Whats with people and Honor

[Jack Kieser]

Valid critiques were brought forth, yes, but they (time and DR) were both old arguments, old common sense arguments that are the very basis for a player determining whether or not to utilize the CP system. It's a bit disingenuous to assert that any player that knows about the CP system and consciously decides not to use it hasn't thought deeply about whether the time investment required for full utilization of the counterpick system, or even a partial utilization, is outweighed by their potential gain, and whether that time investment is even feasible for them, as an individual.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Perhaps, but it seems that what he's suggesting is that we would benefit from a greater utilization.


In other words, he's attempting to convince people to generally expand their character roster and they will benefit overall, and that the trade-offs (time, diminishing returns) are overall mitigated, at least at the competitive level.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Right, but that's like suggesting that humanity would benefit from a limitless supply of energy; of course we would, and no one is asserting that we wouldn't. I'd be willing to bet that most of the players actually competing at Brawl did not, for instance, choose one character, play that one character, and then never touch any other character, ever.

Again, it's not that people have thrown aside the CP system without either thinking about it or trying it; after all, our CP system is basically telling players, "did you lose? Here's a chance at a really easy win." No one is going to turn down an offer like that unless there's really a reason to.

I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll use myself as a personal example. Let's forget for a moment that I don't main MK, and therefore automatically don't play to win. Originally, my main was Link (like, day one originally). That died quickly, so I switched to TL. He was fun, and I did well, so I played him... and lost. A lot. So, I switched to Lucario. I did better, but still lost. I tried picking up Marth for a high tier, and did better still, but my Marth was never as good as my Lucario. I picked up MK because I thought I had to, and then my Lucario AND my Marth did worse, and my MK wasn't even that good!

So, I could have learned 3 or 4 characters (including Tink), but all of them were sub-par. My solo Lucario is much better than my sub-par Lucario with a Marth secondary and a Tink/Trainer tertiary.

I came to that conclusion after trying out maining multiple characters, and I'm willing to bet most other people did, too. Sometimes, depending on player (which is what Orion et all seem to be forgetting in this thread: that this is all based on player preference), the investment just doesn't see any rewards, and the only people who haven't really, honestly tried investing are the ones who probably never played in bracket before, anyway.

And those people are better off learning about the CP system in a thread that isn't this one.

 

[Juushichi]

Right, but that's like suggesting that humanity would benefit from a limitless supply of energy; of course we would, and no one is asserting that we wouldn't. I'd be willing to bet that most of the players actually competing at Brawl did not, for instance, choose one character, play that one character, and then never touch any other character, ever.

Again, it's not that people have thrown aside the CP system without either thinking about it or trying it; after all, our CP system is basically telling players, "did you lose? Here's a chance at a really easy win." No one is going to turn down an offer like that unless there's really a reason to.

I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll use myself as a personal example. Let's forget for a moment that I don't main MK, and therefore automatically don't play to win. Originally, my main was Link (like, day one originally). That died quickly, so I switched to TL. He was fun, and I did well, so I played him... and lost. A lot. So, I switched to Lucario. I did better, but still lost. I tried picking up Marth for a high tier, and did better still, but my Marth was never as good as my Lucario. I picked up MK because I thought I had to, and then my Lucario AND my Marth did worse, and my MK wasn't even that good!

So, I could have learned 3 or 4 characters (including Tink), but all of them were sub-par. My solo Lucario is much better than my sub-par Lucario with a Marth secondary and a Tink/Trainer tertiary.

I came to that conclusion after trying out maining multiple characters, and I'm willing to bet most other people did, too. Sometimes, depending on player (which is what Orion et all seem to be forgetting in this thread: that this is all based on player preference), the investment just doesn't see any rewards, and the only people who haven't really, honestly tried investing are the ones who probably never played in bracket before, anyway.

And those people are better off learning about the CP system in a thread that isn't this one.

Scrub player here and I absolutely support this post.

I've tried tons of different characters from top to bottom before finally settling on my main (Mario --- and yes, he's still bad). I used to main Pit... then I mained Tink, but I secondary tons of characters, from Marth to Peach, Diddy to Yoshi and none of them really get it done like my Mario does.

It's not for lack of trying, though I'm a pretty average (and average means bad in competitive smash) player overall. Overall, learning CPs and etc can be rewarding. Some people don't want to be "that guy" though, not that being "that guy" is a bad thing.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Right, but that's like suggesting that humanity would benefit from a limitless supply of energy; of course we would, and no one is asserting that we wouldn't. I'd be willing to bet that most of the players actually competing at Brawl did not, for instance, choose one character, play that one character, and then never touch any other character, ever.

Again, it's not that people have thrown aside the CP system without either thinking about it or trying it; after all, our CP system is basically telling players, "did you lose? Here's a chance at a really easy win." No one is going to turn down an offer like that unless there's really a reason to.

I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll use myself as a personal example. Let's forget for a moment that I don't main MK, and therefore automatically don't play to win. Originally, my main was Link (like, day one originally). That died quickly, so I switched to TL. He was fun, and I did well, so I played him... and lost. A lot. So, I switched to Lucario. I did better, but still lost. I tried picking up Marth for a high tier, and did better still, but my Marth was never as good as my Lucario. I picked up MK because I thought I had to, and then my Lucario AND my Marth did worse, and my MK wasn't even that good!

So, I could have learned 3 or 4 characters (including Tink), but all of them were sub-par. My solo Lucario is much better than my sub-par Lucario with a Marth secondary and a Tink/Trainer tertiary.

I came to that conclusion after trying out maining multiple characters, and I'm willing to bet most other people did, too. Sometimes, depending on player (which is what Orion et all seem to be forgetting in this thread: that this is all based on player preference), the investment just doesn't see any rewards, and the only people who haven't really, honestly tried investing are the ones who probably never played in bracket before, anyway.

And those people are better off learning about the CP system in a thread that isn't this one.

I think that you've proved my point actually, that there is a viable discussion to be had here.


Orion thinks that either all or almost all players will benefit from expanding the characters that they play, specifically in regards to characters that have incredible advantages over others.


You on the other hand think that it varies based on the individual player, and that the rewards are often simply not worth the drawbacks for a great number of players, and furthermore, that the extreme case that he's suggesting is simply non-viable for the vast majority of players.



These are two potentially valid viewpoints and both deserve to have their chance to debate, they are completely different philosophies of how to play the game, and we cannot know which one is going to be the most effective in the long term without some form of legitimate discussion.



No debate huh?

 

[6Mizu]

In a way, honor is dumb. I mean if you want to play to win then you know what characters you should be plying to achieve that goal. But, some people with too much honor don't realize this or just think they can actually win with an un-viable or stop playing Brawl to go play one of the Hacked versions. If you want to win than stop playing your crappy characters! Just because you win "little" Bi-weeklys or against your friends doesn't mean your gonna win against smarter players.[

 

[Orion*]

Perhaps, but it seems that what he's suggesting is that we would benefit from a greater utilization.


In other words, he's attempting to convince people to generally expand their character roster and they will benefit overall, and that the trade-offs (time, diminishing returns) are overall mitigated, at least at the competitive level.

thank you for not being biased and looking at the whole picture

Valid critiques were brought forth, yes, but they (time and DR) were both old arguments, old common sense arguments that are the very basis for a player determining whether or not to ban MK. It's a bit disingenuous to assert that any player that knows about a competitive gaming community and consciously decides for the five billionth time to not ban MK hasn't thought deeply about the fact that the time investment required for the 3rd ban thread could be used to practice against metaknight so maybe you arent butthurt. the full utilization of the ban thread, or even a partial utilization, is outweighed by their potential gain and overused many decades ago, and whether that time investment is even feasible for most scrubs is arbitrary because they are posting on the thread rather than practicing as an individual.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I think that you've proved my point actually, that there is a viable discussion to be had here.

Orion thinks that either all or almost all players will benefit from expanding the characters that they play, specifically in regards to characters that have incredible advantages over others.

You on the other hand think that it varies based on the individual player, and that the rewards are often simply not worth the drawbacks for a great number of players, and furthermore, that the extreme case that he's suggesting is simply non-viable for the vast majority of players.

These are two potentially valid viewpoints and both deserve to have their chance to debate, they are completely different philosophies of how to play the game, and we cannot know which one is going to be the most effective in the long term without some form of legitimate discussion.

No debate huh?

Actually, you just proved my point, that there isn't a debate to be had... at least, not here.

You say that...

Orion thinks that either all or almost all players will benefit from expanding the characters that they play, specifically in regards to characters that have incredible advantages over others.

You on the other hand think that it varies based on the individual player, and that the rewards are often simply not worth the drawbacks for a great number of players, and furthermore, that the extreme case that he's suggesting is simply non-viable for the vast majority of players...

...but those are not two incompatible sides! You see, by you saying "on the other hand", you assert that I (or anyone else) disagree with Orion's assertion, and that's not true.

Every single player would be a better player if they knew everything about every character. No exceptions. Not a single person debates this, and that's all that Orion is asserting: that everyone would do better if they knew more characters, which is entirely true! That's not up for debate. That's like trying to debate whether someone with an IQ of 200 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 100 (putting aside the inherent flaws in the IQ system); of course that's true, and no one is asserting otherwise.

However, not every person is capable of taking advantage of that fact. Furthermore, not everyone even cares that you have better odds by knowing more characters.

Thus, the debate is not in this thread: the debate is in the mind of each and every player individually! Each person has to decide for himself whether he wants to main one character or 12. You cannot, and will not, convince someone of how many characters he/she should main with logic because it is a personal decision. That's it.

End of discussion.

Everyone who knows what counterpicking is knows that it's a good thing, and everyone wishes they could do it more. But, what this thread is doing is akin to telling every child that it's a good goal to be President; well, no ****, but they can figure that out on their own. Everyone tries to be President, and we still have only had 44 of them. Not everyone can do it, not everyone will do it, and not everyone wants to do it.

Same principle. It's ok to tell everyone that learning multiple characters is a good goal, but there are still only so many players that are capable of doing it. Not everyone can do it, not everyone will do it, and not everyone wants to do it.

So... again, I say that this is a blog post at best, and is better reserved for a forum other than Brawl Tactical, because everything in this thread is said in stickied threads, and it is said much more eloquently than this.

@Orion: Jeez, I see why BPC muted you. Although, it's nice to know that you can't refute me, and must rely on adum to do it for you.

 

[fkacyan]

Actually, you just proved my point, that there isn't a debate to be had... at least, not here.

You say that...



...but those are not two incompatible sides! You see, by you saying "on the other hand", you assert that I (or anyone else) thinks that we disagree with Orion's assertion, and that's not true.

Every single player would be a better player if they knew everything about every character. No exceptions. Not a single person debates this, and that's all that Orion is asserting: that everyone would do better if they knew more characters, which is entirely true! That's not up for debate. That's like trying to debate whether someone with an IQ of 200 is smarter than someone with an IQ of 100 (putting aside the inherent flaws in the IQ system); of course that's true, and no one is asserting otherwise.

However, not every person is capable of taking advantage of that fact. Furthermore, not everyone even cares that you have better odds by knowing more characters.

Thus, the debate is not in this thread: the debate is in the mind of each and every player individually! Each person has to decide for himself whether he wants to main one character or 12. You cannot, and will not, convince someone of how many characters he/she should main with logic because it is a personal decision. That's it.

End of discussion.

Everyone who knows what counterpicking is knows that it's a good thing, and everyone wishes they could do it more. But, what this thread is doing is akin to telling every child that it's a good goal to be President; well, no ****, but they can figure that out on their own. Everyone tries to be President, and we still have only had 44 of them. Not everyone can do it, not everyone will do it, and not everyone wants to do it.

Same principle. It's ok to tell everyone that learning multiple characters is a good goal, but there are still only so many players that are capable of doing it. Not everyone can do it, not everyone will do it, and not everyone wants to do it.

So... again, I say that this is a blog post at best, and is better reserved for a forum other than Brawl Tactical, because everything in this thread is said in stickied threads, and it is said much more eloquently than this.

Not wanting to attempt to better yourself is competitive suicide.

- cyan

 

[Jack Kieser]

Not wanting to attempt to better yourself is competitive suicide.

- cyan

Not the point. There is more than one way to get better. Choosing not to utilize the CP system doesn't mean you're refusing to get better; it just means that you're using a different method to get better.

Also, not everyone's skill ceiling is the same height.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Jack, come on.


We already discussed the time and dimishing returns constraints, they are incompatable viewpoints because:

1. You're suggesting that for the vast majority of players (at all levels of play), their time is best spent learning a set of characters which works for them, because due to variances between individuals, different people have different returns on time spent on learning multiple characters.


2. Orion is suggesting that you pretty much always have a greater return if you invest time learning top tier and characters to abuse certain match-ups.


Assuming same amount of time is put into the game, one of these is wrong period, which one (and whether it varies at certain levels of investment of time to the game) is certainly a worthwhile discussion.

 

[Jack Kieser]

And Orion is right, assuming you have infinite time and effort to invest.

But whether you have the time / effort to invest is a personal decision that can't be decided in a thread.

Everyone wishes they had the time / effort; not everyone does. If you have it, invest it. If you don't, don't. Everyone is in agreement on this point. Explain how debating on SWF will decide that for you, instead of playing the game and coming to the conclusion for yourself.

EDIT: I'd love to continue right now, because this is fun, but my blood sugar is crashing. I'mma get some food and be back later.

EDIT2: Oh, before I go, I'd like to point out that I never said that "for the vast majority of players (at all levels of play), their time is best spent learning a set of characters which works for them, because due to variances between individuals, different people have different returns on time spent on learning multiple characters". I said that most people don't learn multiple characters, and so they must not be able to or must not want to, because if they could or they wanted to, they would. Not entirely the same. Your way makes it seem like I know what is best for players, which I never asserted (and which Orion is asserting). My way makes it the personal responsibility of the player to decide what is best for him / her.

 

[fkacyan]

I said that most people don't learn multiple characters, and so they must not be able to, because if they could, they would.

Whoa there! This is certainly a terrificly large assumption, and one that I disagree with most heartily.

 

[Eddie G]

Not wanting to attempt to better yourself is competitive suicide.

- cyan

We know this already! We just understand that some players (those who've already tried to better themselves and those who haven't, respectively) choose to embrace this route and some do not because it is a choice left entirely in one's own hands. We do not refute the points touched on by the OP but rather the manner in which it was delivered, and have been trying to make this clear to a select few here for the past couple of pages.

Are you trying to say (more eloquently than Orion has) that player preference and individual skill caps and capabilities do not apply? That's like saying I'll pick up MK and eventually become better with him than M2K or most of the other top MKs. That is simply unattainable, nay, unrealistic! I realize that MK is logically the best character I can use, but despite my realization I choose to go with what I am personally able to embrace effectively, that being Peach and Diddy.

That does not count for lack of trying the better options (by default), mind you. I've tried repeatedly, and my MK is simply not as good as my Peach or Diddy, it's that simple. Does that make me a fool for not sticking with MK or abusing the CP system (as Orion as repeatedly asserted)? Of course not!

 

[Mew2King]

it's easy use who you are good with and like

 

[fkacyan]

Are you trying to say (more eloquently than Orion has) that player preference and individual skill caps and capabilities do not apply? That's like saying I'll pick up MK and eventually become better with him than M2K. That is simply unattainable, nay, unrealistic! I realize that MK is logically the best character I can use, but despite my realization I choose to go with what I am personally able to embrace effectively, being Peach and Diddy.

That's quite the strawman you've constructed (inbeforejudonumberkid) there, dude. I'm not saying you will be better than M2K, but there is no excuse to not have a pocket D3 to counter the characters he can shieldgrab and/or CG camp effectively. That people hide behind the excuse of it being another character to learn is just silly.

And yes, if you refuse to learn easy characters to abuse the CP system in your favor due to personal preference (Another way to refer to this is a personal restrictive mindset, which is a defining behavior of Sirlin's "scrub"), you are a fool.

 

[Ripple]

it's easy use who you are good with and like

was that english?

 

[Eddie G]

it's easy use who you are good with and like

Thank you, Jason. That is exactly what we're trying to say, especially the "who we are good with" part. Our capabilities with a certain character are usually going to be greater than another character. That doesn't mean we don't understand who the better characters are by default though, and it is unfair for anyone to assume we don't just because we choose not to ignore the concept of individual capabilities with characters.

 

[Eddie G]

That's quite the strawman you've constructed (inbeforejudonumberkid) there, dude. I'm not saying you will be better than M2K, but there is no excuse to not have a pocket D3 to counter the characters he can shieldgrab and/or CG camp effectively. That people hide behind the excuse of it being another character to learn is just silly.

And yes, if you refuse to learn easy characters to abuse the CP system in your favor due to personal preference (Another way to refer to this is a personal restrictive mindset, which is a defining behavior of Sirlin's "scrub"), you are a fool.

...Are you trying to assume that I let my personal preference hinder me? I have a pocket Diddy to cover my toughest matchup as Peach (MK)! I can handle every other matchup as Peach and have no difficulty that warrants me to switch for any of those other matchups. That is where my explanation of individual capability and personal preference with a certain character comes into play. Why CP against other matchups that do not pose a serious problem to me in tournament? There is no necessity for me to do that!

Of course, not every character is as flexible as Peach can be (which applies to characters from any tier), I understand that, and therefore may warrant (moreso) a CP situation.

Edit: Sorry about the double post.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Whoa there! This is certainly a terrificly large assumption, and one that I disagree with most heartily.

Sorry, Thio; I meant to say, "must not be able to or must not want to, because if they could or they wanted to, they would". I'll amend my post.

 

[fkacyan]

...Are you trying to assume that I let my personal preference hinder me? I have a pocket Diddy to cover my toughest matchup as Peach (MK)! I can handle every other matchup as Peach and have no difficulty that warrants me to switch for any of those other matchups. That is where my explanation of individual capability and personal preference with a certain character comes into play. Why CP against other matchups that do not pose a serious problem to me in tournament? There is no necessity for me to do that!

Of course, not every character is as flexible as Peach can be (which applies to characters from any tier), I understand that, and therefore may warrant (moreso) a CP situation.

Edit: Sorry about the double post.

But why only change the matchups you lose? Why not change the matchups you go even on to ones you win? The less you have to try, the less strain on your mind and body, the less tired you get, and the more ready you are for later tourney matches.

What may not appear to be a hindrance at first can be if you widen your perspective a little bit.

 

[Eddie G]

But why only change the matchups you lose? Why not change the matchups you go even on to ones you win? The less you have to try, the less strain on your mind and body, the less tired you get, and the more ready you are for later tourney matches.

What may not appear to be a hindrance at first can be if you widen your perspective a little bit.

Don't discredit individual circumstance. I can (and have) play all day and fatigue has yet to be a factor. This also applies to regionals/nationals I've been to. Nothing, nada, no notable physical hindrances as of yet.

I will say again that there is no necessity for me to switch if those matchups personally don't pose a threat to me in tournament. Some may consider it foolish and risky, but I actually thrive in most of her even matchups, since a bit of pressure is essential for me to play at my best. Again, more talk of individual circumstance, which is definitely not something that should be ignored on behalf of pure logical discussion, but often is.

 

[Jack Kieser]

That's weird, KBizzle. It sounds like personal preference is playing a large role in your success at a tournament level... Hmm...

^_-

 

[adumbrodeus]

And Orion is right, assuming you have infinite time and effort to invest.

But whether you have the time / effort to invest is a personal decision that can't be decided in a thread.

Everyone wishes they had the time / effort; not everyone does. If you have it, invest it. If you don't, don't. Everyone is in agreement on this point. Explain how debating on SWF will decide that for you, instead of playing the game and coming to the conclusion for yourself.

EDIT: I'd love to continue right now, because this is fun, but my blood sugar is crashing. I'mma get some food and be back later.

EDIT2: Oh, before I go, I'd like to point out that I never said that "for the vast majority of players (at all levels of play), their time is best spent learning a set of characters which works for them, because due to variances between individuals, different people have different returns on time spent on learning multiple characters". I said that most people don't learn multiple characters, and so they must not be able to or must not want to, because if they could or they wanted to, they would. Not entirely the same. Your way makes it seem like I know what is best for players, which I never asserted (and which Orion is asserting). My way makes it the personal responsibility of the player to decide what is best for him / her.

Reread what I said.



What I'm suggesting is that Orion's point is that learning top tier and secondaries to destroy MUs is the best investment of THE TIME YOU HAVE IN GENERAL.


And I think you're misrepresenting my representation of your point, what I'm suggesting is that your point is that in general, player-specific plans are the best in investment of the time you have.

 

[Masmasher@]

That's quite the strawman you've constructed (inbeforejudonumberkid) there, dude. I'm not saying you will be better than M2K, but there is no excuse to not have a pocket D3 to counter the characters he can shieldgrab and/or CG camp effectively. That people hide behind the excuse of it being another character to learn is just silly.

And yes, if you refuse to learn easy characters to abuse the CP system in your favor due to personal preference (Another way to refer to this is a personal restrictive mindset, which is a defining behavior of Sirlin's "scrub"), you are a fool.

thats not what a scrub is
really jacks post did explain everything perfectly. he mentioned all the varibles

 

[Orion*]

Thank you, Jason. That is exactly what we're trying to say, especially the "who we are good with" part. Our capabilities with a certain character are usually going to be greater than another character. That doesn't mean we don't understand who the better characters are by default though, and it is unfair for anyone to assume we don't just because we choose not to ignore the concept of individual capabilities with characters.

ironically jason used everyone and constantly went used the CP system in melee. hmmm.......

That's weird, KBizzle. It sounds like personal preference is playing a large role in your success at a tournament level... Hmm...

^_-

LOL okay. if you want to call it that

 

[Eddie G]

That's weird, KBizzle. It sounds like personal preference is playing a large role in your success at a tournament level... Hmm...

^_-

Kind of ironic isn't it? xD

@ Orion- Lol, u mad? I'm willing to bet your MK is probably garbz anyway homie (9th in NJ and, if anything, most notable as "just another MK"...whoop-de-doo I wish I was you). If you disagree, carpool or whatever to MLG in June and prove me wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thank you, Jason. That is exactly what we're trying to say, especially the "who we are good with" part. Our capabilities with a certain character are usually going to be greater than another character. That doesn't mean we don't understand who the better characters are by default though, and it is unfair for anyone to assume we don't just because we choose not to ignore the concept of individual capabilities with characters.

Hmm... is it just a liiiittle ironic that it's M2K saying this, who mains a character he likes and is good with... and who just happens to be the best in the game with no bad or even matchups or stages?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

it's easy use who you are good with and like

I got way more respect for you.

Reread what I said.



What I'm suggesting is that Orion's point is that learning top tier and secondaries to destroy MUs is the best investment of THE TIME YOU HAVE IN GENERAL.


And I think you're misrepresenting my representation of your point, what I'm suggesting is that your point is that in general, player-specific plans are the best in investment of the time you have.

It's learning top tiers to beat most MU's kinda obvious if your playing to win?

 

[Eddie G]

Hmm... is it just a liiiittle ironic that it's M2K saying this, who mains a character he likes and is good with... and who just happens to be the best in the game with no bad or even matchups or stages?

I suppose it is suspicious, but then again the guy lets me practice with my Diddy against his MK, allowing me to learn the matchup from the best player of that character even though I'm nowhere near the top with Diddy to be able to give him matchup practice of the same caliber. So I cast all unwarranted suspicion aside because of his selflessness on that since he'd most likely beat any of us no matter who we use, realistically speaking of course.

 

[Orion*]

Kind of ironic isn't it? xD

@ Orion- Lol, u mad? I'm willing to bet your MK is probably garbz anyway homie (9th in NJ and, if anything, most notable as "just another MK" whoop-de-doo I wish I was you). If you disagree, carpool to MLG in June and prove me wrong.

ironically most of my wins for the ranking season that were any good werent with mk other than atomsks ics and when snakee cped me to brinstar.

 

[Eddie G]

ironically most of my wins for the ranking season that were any good werent with mk other than atomsks ics and when snakee cped me to brinstar.

Way to contradict your own thread. If you aren't using MK then you're doing it wrong.

Nah I'm kidding, but uh...congrats I guess? Not that I really care or anything. =/

 

[Orion*]

Way to contradict your own thread. If you aren't using MK then you're doing it wrong.

Nah I'm kidding, but uh...congrats I guess? Not that I really care or anything. =/

its the exact opposite. using ics and falco on nuetrals is a great plan, and i was cping my opponents chars as well during those MUs. i dont really see how that contradicts my theory.

 

[Masmasher@]

Hmm... is it just a liiiittle ironic that it's M2K saying this, who mains a character he likes and is good with... and who just happens to be the best in the game with no bad or even matchups or stages?

not really...some people like top tier characters. in any game i play i always pick top tier. so im always gonna be that ryu or that fox or that magneto or that law.
i dont knock anybody that plays low tier but i just cant see the appeal in a character with less options or less priority, bad frames etc. i need a character that can go the distance.then picking them on personal prference comes second.
M2k is real. he plays metaknight because hes the closest to melee style that this game gets to. plus he played him before all the crazy hype surrounding him today.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

its the exact opposite. using ics and falco on nuetrals is a great plan, and i was cping my opponents chars as well during those MUs. i dont really see how that contradicts my theory.

Lucario gets around IC + Falco, especially if the Lucario strikes/bans FD.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm sorry I have to pull this out, but how often do you make money, KB? Does it outweigh your travel and entry fees, overall, if you do make money?

If not, I'm sorry, but you're not successful. Orion is ranked 9th and rarely makes money.

Also, Orion isn't saying to use MK all the time. MK does not win every MU on every stage in the game, and you're an idiot if you actually think or have been brainwashed to think that this is the case.

 

[Masmasher@]

but why not (hypothetically speaking) it would be easier then draining your energy into other characters just to have excelled matchups (on paper)

 

[fkacyan]

but why not (hypothetically speaking) it would be easier then draining your energy into other characters just to have excelled matchups

This is rough, but you get less and less out of a character the more you play them over time (Think the square root function). At that point picking up another character who is good for CPs and you'll get a lot out of that learning experience in a short amount of time (Comparatively speaking).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This is rough, but you get less and less out of a character the more you play them over time (Think the square root function). At that point picking up another character who is good for CPs and you'll get a lot out of that learning experience in a short amount of time (Comparatively speaking).

You forgot about player skill, which IMO is a big deciding factor as well.

 

[Orion*]

Lucario gets around IC + Falco, especially if the Lucario strikes/bans FD.

both of those matchups are not in lucarios favor