Stop it with the Lazy Man's Way Out! /rant thread

[Xerit]

Sounds like thread over to me. Was fun debating with you, and thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[Ruuku]

People don't look "deeper" into their secondary characters. That is what mains are for. You develop your main to its and your fullest potential, your secondary exists solely to cover the holes in your main's game. Thats the textbook definition of the main/secondary relationship.

Maybe my issue is that I either don't have a main or I have multiple mains.

Plenty of people main less popular/lower tier characters. It would be great if everyone picked their character without worrying about tiers and worked on them until they could compete. However you can't really blame people for not intentionally gimping their chances of winning a fight by picking a main like Ganon or Samus who just plain aren't as strong as other characters.

There's plenty of people that play main less popular/lower tier characters but how many of them do you see in tournaments? I remember one of my friends that mains C. Falcon and secondaries MK. I asked him, why is it that I've never seen him play Falcon in tournament if that is his main? He answered that from what he's seen, Falcon has a lot of bad matchups.

Its possible for the player to make up for problems in the characters game, but most of the time switching to a higher tier character can drastically improve your performance and according to conventional wisdom raise your potential in the long term.

How does switching to a higher tier character raise your potential?

 

[Xerit]

Maybe my issue is that I either don't have a main or I have multiple mains.

Could be, but thats just the conventional wisdom, there are players who play a variety of characters as "mains" and do just fine. That just tends not to be the case.

There's plenty of people that play main less popular/lower tier characters but how many of them do you see in tournaments? I remember one of my friends that mains C. Falcon and secondaries MK. I asked him, why is it that I've never seen him play Falcon in tournament if that is his main? He answered that from what he's seen, Falcon has a lot of bad matchups.

Your friend is right. I don't particularly like it either as I enjoy a good mix of characters instead of the same old tired matchup. However fact is low tier characters by and large are low tier for a reason.

There is a possibility however that by playing a low tier character you can throw people who aren't used to the matchup off and win because they aren't prepared. Its also possible, though unlikely that you or your friend could stumble onto an undocumented AT or way of playing a low tier character that can so drastically alter their game that they become "high tier" themselves.

However, the reason your friend probably plays MK instead of his main is because possibilities and slim chances don't win tournaments as often as safe plays and strong characters. Thats not his fault, thats just how playing anything competetively works.

How does switching to a higher tier character raise your potential?

Well first you must accept the conventional wisdom that low tier characters are low tier because they simply can't compete for one reason or another with higher tier characters, which I do. After that you follow that thought to its logical conclusion, someone playing a low tier character, no matter how good, is going to hit a glass ceiling and be unable to compete above that level. However if this skilled player simply switched to a higher tier character, a character who's "glass ceiling" is much higher he would be able to compete with better players because he wouldn't be held back by his characters shortcomings.

That is what I meant by raising your potential by switching to a better character.

 

[SuSa]

What Xerit is trying to say, although it doesn't directly apply if you don't get the point...... :

"Learn to play the game on Easy, before you try to play the game on Hard."

 

[Xerit]

Urm I am? I'm not even sure I understand that translation.

I'm not advocating playing low tier before playing high tier at all. Especially if you want to be competetive.

However I do respect those who play low tier and attempt to just "make it work" despite having better options available. Its extremely impressive to me when they win because they did it with one hand behind their back, so to speak.

 

[B!squick]

I'm not advocating playing low tier before playing high tier at all. Especially if you want to be competetive.

Reverse that and then it should make sense.

 

[Xerit]

Oh I see what SuSa meant now.

I don't know how I misunderstood so badly.

Thanks JayDeth

 

[B!squick]

No probs. Bowser knows what's up by being that bridge between the lows and the highs, lol.

 

[DMG]

Same for Wario.

He's low tier. No range man.

 

[Ruuku]

Bowser literally is a bridge.

Your friend is right. I don't particularly like it either as I enjoy a good mix of characters instead of the same old tired matchup. However fact is low tier characters by and large are low tier for a reason.

There is a possibility however that by playing a low tier character you can throw people who aren't used to the matchup off and win because they aren't prepared. Its also possible, though unlikely that you or your friend could stumble onto an undocumented AT or way of playing a low tier character that can so drastically alter their game that they become "high tier" themselves.

However, the reason your friend probably plays MK instead of his main is because possibilities and slim chances don't win tournaments as often as safe plays and strong characters. Thats not his fault, thats just how playing anything competetively works

Naw, my friend's playing around. He knows that the metagame currently is very unbalanced.

Well first you must accept the conventional wisdom that low tier characters are low tier because they simply can't compete for one reason or another with higher tier characters, which I do. After that you follow that thought to its logical conclusion, someone playing a low tier character, no matter how good, is going to hit a glass ceiling and be unable to compete above that level. However if this skilled player simply switched to a higher tier character, a character who's "glass ceiling" is much higher he would be able to compete with better players because he wouldn't be held back by his characters shortcomings.

That is what I meant by raising your potential by switching to a better character.

This is only true because the gap between the tiers is large.

 

[Sukai]

Meta Knight is the best choice for a general secondary, when you need a character to whip out when the going gets tough and you think you can't make it out with your main(s).

However (the way you put it actually) when it comes to individual match ups, yes, Meta Knight is not the best choice, but still the easiest, if you want to cover up a bad match up, seconding Meta Knight is easier than Seconding Kirby, Peach and/or Falco.

Then you have take into account ease of play.
Falco and Peach (not sure about Kirby) all have deep learning curves quick into picking them up, with Falco everything starts with short hopped lasers, and buffering an action out of it, it requires much quicker thinking than normal. Peach requires float cancelling, glide tossing, and well spaced aerials.

Meta Knight is easy to pick up and play, has no deep learning curve, and covers all match ups well.

You have to factor in more than just match up numbers.

 

[zeldspazz]

Meta Knight is the best choice for a general secondary, when you need a character to whip out when the going gets tough and you think you can't make it out with your main(s).

However (the way you put it actually) when it comes to individual match ups, yes, Meta Knight is not the best choice, but still the easiest, if you want to cover up a bad match up, seconding Meta Knight is easier than Seconding Kirby, Peach and/or Falco.

Then you have take into account ease of play.
Falco and Peach (not sure about Kirby) all have deep learning curves quick into picking them up, with Falco everything starts with short hopped lasers, and buffering an action out of it, it requires much quicker thinking than normal. Peach requires float cancelling, glide tossing, and well spaced aerials.

Meta Knight is easy to pick up and play, has no deep learning curve, and covers all match ups well.

You have to factor in more than just match up numbers.

But, the title of the thread is "STOP WITH THE LAZY MAN'S WAY OUT" So, Susa is arguing the point you're trying to make. You are saying Metaknight's easy, no learning curve, etc. so people are too lazy to pick up a different cp that covers specifically your main's bad matchups. So, just picking up Metaknight because he is easy is what Susa is saying not to do, because it's lazy and not always the best choice.

 

[Xerit]

But, the title of the thread is "STOP WITH THE LAZY MAN'S WAY OUT" So, Susa is arguing the point you're trying to make. You are saying Metaknight's easy, no learning curve, etc. so people are too lazy to pick up a different cp that covers specifically your main's bad matchups. So, just picking up Metaknight because he is easy is what Susa is saying not to do, because it's lazy and not always the best choice.

However if you read on SuSa also admitted that there are reasons beyond being lazy for picking up MK as opposed to other more specialized secondaries. Among those are the arguments given in the post you quoted, along with the fact that MK is safe and virtually immune to CP. MK will continue to the be the best choice for a secondary until he is able to be CP'd. If you pick Peach or Falco as your secondary you stand a chance of running into someone who plays their CP's, in which case you are screwed because your main and secondary are both CP'd so even if you win match 2, you wont win match 3 (by the numbers) meaning you lose the set as a whole.

The "Lazy Man" argument falls on its face when applied to a competetive tournament scene for exactly this reason.

Besides picking up the "easy character" in MK leaves you more time to practice with your main. That means, hopefully, you will have to rely on your secondary less and less, and I know of very few people who would see less people relying on MK as a bad thing. Diversity being the spice of life and all.

Edit: Personally I detest MK. I don't like playing him, I don't like fighting him. However when it came time to choose a secondary try as I might the only logical thing for me to do in order to be competetive was bite the bullet and pick him up as a failsafe. There is no logical reason not to choose MK. Until I can find a way to beat my D3's hard matchups that is.

 

[SuSa]

Your main and secondary shouldn't be losing to the same character. That's the point of a secondary.

My argument withstands, but is only used less then 50% of the time - in very specific situations that are relatively rare.

 

[Zankoku]

Then you have take into account ease of play.
Falco and Peach (not sure about Kirby) all have deep learning curves quick into picking them up, with Falco everything starts with short hopped lasers, and buffering an action out of it, it requires much quicker thinking than normal. Peach requires float cancelling, glide tossing, and well spaced aerials.

what? Falco is the simplest top tier character in the game, and that's including Meta Knight.

I'm always confused about the "Peach has a really big learning curve" thing but I hear that quite a bit among various people so whatever.

 

[SuSa]

None of the characters in Brawl are actually that hard to learn... yes, some are harder then others; but none are really hard. <_<

/coming from an Ex Random main, and a person who uses whoever you need matchup experience for in friendlies

 

[tocador]

Yoshi has a high learning curve :B.

 

[zeldspazz]

However if you read on SuSa also admitted that there are reasons beyond being lazy for picking up MK as opposed to other more specialized secondaries. Among those are the arguments given in the post you quoted, along with the fact that MK is safe and virtually immune to CP. MK will continue to the be the best choice for a secondary until he is able to be CP'd. If you pick Peach or Falco as your secondary you stand a chance of running into someone who plays their CP's, in which case you are screwed because your main and secondary are both CP'd so even if you win match 2, you wont win match 3 (by the numbers) meaning you lose the set as a whole.

The "Lazy Man" argument falls on its face when applied to a competetive tournament scene for exactly this reason.

Besides picking up the "easy character" in MK leaves you more time to practice with your main. That means, hopefully, you will have to rely on your secondary less and less, and I know of very few people who would see less people relying on MK as a bad thing. Diversity being the spice of life and all.

I think one of us is missing the point of Susa's thread. Here's my view of what I tihnk she's saying.

Yes Metaknight cant be counterpicked. He has even or better matchups with every character in the game (minus Snake on FD). But lets put this into senario.

I personally main Zelda. I've gotten passed my first round, and I find I'm going to be facing Mr. Game and Watch, and eventually an Olimar (just pretend). They is arguabely Zelda's worst matchups. Now, I could choose Metaknight as a counterpick, as he has a 60:40 advantage over GaW compared to Zelda having a 25:75 disadvantage. But lets see about this:

Zelda's worst matchups: Mr. Game and Watch and Olimar
Metaknight vs. Mr.Game and Watch = 60:40 advantage
Metaknight vs. Olimar = 60:40 advantage

Seems pretty good, cant go wrong with an advantage like that. But lets look a little closer huh. What are my other less obvious options?

Lets see:

Marth vs. Mr. Game and Watch = 65:35 advantage
Marth vs. Olimar advantage = 65:35 advtange (60:40 the other board says)

Oh look at that shall we? Marth has a bigger advantage over my main's worst matchups than Metaknight does. It just took me literally 7min. to look that up.

I could have just thought "Metaknight is the best, easiest, player in the game so he is the best counterpick" when in reality for my personal matchups this is FALSE. Marth is a better counterpick to an extent, since counterpicks are suppose to cover your main's worst matchups. So, in the long run if I'm not lazy and I learn to use Marth in these certain senarios, then Marth can end up being a more effective counterpick for Zelda, my main, then Metaknight.

Sorry if it's long, I just wanted to put it into another scenario. There is no "best counterpick". Depending on who you main, you can find a character who counters your worst matchups the best, which is not always Metaknight.

 

[XienZo]

I could have just thought "Metaknight is the best, easiest, player in the game so he is the best counterpick" when in reality for my personal matchups this is FALSE. Marth is a better counterpick to an extent, since counterpicks are suppose to cover your main's worst matchups. So, in the long run if I'm not lazy and I learn to use Marth in these certain senarios, then Marth can end up being a more effective counterpick for Zelda, my main, then Metaknight.

The problem is, there are three rounds. What can you do once they counterpick Marth?

Edit: Or basically:

I've gotten passed my first round, and I find I'm going to be facing Mr. Game and Watch, and eventually an Olimar (just pretend).

1. What happens if you lose the first round?

2. How do you know they'll use Olimar?

 

[SuSa]

This is why this can only be used if you win your first match and lose your second, and they stay with that character. <_<

 

[Matador]

None of the characters in Brawl are actually that hard to learn... yes, some are harder then others; but none are really hard. <_<

/coming from an Ex Random main, and a person who uses whoever you need matchup experience for in friendlies

I agree with this. Nobody in Brawl is exactly HARD to learn to play. To have a well enough understanding of the game to do WELL with that character...that's what separates the pros from the scrubs with knowledge.

That's why the better players can switch characters and still perform well. M2K ***** with D3 before he went MK. Reflex ventured down the list to low tier and still places well. Azen and NL can play anybody at high level. That's because their understanding of how the game is played is so accurate.

@ Ampharos: Inui said himself that he played MK for like...a few weeks before he started placing better than his Marth. MK is the easiest character to pick up. To place well with him, you've got to put in effort, but for the sake of counterpicking, he's the best choice.

If I plan on CPing MK against someone of CO18 or Atomsk's calibur, I whole-heartedly agree with you. Hell, anyone who knows me knows that I don't even HAVE a secondary for the same reasons you've described. However, for the sake of argument, if I did have a secondary which, by definition, only exists to deal with my character's and personal bad matchups, then I'm saying MK is the best choice.

 

[Xerit]

Which works until your Zelda/Marth runs into a G&W/D3 or any other pair which would counter your 2 characters.

My D3/MK however will never run into a situation where both my characters are CP'd and I'm forced to use a third character or play uphill.

Which is the counter point which has been repeated ad-nauseum throughout this thread. I've already put my argument into scenario in previous posts.

MK is easy to learn, safe, and effective. There is NO other safe character in the game. The point of a secondary is to get you out of rough spots, and MK is the only one who makes you immune to CP. Plus as has been stated above the extremely easy learning curve gives you more time for your main.

@SuSa:

No offense but you want people to pick their secondary character and hope that the only time they will use them is if they win their first match, lose their second, and the person stays with the same character? What about the rest of the time?

 

[Sukai]

I was just saying why people say Meta Knight is the easiest, and under a general sense of just having a pocket character, Meta Knight is the best option.

Basically a well rounded (match-up wise) character will end up being the better choice, especially in double blind picks.

 

[SuSa]

@SuSa:

No offense but you want people to pick their secondary character and hope that the only time they will use them is if they win their first match, lose their second, and the person stays with the same character? What about the rest of the time?

You need to read the entire ****ing thread. Every post I've made.

All of them.

Especially the one I noticed that my 2am lack-of-sleep logic epicly failed and the logic only works in very few situations.

 

[Xerit]

You need to read the entire ****ing thread. Every post I've made.

All of them.

Especially the one I noticed that my 2am lack-of-sleep logic epicly failed and the logic only works in very few situations.

I did read the thread. I've responded to every post you've made just about. However it seems like even though you admittedthe logic was faulty you still believe its valid. I appologize if I'm misunderstanding, I didn't mean any offense.

My argument withstands, but is only used less then 50% of the time - in very specific situations that are relatively rare.

That quote in particular seems to contradict itself which leads me to wonder whether you still believe your argument has merit or not.

Your argument as it stands is only an argument that MK isn't the best CP for every character, something I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to argue against. However as it stands its no longer a valid argument for him not being the best secondary.

 

[DMG]

Lol it has merit. It's just a smaller amount than he previously thought. Which is fine, he's told us he has realized that now.

He brings up a good point that, while it's application is limited, it still has positive attributes to it.

 

[SuSa]

My argument holds in situations, however not with all.

Overall, the logic is extremely faulty. It can still be used however, it's just faulty.

However it's so faulty, that MK is technically the best character for everyone. But then you may as well main him, because the logic behind why MK is the best is because he can't be counterpicked.

Which means you'd be using him 2 out of 3 matches if you needed to used him.

Instance:

Match 1 - Main loses to their Main
Match 2 - You CP MK against their main and win
Match 3 - You stay MK because if you went back to your main, they'd stick with their main - and since the matchup is bad - you have a high chance of losing.

The more bad matchups your character has to have a secondary for - the more times this can be applied.

 

[Xerit]

Lol it has merit. It's just a smaller amount than he previously thought. Which is fine, he's told us he has realized that now.

He brings up a good point that, while it's application is limited, it still has positive attributes to it.

If you're accomplished enough to second a character for that situation and MK to cover the rest of the time sure.

At that point though MK and whatever your other non-main is aren't secondaries though, they are alternates.

@SuSa

Yeah that occured to me as well. Frankly MK probably would be the best choice for a main from a purely strategical competetive standpoint.

Then your logic works pretty much every time in fact. You could main MK and second say D3 or whatever and only pull out D3 when you can CP a character who stands no chance against him (like Wolf for instance).

 

[Overclassed]

yeah, but why spend hours learning one or two characters in depth when you can spend a few minutes with Metaknight and have even matchups across the board?

Sure, he may not have a huge ratio advantage- but the fact that his learning curve is nearly a straight line means you dont have to invest time into playing as him AND your respective main.

Who SHOULD be Metaknight.

P2W

 

[SuSa]

MK doesn't really need secondaries.... you could have everyone as an alternate though so if you do lose you can pick the most **** matchup against your opponent.

However if they were smart, they'd simply go MK.

And the world would turn into MK dittos.

So my logic still holds up, since not everyone can/wants to go MK and not everyone switches people if they lose/win.....

 

[Overclassed]

MK doesn't really need secondaries.... you could have everyone as an alternate though so if you do lose you can pick the most **** matchup against your opponent.

However if they were smart, they'd simply go MK.

And the world would turn into MK dittos.

So my logic still holds up, since not everyone can/wants to go MK and not everyone switches people if they lose/win.....

Not quite right...

Your logic only holds if your conclusion is right in any and all 'worlds'.

Since your conclusion, seemingly "MK is not the best counter in any situation", is not (there could exist a world where best meant "easiest", i.e) then your conclusion is, in fact, invalid. Not to mention your premises:

Matchup ratios cannot be concrete, and so cannot make concrete premises.

Which seems to be the only premise, too :< except for the implied "If the matchup ratio is more in x character's favor, x character is the better counter."

Which, again, uses the term better.

So really, its not 'logical' in the sense of the term. Its not really anything, except perhaps "strong", if people are more willing to believe your premises.


.....


Anyway. p.p

 

[Xerit]

MK doesn't really need secondaries.... you could have everyone as an alternate though so if you do lose you can pick the most **** matchup against your opponent.

However if they were smart, they'd simply go MK.

And the world would turn into MK dittos.

So my logic still holds up, since not everyone can/wants to go MK and not everyone switches people if they lose/win.....

Your logic doesn't hold up, as you've admitted 3 or 4 times in this thread.

MK doesn't NEED secondaries, however as you pointed out some characters counter alot harder than MK. Therefore picking a secondary who does would allow you to take advantage of situations where you can CP that character and play with an advantage for one round before returning to your safe main.

Also yes, if everyone did the logical thing and picked MK because hes the safe character the world would be MK dittos. Luckily though there are players out there (like myself for instance) who refuse to main MK simply because they don't like them. Its not logical, and by the book its not a good idea, but luckily thats how it is.

 

[SuSa]

Then you would need to play most all characters to ensure you have the best matchup no matter what. Which defeats the purpose of a secondary, as you would alternate everyone.

 

[Xerit]

Then you would need to play most all characters to ensure you have the best matchup no matter what. Which defeats the purpose of a secondary, as you would alternate everyone.

No thats the point, you wouldn't have to because you wouldn't pull out your secondary unless the CP opportunity arose.

Its not the same as not playing MK when you are forced to play the CP game. Playing MK means you only participate in the CP game when and if you want to.

 

[XienZo]

However it's so faulty, that MK is technically the best character for everyone. But then you may as well main him, because the logic behind why MK is the best is because he can't be counterpicked.

I think that using MK as a main actually NEGATES his ability to not be counterpicked, because if you lost with MK, you no longer have a safe counterpick, and in the third round your opponent can CP your CP or use their main against your MK.

 

[SuSa]

No thats the point, you wouldn't have to because you wouldn't pull out your secondary unless the CP opportunity arose.

Its not the same as not playing MK when you are forced to play the CP game. Playing MK means you only participate in the CP game when and if you want to.

But MK does not have the best matchup against everyone. Therefore the CP opportunity would arise nearly every single time you lost a match, except against the few characters that MK does have the best matchup against. (Marth IIRC)

Your second statement regards another matter and could technically be applied to everyone.

I think that using MK as a main actually NEGATES his ability to not be counterpicked, because if you lost with MK, you no longer have a safe counterpick, and in the third round your opponent can CP your CP or use their main against your MK.

Then it can be argued that no matter who you used, you would have lost due to simply being the worse player. Or the opponent could have just gotten lucky and you SD'd or something...

 

[uhmuzing]

This isn't really a problem for me because I have no intention of picking up MK. That said, I do need a secondary for my Marth....

On-topic: I agree with this thread completely; the message is true. And this is fun to read.

 

[zeldspazz]

The whole rounds and **** in tournaments wasnt important in my post.....ppl missed the point.

The point was Marth countered my main's worst matchups better than metaknight basically.

 

[ssbbFICTION]

Falco goes fairly even with kirby. Personally I dont really see why Falco wouldnt have the advantage.

 

[SuSa]

Falco goes fairly even with kirby. Personally I dont really see why Falco wouldnt have the advantage.

If only I had the video... a Kirby literally dodged nearly every single laser Falco used.....with crouches, airdodging, and jumps along with some strange approach/retreat tactics....

Also I was using them purely for the ability to try and have some data backing up my statements. They are still just as valid with or without said data.