• 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!

AlbertaSmash

David is way too cool to be seen with you in public

  • yes

    Votes: 53 64.6%
  • Its true. I am way too cool to be seen with you in public.

    Votes: 29 35.4%

  • Total voters
    82

BuntyBant

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4
so everybody is at the UofC eh.. looks like i failed by going to MRU but thats what you get when you only try to get into school 2 weeks before it starts.
 

Imagination

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Calgary
that happened to my bro too lol, but he switched into uofc after 2 years taking engineering courses they offered at mru.

sup bunty bant, i don't think i've heard that name before. welcome home
 

Stevo

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
2,476
Location
150km north of nowhere, Canada
so I've decided to withdraw my hatred towards jigglypuff.

It all started back when MikeMonkey started playing her and it just annoyed me cause I wanted "real" practice when I was playing him.
However, I've decided that she does bring a different aspect to melee's top tier metagame, and therefore, I should just accept it. Besides, she is not broken.

I still think she is too good in teams though, but people just need to start focusing down the non-jiggs team mate, as jiggs is slow to come help, especially vertically.
 

Imagination

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Calgary
you're right Steve

HE'S ALREADY THE VERY BEST!

LIKE NO ONE EVER WAS!

TO PUNCH THEM IS HIS REAL TEST!

TO KNEE THEM IS HIS CAUSE!

HE WILL TRAVEL ACROSS THE LAND, KICKING FAR AND WIDE!

THE F-ZERO RACERS! TO UNDERSTAND! THE POWER THAT'S INSIDE......

FALCON PUNCH!

GOTTA PUNCH 'EM! IT'S UBER LEET!

TO PAUNCH IS HIS DESTIN-KNEEEEE!

FALCON PUNCH! OH, NO ONE'S HIS FRIEND, IN A WORLD HE MUST UPEND!

FALCON PAUNCH! GOTTA PUNCH 'EM ALL!

SHOW ME YOUR MOOOOOOVES!!!

HIS KNEE WILL KILL YOU TOO!

HE KNEE'D ME THEN HE KNEE'D YOU, FALCOOOOOON PUUUUUUUUNCH!!!

GOTTA SMASH EM AAAAAAAALL!

GOTTA SMASH EM AAAAAAAALL!

FALCON PUNCH!
 

KlTHKlN

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
355
Location
Calgary
No, it's just that he posted a link right after mine. It's taking away attention from my advertisement. :/
Don't worry it's ****ty brawl.

so everybody is at the UofC eh.. looks like i failed by going to MRU but thats what you get when you only try to get into school 2 weeks before it starts.
add me on msn if you're interesting in getting into the smash scene here bro

kithsune@gmail.com

my video has more sex in it
Homosexual sex maybe

before anyone tries this on tysons thing
boxing everything and doing checkard patterns is not a good idea, it sounds horrible

:009:
google patterns for it, it's been out forever theres some amazing things you can do while making troll faces.

oh, my other cousin told me it was expensive.

still
****** ****** ******
 

KlTHKlN

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
355
Location
Calgary
I just thought about it, is it ever pleasent to be in the prescense of sex, homosexual or not, if you're not a part of it?

Granted, homosexual sex would definately be less pleasing to my eyes, but I still wouldn't really enjoy being present for someone elses sex. Not really my thing.

Therefore: Videos containing sex =/= good.

In fact, the term sex should now be refered to as a bad thing, like a fat person.

But much like the word fat, because I know you like the word so much, you can still use sex in a good way, it shall just be spelt Sphex.
the "ph" is silent
 

Stevo

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
2,476
Location
150km north of nowhere, Canada
so I played about 2 hours of melee yesterday vs. lvl 1 computers.

I did like an hour of warm up techskill stuff, then proceeded to play as fox on my LCD screen (with 4 ms response time) and do as much technically demanding things as I can do.

I've come to the conclusion that 2ms response time is NOTHING TO ***** ABOUT, since I was fine with 4ms.
I think we need a control group. Next tournament we should have a quick LCD (2ms) dressed up as a CRT and see if anyone complains.

In the past, I couldnt STAND to play on an LCD, but with response times as low as 2ms these days, I don't think its a big deal. Has any of you even TRIED playing smash on a tv with 2ms response?

I dunno guys..... I was drill shine comboing marth easy enough, and I dont even play fox.

A moderate sized 2ms LCD made by a good company should be fine I think.

I know the initial reaction to people playing on big LCDs is "LOL newb, they lag" but has ANYONE actually played on a really good LCD?
 

x After Dawn x

Smash Master
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,732
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I have a 2 ms samsung 1680 x 1050 gaming LCD that I've been using for a year. I think I've put in a few hundred hours into it with both competitive and noncompetitive gaming. It's literally impossible for human reaction time to detect 2 ms lag, and anybody who complains about it is straight up bull****ting or finding some kind of john.

I'm sure you could even up the response time to 15 ms and I still doubt you would notice much with most games.

The problem is that most LCDs that people ***** about are the really old ones with massive response times and not only create huge delay times but ugly ghosting effects, but those LCDs aren't even manufactured anymore so it shouldn't be a problem for anybody who's buying a monitor.

I remember reading some research thing on the study of motion blur in LCDs last week and some expert concluded that with current models of LCDs being released, response time is no longer an issue and shouldn't be used as any pro/con when comparing two different monitors.
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
itt: everyone confuses input lag with response time

it's actually pretty important to know the difference, especially if you're looking to buy a new display for gaming.

response time (2ms, 5ms, etc. that you see advertised) basically refers to the time it takes a pixel to change colours. for fast movement, lower response time is better, because the pixels can "keep up" with the actual image better. if response time were huge (like...100ms, to illustrate my point) and we had a red circle moving across a white screen, the circle would leave a trail, because as we cycle through the frames, even though the circle is moving, the pixels where it used to be don't RESPOND fast enough. for melee, 2ms vs 8ms will make NO difference in gameplay, but there will be less motion blurring for 8ms, even though with these numbers the difference probably won't be noticeable.

what you guys are talking about is input lag, which is never really advertised as a spec for displays. that refers to the delay between the time when the image is given to the display and the time it actually appears on screen.
 

x After Dawn x

Smash Master
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,732
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
i'm guessing response rates and input lag go hand-in-hand, then? because i know for a fact that most newer LCD monitors have irrelevant response rates that you can't even notice, but older monitors definitely have both bigger response rates and laggier input times.

i'm using a samsung syncmaster t220 btw. absolutely fantastic gaming monitor and i would definitely recommend it to anybody who's buying a new monitor.
 

FalseFalco

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
3,323
Location
Edmonton
I don't think all of the problems people (like me) have with LCD can be blamed solely on response time. The TV at red deer library was a CRT if I recall correctly, and it was a huge pain to play on because of the wide screen. When you played falcon you literally had to turn your head horizontally as you played.

Most 10-30" CRT's are as square as the cast from big bang theory and that's perfect for gaming.

i'm guessing response rates and input lag go hand-in-hand, then? because i know for a fact that most newer LCD monitors have irrelevant response rates that you can't even notice, but older monitors definitely have both bigger response rates and laggier input times.
It means you can have 0ms response time advertised and still have 20 second input lag. The converse would make super LSD bros on the screen.

The problem with your comparison is that the newer and older tvs both have a variable you didn't track; the input lag. It might be less in one but you can't tell from the specs.
 
Top Bottom