I voted +1 against TL for the same reason I voted -3 against ICs.
The characters haven't used their tools more efficiently to make an improvement.
Toon Links don't Zdrop, DDDs can't really get in against ICs and wreck them as they should.
I hope for a v4 where more DDDs develop technology to get in ICs' zoning, and TLs avoid getting grabbed better.
Anyway, something I told you several times in those threads, Results alone don't say a thing.
It's all about describing tools and weighing them.
This is why we're struggling with the Falco discussion, we all have described our tools, know how dangerous they are, but everyone are weighing them differently, so a number for them is hard to agree on.
This is why ICs have the +3, ICs are expected not to allow DDD to get in to separate them.
Results are important but results alone are explaining nothing.
You're being horribly inconsistent with this post.
You say results don't mean anything, but then you say that the DDD:TL MU is +1 because TLs don't Z-drop (which is derived from results). If "it's all about describing tools and weighing them," then you're pretty much agreeing that the MU
should have been a 0, but you declined from voting for it because of what results have shown. Results mean a whole lot more than what you give them credit for. If the results don't back the 'theory', which is what you're referring to, then that means that the theory is very possibly incorrect in some way.
Btw, when have you EVER seen me just use results by themselves? I
always list strengths and weaknesses we have in the MU along with strats and techs we can use, while giving video evidence to prove the practicality of what I am saying (which you tend to go too deep into by trying to see how 'legitimate' the two players are when all I'm trying to show is how practical a certain tech/strat is). I always explain my reasoning.
After all that, I tend to use results from mostly high/top-level players of the characters in question to
corroborate my arguments. In other words, I present theory, practicality, and relevant results evidence. For some reason, you tend to find some problem with this way of doing things, which is somewhat irksome. Results matter because they prove that your statement,
"DDDs can't really get in against ICs and wreck them as they should," is just plain false. Now, one can
disprove certain results by pointing out instances in a match where a player played the MU very incorrectly, leading to an unlikely outcome, but you never do this. You rarely try to counter my points directly. Instead, you flit around the issue and say that I am arguing incorrectly. If my results don't mean much, then why don't you prove it?
We're not "struggling" at all with the Falco discussion. The Falcos are just being really adamant about their position (which is understandable). Heck, one of the Falcos even agrees with us. Going by numbers, we should win if it's put to a vote. However, the discussion is being dragged out and if it takes any longer, then things may change simply because, well,
the discussion is taking too long.