Important Carefully Ask PPMD about the Tiara Guy

[Anand]

you see yourself as some sort of Mr. Miyagi

Mr. Miyagi once said, "No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher."

 

[Tee ay eye]

i'm pretty sure it's bad etiquette to ask for information when both parties know that there will be no reciprocation.

ie some of you ****ers should teach me something for once. by you ****ers i mean jesse basically. shots fired.

and no advice from kevin, his jank already keeps me up at night.

edit: to be clear, i like bad etiquette. just saying.

edit 2: falcon's first hit game is already custom-tailored to negate CC abuse as much as possible, i don't think you're going to get very far by playing into what you expect them to be using against you already.

now if falcon players start dtilting you at 0 yeah you can crouch them. dair/knee/grab/spaced aerials that negate CC abuse anyway probably not so much.

one of the dilemmas i find with fighting falcon (and basically every other character) is that whenever you move in a way to be able to react to and swat away his approaches (e.g. emphasizing WD back and empty shorthops to prep yourself for fair), you pigeonhole yourself into movement choices that forfeit control, as (i think) you mentioned in your previous post, which allows him to run around and push you to the edge.

to answer this problem, my initial solution was to simply be more aggressive with my movement to make him want to swing at me, but that introduced another problem for me. i was too close to falcon to react to his attacks very well, so i became incredibly vulnerable to random nairs and raptor boosts. my aggression was unsubstantiated because i was unable to reliably punish him for doing anything.

so basically, i came up with using aggressive movement to actually force falcon's hand, i wanted to supplement it with CCing in close quarters because your proximity makes him uncomfortable and try to force an engagement/trade with you, which you just tank with the CC and follow up afterwards, reducing the need for guesswork/reaction in the close-quarters game because those clean hits are preettttyyy hard to land.

another reason i think aggressive CCing works so well against falcon is because he expects a dtilt whenever he sees you run in and crouch. if he respects the dtilt, he'll probably do something that's punishable out of a crouch, given good enough finesse and reactions (lol i sound like a hypocrite mentioning reactions here). dtilt is a great move, but i personally feel like a good chunk of its power comes from threatening with it rather than actually using it.

tl;dr- i think aggressive CCing is great because it pads you against his fast "oh ****" options (e.g. nair and raptor boost) in close-quarters, enabling you to be more safe while intimidating falcon and getting all up in his face, allowing you to focus your attention on his other options, which are easier to see and react to (e.g. shield, jumping away, running away, etc.)

 

[Deleted member]

no argument, wonder analysis. it would be good to press that middleground of control and reaction, but i'm not sure that's something that can be done adequately in words on a forum. at least, i know i can't do it. if someone here thinks they can, by all means try it. tbh i think it's hard to translate the more finesse parts of the game, it almost becomes its own language.

 

[Divinokage]

Just like illumination, those kinds of feels cannot be described in words.

 

[BTmoney]

Style is simply a way to rationalize a deviation away from optimal decision-making. It is a crippling limitation on your actual ability. If you play to a "style", the best thing you can do to enable your ability as a player is to discard it immediately.

So basically I agree with your new post. And I agree mostly with this part.


While i agree with you, to not have style would be to have an encompassing knowledge of the MU, your opponent, and perfect reaction time. Basically you'd be playing TAS.

We as humans have limitations. Adapting for and acknowledging these limitations and the expected and practical limitations of your opponents are what results in having a play style. Style is an attempt to play as perfectly as you are capable of. That being said, there are bad players obviously.

 

[Deleted member]

So basically I agree with your new post. And I agree mostly with this part.


While i agree with you, to not have style would be to have an encompassing knowledge of the MU, your opponent, and perfect reaction time. Basically you'd be playing TAS.

We as humans have limitations. Adapting for and acknowledging these limitations and the expected and practical limitations of your opponents are what results in having a play style. Style is an attempt to play as perfectly as you are capable of. That being said, there are bad players obviously.

Not necessarily. It does ask you to take human error into consideration for your decision-making. Risk/reward is a skill that can be learned. The brilliant part of your prior post is that you acknowledge this aspect as your "option 2", where I simply think that you should combine them to the best of your ability.

And yes, this does require a lot of hard work for the player. A truly motivated player should embrace this aspect, as it provides the largest margin for one to overcome/outplay his opponents. If you're willing to put in the work, having it pay off reliably is the best thing you can ask for. There are great incentives to push your limits to modify the highest end of your capability rather than playing to it. Greatness is atypical.

edit: You seem to have an aptitude for this type of theoretical thinking. A lot of players incorrectly discard theory as "super theory bros" when theory is an invaluable tool for experimentation, observation, and improvement. I personally would prefer if you would lurk less and post more.

 

[BTmoney]

edit: You seem to have an aptitude for this type of theoretical thinking. A lot of players incorrectly discard theory as "super theory bros" when theory is an invaluable tool for experimentation, observation, and improvement. I personally would prefer if you would lurk less and post more.

Thank you, I appreciate that.
I think I do as well but my opinion of myself is almost irrelevant lol.

 

[Deleted member]

all opinions of one's self are irrelevant.

sans case studies of suicide.

lol

where's a psychologist when you need one (Dr. Peepee, kirbykaze)?

 

[Dr Peepee]

yeah well

you're insane max

that'll be 50 bucks

 

[Tee ay eye]

what makes an opinion relevant anyway?

i think one's opinion of oneself is more relevant than other people's opinions of that person, at least when you look at it from a certain angle.

 

[BTmoney]

i think one's opinion of oneself is more relevant than other people's opinions of that person, at least when you look at it from a certain angle.

If you lived your life in solitude lol

 

[Tee ay eye]

yeah, that wasn't what i meant

opinions are pretty pointless IMO unless they lead to action, so based on that, other people's opinions are probably more important than yours

but what i meant was that your own opinion of yourself should have a larger bearing when it comes to your motivations and reasons for doing things.

 

[DuckPimp]

i am a qualified

 

[Tee ay eye]

i am a qualified

you are a quack.

 

[ShroudedOne]

If you lived your life in solitude lol

Why is this so? As in, why are other people's opinions of someone more important than that person's own opinion of his/herself?

 

[Niko45]

I thought the term "mind-game" was just the archaic smash term for what the FGC calls "mixups" and we have now gotten in line to of course be more like them.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Mindgame, I never thought of it like that. It seems like a term that was exactly how it implies. You performed a series of actions intending to lead your opponent into your hand.

what makes an opinion relevant anyway?

i think one's opinion of oneself is more relevant than other people's opinions of that person, at least when you look at it from a certain angle.

Opinions I might say are forged from experience. Despite the factors which lead to the formation of an opinion such as fallacies in logic ("I see 3 people do something therefore assume everyone is doing it" is a fallacy), opinions are a representation of experience and therefore creditable. Why would you say letters of recommendation or calling a previous employer are necessary? In that context, its one of the few sources of ways an employer can gauge how accurately that a person actually use to work therefore example and get a very rough idea of a new hire.

So, an opinion should become relevant when it might be the only source of data available on a particular subject. I cannot go analyze a book if I might like it without first referring to someone's opinion, or my own (judge a book based on its cover). The only true way of doing is to actually read the book in the first place, but I wanted to save myself the time I didn't actually like it. Therefore, I reverted to another opinion or my own, thus the opinion was relevant to this case.

but what i meant was that your own opinion of yourself should have a larger bearing when it comes to your motivations and reasons for doing things.

I would regulate that to situations to whether your own opinion is best or not at times. Sometimes you might find yourself lacking motivation or reason to do something. Other opinions might help persuade you to make motivation or reasons for yourself.

 

[BTmoney]

Why is this so? As in, why are other people's opinions of someone more important than that person's own opinion of his/herself?

Because whether or not you think positively about yourself you can't (or won't) prosecute yourself lol.

It matters more in a negative way than in a positive way from a practical standpoint. And because we are anatomically destined to think so.

 

[DuckPimp]

you are a quack.

oh

OH

oh

so good

I thought the term "mind-game" was just the archaic smash term for what the FGC calls "mixups" and we have now gotten in line to of course be more like them.

They are similar terms.
However I feel that you can call certain things mind-games that you cannot call mixups.

It doesnt feel right calling things like mango empty-hopping around someones shield a mixup.

That really comes down to semantics though.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Wow, so much good stuff here. I want to comment on it all but it would just take so damn long. I see the good and bad of Mow's posts, from an unbias perspective. I can see every single person's reason for criticism, and I can see all of his good points as well. That's from an unbias perspective.

From a bias perspective of knowing him for forever...If I ever make it onto the big stage at a national, there's no one else I'd rather have in my corner than Mow.

Actually, my friend Bobby lol.

How bout this. If Smash was a game large enough to travel every weekend making money off of it, I'd have Mow and Bobby as my crew lol

 

[Deleted member]

what does that have to do with marth advice?

 

[JesiahTEG]

It doesn't duh

 

[Deleted member]

It doesn't duh

you're like a baked potato

with limbs i guess

and some really well placed air dodges

hey jesse, did you ever stop and think of what would happen if marths abandoned the idea of the flow chart and instead played to disjointed incrementalism?

I'll let that blow your mind for a week or so.

 

[Juushichi]

that **** blew my mind already, some anime ****

i like the thought processes given here.

even if it's not directly about marth, it's good stuff

 

[Bones0]

Mr. Miyagi once said, "No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher."

Oh ****... so deep, mang.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Well, I kinda have. Here's my situation, tell me what you think.

About 2 years ago I made the decision to become much more freeflowing and natural with my game. Spontaneous, creative, etc. I basically had a theory that this type of play in the end was more effective than anything, and it would take me to the highest levels.

What I found after 2 years is this: The POTENTIAL of this play is amazing. Sometimes, ESPECIALLY if I have like a couple of hours to play against a top player, I can do very well against some of the best players in the world, even winning matches and maintaining a decent win streak.

But I'm learning that, number one, I made the mistake of sacrificing all flowchartiness, as well as failing to learn the in depth mechanics/dynamics behind each matchup. It's definitely held me back. Number two, my style of play is so hard to be consistent with, and it's random how well I do. Sometimes I do amazing, sometimes I lose and get stomped.

I could sum it up like this. I never learned how to be a competitor, I just learned how to play Melee one on one very very very well, with no other factors involved. My style of play is optimal for one on one hours long sessions against anyone. The problem is, often in tournament or money matches I'm overrun by different styles of play and tactics that I fail to adapt to well enough because I don't have A GAMEPLAN. I don't have a RELIABLE way to go into a match, and before I get scraped, give myself time to figure out what's going on so I can eventually beat it.

Some of it can be attributed to overagression, sure. But only like 20% of it I feel. The point I'm at now, I need to study more. For the most part.

Take that as you will but I would argue that I'm the most free flowing Marth in the world, which is why sometimes you see me doing brilliant things, and other times I can't even make it out of pools.

In my experience, that's been the downside to what you were saying

 

[Bones0]

The whole freeflowing thing sounds like you are basically keeping your options open instead of looking for opportunities for a select few moves. I know when I am playing best it's because I'm not focused on using just one or two moves, I'm just reacting with the correct moves to whatever situation I happen to be in. However, playing like that can be inconsistent like you said because if I'm unfamiliar with a situation in the split second I find myself in it, I'm done for because my brain won't have the right answer fast enough. By comparison, if I had just a couple moves ready to use because I knew the type of situation I was getting into, then my brain would be able to consider each move and pick the right one faster than the freeflowing method. Like it's pretty easy to watch a video and see an opportunity where a player could have fsmashed, but when I'm playing, I have a tendency to only land fsmashes when I'm looking for them.

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? I've always just figured the solution was to become more accustomed with the situation so I can consider all my options and still react in time. When I watch top players it certainly doesn't seem like they go into situations with just a few moves in mind. They always seem to be constantly reevaluating the situation and reacting with the best option out of all of them.

 

[Deleted member]

Let's talk about incrementalism, what how it translates to smash.

The idea behind incrementalism is that you adjust your position with correctional behavior continuously over time. The example given to me was generic life planning. It is highly unlikely that an individual has his/her life planned out from an early age. So if you are 18, I think it's common enough to say that you don't know what lifestyle you will have by the time you are 45. There's nothing wrong with this. Instead, people tend to evaluate their options in the present, evaluating for the present or near future. You change majors in college, maybe move somewhere you didn't expect a few years earlier, things happen, and so forth.

The main benefit of this is that is allows one to adjust to uncertainty. When applied to smash, this uncertainty is based primarily off of the actions of your opponent at any given time in a match. Your ability to correct your positioning relative to the match allows you to better manage your situation at that time, particularly in relation to your opponent.

The disjointed aspect is to keep each and every action separate. No one best way of making decisions can ever be specified due to the endless amount of options and complexity that unfolds as each individual game progresses. To best handle this, each positioning shift should occur as much as possible, preferably after each and every action. This doesn't have to be a major thing, it could just be a minor adjustment of a fastfall timing or slightly corrected spacing mid-combo.

Continual adjustment mid-match for marth means that it becomes very hard to over-extend for a punishment, which is what this character primarily loses to. A flowchart encourages the proactive play that deviates from the generally safer strategy of react and deny. I think disjointed incrementalism is an elegant and refined method of react and deny, in a way that focuses more on the micro interactions that lead to conversions in the neutral game.

I think this is particularly applicable to marth because the character is defensively skewed where over-extension is so much worse for him than the other viable characters. As a comparison, an over-extension from say peach in the neutral game is much less likely to be punished to the same extent that marth is for the same behavior. Continuous and mindful adjustment in the neutral game should lead to tighter and more correct play over many multiple micro interactions.

This is new stuff for me too btw, it's just another lens to look at the game through. It struck me as almost marth-specific since he is so strongly based around the decisions of the player rather than the strength of his actions. I would like to integrate this idea into react and deny to elaborate on a more fluid method of optimizing the neutral game.

edit: jesse brings up a good point. i'm not entirely saying we should ditch the flow chart, i think it has a time and a place...- after the conversion. i don't think the flow chart has any place in the neutral game though. optimizing punishment is not something i can adequately describe with an ideology (even this is pushing it) but rather something that is tested through time and character-specific.

i would also imagine that continuously adjusting your position from neutral would greatly increase your consistency. i'd have to see where you're tripping up, but my best guess is that you start losing when you fail to adjust. and it's hard, i know it is. maybe there's a method we can use to optimize marths ability to react to his opponent as well.

i don't have all the answers, i'm just trying to bring something new to the table.

 

[Bones0]

Sometimes I have no idea how you reached a conclusion, and other times it's like you're reading my mind. >_>

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Holy **** I need to start chatting with Umbreon

What have I been doing with my life

 

[Dr Peepee]

over extending is pretty good sometimes if you're doing it with dtilt or dtilt-esque conditioning because then people give you a wider berth because you could dtilt

dtilt

 

[Smooth Criminal]

See, I like it when Umbreon talks like this. I learn things.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Battlecow]

you're not leaving me much to refute other than the content of my character, and i really don't care about my image on a video game forum.

Was definitely critiquing your specific point (that having a style was detrimental).

 

[strawhats]

Holy **** I need to start chatting with Umbreon

What have I been doing with my life

THIS^!!!!

Interesting concept, Incrementalism.

 

[~Twitch~]

LOL i love how fickle people are about mow's posts. some are the grace of god and some are the devil's work. it's funny.

that being said all of mow's posts are ****.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

hey jesse, did you ever stop and think of what would happen if marths abandoned the idea of the flow chart and instead played to disjointed incrementalism?

Now, where do you think people are attempting to apply flow chart ideas? The only time I can see flow charts being useful for any character is once you actually have some sort of guaranteed advantage like a grab. The flow chart helps to optimize the punishment with a variety of exits. Such as the end of a combo ends with a character offstage, or near the ledge, or stuck on a platform. You can help avoid situations which are not always that good such as putting a character back to neutral.

 

[Dr Peepee]

LOL i love how fickle people are about mow's posts. some are the grace of god and some are the devil's work. it's funny.

that being said all of mow's posts are ****.

coming home in a couple weeks to marth you and lol about it

 

[Smooth Criminal]

LOL i love how fickle people are about mow's posts. some are the grace of god and some are the devil's work. it's funny.

that being said all of mow's posts are ****.

Fickle? I never said all of his posts are bad or anything. Umbreon's pretty insightful.

I just hate it when he's a ****wad about it.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Deleted member]

Fickle? I never said all of his posts are bad or anything. Umbreon's pretty insightful.

I just hate it when he's a ****wad about it.

Smooth Criminal

some people will get past the abrasive language for the message, some won't. it's my way of finding like-minded people. i really don't take myself seriously at all and i certainly don't have an ego about it. get over it, or don't. either way, it's doing me a favor. i post for me.

 

[odinNJ]

You post for you? Isnt that what thinking is for?

Im lost


Also @ flow chart. I think that idea only comes into play with the whole "marth has a pretty good upthrow" thing