• All episodes of the new Smash Brothers documentary 'Metagame' are available on Vimeo! Get Metagame Here

  • 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!

  • Support Smashboards and get Premium Membership today!

GamerZardEX
Reaction score
423

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Ok, I officially give up on trying to argue with other players.

    They all agree that I care too much about character viability, and that I shouldn't listen to what some pros have to nitpick about, especially since I solely play low-level friendlies. I'm just gonna try to agree with them.
    JoeZegers
    JoeZegers
    I love your profile photo! Really emphasizes what Charizard is as a person.
    Keeshu
    Keeshu
    Character viability is always a thing. Just which character is more viable at low levels of play is different from high levels of play. Low levels of play it doesn't matter too much who you main since you're just learning the basics and staying engaged in the game is more important than hunkering down with a character when you don't understand what makes each character good yet, and there's a lot of general tech that you need to get good with anyways. Mid level and higher is when you need to start thinking about a main so you can start improving everything significantly faster.

    With that said, it's still more important to play who you like and who fits your playstyle. If you hate playing the character, you're going to get demotivated to play the character. Leading you to either play less, swap mains, play smash less or even quit smash. You can't get better if you're not playing, and you slow down your progress if you keep swapping mains too frequently (though it does help for matchup knowledge sometimes)

    If you love a character, but they don't fit your playstyle at all, you're going to struggle by taking much much more time to learn them, or just never learn to play them well at all. I mean look at how popular Sephiroth and Joker are, and then look at their win/lose ratio. They maybe top tiers (with Joker being contender for best character), but they are characters that do not fit most people's playstyles so they have a pretty bad win/lose ratio.

    So yeah, this is where the confusion comes in. Character viability does matter, but your friends probably understand that it's best to go with a character that "fits you like a glove". Which can be mis-interpreted as "tiers don't exist".... Also there is a chance that everyone you're playing with is also really bad and playing the game casually, and you're trying too hard to win that you aren't focusing on improving, so they are improving faster because they are goofing around leading to more experimenting and you don't understand why you are losing because you are trying to play the same "more efficient" playstyle every time. Though I'm not going to assume the worst case scenario, even if I have seen many other players fall into this trap, especially at lower levels. =p


    TL:DR - Character viability depends on the individual person. Make sure your character is right for you, because you aren't everyone else.
    JoeZegers
    JoeZegers
    Yeah, that's why I ended up with my smash main.

    I love it when people ramble on about a topic another person as at hand. It gives them great advice and is very helpful. When I announced my consideration to switch to Wolf from Lucario, someone thought it was a good idea to keep Lucario around because there is so much good among the bad. So I did just that.

    My team is now perfect. You know, like chicken nuggets and fries perfect. With the ketchup being my old friend Incineroar! Thanks, Wolf!
    • Like
    Reactions: Keeshu
    Grapplers are legit the worst fighting game archetype, since most of them require being extremely close to their opponent while lacking any strengths unrelated to their grabs or even damage output.

    It's why most of them are objectively unviable, 'fun' cannot justify anyone playing them. Whether or not they're worse than true joke characters is debatable.
    Cutie Gwen
    Cutie Gwen
    That's good, a genuine change compared to when you had your last account. As for 'hopeless' situations, it really depends on matchups and player mentality, do you have a specific example?
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    My two mains in Smash Ultimate are Donkey Kong and King K. Rool. Both are superheavies who struggle against characters of the opposite archetype such as Joker and Palutena who are better at everything except living long, so much so, they my mains are just completely overwhelmed, even in neutral. In my mind, that's the most lopsided a matchup can get, but it's not completely one-sided.
    Cutie Gwen
    Cutie Gwen
    Yeah those are just crap matchups though it's great that you're finally starting to improve your mindset a bit
    "There are no 'good' or 'bad' players." -Some people

    ...I find this mentality very hard to believe, looking at my lack of consistency as a DK main, how excruciatingly difficult it is to become consistent as a DK main, and the pros, who are pros for a reason.
    DrCoeloCephalo
    DrCoeloCephalo
    Invest in a good a PC to play Smash mods. It's more helpful than you complaining about players and a game you keep insisting on playing anyway.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    I would additionally offer that if you have trouble playing a character consistently, then you are probably not certain of the best way to use them. That does not make you a bad player either. You simply need more time to figure out the character. I would suggest avoiding trial and error as a way of figuring strategy, because I do not believe that it lends itself to understanding the character. Above all, exercise patience, and expose yourself to uncomfortable scenarios strictly for learning. It takes much time, but do not despair. You will eventually have good returns. Determination, patience, determination, patience, determination, and patience are the keys. I might even have a tip or two about your characters, though I do not currently play.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Apparently, I'm not allowed to call people out on their grammar since that's nonsensiscally considered "trolling".

    I can't and won't let unpleasant wording go unpunished though.
    Venus of the Desert Bloom
    Venus of the Desert Bloom
    There is nothing wrong with helping correct one’s grammar or spelling; especially if the person truly needs a correction. The problem lies with mocking, insulting, or otherwise demanding the person for it. This is especially true if you are doing this to “win an argument”. I believe this was the case. This would be trolling/flaming. Given your extensive and well-documented history of aggressive and antagonistic behavior, the warning was warranted. In addition, we have many users whose first language is not English. I’m an trained ESL teacher and mocking people for poor English skills is a form of harassment and discrimination.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Aggressive, maybe, but I never intend to be antagonistic unless someone is clearly trolling me. Or is my definition of "antagonistic" too narrow?
    DrCoeloCephalo
    DrCoeloCephalo
    If the site has an edit button so they can just fix it anyway and get written out, then what's the point if it adds nothing to the argument? It's just ad hominem.
    Us Ultimate players should be lucky we have legal stages (plural) and not just a boring as heck training stage. One of ours is restricted to training mode and would be super banned if it wasn't due to its features. The other is just a featureless version of Battlefield that's restricted to being a waiting room. This is part of why I can't get into other fighting games; people care too much about good connections to play on much better-looking stages.
    Seeing Melee get a new official tier list years after the last one has me thinking:

    Is Ultimate SERIOUSLY still not ready for an official tier list? The game's been out for years now and the meta hasn't really shifted much once the pandemic hit.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    IIRC, we didn't do that with Smash 4. I don't see why this time has to be different.
    Wigglerman
    Wigglerman
    The problem is the opinions of a lot of characters and their match ups (Which tend to dictate actual placement on a tier list) is still massively out of sync among the community. Not to mention we still have DLC to go which will likely include balance adjustments along the way. And in Smash 4 bad characters were BAD and good characters were GOOD. It was way more cut and dry on character strengths and weaknesses compared to Ultimate.

    And with the roster being massive, unlike Melee, there is still loads of room for opinions to change and placements to move.

    Melee's tier list only getting 'solidified' after being nearly twenty years old says a lot about how long it can take for general consensus to finally line up to become 'definitive'. With Ultimate being so expansive...yeah. it's going to take AGES for people to agree and an equal amount of time in the local tournament scene as Melee to garner enough data and opinions to really be swayed one way or another on who goes where and why.

    And since we've been in Online Hell for tournaments for the last year and a quarter we need years of offline events to really get a baseline (because online meta is not the same as offline meta)
    Tyr0nium
    Tyr0nium
    hi i love u
    A lot of people cite fun as a reason why they main who they main, but I strongly doubt "fun" matters more than how good the character actually is.
    Pokelego999
    Pokelego999
    Where there's a will there's a way. The more fun they are, the more you play them. The more you play them, the better you get.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Torgo the Bear Torgo the Bear I had to look at your mains list. You sure it doesn't bother you that Krool is borderline bottom tier? It bothers me, and I can't be bothered to learn anyone else.
    Torgo the Bear
    Torgo the Bear
    It does sometimes. But I’ve found that I’m good enough to generally only lose every time to three particular characters
    Seeing this fighting character archetype collab makes me wish I didn't still have a low opinion on the "big guy" archetype. I was recently told that having to rely solely on reads to get in is a major design flaw, especially if you're huge, and it makes me wonder how some big guys are even in their respective meta.
    I seriously hope no one really thinks either Aegis is solo-viable. Pyra is too reactable and can hardly recover, and Mythra can't kill until super late. They're supposed to be used in tandem.
    link2702
    link2702
    depends on the matchup. Mythra has so many aerials and other moves that are safe, that she practically can solo some matchups and gimp the opponents fairly easily. Pyra has her bair, uair, and dair that all autocancel along with her range and her footstool setups, that might make her a better choice in other matchups, also she weighs slightly more so that needs to be considered.

    While it's technically true that in most matchups you'll want to switch between them throughout the match to fit a situation and to force your opponent to adapt to a different playstyle, there's definitely a few where it's better to just solo one over the other.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    To me, Solo Mythra reinforces the idea that heavies are too problematic to be worth your time, which doesn't bode well with me. I main two heavies, and Pyra fits my playstyle much more than the spikeless, awkward-to-play Mythra.
    link2702
    link2702
    it really depends like I said on the matchup. And you just pretty much admitted now that solo mythra is viable against heavies. I main the worst heavy/worst character, in the game, and while she's not unwinnable, I would much rather face a pyra player than a mythra one as my ganondorf.


    Again, certain matchups can be solo'd, and perhaps when their metagame evolves enough, we'll find that both can do reasonably well against most the cast solo, though ideally switching between them would still be the most viable in some matchups.
    I wager that the average player doesn't react to a slow powerful move until halfway through its startup. By then, even if the opponent is predictable, it's too late.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    Tell that to any Ganondorf main trying to land Warlock Punch in the heat of battle.
    Þe 1 → Way
    Þe 1 → Way
    Look at the other way too, if its hard to react to slow and powerful moves, its basically impossible to catch fast moves.
    Everyone seems to talk about how being combo food (every heavy, Fox, Mewtwo, etc.) is worse than having no KOing ability until late percents (Sheik).

    It's led me to believe that combo food characters have worse or less winning matchups than weak characters, and it's possibly why many heavies (since Fox and maybe Mewtwo have overshadowing strengths) have a less-than-stellar or near non-existent offline presence.

    I'm not talking about Bowser or Yoshi either since they've proven themselves otherwise. Although I co-main the latter, I'd much rather being winning more with the more inferior DK and Krool since they're far more fun.
    S
    StoicPhantom
    GamerZardEX GamerZardEX Not necessarily. I'm more explaining why other people might think that. Who you main is a personal choice based on your preferences and the context of your goals. It's easy to tell you to play a top tier, but if you won't be motivated to play the game then there is no point. If your goal is to be the best and you only care about winning then Bowser might be a better pick than DK. Which one you choose depends on your goals and what motivates you to play the game.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    This is merely a pastime for me. And frankly, I had less fun with Bowser than I do with DK since I prefer spikes that are actually useful.
    S
    StoicPhantom
    Then I think DK is perfectly fine for anything outside of majors. His only issue even in majors is that he can get gimped really early and that's not really something you want in a format that requires consistency like major tournaments.
    Little Mac's neutral game is broken, that automatically makes him mid tier. FRAME DATA NERFS PLS
    Venting and complaining aren't that different from each other, so neither is wrong.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    If by wrong you mean immoral, then it is not, but complaining, when you simplify it, is expressing discontentment with what you have. The complaint is then a narrative that you harbor, and it convinces you that what you have is not good enough. What you say is what you will eventually believe if it is said long enough.
    Patch Culture isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, it's necessary because some characters are either blatantly underpowered or blatantly overpowered. It's never "too early" to vent about this, and not everyone plays to "get good". I hate when people think otherwise.
    Pyra needs frame data nerfs. She shouldn't get away with spamming.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Doesn't matter. She still gets away with spamming, which is bad because she kills a lot earlier than expected, especially with her spammable moves. No waiting is needed to determine that.

    People are allowed to vent.
    Torgo the Bear
    Torgo the Bear
    I would like it if her up special was nerfed a tiny bit, and if she maybe couldn't shield without her sword...

    But that's mostly just me complaining about not being good against them. My opinion on this matter probably shouldn't be taken seriously.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Torgo the Bear Torgo the Bear Naw, I sympathize with you, because SOME PEOPLE either don't understand the struggle or pretend it doesn't exist.
    Me: I prefer 4 player smash with all items.
    Smash: One itemless team battle against a heartless, life-ruining Krool player, coming right up!

    I now need my bedroom door replaced.
    Answer this: Why hasn't Samus been nerfed yet when she's clearly broken in FFAs?
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Can we even call Ganondorf bottom 1? His OP kit is relatively safe and hard to punish if even slightly spaced. His only real problems are his typical superheavy disadvantage state flaws, which are hard to exploit because his jab and nair are both frame 7. He's not as weak to approaches as people say he is.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    (cough)Just(cough)visit(cough)Brawl ! What you said is an example of my point. If I am not mistaken, most people consider Ganondorf bottom-tier. That you do not find him under-powered just goes to show that every player s different. Since you find Ganondorf to be harder for you to beat, it would be incorrect for someone to say he is garbage-tier when they consider some that you find easier than Ganondorf to be of a higher tier placement--another argument for the dynamic tier list theory.
    DrCoeloCephalo
    DrCoeloCephalo
    Only if you're playing FFA on stocks, which is a horrible idea anyway. Cuz otherwise, she really ain't.
    Remember when I got banned for saying certain things? That's how I'm feeling rn.

    If it were up to me, ganging up on someone in a 3 player smash would result in a long ban and an automatic win for the victim.
    Pichu doesn't win itemless FFAs. At all. Unless he's using Thunder Jolt (which rarely results in anything meaningful), he's pretty much initiating an exaggerated suicide mission by going in with his non-existent range to be useful.

    God, I wish I could just get him into Elite without committing to learning him...
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    Why is it important to get a character you clearly do not enjoy using into Elite?
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    I keep telling myself that getting everyone in Elite would give me a reason to think I'm not horrible at Smash.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    If that seems too hard, I would recommend starting with a smaller goal. If you are telling yourself that you must accomplish some grand feat to ge a good player, I can nearly guarantee you will not be satisfied even if you do get everyone into Elite. You will simply find yourself feeling the same way again after time passes, and then you will set another ambition that leaves you feeling frustrated when you do not fulfill it, and if and when you do, the cycle will repeat. Think in manageable pieces, and do not bite off more than you are fully prepared to chew.
    Just found out that a Kirby player won a Japanese tournament before and people went crazy. Now I think people underrate him.

    Corollary: DK hasn't won a tourney yet, so I will not pick him up again until he does. Maybe then will I feel better about him.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    ... Or you could be the one to take him there! Do not let popular opinion of tier placement control your choice of main. Who knows, a skilled player might change every perception professionals held about a particular character...
    B
    bananapalmtree
    one reason the kirby won was lack of mu experience also I think every character has won a tournament in japan lol
    Let's be real here: Besides not having the money, why else would someone be playing online without LAN/ethernet? I can't imagine someone playing on Wi-Fi for any other reason outside of trolling.
    Otoad64
    Otoad64
    I don't have anything else
    Janx_uwu
    Janx_uwu
    A) They are a kid and cannot buy anything
    B) They want to spend money on more important things or just other videogames that have a better online service
    C) The place their Switch is set up is nowhere near an ethernet cable
    Those are the first three that come to my mind.
    Wigglerman
    Wigglerman
    Because that's their only other alternative to playing online. Otherwise they likely won't get to play with anyone. Not having the adaptor is a bummer but it's just the give and take in any online environment. Some people in my area have the LAN but no way to hook it up as their router/modem doesn't happen to be close enough to their TV set ups. Them's the breaks and it isn't them trolling. They just don't have the proper set up at home. I'd be in a bad spot if I didn't have the router specifically set up in my room. Otherwise there'd be no way for me to LAN my Switch if it was set up down in the main house (or vice versa if the router was downstairs).

    And I'd wager loads of people playing online are young and aren't living on their own so don't have the luxury of rearranging their house to make the set up possible.

    Again, they aren't trolling. It's simply their circumstance.

    Broad, sweeping and often insulting/inflammatory statements don't make a good look.
    I'm on the fence about whether I should keep playing superheavies worse than Bowser or play better, personally less fun characters. So I'd like to know: What makes a character viable? Are unviable characters really pointless to main? How much of this matters outside of serious play?
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    As long as one asks questions instead of merely taking someone's word for it, they are better off. If you ask me, viability is a fluidly changing quality, ever shifting in response to the conditions of battle and the players involved. It would take a fairly sophisticated model of character utility to express exactly what I mean.

    My general advice for super heavies would be to negate the effectiveness of the opponent's speed by forcing the battle to be a struggle of the opponent to keep close. Remember that a quick character has the element of surprise. To grant yourself this advantage, you must play defensively while forcing the opponent to focus squarely on trying to be 'in your face.' Essentially, you are using the opponent's priority on rushing you down as an opportunity to trap them. Maintain the neutral state, but only at mid-range or farther.
    RetrogamerMax
    RetrogamerMax
    Yep. Basically what Doc Monocle Doc Monocle said. But I wouldn't let the tier list or the competitive scene cloud your judgement on who you want to play as I think you should play as who you enjoy regardless if others see them as a bad or good character or not on a competitive level. I play as my mains because I love those characters not because they're seen as not viable or viable.
    B
    bananapalmtree
    tier lists don't matter until you're a top player. How good a character is has almost no effect on your results. It's better to play a character that's fun and blame your losses on yourself not your character.
    Thinking back to when I got a post deleted for character dissuasion. Since then, superheavies have become infuriatingly difficult to fight, let alone beat, so I officially give up on looking down on them.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    It is interesting you should say that. From what I can tell, no disparaging is complete without listing at least one super heavy character. Having said that, I believe your statement above is one more chalk mark for the Dynamic Tier List Theory (which I am still figuring).
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    It really depends on the superheavy, tbh. To most, Bowser is good enough to be high tier (which is ironic since he's the heaviest), but the rest range from mid tier to Ganondorf tier. I struggle heavily against those below Bowser, which is super discouraging. Heck, Ganondorf even caused me to throw a fit on here more times than I can remember.

    So if some people can make them seem busted, I can't say anything anymore.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    You should not be hard on yourself because an idolized group of players agreed upon a tier list whose bottom elements give you trouble defeating. I think more likely than your potential as a Smash Bros. player being to blame is that your style or methods may be prone to exploitation by certain characters more than others. You should examine your play habits closely and ask not "Why am I so bad?" but "How can I use these habits to my advantage, and what about it is in need of improvement or compensation?"
    If Elite Smash wasn't a thing, I'd be playing quickplay more. I have everyone I care about at all in there and I'd hate for them to be kicked out.

    And no, I'm not into arenas unless my friends are free.
    Twitter has reminded me that I'm better off not peering into the Smash community anymore since it can't stay out of drama for long.
    No Pichu buffs, he still can't accomplish anything except dying early.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    Have you researched other Pichu players' methods and results? Maybe you are overlooking something, or perhaps it is simply not the right character for your style.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Lightweights were never for me. I can't get used to putting myself in great peril to win; I gear more towards heavies since they live longer.

    Four lightweights are my only non-elite characters, and I still can't get them in.
    B
    bananapalmtree
    pichu is high risk high reward. Not any kind of reward either. He'll hit you then do like 40-80 percent or just 0 to death you
    Playing through Classic Mode, Mythra feels bad, comparable to Sheik, but with disjoints. Low damage/power, poor keepaway, I expected more combos from her. Pyra feels much better, if laggier than some superheavies. I'm biased towards heavies, though.

    I still fear Mythra will be called the better character because she doesn't play like a heavy. Yes, they're a two-in-one character, but Mythra feels like she doesn't do her job well. That, or I'm not used to her archetype.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    How would you describe your preferred movement patterns? Some behaviours are more hazardous for smaller characters. For example, (speaking from Brawl) it is not a good idea for Pikachu to start an aerial attack earlier than is absolutely necessary while near Bowser.
    Torgo the Bear
    Torgo the Bear
    I found myself unable to kill anyone with Mythra no matter how hard I tried. Sure, I'm not exactly a combo master, but...
    Nerfs happened. Good. We need more nerfs than buffs for this game to be truly balanced, not Melee 2.0.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    I usually start with a short hop falling nair or a grab.
    "Both fighters [Pyra/Mythra] have advantages, so it's hard to say one is stronger than the other."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't frame data everything? Characters with frame data advantage are always on top of everyone else, as evidenced by competitive results. Which sucks because I prefer hard-hitters, not some speed freak who can't spike.
    • Like
    Reactions: Pokelego999
    S
    StoicPhantom
    Not exactly. Ultimate has streamlined everything so things like frame data aren't that much of an issue anymore. Whether a character has somewhat faster data than another doesn't really matter so long as they reach a minimum threshold of which most characters do. So long as a character's hitboxs and acceleration are good then they'll do fine.

    As far as competitive results go I think a character like Sheik lagging behind compared to previous games is illustrative that raw frame data doesn't matter if you don't have other important attributes. I have my doubts on Mythra's ability to solo like Melee Sheik for the same reasons why I have my doubts on Squirtle's ability to solo in Ultimate: characters that are lightweight and lack kill moves aren't a good fit for Ultimate. The comeback factor is just too great in this game for such a character to be consistent.
    Now I've got two people telling me that there's no true consensus on the viability of Smash Ultimate's roster, especially regarding superheavies.

    I want this to be a casual thing, so I probably shouldn't be getting into this, but I'm curious to know what this means for the competitive scene.

    Some people complain that low tiers and certain superheavies disrupt brackets or something, but is that really such a big deal?
    BobbyJackson33
    BobbyJackson33
    Hey man, I think you need to go to forums to get those answers. But for the record, I don't feel like it's that big of a deal. Tbh, that's why fighting games are fun and I feel like people need to deal with it. I play link (and don't camp, shocker I know) and when a K Rool spikes at 40 I just have to accept it and move on... and perhaps cover my eyes and think about how much I hate reptiles. Jk
    S
    StoicPhantom
    Well, there isn't and likely won't be given the sheer size of the roster. The meta has centered around a handful of characters like it always does and the vast majority of the cast will likely never get a top player to push their meta.
    I swear, Guilty Gear Strive's apparently godlike rollback netcode is gonna kill the playerbases for FighterZ and Smash Ultimate with how overly praised it is, even though the later still has more DLC to add.
    Champion of Hyrule
    Champion of Hyrule
    As good as the netcode may be, it’s freaking Smash Bros. The player base isn’t going anywhere.
    KirbyWorshipper2465
    KirbyWorshipper2465
    GG character is revealed for Smash
    The moment that scenario happens, things would never be the same again.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    I'm mainly speaking in relation to Brawl's lifespan. It had not only a bad netcode as well, but completely watered down gameplay an unfair balancing. I bet it died before Sm4sh's release.

    You'd think a game with delay-based netcode wouldn't live very long as Ultimate has.
    I have a theory that Ultimate Ganondorf is unplayable offline, given that he's often lauded as the game's worst character in arguably the most balanced Smash game (plus, he's the only one I know to have an unwinnable matchup).

    Since speed is everything and he suffers from being one of the laggier characters with near nothing to truly offset that (since his kit pretty much only works online), I don't see his offline presence being any better than his Brawl or Sm4sh incarnation.
    Champion of Hyrule
    Champion of Hyrule
    I think it’s balanced out by how hard he can hit. He’s perfectly viable offline IMO.
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    And what offline results justify this?

    Besides, it's not enough to hit like a truck to be viable. The top characters on most tier lists all have the frame data to win majors. Even Joker, who isn't **** without Arsene, is a guaranteed top 3 or 5.
    Janx_uwu
    Janx_uwu
    Nairo's got a pretty mean Ganondorf.
    I know that doesn't mean much, but it shows that he is viable-if a low tier.
    It hurts to be bothered by other peoples' opinions and other stuff without being publicly vocal about it. At the same time, I don't need to continue the anti-GamerZard movement I started years ago.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    You are not alone in that. I hate seeing things that I know are damaging and silencing myself because others may consider it annoying. Sometimes, however, one must sacrafice their own popularity to help, yes, even a single person.
    I don't think I ever asked. Why do people always advise against playing to win? Surely no one plays to lose. And playing for any other reason defeats the ultimate purpose of playing at all; having fun. In my eyes, unless you're winning, no fun is had.
    Doc Monocle
    Doc Monocle
    I understand completely, GamerZardEX GamerZardEX ! This world is full of cruel and cold people who care little (or not at all) for your thoughts and feelings, and because of this, a word may not even be spoken before you think that a victor is looking down on you, or entertaining conceited thoughts. This is the result of pride, perhaps the most challenging aspect of a person's character to overcome, and we all have it in varying degrees. You are afraid of being judged for losing. It may help to consider this: To judge is to make a decision about someone else based on what you know of yourself. A person who looks down on you because you lost a game errs in that they have attributed a person's worth to how well they play a game, thus they feel this way about themselves.

    If a person condascends to you in thought, deed, or word, it is because of their own insecurities, which reduce them to feeling valuable because they play a game well, or in some cases, simply because they win a game. You and a cocky victor have the same problem... only now, YOU have the upper-hand, as you know what plagues both of you. Be the mature one if you find yourself (or believe yourself) to be laughed at. I shall be in the room, cheering for you as you... yes, WIN!
    GamerZardEX
    GamerZardEX
    Janx_uwu Janx_uwu Playing to learn implies that you intend to dedicate a buttload of time and energy into studying the ins and outs of the game to get good, especially if you're playing to go big. Even if I didn't already have other projects to work on, I honestly wouldn't see this being me; I don't play games to turn them into chores.
    Otoad64
    Otoad64
    I think he might of meant "learn by playing"

    though I could be wrong
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom