much away from the game. So try modifying it a little, and maybe you will get some support, and maybe, if enough people like it, it may be used.
Also keep in mind that most people do not like sudden changes. Maybe they need to ease their way into the new ruleset. If your goal is to remove all chaingrabs entirely, maybe try removing one thing at a time, for example, standing infinites first, and working your way from there. Sure, some matchups may be affected by this, but nowhere near as much as it will get affected if you removed all chaingrabs right away. Start somewhere, and slowly move your way towards what you are trying to achieve (keeping in mind that majority rules, so people have to be willing to take the steps).
Either that, or simply try to make your ruleset a side event. Sure, there may be no money in the pot, but you can have your ruleset done the way you want it. Keep in mind that there are probably tens of potential side events that could happen in a tournament (e.g. allbrawl, brawl minus, 64, melee, low tiers, Falcon only, the list goes on), so it won't be a consistently done side event (I think it's been about a year since there's been 64 singles, and I always ask for that for example). But one tourney, it will be used, and it can be analyzed and a decision can be made on what was good and bad, and maybe the rules can be modified from just having it as a side event. But as always, majority rules, and if the majority wants a different side event, a different one will happen. But if you want it to be a side event, eventually it will happen.
Anyways, I'm dead tired, so I'll end my post there before I fall asleep while posting. Hopefully this is helpful for you Arcansi. Your intentions are all great, trying to changing the game for the better. However, your approach in doing so is not. Try a different approach, one of the two I suggested, and maybe you will see better results. I can tell you right now, you keep doing it the way you are currently doing it, you will see the same results you've seen so far. Change your approach, and you'll see a change in the response.
Jason!
Smash Lord
T-block
B2B TST
maaaan some cool names in here
sup miles and lux
sup miles and lux
| Big D |
Smash Master
WAIT JUST A GOSH DARN MINUTE
How is Arcansi going to TO?
Through Smashboards?
Edit: Good post Rob, the problem I have with banning standing infinites is that if you ban those, why not ban death grabs like Pikachu-Fox or Wario-Wolf?
Also, Arcansi, you mentioned earlier that you want the LGL abolished due to it surgically nerfing some characters.
...
Pick what you want, surgical nerfs or no surgical nerfs, it's illogical to want both, even you would have to agree on that one.
Edit2: Zelda's broken, +2 Zelda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLLE6Bw-ww0&feature=g-u&context=G23e8470FUAAAAAAAPAA
Crisis
Smash Ace
I'm in for a smashfest, and so is Courier since he suggested it lol. Nice sig lol ^
SinisterB
Smash Champion
I think we all know that feel in Dawson's sig
Which reminds me..
D3 sucks
Sounds like we have some decent smash going on tomorrow, what time is best for everyone?? I stick by 1-2pm like usual.
Which reminds me..
D3 sucks
but more importantly i'm learning the infinite ditto
Sounds like we have some decent smash going on tomorrow, what time is best for everyone?? I stick by 1-2pm like usual.
Hey, declare victory if you want, but don't mention me any more in the future, k? Thanks.
I didn't care to argue with you before, in the end I decided to stop doing so, and I don't care to now.
T-block
B2B TST
l WANT PROOF
Kantrip
Kantplay
Oh yeah THAT's what I was about to bring up before I fell asleep.
Yeah this is like RaW VS RaI debates in D&D
Yeah this is like RaW VS RaI debates in D&D
what is going on in here
sorry dudes i'm not going to a smashfest
too busy lately
christmas and ****
raeally not feelin' it
man it's been a while since i played brawl
sinister $1 MM?
kevin $1 MM?
jason we're MMing, right? how much is it again?
sorry dudes i'm not going to a smashfest
too busy lately
christmas and ****
raeally not feelin' it
man it's been a while since i played brawl
sinister $1 MM?
kevin $1 MM?
jason we're MMing, right? how much is it again?
Arcansi
Smash Champion
I can see and understand this. I don't see how it would actually make anything unfamiliar, given the following.
There are 2 parties affected by the rule, and neither of them see any negative difference in play.
The person trying to grab will find it EASIER to win games out of region, which is a good thing.
The person trying not to get grabbed will still be trying as hard as they would in a game with the rule in place, and may actually be better at it due to the increased amount of times they will have to avoid it in games with the rule.
1. How can you assume my skill level? What basis do you have to do this?
2. How does this affect anything? Other people in the thread seem to be agreeing with me on the relative ease of getting a grab (this of course, being relative to doing other things) and while it is of course harder at high level play, this just isn't relevant.
You...you don't even know what my rule is? This offends me greatly, Rob.
The rule is "No single character may unavoidably regrab any other character 4 times in a row."
IC's are 2 characters. -_-. Pika still gets AMAZING rewards off of his chaingrabs. 3 Regrabs and a followup is still great.
I would appreciate it if you remembered the rule from now on.
3 Regrabs into usmash, although not as good as an infinite, is still really good. It would probably go to +2, which is suitable for a counterpick matchup. As long as it overall balances the game, it actually does more than it's job. (Because it also makes the game more competitive by definition, you see.)
Ease of implementation, lack of rules complexity, and a large amount of other factors you seem to have forgotten about.
And even if those didn't exist, would that be a reason to impede a better game?
You seem to think I care about true balance. What reasoning leads you to this utterly false conclusion?
This isn't a point.
Personal preference actually doesn't matter. Coin battles can be logically and irrefutably argued against quite easily because they don't test the skills we want too, and test other ones we don't want tested.
Kantrip
Kantplay
RaW is Rules as Written. This refers to how the official D&D sourcebooks are worded and what they say.
RaI is Rules as Intended. This is a partially subjective term meant to describe people's views on how the game was intended to be designed.
There are many cases where this debate arises, and the arguments go somewhat like this:
"The book says that this is the case and, even if it causes balance issues, this is how we should rule it."
Meanwhile, the other side argues "Yes but I believe that they actually meant to have it function something along the lines of this, so we should rule it this way."
In these particular debates, the RaI side will often come out with a much more balanced ruling, but there is no proof that it was truly what the developers intended to happen.
RaI is Rules as Intended. This is a partially subjective term meant to describe people's views on how the game was intended to be designed.
There are many cases where this debate arises, and the arguments go somewhat like this:
"The book says that this is the case and, even if it causes balance issues, this is how we should rule it."
Meanwhile, the other side argues "Yes but I believe that they actually meant to have it function something along the lines of this, so we should rule it this way."
In these particular debates, the RaI side will often come out with a much more balanced ruling, but there is no proof that it was truly what the developers intended to happen.
Arcansi
Smash Champion
But wasn't D&D like a game built around house rules being a kind of intrinsic part?
Kantrip
Kantplay
True, but these debates arise in more of a theory section of the game. Mostly you'll find these in character optimization forums, where people are just trying to build characters that stretch the limits of the game, and in these cases the rules are very important.
T-block
B2B TST
Why can we assume that the game is created to be somewhat balanced? I want proof of this as well.
The assumption that the game is intended to be fun is safe, based on marketing premises and the definition of "game". However, whether chain grabs are "fun" is completely subjective. Chain grabs can be "fun" for the performer. Perhaps they are not "fun" for the victim, but it could be said just as easily that losing a stock is not "fun" for the victim. Losing the game is not "fun" for the loser either. To state that the developers would not have allowed chain grabbing to stay in the game on the basis of "fun" is incredibly flawed. Do you think the fact that Dedede can regrab many characters after a d-throw was not noticed in the many hours spent testing the game? Perhaps the Ice Climbers' chain grab was not found, but it is natural to look for follow-ups for a move such as Dedede's d-throw, and it is highly likely that regrab was one of the options found, and yet it was left in the game. What are we to conclude from this?
Once again, Arcansi, you fail to realize that the premises on which you build your arguments are themselves flawed. With flawed premises, any conclusion drawn is going to be invalid, no matter how solid the logic is.
SinisterB
Smash Champion
only if you come to a smashfest
..
- Oh & Kevin if you can manage getting to the venue early next tourney wanna try doubles? Might be teaming with a Shielda for revival of salt and who else would be better practice than the scrubby low tier main himself!
HNG
Smash Journeyman
B.C. Brawl Monthlis - MK bannd monthly! Dat Confirmd!
Those typos.
Those typos.
Arcansi lives in some unknown town far from Vancouver. He won't be participating in any event for a very long time.
This means my Sheik could be viable against Pikachu.
I am willing to come. Problem is while I was at work, my mom scheduled a heater-fixer to come to the house at 10:30, and my divorced dad said he's taking the car so I'll be busing. My house will not be viable tomorrow, and with my dad here probably not until he's gone (Jan 2nd I think). I can probably arrive by 1-2pm but I've never bused to Stronghold so I can't be sure...
Hype!
I can't speak for the rest of BC, but no.
This so much.
What are the rules again? No chaingrabs and no luck-based skills like Turnip (bomb) pulling and Judgement?
Vega<3
Only watched the first minute of that video. JuJux is a good player; Zelda is still terrible. Falco was not playing the MU correctly.
This is correct, but my house can't be a venue until about a week.
Apologies, my place isn't viable until next week.
When has Arcansi ever provided proof? (I skip all his lengthy posts so I dunno)
He plays all the LoZ characters minus Tink.
Hi Harris :D :D
| Big D |
Smash Master
I may be able to host a smashfest on the 31st/1st, due to the only time I'm actually free.
inb4alwaysfree
Also we banned MK due to over centralization correct?
If we input this rule, Fox, Falco, and Wolf will be even more popular than MK.
It is only with Pikachu's CG that this be kept in check.
This is a secret of the smash lab, T-block can vouch for that.
inb4alwaysfree
Also we banned MK due to over centralization correct?
If we input this rule, Fox, Falco, and Wolf will be even more popular than MK.
It is only with Pikachu's CG that this be kept in check.
This is a secret of the smash lab, T-block can vouch for that.
Kantrip
Kantplay
FUS RO DAH
Spacies are bad.
Spacies are bad.
I hope that SmashTournoi doesn't cause an increase in Zelda's rank on the tier list >_>
Zelda's current ranking is near perfect. Also, Zelda is bad. JuJux lands more kicks than any Zelda I've seen...
Zelda's current ranking is near perfect. Also, Zelda is bad. JuJux lands more kicks than any Zelda I've seen...
i thought he was a ddd
vids don't influence tier list placement
results, however, do.
| Big D |
Smash Master
Zelda in GFs, obviously underrated.
I mean, if Zelda is that bad, then Zelda wouldn't be there.
I mean, if Zelda is that bad, then Zelda wouldn't be there.
| Big D |
Smash Master
You know what, I do, I would like to learn from the mistakes from others.
Not trying to be mean or anything, but that Falco was terrible imo. If that Falco made it to Grand Finals... imagine all the other players...
JuJux rated Zelda rank 33 out of 38 on the European Tier List. A bit too high, but still low tier.
JuJux rated Zelda rank 33 out of 38 on the European Tier List. A bit too high, but still low tier.
Blue Yoshi
Smash Master
I give up. You're so caught up in your views that nothing else makes sense. It's not even worth arguing anymore. I'm skipping your posts, and that's that. Say what you want about me being illogical or whatever, I lost all faith in you possibly being able to have a good debate, so I'm done, do what you want, good luck, but it probably will not happen. I for one am against your rule.
No edit: C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!!
Edit: editing because I can
No edit: C-C-C-Combo Breaker!!!
Edit: editing because I can
| Big D |
Smash Master
Wow Asa, I'm hurt.