.::Captain Douglas Falcon::.

[Ninja in Overalls]

when you guys say reverse bair you mean a bait that knocks them forward right? sorry, don't know my jargon

 

[asianaussie]

yes, that's correct

 

[Ninja in Overalls]

alright thanks

 

[General Heinz]

Hey, so I play Melee, but my roommate is Melee ******** so he won't play anything but 64. Let it suffice to say he blows **** at Melee but somehow plays Kirby really well in 64. I play C. Falcon in Melee so he's pretty much the only character I play in 64, and even though I 3-4-stock him in Melee, he manages to beat me all the time in 64. Is that matchup supposed to be just ****ing slanted or something? I mean I know what I have to **** him up and do it pretty well, but certain stages are basically throwaways imo (if even just Saffron City) because of the gimps he can get if I put myself in a bad position (read: edgeguard situation).

Suggestions?

 

[asianaussie]

the matchup is a bit ******** in kirby's favour (like 60:40 on not-dreamland, still kirby's advantage dreamland i guess)

but at least a 50% chance you're both playing it wrong and he's using more f-smashes than u-tilts

space using b-air and the edge of u-air, edgeguard with d-air, don't use falcon kick

 

[General Heinz]

Oh no, he's definitely playing it wrong. Way more fsmashes. I basically **** him up with uairs but while I'm not bad at recovering unpredictably the dair gimps are just too much sometimes.

I understand smash a lot more than him after playing so much Melee but you could say neither of us have a lot of 64 techskill (mostly because there's no c-stick ).

 

[asianaussie]

falcon's recovery has very little in the way of unpredictability in this game because his up-b is significantly lower and has a lower grab box than his melee counterpart...kirby will basically gimp every time if he doesn't do silly things

punish his f-smashes by timing hits or hopping over and d-airing

u-tilt is one of the biggest factors that slants the matchup in kirby's favour, so if you can outspace him and convert hits, you shouldn't lose terribly badly

alternatively, change to pikachu

 

[General Heinz]

punish his f-smashes by timing hits or hopping over and d-airing

I do that sometimes, but more often I'll shield hoping to get a grab out of it, but am I wrong in noticing that Kirby has frame advantage in that situation?

 

[ballin4life]

don't shield in smash64. shielding sucks and pretty much any move puts you in massive shieldstun. kirby's utilt is an auto shield break if it hits on shield.

also you shouldn't be getting hit off the level in the first place - you'll get edgeguarded every time by kirby


now that we've covered some things you shouldn't do, watch videos of good players to see what you should do. mostly just do lots of bair spacing against kirby.

 

[SSBPete]

actually shielding on the edge of a platform right before you get hit is really useful

as is shield platform dropping

 

[asianaussie]

i very much doubt ballin discouraged the use of shielding entirely

although maybe he did, shielding sucks

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

I do that sometimes, but more often I'll shield hoping to get a grab out of it, but am I wrong in noticing that Kirby has frame advantage in that situation?

It really depends when the fsmash hits your shield. If it hits early you can either grab/upsmash oos and if the fsmash is a delayed hit on your shield, you'll be at a frame disadvantage.

Not sure what it's like when the fsmash is stale since fsmash shouldn't be being used very much.

 

[The Star King]

lol at don't shield

yet another thing overhated by this forum

 

[clubbadubba]

not shielding is a good philosophy for getting past the beginner phase, its makes you explore the better options available to you in most situations. I never did it so now i shield waaayyy too much. Certainly shielding has situations where its useful though.

 

[ballin4life]

lol at don't shield

yet another thing overhated by this forum

you love taking everything literally

for a melee player saying "don't shield" is good advice because shield is OP in melee and is not good in smash64 ... especially against kirby

 

[Sempiternity]

Should probably be more specific: never shield hoping to get a grab. This is not Melee, and shield grabbing is basically non-existent if your opponent doesn't **** up. There are very few situations that you'll want to let yourself get hit when shielding.

 

[The Star King]

you love taking everything literally

Haha, so much irony. Considering this is coming from the guy who brought up the law of infinite numbers when I said Pika will pretty much always beat an equally skilled Link on DL.

 

[ballin4life]

it's hard to believe that you hadn't figured out that i occasionally exaggerate, e.g. me stating "don't shield"

you, on the other hand, seemed to be quite convinced of your original statement IIRC - i'm pretty sure i specifically asked something like "bro u srs?" and you reiterated your original statement. that's why i took that particular one literally.


nice throwback though. next are we gonna talk about free will, the economics of WWII, or Barry Bonds?

 

[The Star King]

False. Fish641 said something like "obviously Pikachu will beat an equally skilled Link every time", and you immediately went to "see, I disagree with this".

No I didn't argue with you about that stuff for the most part. I gotta reinforce my position as Smash Historian though , so maybe I'll make fun of your "all fun comes from competition" sometime in the near future

 

[Battlecow]

Barry Bonds = GOAT

And goat is only capitalized for malvaesque emphasis. It's meant in the "hero or the goat" sense, not the "greatest of all time" sense.

 

[ballin4life]

False. Fish641 said something like "obviously Pikachu will beat an equally skilled Link every time", and you immediately went to "see, I disagree with this".

No I didn't argue with you about that stuff for the most part. I gotta reinforce my position as Smash Historian though , so maybe I'll make fun of your "all fun comes from competition" sometime in the near future

IIRC you did not accept my statement about the law of large numbers at first anyway. i'm glad you do now though.

also on "all fun comes from competition". Somehow I think your paraphrasing might be missing some context. maybe.

Barry Bonds = GOAT

And goat is only capitalized for malvaesque emphasis. It's meant in the "hero or the goat" sense, not the "greatest of all time" sense.

you don't really make sense here (when was bonds ever a "goat" in the "hero or goat" sense?), but regardless bonds is the greatest and best baseball player ever. the great thing about baseball is that it's pretty much been completely figured out with statistics, meaning we can actually say in a precise, measurable sense who the best player ever is.

 

[Battlecow]

Bull****. You obviously know jack all about baseball. There are a million ways to measure player skill and statisticians could argue for years about who the best player ever was.

Saying Barry was the best would be like saying that Onischenko was the best epeeist of all time because he could have beaten anyone.

 

[ballin4life]

battlecow, do you know what WAR is?

there are a few different measures, but they all tend to agree on Bonds (who would've thought?)

so who do you say is the best?

 

[The Star King]

IIRC you did not accept my statement about the law of large numbers at first anyway. i'm glad you do now though.

...>________>. Wat? I didn't accept it because it didn't apply. Fish and I were not being literal, which is why I brought it up in the first place. And now you're reinforcing the irony I pointed out. I hope you're trolling.

 

[ballin4life]

i said i disagreed with his statement and you came in with some troll post like "wow how inconsistent are ballin's characters" and other statements that made it seem like you were serious. i don't really feel like digging up the old posts to take another look. i'm just glad you now agree with the point i was making - that it's not true that equal skill implies the exact same outcome for every match for all eternity.

 

[clubbadubba]

classic internet debate turning into both sides accusing the other side of trolling

 

[The Star King]

Ah, I understand now. But I never disagreed with that point dude.

And I wasn't saying you were inconsistent because you don't get "the exact same outcome for all eternity", I just think that if you win only, like, 60% of your games with a significant advantage then yeah you're inconsistent. As in, it doesn't have to be 100% but 60% is way too low. I must have clarified this like ten times by now but because I love you so much I'll do it an eleventh.

And no, I don't actually think you're inconsistent. I'm making a point.

 

[ballin4life]

i am pretty inconsistent though haha

 

[kys]

battlecow, do you know what WAR is?

there are a few different measures, but they all tend to agree on Bonds (who would've thought?)

so who do you say is the best?

I've always wondered why baseball, of all sports, gets drooled on by statisticians. Black players were not allowed to play for a long time, long enough that the negro league had developed great talent that never got a chance to play. Wars took many great players away (Ted Williams, anyone?). The height of pitchers' mounds has changed numerous times throughout the years. There are two different leagues that operate with slightly different rules (DH). There is a steroids era. A spitball era. The famous BlackSox scandal (and Pete Rose), which could be responsible for shady outcomes. No two ballparks are exactly the same, with different dimensions certainly affecting a player's stats.

So why, with all those changing variables, do people care so much about stats in BASEBALL? Their playing fields aren't even the same. Could you imagine if certain arenas in the NBA had different 3-point lines?

And Barry Bonds cheated and everyone knows it.

 

[ballin4life]

I've always wondered why baseball, of all sports, gets drooled on by statisticians. Black players were not allowed to play for a long time, long enough that the negro league had developed great talent that never got a chance to play. Wars took many great players away (Ted Williams, anyone?). The height of pitchers' mounds has changed numerous times throughout the years. There are two different leagues that operate with slightly different rules (DH). There is a steroids era. A spitball era. The famous BlackSox scandal (and Pete Rose), which could be responsible for shady outcomes. No two ballparks are exactly the same, with different dimensions certainly affecting a player's stats.

So why, with all those changing variables, do people care so much about stats in BASEBALL? Their playing fields aren't even the same. Could you imagine if certain arenas in the NBA had different 3-point lines?

it's because baseball's structure lends itself to keeping statistics. baseball is almost a one on one game between the pitcher and the hitter, which it makes it much easier to isolate a single player's contribution through statistics.

also baseball statisticians have figured out ways to adjust for the different ballparks FYI

and the NBA has changed the 3 point line distance (and there wasn't even a 3 point line in the NBA for a long long time). so it's not like changing circumstances over the years are exclusive to baseball.

And Barry Bonds cheated and everyone knows it.

lol no. Bonds never violated MLB rules, hence he didn't cheat.

 

[clubbadubba]

think kys meant what if nba teams had different 3 point lines RIGHT NOW. Like if the three point line in indiana was 3 ft closer than the 3 point line in milwaukee (just realized I have no idea how to spell milwauke). Would it even make sense to compare 3 point percentages of reggie miller and ray allen if that were the case? definitely not.

Total HR's is a stat that can be pretty dependent on your home ballpark, I don't think anyone could deny that. Otherwise most baseball stats make sense to me.

 

[Battlecow]

lol no. Bonds never violated MLB rules, hence he didn't cheat.

He definitely did violate MLB rules, even if he wasn't violating them when he first did it.

 

[ballin4life]

think kys meant what if nba teams had different 3 point lines RIGHT NOW. Like if the three point line in indiana was 3 ft closer than the 3 point line in milwaukee (just realized I have no idea how to spell milwauke). Would it even make sense to compare 3 point percentages of reggie miller and ray allen if that were the case? definitely not.

Total HR's is a stat that can be pretty dependent on your home ballpark, I don't think anyone could deny that. Otherwise most baseball stats make sense to me.

yes i 100% understood that, and like I said people have figured out how to adjust for ballparks in statistics.

He definitely did violate MLB rules, even if he wasn't violating them when he first did it.

uh, evidence? afaik bonds wasn't ever even accused of violating MLB rules

 

[asianaussie]

is this what it's like watching me and ciaza talk about irrelevance

baseball is terrible

 

[kys]

yes i 100% understood that, and like I said people have figured out how to adjust for ballparks in statistics.



uh, evidence? afaik bonds wasn't ever even accused of violating MLB rules

Let me try to clarify my point by using the example of the changing height of pitching mounds. From the little I know of it, the height of pitching mounds was not regulated, and larger in certain ballparks (I believe this was in the 70s). It was lowered to help out the hitters who were being dominated by the pitchers (although I believe HOW MUCH it was lowered was not strictly enforced). A quick google search should bring some of that up.

I don't know if you've ever played baseball or not, but the height of the mound has an extreme impact on the pitch. Even a few inches can put the hitter at a huge disadvantage, what with the more severe angle and increased pitch speed. All I'm saying is that across baseball's history that is not factored into statistics. This also applies to the other points I brought up.

For those reasons I really don't think baseball lends itself to crazy stat-keeping. I get the whole one-on-one thing, my issue comes when you compare stats across eras. I would prefer an NFL and an NBA approach, who say things like "post shot-clock era" and "post AFC-NFC merger". Eh, I guess we're really talking about different things.

That said, I really don't have a problem with Bonds. Give him the home-run record, just say it was during the "Steroid Era". Even without the obvious roiding he was an incredible player. And pitchers were juicing too. Give Cy Young his props for his wins, which will never be broken, but set aside a modern era record too. Pitchers nowadays don't go 8 innings at a time, pitching doubleheaders non-stop. The game changes, and records should acknowledge that.

Ballin', what's your opinion on Ryan Braun? Do you think he should have gotten off?

 

[ballin4life]

i just think the rule changes you cite in baseball have about the same (or less) impact as rule changes like the season in the NBA where the 3 point line was shorter, or the CONSTANT rule changes in the NFL (kickoffs being moved up being the obvious recent one).

i do certainly agree that it is difficult to compare different eras though.

as for Ryan Braun, the last I remember he got his suspension overturned, so what's the problem? anyway, it's true that NOW baseball has strict drug testing and all that, so if he failed a drug test then it's the rule that he would have to take whatever punishment there is.

now, on the other hand, I REALLY hate when people say things like "we can't allow PEDs because they will change the record books/it's unfair that players from other eras didn't have them". you could apply the exact same logic to things like lifting weights, eating healthy, using protein powder, or having Tommy John surgery. Lots of those things weren't options for players back in the day. Basically today's science gives us a way better idea of what we should do to promote peak performance. there might still be reasons to ban some stuff, but "we have to protect the record books" is not a valid reason.

 

[clubbadubba]

ryan braun got off because of a loophole in the system as far as I could tell from what I heard. One person "didn't follow procedure," meaning that he mailed the sample a day late or something like that. Thus the drug test wasn't "legit" and he got off. Could be wrong but that's what I gathered.

 

[The Star King]

is this what it's like watching me and ciaza talk about irrelevance

baseball is terrible

Yes.

To both.

It's OK though, it usually happens at night for me so I wake up to 50-post chain of irrelevant anime discussion to skip over.

Plus ciaza usually starts it so you get only 35% of the blame.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

I was excited to see whether there was new FALCON stuff to learn. But nope, just boring baseball junk.

 

[kys]

i just think the rule changes you cite in baseball have about the same (or less) impact as rule changes like the season in the NBA where the 3 point line was shorter, or the CONSTANT rule changes in the NFL (kickoffs being moved up being the obvious recent one).

i do certainly agree that it is difficult to compare different eras though.

as for Ryan Braun, the last I remember he got his suspension overturned, so what's the problem? anyway, it's true that NOW baseball has strict drug testing and all that, so if he failed a drug test then it's the rule that he would have to take whatever punishment there is.

now, on the other hand, I REALLY hate when people say things like "we can't allow PEDs because they will change the record books/it's unfair that players from other eras didn't have them". you could apply the exact same logic to things like lifting weights, eating healthy, using protein powder, or having Tommy John surgery. Lots of those things weren't options for players back in the day. Basically today's science gives us a way better idea of what we should do to promote peak performance. there might still be reasons to ban some stuff, but "we have to protect the record books" is not a valid reason.

I agree with your first point, I was only saying that for me it's curious that baseball gets the stat-crazy treatment as opposed to other sports. Numbers and stats are cool and interesting but they don't tell the whole story. Baseball people would kill me for saying that.

The NFL kickoff rule pissed me off. DUMB.

I totally agree with your third paragraph. Even if you take out PEDs, players in the modern game would crush the competition of the past for all the reasons you said. It's interesting to think about where the game could be 100 years from now.

ryan braun got off because of a loophole in the system as far as I could tell from what I heard. One person "didn't follow procedure," meaning that he mailed the sample a day late or something like that. Thus the drug test wasn't "legit" and he got off. Could be wrong but that's what I gathered.

Yeah, the guy who took the sample was supposed to deliver it immediately to FedEx (lol ds). It was a Friday, and late, so he kept it at home until Monday. Braun got off because the handler violated the policy. But after interviewing scientists and those involved with the drug testing, they said there was no way keeping the sample over the weekend would cause such a spike in synthetic testosterone (it was something like 40:1; a normal ratio is 4:1ish). They also said the sample had absolutely no signs of tampering, with Braun's own hand-written initials still over the seal.

Captain Falcon is cool.

Talking about objectively entertaining sports' topics is better than talking about objectively dumb anime.