Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[Sky`]

*Ignored* :[

So anyway, as I was saying!

*Muffles Bento.*

 

[M15t3R E]

EDITED:
This chart shows that a perfect high tier still loses to an "amazing" MK.

Confusing. Doesn't M2K have a "perfect" Meta Knight? I played him in pools this weekend and I'd sure say so. Yet, NinjaLink (as Diddy) has beaten M2K in a set before. That would mean M2K's Meta Knight is not even "amazing", which I STRONGLY disagree with.

Maybe I'm not understanding one key aspect to this chart. Does it mean that a character/player with a lesser skill rating can never defeat a character/player of a higher skill rating? Or that they can, but it's very unlikely?

 

[Gindler]

I can beat a bad snake with yoshi every single time.

This graph needs a major overhall if a perfect low tier is outclassed by a bad snake.

 

[Chaco]

Yeah really, we beat MKs to...not Pros though

 

[SaltyKracka]

This chart shows that a "perfect" Snake goes even with an "amazing" MK.

Confusing. Doesn't M2K have a "perfect" Meta Knight? I played him in pools this weekend and I'd sure say so. Yet, Ally (as Snake) has beaten M2K in a regular match before. That would mean M2K's Meta Knight is merely "amazing" and not "perfect", which I don't agree with.

Maybe I'm not understanding one key aspect to this chart. Does it mean that a character/player with a lesser skill rating can never defeat a character/player of a higher skill rating? Or that they can, but it's very unlikely?

It's simple, really. The list is only so much bull****. You only need look at Peach to know that this is true.

 

[Brinzy]

I specifically quoted these three portions of your post to point out something: You said that you were merely posting what I appeared to be doing, which was your observation if I'm not mistaken. However, what I was doing was making an observation of what I saw, and questioning what it was that I saw. Yes, I can say that I am guilty of passing judgment, however my judgments and questions, although related to a similar topic, do NOT go hand in hand. I know exactly what I'm doing when I begin to post in one of these threads; Passing judgments? Maybe if at all. Questioning what I observe? You bet.

I know people will become butthurt over the way I post, as people do with the way Yuna posts, because there is always someone out there who does not approve of or agree with how someone conducts their business. Do I let that bother me? Of course not. My point with all of this? I will continue posting the way I do, so please spare me your lectures that you love to top your posts with.

You want me to spare my lectures while you try to lecture me in return? lol.

Observations and questions don't go hand in hand? You *need* an observation of some kind to get the incentive to ask a particular question. Same goes for observations and judgments. If you want someone to think you're merely observing and questioning... do that. Don't call stuff "squabble" and then go, "I don't really mean squabble obviously." That was the main reason why I said something to you.

Once again, I'm "butthurt" over the way you post? I disapproved of the way you wrote because it was condescending. Yuna is rarely condescending, as are a few others who I often do not see eye to eye with. That is why I have said something to you and not to them. I don't care if it wasn't your intention or whatever, but "this is squabble", "oh-so-important argument on SWF on a video game" and the like are condescending statements to make on everyone in this thread.

You could've gotten across the same thing you wanted to by saying, "This argument is going all over the place. What's the main point here? I don't even see it anymore." Notice how it doesn't have the same mocking tone that yours does, which is good for having Professor Raphael not respond to you.

 

[SaltyKracka]

Right, that does it.

*Lights the Buzz Signal*

 

[Brinzy]

oh. my god. OH MY GOD! Somebody lock this thread! Two people are quoting each other and it's making me cry!

 

[SaltyKracka]

oh. my god. OH MY GOD! Somebody lock this thread! Two people are quoting each other and it's making me cry!

Really!? Where are those sons of *****es?!

 

[DMG]

There should be a Wario line, and it should be like literally flat until you get towards "Playing perfect" where he skyrockets past Snake haha. Sounds accurate IMO.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Biased graph is biased.

 

[salaboB]

EDITED:
This chart shows that a perfect high tier still loses to an "amazing" MK.

Confusing. Doesn't M2K have a "perfect" Meta Knight? I played him in pools this weekend and I'd sure say so. Yet, NinjaLink (as Diddy) has beaten M2K in a set before. That would mean M2K's Meta Knight is not even "amazing", which I STRONGLY disagree with.

Maybe I'm not understanding one key aspect to this chart. Does it mean that a character/player with a lesser skill rating can never defeat a character/player of a higher skill rating? Or that they can, but it's very unlikely?

M2K is accepted as the best tournament player, MK is accepted as the best character.

M2K can still lose while using MK. What do you think the graph shows?

 

[M15t3R E]

M2K is accepted as the best tournament player, MK is accepted as the best character.

M2K can still lose while using MK. What do you think the graph shows?

The graph is showing that a perfect high tier (in this case Diddy) should never come close to defeating a perfect Meta Knight.

And guess what? At C3 in November, M2K was put into losers by NinjaLink's Diddy.

 

[Eddie G]

Stuff.

I've already explained everything to you, carry on if you wish, but I'm finished with this. No explanation is going to satisfy you. Boo-hoo all you want over the lack of humility in my posts.

@ Thread- Now, back to the topic at hand: I don't believe the graph is biased, definitely flawed, but not biased. Peach may very well have that kind of potential, or she may not. Only continued tournaments and results will yield that answer for us all to see. It's just a rough and not completely accurate graph, no biggie. I'm not one to really believe in graphical data being too important anyway. XP

 

[salaboB]

The graph is showing that a perfect high tier (in this case Diddy) should never come close to defeating a perfect Meta Knight.

And guess what? At C3 in November, M2K was put into losers by NinjaLink's Diddy.

No, it's showing they have an advantage over them (MK over Diddy, by the graph).

There is no "This character played at this level will never lose" in Brawl.

Plus, the graph doesn't account for lack of matchup experience, which very likely was involved there.

 

[M15t3R E]

No, it's showing they have an advantage over them (MK over Diddy, by the graph).

There is no "This character played at this level will never lose" in Brawl.

Plus, the graph doesn't account for lack of matchup experience, which very likely was involved there.

It also doesn't account for stage choice, which is crucial in Brawl.
So even you'd admit this chart needs a great deal more intricate detail to be about accurate?

 

[salaboB]

It also doesn't account for stage choice, which is crucial in Brawl.
So even you'd admit this chart needs a great deal more intricate detail to be about accurate?

No, it just needs to be more accurate. You're trying to strawman the whole thing by applying such ridiculous absolutes to it ("It says MK can't ever lose to a low-tier because the chart shows his level above them." just makes no sense for applying it to reality. It representing an advantage becomes something that can be worked with.)

I already covered this, and I'm going to simply quote myself:

There may be some characters that perform at nearly a flat line level compared to others -- if you play a bad X, a bad Y will beat you. If you play a perfect X, a perfect Y will still beat you.

But what if the character has a number of odd techniques? Say, Yoshi. So they'll start off about even with the characters that don't have powerful kill moves (Face it, bad players do best with the characters that have one or two really obvious, usable power hits). But then middle skill he'll start to suffer, as people figure out the better characters. His line is likely to actually drop here (At least in relation to everyone else), because his weaknesses will start to be exposed and the players won't be good enough to handle them. Then you get to a good level, and start using pivot grabs, his pseudo wavedash, etc. and suddenly his line jumps up a ways as he can handle matchups that he couldn't when he just charged into things. But it ends there -- going to perfectly played doesn't really unlock more for him, so he'd stay about the same or drop a little as other characters gained the ability to work around his odd behaviors.

Stages, counterpicks, none of that should show directly in this graph any more than it shows directly in the tier list. What should show is overall effectiveness of the character based on your skill level. Think of each skill level as having a tier list with a certain baseline (That goes up slightly as base skill raises), and the graph is showing comparative effectiveness for every character at it.

 

[M15t3R E]

Geeze, I just had a little dispute with the chart and you turn into an overly aggressive debator, taking things too far completely.

I didn't mean to imply that the chart states "this character played at this skill can 'never' defeat this character at this skill". As a matter of fact, I ASKED if that's what the chart meant because I wasn't sure and I don't assume things. You didn't answer that question of mine and just assumed that I thought something I wasn't thinking.

 

[Eddie G]

Geeze, I just had a little dispute with the chart and you turn into an aggressive debator.

Welcome to Smashboards. ^.^;

Nah, Edrees already said that his graph was flawed and nowhere near perfect (paraphrasing). It's all good, but I do like the idea of implementing a graph for people to go gah-gah over.

 

[Brinzy]

I've already explained everything to you, carry on if you wish, but I'm finished with this. No explanation is going to satisfy you. Boo-hoo all you want over the lack of humility in my posts.

@ Thread- Now, back to the topic at hand: I don't believe the graph is biased, definitely flawed, but not biased. Peach may very well have that kind of potential, or she may not. Only continued tournaments and results will yield that answer for us all to see. It's just a rough and not completely accurate graph, no biggie. I'm not one to really believe in graphical data being too important anyway. XP

K, then I'm finished with you as well.

Also, the chart does have bias. Look who made it. Look where Peach is. Sure, that's to be expected, but... come on. Why is Peach better than a high tier, again?

 

[salaboB]

Geeze, I just had a little dispute with the chart and you turn into an overly aggressive debator, taking things too far completely.

I didn't mean to imply that the chart states "this character played at this skill can 'never' defeat this character at this skill". As a matter of fact, I ASKED if that's what the chart meant because I wasn't sure and I don't assume things. You didn't answer that question of mine and just assumed that I thought something I wasn't thinking.

You went a bit beyond asking when you stated:

The graph is showing that a perfect high tier (in this case Diddy) should never come close to defeating a perfect Meta Knight.

And guess what? At C3 in November, M2K was put into losers by NinjaLink's Diddy.

Since I'd specifically pointed out that M2K could lose with MK (And thus that Edreeses is aware of this -- because I'm certain he knows that fact), I was making a point about what it meant. It was not that a perfect Diddy should never beat a perfect MK.

I'm afraid I explained it badly though, sorry for being unclear.

 

[M15t3R E]

Maybe I'm not understanding one key aspect to this chart. Does it mean that a character/player with a lesser skill rating can never defeat a character/player of a higher skill rating? Or that they can, but it's very unlikely?

That's what I asked in the first place.

I feel Edreese's numbers are on the right track, but that the skill differences aren't as great as the graph currently shows.

 

[ssbbFICTION]

Wario is a little dot wayyyy down on the bottom left. Then he ends up at a perfect diagonal to the exact upper right.

 

[Sky`]

Fiction, I'm coming over tomorrow.

 

[Yuna]

You shouldn't. This is not to say you won't, but you shouldn't indulge in your debates here.

Asking you. But whatever. Just think before you do it next time, K'?

So the truth comes out at last? I asked you in my previous post if you were truly telling me that the Tactical boards is no place for debates. You kinda said no. But now you're saying yes?

Also, the Peach boards are overrun with delusional fanboys and very few people actually go there.

Instead, thanks to some careless remarks by Yuna, everybody's arguing about who said what, and who's right and who's wrong, and other things not related to the OP in the slightest. It's really rather silly how it just ballooned.

They weren't careless at all. They were written in plain English and in a very clear and concise way. It's just that some people have skin the thickness of snowflakes and get up and arms about every little thing.

My falcon (who I do not main or second) has beaten experienced MKs many times.

Who are these supposedly experienced MK players? Who are you? What tournaments did this occur in?

Which is all a derail based on someone objecting to what the chart showed, rather than discussing whether such a chart could be accurately (Or even close to accurately) created and would have any worth if so.

We did have a discussion on that. Oh rather, I did. And I "proved" it total baloney (no one opposed me, so as it stands, I "won" that debate).

I believe we knew that from Edreeses saying "I threw this together in 5 minutes."

As one of the best Peach players in the world, stating that he threw the chart together in 5 minutes does not equal to "This is pure bull**** and I made it up merely to illustrate a concept".

After all, several people in the thread took the graph to mean that Edreeses was saying that Peach was perfectly viable. As an authority figure and highly skilled Smasher and Peach player, people believe Edreeses to know enough about Smash and Peach to be able to, in only 5 minutes, create a roughly accurate chart.

After all, Edreeses further addresses it by stating that the chart is not entirely accurate. What does "entirely accurate" imply? It implies that it is somewhat accurate... which it isn't at all!

Therefore, the OP is misleading (probably unintentionally).

Fiction, I'm coming over tomorrow.

Fiction is clearly running amok in this thread already.

 

[SaltyKracka]

So the truth comes out at last? I asked you in my previous post if you were truly telling me that the Tactical boards is no place for debates. You kinda said no. But now you're saying yes?

I'm saying it would probably be better if you kept your style of debating out of threads like these. Probably.

Also, the Peach boards are overrun with delusional fanboys and very few people actually go there.

Sounds like you'd love it there, then. All that stupidity and nobody to correct them about every single tiny thing that's wrong with them.

They weren't careless at all. They were written in plain English and in a very clear and concise way. It's just that some people have skin the thickness of snowflakes and get up and arms about every little thing.

You do tend to spark sub-debates within your major debates, though. Very often.

 

[Yuna]

Sounds like you'd love it there, then. All that stupidity and nobody to correct them about every single tiny thing that's wrong with them.

The problem is that they are beyond help. I tried to reason with them, I really did. Then I just gave up. There is absolutely no reason for me to continue debating obviously delusional people. I can only try to help prevent others from buying into the same delusion.

You do tend to spark sub-debates within your major debates, though. Very often.

I didn't do it intentionally this time. My first post in this thread was merely a critique on the OP and his confusing graph which could easily be misinterpreted. Some Peach fanboys became incensed that I dared to state that Peach was not a viable character and started the debate.

I didn't nothing wrong here. I merely stated a fact. Some fanboys just couldn't accept the facts.

 

[BentoBox]

Answer me Yuna >=o

 

[Yuna]

Answer me Yuna >=o

Answer what?

 

[AfroQT]

I love you yunaaaaaaaaaaa
No homo

 

[BentoBox]

Answer what?

you do it on purpose ;_;

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6614724&postcount=354

 

[PK-ow!]

I'm saying it would probably be better if you kept your style of debating out of threads like these. Probably.

What is 'a style' of debate?

 

[SaltyKracka]

The problem is that they are beyond help. I tried to reason with them, I really did. Then I just gave up. There is absolutely no reason for me to continue debating obviously delusional people. I can only try to help prevent others from buying into the same delusion.

And what's the difference between there and here?

I didn't do it intentionally this time. My first post in this thread was merely a critique on the OP and his confusing graph which could easily be misinterpreted. Some Peach fanboys became incensed that I dared to state that Peach was not a viable character and started the debate.

Actually, I was rather referring to that Diddy/Lucario viability as applied to Azen and other pro players. That sub-debate.

I didn't nothing wrong here. I merely stated a fact. Some fanboys just couldn't accept the facts.

I completely understand your first debate with Hive and such about Peach viability. I agree that the OP is not a good illustration of the concept, as the graph is not to be believed at all. However, once your debate about Peach viability was finished, so too should your time in this thread have been.

What is 'a style' of debate?

What is 'a style' of writing, or speaking?

 

[Yuna]

And what's the difference between there and here?

Because there are less delusional Peach fanboys outside of the Peach boards. If they decide to take up the fight, they will be outnumbered, which might help them see reason.

Actually, I was rather referring to that Diddy/Lucario viability as applied to Azen and other pro players. That sub-debate.

I did not start that. I believe it was The Halloween Captain who started it.

However, once your debate about Peach viability was finished, so too should your time in this thread have been.

Why? Why can I not engage people in debate either by starting them myself or engaging others when they start debates? Why am I a special case not allowed what is perfectly accepted of others?

If you felt the thread should've ended at that point, you should be arguing that the thread should've been locked. Now you're just telling me that I (and only I) should've left the thread at that point for whatever reason.

What is 'a style' of writing, or speaking?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my style of debating.

 

[Yuna]

No. You don't get it.

You claim that Peach will never win a regional based on the current metagame and the current trends, which then led you to label her as an unviable character. You then asserted that some characters like Diddy Kong did display such trends and that he could win. I hence asked you to show me those trends you were refering to repetitively, as my own research only led me to find results from various low-scale tournaments, where Diddy did indeed place well, such results being emulated by quite a few other D+ chars. You have yet to give me anything of the sort. You refute arguments on principles you cannot even present/defend yourself. I have yet to see a big regional being won by anything other than M2K, consistently. Fact of the matter being that there are no trends indicating that any other character (snake perhaps?) could win such large scale events. So your rambling is pointless, unless that was your point all along.

Ah, we're back to arguing that MK is the only viable character (of sorts).

It's the same as the inane argument that Marth was the only character capable of consistently winning major tournaments in the Melee because of how well Ken, Azen and M2K did. When taking into consideration viability, we cannot stare ourselves blind at tournament results.

Meta Knight has the easiest path to victory. Mew2King is arguably the best Brawl player in the world. By these powers combined, he is Captain Consistent Slayer of Tournament Goers. Which is why he wins pretty much every single tournament he participates in.

But in order for MK to be the only character capable of consistently winning major tournaments, he also has to be the only character capable of consistently placing at tournaments. After all, how can a character be so dominating they are the only choice to take 1st with consistently, yet there are plenty of other characters who consistently take Top 5? If MK is so dominating, the Top 5 of almost every single major tournament should consist of MKs, especially when he's also quite popular.

But they're not, are they? We consistently see other characters placing and even winning. If a character is capable of consistently take Top 5 at major tournaments, they are also capable of winning major tournaments (and I didn't even use the word "consistently", BTW, IIRC. I never do. That's AlphaZealot's argument).

Keep in mind that we're talking about characters now. Not players. If every single one, or close to, of those high placements come from a single player, especially one world famous for his mindgames and being able to take unviable characters quite far, then it's not really a trend and proof of viability, now, is it? If the character is so viable, why isn't anyone else coming even close to emulating their success?

We also have to take a look at how badly characters lose when they eventually lose. Sample 50 top-level matches. How badly does Lucario lose to X, Y and Z characters when he gets taken out vs. how badly Diddy loses when taken out?

Viability is also partially theoretical. Take a look at Diddy Kong's metgame. Diddy Kong has tons of tricks up his sleeve. There are few players currently taking him to his highest level. Lucario, what does he have? Umm... timing, spacing and a character-specific chaingrab + Aura (please enlighten me if I'm missing out on something)?

Azen doesn't take Lucario so far in tournaments because of some kind of hidden potential only he (and Lee) are able to grasp. They do it due to their superior mindgames. This is what differentiates character potential from player skill.

Also, tournament results are not the be-all and end-all of character viability. After all, if they were, we could argue that Lucario is a better character than quite a few characters above him on the Tier List since he places high a lot more than many of them.

A lot of things are at play here, character popularity being one of them. And characters do not have to consistently place high over and over and over again in order to be considered viable if they are proven viable and nothing changes to change that. Also, just because a player is consistently playing well with a certain character does not automatically mean that character is viable/more viable than characters not placing as well.

If this were the case, then every single tier list in the world would be wrong by quite a lot considering what characters place outside of the very Top 3 characters (for most games).

 

[SaltyKracka]

Because there are less delusional Peach fanboys outside of the Peach boards. If they decide to take up the fight, they will be outnumbered, which might help them see reason..

And here I thought you loved a challenge.

I did not start that. I believe it was The Halloween Captain who started it..

Debatable, but pointless. I'm not going to go all the way back just to find out who began it, and I doubt anyone else is either.

Why? Why can I not engage people in debate either by starting them myself or engaging others when they start debates? Why am I a special case not allowed what is perfectly accepted of others?.

When somebody begins a debate, you are perfectly welcome to join it. However, I feel that when the topic is exhausted, it's time to let the thread die. Not to begin new debates, especially not ones about post and debate style.

If you felt the thread should've ended at that point, you should be arguing that the thread should've been locked. Now you're just telling me that I (and only I) should've left the thread at that point for whatever reason..

I have argued that the thread should be locked. However, it hasn't been, so the next best course of action would simply to have let the debate end and go back to the original point of the OP (not the graph), the concept of a chart that showed how different characters did at different levels of play, stage choices, etc.

And I singled YOU out because you tend to be right in the thick of these things, thriving. Face it, Yuna, these debates tend to revolve around you.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my style of debating.

Except for your tendency to be rather abrasive and condescending, not really.

 

[Yuna]

Debatable, but pointless. I'm not going to go all the way back just to find out who began it, and I doubt anyone else is either.

No it's not. Because if I was not the instigator, then I have nothing to answer for. Why shouldn't I (and only I) be allowed to participate in debates others start? Should we just let untruths slide, thus further contaminating the community?

When somebody begins a debate, you are perfectly welcome to join it. However, I feel that when the topic is exhausted, it's time to let the thread die. Not to begin new debates, especially not ones about post and debate style.

I did not start that debate! Other people did. They were slandering my name, calling into question my answer and/or spouting untruths. What was I supposed to do, just let their untruths stand?!

And I singled YOU out because you tend to be right in the thick of these things, thriving. Face it, Yuna, these debates tend to revolve around you.

You have yet to actually present any kind of proof that I did anything wrong here. Basically, you just said "There were some debates I didn't like in this thread. You participated in them. I blame you for them and no one else for entirely arbitrary reasons."

Except for your tendency to be rather abrasive and condescending, not really.

There is nothing wrong with being condescending to those who deserve it. Also, it is not my fault people find me abrasive if I as much as question the validity of their most flimsy arguments.

 

[Eddie G]

K, then I'm finished with you as well.

Also, the chart does have bias. Look who made it. Look where Peach is. Sure, that's to be expected, but... come on. Why is Peach better than a high tier, again?

Ok...I suppose it does have some bias, considering who the creator mains. I'm surprised that he hasn't returned to the thread yet to further flesh out his purpose for Peach being so high. I can see her going even with Snake if played exceptionally well, but higher? I also disagree.

I'm neutral on the high tier/Peach comparison. She has some shaky matchups and some "alright" matchups with them, but her being that much higher is definitely stretching it.

 

[Hive]

There is nothing wrong with being condescending to those who deserve it. Also, it is not my fault people find me abrasive if I as much as question the validity of their most flimsy arguments.

are you serious? you start harassing people before you've even heard their arguments @.@
i can show you proof if ya want.

 

[Yuna]

are you serious? you start harassing people before you've even heard their arguments @.@
i can show you proof if ya want.

Yes, you actually showing proof for your totally inaccurate claims would be a refreshing change. Bring it on.