Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[salaboB]

Battle Field is good for her. instant tippers on those platforms, what's not to love? You know who else is good there? Marth.
You know who ***** peach? Marth.
You know what character they are going to go? Marth.
You know what character you are going? Peach.
You know who's going to win at that high level of play, on a level where you're pretty much statistically destined to lose? Do the math.

You know, a simple answer "No she doesn't have two good/great CP stages" would have worked fine.

Over the top rant? Completely unnecessary.

 

[BentoBox]

Pierce7d lost to Reflex' PT!

/relevant

 

[Sky`]

I must say that Sky is ****** this thread.

Good stuff if I do say so myself.

Thankya kindly sur. :3

@Hive: Hehe. Thank you. =]
I mean, She's not Horrible... She just can't do it alone. She's going to take me to a point, and I'll have her in my back pocket, but in order to WIN, I'm going to have to go Kirby. Kirby does more than just help my high tier hardships, (Falco... Ungh.) But also, I no longer have to ban Rainbow Cruise. Also, he's not a mainstream character, so the Matchup isn't exactly known entirely. But I digress.

Hive, it isn't the character, it's the player. The way I see it, is what I like to call, the Azen Effect. Everybody thinks that Peach is this beacon of amazing, because he did something somewhere with peach and yadda yadda, and made Lucario good and yadda yadda. It ain't the characters that are amazing, it's Azen.

Lucario and Peach Main Azen, not really the other way around. I saw that earlier in the thread, and honestly, I thought it was amazingly genius.

 

[Hive]

I don't know Peach half as well as Sky or Edress do and I could tell she was not viable within 10 minutes of playing her.

It's not hard to tell if a character is viable honestly.

You just can't let the "Smash Brothers fluff" cloud your mind.

you can't tell if anyone is not viable in 10 minutes <.< if you jump to those kinds of conclusions you're setting yourself up for fail...

@sky'- yea i see what you are saying, and the player DOES matter... but the player isn't enough either, you know what i mean? it doesn't matter who mains samus for example in a major tourney, it could be azen or w/e, but due to character limitations he's not going to make it to top ten in a regional no matter who he is. The players matter, but i also think that the character has to have that potential too. and you're right though, i guess i thought she had more potential than she did because of the relatively larger number of successful peach mains too. ^^
why kirby? ^^ **** i hating fighting kirbys lol

 

[Sky`]

You know, a simple answer "No she doesn't have two good/great CP stages" would have worked fine.

Over the top rant? Completely unnecessary.

My apologies. I'm honestly used to debating with people who are so insistent to believe that she can do it alone, that I get carried away, assuming that you'd just come back with some rebut that would be answered if I ranted.

Mah bad.

Less b frands! =D

 

[Sky`]

I don't know Peach half as well as Sky or Edress do and I could tell she was not viable within 10 minutes of playing her.

It's not hard to tell if a character is viable honestly.

You just can't let the "Smash Brothers fluff" cloud your mind.

You got somebody to 100%, and said F*ck.

Been there. XD

 

[BentoBox]

Kirby won't solve your Marth problem D:

MK IMO

 

[Hive]

---mispost

 

[Emblem Lord]

LOL@Sky.

Nah it's more of just an analysis of basic traits that build a proper foundation.

Unless the fighting engine is completely whacked and crazy sh*t can happen like oh say MAHVEL VS CRAPCOM 2, then you can judge a character solely on the movelist and you won't be too far off if you have experience with fighters.

You wouldn't be able to place the character in a tier list, but you could say oh this character looks good or this character looks mediocre and it would be pretty accurate.

Peach lacks a good foundation and that's why she isn't viable.

Same as any mid tier or lower character in any fighting game

 

[Eddie G]

This delusion isn't really helping anyone.

And it's not hurting anyone either. Diddy wasn't winning tournaments a few months ago iirc. Boss wasn't doing nearly as well with Luigi/Mario. Kirby is in C tier, and Chu has been winning his share just recently. Pikachu is one spot above, in C tier again, and well, anther, etc. You pretty much have somebody placing really well with every single character from SS to D tiers. Then dipping a bit lower, there's Snakeee and his ZSS (D tier)... and Peach is currently 3 spots below!

The difference between these players and the ones *****ing in here is that they don't waste their time holding onto theorycrafting and actually get **** done. Scale of a tournament is always questioned, but realistically, M2K is always going to skew results :D. Thing is, people will always cling onto results as facts until proven wrong. Tools. Get out there and do your thing. Then we might get somewhere.

edit:^ I love Brinstar & delfino w/ peach o,o

I second the **** out of this post. Very well said Bento.

 

[Sky`]

Kirby won't solve your Marth problem D:

MK IMO

My Kirby < Marth.

And I'll just take that *** to Rainbow. See if he doesn't switch to sumthin I LyKE MUHAHAH!

Gnight.

 

[Eddie G]

Sky, no matter how you're going to arrange your "order" of characters, it's good to have you back nonetheless. I consider you my rival, not as far as tournament results go (yet :D), but as a player overall. ^.^

 

[Yuna]

This delusion isn't really helping anyone.

And it's not hurting anyone either. Diddy wasn't winning tournaments a few months ago iirc. Boss wasn't doing nearly as well with Luigi/Mario. Kirby is in C tier, and Chu has been winning his share just recently. Pikachu is one spot above, in C tier again, and well, anther, etc. You pretty much have somebody placing really well with every single character from SS to D tiers. Then dipping a bit lower, there's Snakeee and his ZSS (D tier)... and Peach is currently 3 spots below!

But we're not talking about characters who can place well (occasionally... when played by the best players in the world). We're talking about characters who stand a reasonable chance of winning major tournaments.

And who does this delusion hurt? The less informed. New players who don't know better will be roped into thinking characters who aren't viable are viable. This will hold them back from seeking out more viable characters. It will convince them the lie is truth and they will go on to spread that lie further, thus further contaminating the community with the delusion.

The difference between these players and the ones *****ing in here is that they don't waste their time holding onto theorycrafting and actually get **** done.

Yes, they manage to occasionally place high at major tournaments... they also happen to be, you know, some of the best Brawl players in the world. That's right, when played by some of the best Brawl players in the world, unviable characters can sometimes maybe place Top10... at minor tournaments (and once in a blue moon, major ones). Yay!

The fact of the matter is, everybody sees Brawl like some Anime. I told this very same thing to Dark Peach. I used to think that Drk. Pch was a credible source of information, but his lack of understanding of even his own Main leads me to believe otherwise. Those of you saying that Peach can make it, and etc, that's flattering and all, but it's just wishful thinking.

You still have (had) hope in humanity. Aw, how cute. I saw right through the bovine manure that he spews when Brawl was first released (January 2008), when he for a week or so insisted on how amazing Peach still was and then kinda conceded that she wasn't amazing but still viable and would win tournaments (this was back in January-February 2008, when Peach's metagame was much ****tier!) and then I think he later admitted to, months later, having only been to one tournament and how he bases a lot of what he says on regarding Peach's viability how well he's able to do against other people on Wi-Fi.

Yeah...

All because some people are stuck, in that Anime world.

"I am a superstar, with a big, big house (Princess Peach's Castle) and a big, big car (um, her float). I am a superstar and I don't care who you are (Marth on Rainbow Cruise)!" -> *splat* dead Peach

@Yuna. Who do you main in GNT4?

j.A -> d.AY -> d.BBY -> d.BBY -> u.B -> BBX

Secondaries:
j.B -> BBY -> d.BAY -> d.BAA -> X
j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.B -> j.X -> forward dash -> AAA

Former (****ty and unviable) main in GNT3 and GNT4:
BBBABBAB

I must say that Sky is ****** this thread.

I resent that. We're dual-****** it together. Like a team.

He uses his Peach knowledge and I use my logic. It's a one-two punch of Win.

lol, and you are an expert on this yuna? you basically came here with no good peach experience

Irrelevant. One must not have a bomb blow up in their face to know what will happen if they have a bomb blow up in their face.

never watching good peaches play irl

Also quasi-irrelevant. One must not have seen someone have a bomb blown up in their face IRL (as opposed to on video) to know what will happen if someone has a bomb blow up in their face.

no clue about peach's tourney results

Untrue. I did not know all of her most recent results but I knew plenty. And I had no desire to go and dig those results up. It's the job of the "Peach is viable!" lunatics to dig them up to prove their standpoint. And guess what, her tournament results aren't much different from a few months ago when I last took a look at them.

I knew they hadn't changed enough for me to change her status from "Unviable" to "Viable". I knew they'd improved slightly. I had no desire to go out and look for them myself knowing both of those (very true) things when it is the responsibility of my opposition to dig them out to prove their (untrue) claim.

and no understanding of her flaws...

Quote me where I have said anything that indicates I do not understand herflaws.

i was wrong but at least i was basing my thoughts on something substantial. :/

You based your thoughts on flawed "facts" and flawed "logic". It's called being unable to come to the right conclusions with faced with the facts.

I came my conclusions based on old (but not outdated) facts because I knew the facts hadn't changed dramatically.

And as Emblem Lord said, once you've reached a certain level of insight, simple theoretical (or practical, or both) dissection of a character's metagame is all it takes to decide whether or not they are viable. Having both played Peach superficially and looked at her tournament results and potential and ATs, it was easy for me to rule her out as viable. Why? Because despite all that she has, there are plenty of characters who have much, much, much more.

and edreese has said twice in the op that it was just his opinions and only serves as a rough approximation...

You fail at simple math if you think Edreeses said the word "opinion" was used twice in the OP. Also, it doesn't matter if he states that it's just his opinion. As an authority figure on Smash and Peach (Moderator, renowned Peach player) people who do not know better will assume that his opinion is based on and backed up by facts!

They will think that his "rough approximation" of Peach's viability in that chart is at least somewhat accurate and based on some kind of facts, as opposed to just total baloney made up on the spot to illustrate a concept, something Edreeses didn't admit to 'til a page or so later.

you are taking this way out of hand if you think he is somehow purposely trying to submit this as fact, and mislead you with the op...

You are unable to read plain English if you think I'm claiming he's purposely trying to do anything. When did I ever say that? I used words such as "seemingly", "appears to" and the likes to show how I am perfectly aware of that he didn't purposely do it.

@sky'- yea i see what you are saying, and the player DOES matter... but the player isn't enough either, you know what i mean? it doesn't matter who mains samus for example in a major tourney, it could be azen or w/e, but due to character limitations he's not going to make it to top ten in a regional no matter who he is.

And Azen will not make the Top10 of a regional if he sticks with Peach throughout the entire tournament. Your point being? Or are you employing a new approach: Destroying your own arguments pre-emptively before I can get to them?

You also probably bought into some Peach fanboy Dark.pch-esque bovine manure such as "Peach has mad combos!" (uttered by a certain Excel 2 just two days ago!).

The players matter, but i also think that the character has to have that potential too. and you're right though, i guess i thought she had more potential than she did because of the relatively larger number of successful peach mains too. ^^

No, it was your flawed approximation of what constitutes "successful". Getting occasional Top 10 placements in minor tournaments =/= successful. Especially not when we're talking about who can win major tournaments.

Same as any mid tier or lower character in any fighting game

Most fighting games.

 

[Natch]

Hive, you are way too touchy-feely. Yuna knows what the hell he is talking about. But you didn't believe him until Sky came along and just said something without providing any more proof than what Yuna was providing.

The difference?

Sky mains Peach.

Sky spoke in even a tone that was similar to Yuna's; a very I'm-right-you're-wrong tone. I have seen you talk about competitive Brawl Hive. You follow the crowd way too much. If you truly believed Peach was viable, you would be disagreeing with Sky. You went to some pretty great lengths to disagree with Yuna, insofar as to post a detailed record of tournament attendance.

That takes a lot of snooping around to find, I know this from my experiences with data compliation. It's not a quick process, and you only do it if you have a really good reason to do. Agreeing with Sky just like that when is a very weak move on your part.

Hive, the worst part is when you said you thought Peach was viable because there were so many good Peach players. You changed your mind because someone who knew more than you said a baseless statement (Sky, you backed it up, and you're 100% correct, but Hive took what you said at face value). This proves you had no idea what the hell you were talking about. You knew nothing about Peach's flaws, and if you did you sure as hell didn't elaborate on why they don't bring her down.

Please, please, PLEASE. Learn up on what you're talking about before talking about it.

 

[Eddie G]

Haha, logic, debating...just silly little man-made "essences", if you will. A way for man to amuse himself with countless squabbles about this, that, and the other thing; and a way for humans to verbally facepalm one another and get away with it, just as long as they cover their tracks with "logic". In a world of uncertainty beyond that which has been established by man himself, what more is logic than another one of these established "truths" or "standards" which humans choose to abide by?

Excellent work Yuna, by these "standards" established by man to arm one's self in one of human life's many and ultimately pointless squabbles, you have done well. I applaud you.

@ Something that is relevent to the topic- I agree with Sky: a sub character is absolutely necessary to have a realistic chance at taking first place in high level tournament play, and I take his word for it.

 

[Yuna]

Hive, you are way too touchy-feely. Yuna knows what the hell he is talking about. But you didn't believe him until Sky came along and just said something without providing any more proof than what Yuna was providing.

The difference?

Sky mains Peach.

Sky spoke in even a tone that was similar to Yuna's; a very I'm-right-you're-wrong tone. I have seen you talk about competitive Brawl Hive. You follow the crowd way too much. If you truly believed Peach was viable, you would be disagreeing with Sky. You went to some pretty great lengths to disagree with Yuna, insofar as to post a detailed record of tournament attendance.

That takes a lot of snooping around to find, I know this from my experiences with data compliation. It's not a quick process, and you only do it if you have a really good reason to do. Agreeing with Sky just like that when is a very weak move on your part.

Hive, the worst part is when you said you thought Peach was viable because there were so many good Peach players. You changed your mind because someone who knew more than you said a baseless statement (Sky, you backed it up, and you're 100% correct, but Hive took what you said at face value). This proves you had no idea what the hell you were talking about. You knew nothing about Peach's flaws, and if you did you sure as hell didn't elaborate on why they don't bring her down.

Please, please, PLEASE. Learn up on what you're talking about before talking about it.

Can people stop taking what I've already said and say it in a dumbed-down way? I mean, cookies forbid this will make it more accessible and have the less-intelligent posters understand the finer points of Smash better!

Also, sex now?

@ Something that is relevent to the topic- I agree with Sky: a sub character is absolutely necessary to have a realistic chance at taking first place in high level tournament play, and I take his word for it.

No, no, that was not his point. A sub character is absolutely necessary to have a realistic chance at taking first place in high level tournament play when your main is Peach (and other characters), that was his point. There are several characters who can win high level tournaments without a secondary.

 

[Eddie G]

I'm already aware of that Yuna. My mistake for leaving that out of my sentence. Peach mains (and other characters, presumably those of the mid-lower tier) were my main focus in saying that.

 

[Natch]

Can people stop taking what I've already said and say it in a dumbed-down way? I mean, cookies forbid this will make it more accessible and have the less-intelligent posters understand the finer points of Smash better!

Also, sex now?

You want me to stop doing that for people? It's a bit of a service on my part, doing that translation from Yuna-level to some-lesser-level. If it's not worth my effort, I wouldn't mind knowing.

And no, I live in SoCal. My phone bill would be too high, so phone sex is no option. Will cybering suffice?

 

[Yuna]

You want me to stop doing that for people? It's a bit of a service on my part, doing that translation from Yuna-level to some-lesser-level. If it's not worth my effort, I wouldn't mind knowing.

O was being sarcastic.

And no, I live in SoCal. My phone bill would be too high, so phone sex is no option. Will cybering suffice?

Cyber! Now!

 

[Natch]

O was being sarcastic.

I couldn't tell. The cookies made me think of food, not sarcistic quips.

Cyber! Now!

I'm bad at that. Tried it once. Failed horribly. Dammnit...
I'm a fanboy, yes homo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

I gotta go to bed now. It's 3am here.

 

[Yuna]

I'm bad at that. Tried it once. Failed horribly. Dammnit...
I'm a fanboy, yes homo.

Everybody's gay for Yuna.

 

[Hive]

Hive, you are way too touchy-feely. Yuna knows what the hell he is talking about. But you didn't believe him until Sky came along and just said something without providing any more proof than what Yuna was providing.

The difference?

Sky mains Peach.

Sky spoke in even a tone that was similar to Yuna's; a very I'm-right-you're-wrong tone. I have seen you talk about competitive Brawl Hive. You follow the crowd way too much. If you truly believed Peach was viable, you would be disagreeing with Sky. You went to some pretty great lengths to disagree with Yuna, insofar as to post a detailed record of tournament attendance.

That takes a lot of snooping around to find, I know this from my experiences with data compliation. It's not a quick process, and you only do it if you have a really good reason to do. Agreeing with Sky just like that when is a very weak move on your part.

Hive, the worst part is when you said you thought Peach was viable because there were so many good Peach players. You changed your mind because someone who knew more than you said a baseless statement (Sky, you backed it up, and you're 100% correct, but Hive took what you said at face value). This proves you had no idea what the hell you were talking about. You knew nothing about Peach's flaws, and if you did you sure as hell didn't elaborate on why they don't bring her down.

Please, please, PLEASE. Learn up on what you're talking about before talking about it.

@natch- lol so mean! let me explain, i don't think it was weak at all to trust sky's opinion more than mine , he has a better working knowledge than peach and i trust that. more than my own opinion at least ^^ plus a lot of how i view peach is based off of how i view him and susannayou in the region play. :D so of course i'm going to agree with him...
plus Sky actually describes how she doesn't do well and why and in a way that's based off of experience instead of just opinion, in a way that makes a solid point. i am familiar with peaches flaws and tourney results beforehand i just didn't think falco and counter stages had as much effect as they did. i'm not ignorant about her lol i just interpreted stuff differently ^^ so don't be an jerk!
i was wrong, of course ^^ and i'm not even trying to argue the player vs. character skill thing lol
but its simple really... i agreed with sky because i trust his opinion/reasoning more ^^ i disagreed with yuna bc he doesn't sound like he has a strong basis for/knows what he is talking about, ( him being a jerk in probably like every tactical thread i've posted in probably didn't help either... ^^)
*the only real problem is that i sound like 1000 times more touchy/*****y online bc i can't transmit feelings over text well when really, i'm not as serious irl at all....

 

[Yuna]

@natch- lol so mean! let me explain, i don't think it was weak at all to trust sky's opinion more than mine , he has a better working knowledge than peach and i trust that. more than my own opinion at least ^^

So do you admit to your entire argument being nothing but your own personal opinion? What happened to, you know, facts? Your opinion, in a debate, must be backed up by facts. Where did you magical facts go? Did they fly out the window the second Sky` typed out his post decrying Peach's viability? Why would Sky`'s opinion vs. yours matter? It's Sky`arguments, logic and facts that matter. Because an opinion is meaningless in a debate where one can be right or wrong ("Is Peach a viable character?" - Yes or no question) if it cannot be backed up by arguments, logic and facts, the only things that matter in such debates (opinions do not matter, even if they come from the highest authorities in the matter).

Even if every single highly regarded Peach player in the world had come into this thread claiming Peach was viable, it would've been meaningless if none of them had had valid arguments, logic and facts to back up their claims!

Speaking of that, you did use some facts to back them up. I refuted the viability of said facts and you became incensed. Are you saying those facts were in fact flawed and I was right about that? Or are you saying that what Sky` is saying contradicts the facts and that what he is saying is incompatible with the facts? After all, Sky` and I are saying the same things.

And you insisted on that the "facts" prove that Peach is viable. So either you were wrong then or you are wrong now. And I was right then and I was right now. Or I and Sky` are both wrong.

Sorry, little Sky`/Peach-fanboy. You cannot get away with this. Either you used flawed facts, flawed reasoning, flawed logic to begin with and only saw reason when Sky` flew in here and your fanboyishness for Sky` overcame your fanboyishness for Peach or Sky` is wrong.

plus a lot of how i view peach is based off of how i view him and susannayou in the region play. :D

You see them doing well here and there, poof, Peach is viable? Again, you still do not know what "viable" means.

yuna just came in here like an ***.

No I didn't. I came in armed with facts and logic. I didn't use all the facts because I was lazy. I didn't feel like dredging up Peach's recent tournament results and left that up to other people to do. And they did. And I refuted them.

Sky actually described how she doesn't do well and why and in a way that's based off of experience instead of just opinion, in a way that makes a solid point.

I didn't not use opinion when making my argument. You're mistaking logic and debate with "presenting an opinion". I did not say "I think Peach is bad, therefore she is bad". I explained why she was bad.

I was off on a few facts, I'm not perfect. But at the end of the day, I was right about the vast majority of it. Also, what difference does it make if Sky` plays Peach or not? What he said was exactly what I had said. He said virtually nothing I hadn't yet said.

Whethe or not I myself main Peach means nothing if I know for a fact what Sky` knows as well! And who says what shouldn't matter if we're both saying the same **** things. All Sky`did that I hadn't was going into specific match-ups. I had already stated how badly Peach does against Marth. Sky` merely elaborated on this by adding just how badly she does against him on what stages.

So, really, I didn't come in here "like an ***". I came in here armed with the relevant facts and Sky` merely elaborated on a select few of them and that was all it took for you to switch sides from vehementely claiming Peach was viable to "O I C".

i am familiar with peaches flaws and tourney results beforehand i just didn't think falco and counter stages had as much effect as they did.

So you were wrong.

i'm not ignorant about her lol i just interpreted stuff differently ^^

But then you are ignorant (about how Competitive gaming works). First of all, you just admitted to not knowing how well Falco does against Peach and how Peach lacks good counterpick stages against certain characters while suffering bad counterpick stages against said characters!

Second of all, your "interpretation" of the facts is heavily flawed because you are ignorant about Competitive Smash. You do not know enough to accurately "interpret" the facts. You see Sky`and Edreeses do well in tournaments (not win, only doing well) and you immediately assume that means Peach is a viable character in the face of tons of people telling you she isn't and despite lacking tangible proof in the face of actual proof of her inviability.

Sky` just waltzed in here and drove in the final nails in Peach's viability coffin by going into specifics.

ii disagreed with yuna bc he doesn't sound like he has a strong basis for what he is talking about.

Yes I did. You merely chose to ignore my facts in favor of your heavily flawed ones. Tell me, how come none of your facts prove Sky` wrong, yet they, apparently, proved me wrong?

Did Sky`adding "Well, Peach does really badly against Falco on Jungle Japes and Rainbow Cruise and Marth just ***** her on Battlefield" magically render all of your tournament results invalid? Did they magically render all of your "interpretation" and "opinion" of how well certain Peach players do in tournaments invalid?

No. It didn't. Your facts, your logic and your arguments were invalid to begin with! You merely chose to drop them due to your undying faith in that everything Sky` says about Peach must be true (despite the fact that you disagreed with me for days when I said the exact same things (almost)!).

Claiming you weren't really wrong in disagreeing with your opponent because his or her arguments and logic were flawed to begin with might work against other people, but too bad, you're facing me. If your arguments are weak, I will shred you (as I expect others to shred me in the same situation) and I won't let BS like this slide.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you bow down to both me and Sky` or you declare us both wrong. There's a reason for why every single time we've engaged each other in debate, I've come out the victor.

Simply admitting defeat would've been the prudent thing to do. Trying to defend your flawed position, logic, "facts" and arguments by shifting the blame to the opposition against someone like me will only result in my making yourself look like a fool by merely stating the facts and employing simple logic.

*the only real problem is that i sound like 1000 times more touchy/*****y online bc i can't transmit feelings over text well when really, i'm not like that irl at all....

Learn to debate (formulate your thoughts) online better then.

 

[Hive]

lol your an idiot, yuna.
just bc i think sky's arguments were better in terms of experience doesn't mean i didn't base my opinions on nothing lol. i don't need a whole multiquote to explain that... you're right i was wrong, but the only thing you're "overriding logic" came up with was to try to find tourney stats that you had no previous knowledge of. god, your ego is enormous...
<and i'm a girl, not a guy! >

 

[Levitas]

Yuna, stop telling people english is your third language. It's not relevant to this debate.

 

[Yuna]

lol your an idiot, yuna.
just bc i think sky's arguments were better in terms of experience doesn't mean i didn't base my opinions on nothing lol. i don't need a whole multiquote to explain that...

That's not what I said. Learn to read better. You claim that my arguments and logic or whatever were flawed and off, which was why you felt justified in opposing me in this debate, yet when Sky` entered the fray saying absolutely nothing new (really), all of a sudden, you admitted defeat.

It shouldn't matter that it's Sky`. This is a debate. You should only rely on arguments, logic and facts!

And who cares about Sky`'s experience? As I just said in my latest point, what Sky` says about Peach is irrelevant unless he can back up what he is saying. Mew2King has experience coming out of his wazoo. But we don't take what he says at face value because he often spews a lot of bovine manure and is strangely inept at making valid arguments even when what he says is true.

Whether or not Sky` has experience playing as Peach means bupkis. After all, are you saying Dark.pch has no experience playing as Peach? Or that his experience is dwarfed enough by Sky`'s to not matter? Because the latest time I checked, Dark.pch was still running amok stating all kinds of (very inaccurate) things about Peach.

Experience =/= Matters in a debate.

Senator John McCain is unsure of whether or not condoms do in fact help prevent the spreading of HIV/AIDS. Are you saying he's less experienced with sex than the average 14 yearold Swede of today (as we have mandatory sex ed. in 8th grade where we learn about, among other things, how condoms help prevent the spreading of HIV/AIDS.

you're right i was wrong

That was not in question. I even said that you'd just admitted to being wrong. The problem lies in how you claimed my logic, arguments, reasoning and facts were wrong or inaccurate or off or whatever, which was why you chose to oppose me in this debate.

but the only thing you're "overriding logic" came up with was to try to find tourney stats that you had no previous knowledge of

I didn't try to find anything. I demanded you find it since it's your claim she is viable. You found me some stats, I proved their invalidity. Case dismissed.

My logic was employed when judging the facts, Peach's tournament results (which you or someone else posted) and much more. Your lack of logic "interpreted" Peach's tournament results and the facts as proof of her being viable.

Either my logic was true and yours was lacking or Sky` is wrong because what he says contradicts the tournament results. You cannot have it both ways.

god, your ego is enormous...

One can afford a great ego when one is right most of the time.

Yuna, stop telling people english is your third language. It's not relevant to this debate.

I was not-so-subtly mocking the eloquence, grammar, spelling ability, etc., etc. of certain people. After all, good online debate skills starts with the ability to actually type out what you want to say in clear "speech".

 

[Levitas]

Yuna, that's blatantly ad hominem. It has no place in a debate, doesn't strengthen your points, and on some levels is flat out trolling. I love sarcasm, but this is something else.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, that's blatantly ad hominem. It has no place in a debate, doesn't strengthen your points, and on some levels is flat out trolling. I love sarcasm, but this is something else.

Yeah, I only realize now that it was out of line. So I'll, um, edit it out? I guess.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Are you debating now whether Peach is viable or not? This depends on you definition of "viable"...does viable mean:

a.) Character X can place top8 in major tournaments? If this is the case there are like 20 viable characters in Brawl
b.) A characer has realistic chanced to win money in a major tourney regardless of the other characters?

I'm pretty sure Yuna (and most other competitive players) would agree that "b" is the more accurate definition of viable. "Viable" in regards to tournament success always refers to the chance of actually winning or at least place top3 (or top5 depending on the money distribution), not just place top8. Most people here seem to think that "a" defines viable which isn't the case. If you think about it for a moment: How many character can not place top8 consistently? Not too many ... at least half of the cast is perfecty able to get top 8 placings. But actually winning a major tournament where many top players take part is something different.

Taking Azens 2nd place at Cataclysm 4 is a horrible example, not because Azen is sooooo~ much better than anybody except M2K, as Yuna apparantly (sorry if I'm wrong - I didn't read everything) tries to make people believe (Azen didn't even place top 10 at CoT4, so even if he's a great player he's not a "magician" who can do well all the time regardless of the competition). It's just that Azen didn't even use Peach in his most important matches at C4. He used Marth against Boss and King Dedede against Ally, so how can people earnestly claim that Azen got 2nd using Peach? He probably wouldnt've made 2nd if he used Peach solo, since beating Ally's Snake with Peach is highly unrealistic. Even Boss' Luigi could've won since Boss was a monster at that tourney ... but who knows? The fact remains: Azen couldnt've won the two most important games at C4 had he not used Marth and King Dedede, who are both more viable than Peach is.
I'm not saying that Peach is unviable for sure...I don't know her well enough but with the exception of Azen no undisputable "top" player has played her in tounrey so far ... for a good reason probably but who knows. If Yuna is convinced that Peach is unviable he's probably right ... he has facts on his side that prove him right.

In general I think the best way to determine how viable a character is, is to look at the quality of his worst match-up. If a character's worst match-up is 4/6 in the opponents favour then he's perfectly viable (unless all of them are like that). A 4/6 is still only a small disadvantage and chances to win are realistic as long as you play smart and make no major error. Some characters can even afford to have a 3/7 if they lose to a character that's unviable or borderline viable (like D3 vs Pikachu). By that definition MK, Snake, Falco, D3, G&W, Diddy Kong, Marth, ROB, Wario, Kirby, Lucario and probably Zero Suit Samus are perfectly viable. If you look at the tournament results you can see that this definition of viable has a solid foundation.

 

[BentoBox]

^ Peach doesn't have any 7:3s against her favor. So your definition isn't totally accurate. And what about olioli?

But we're not talking about characters who can place well (occasionally... when played by the best players in the world). We're talking about characters who stand a reasonable chance of winning major tournaments.

Please define major tournaments. How many entrants does that represent?

And who does this delusion hurt? The less informed. New players who don't know better will be roped into thinking characters who aren't viable are viable. This will hold them back from seeking out more viable characters. It will convince them the lie is truth and they will go on to spread that lie further, thus further contaminating the community with the delusion.

Because suddenly, now you really care about X new player that chose to main Sonic under the impression that he'd get far with him! Come on. People delude themselves into thinking whatever they want. We have the Tier List as a reference, and it is telling enough for everyone above E.

Yes, they manage to occasionally place high at major tournaments... they also happen to be, you know, some of the best Brawl players in the world. That's right, when played by some of the best Brawl players in the world, unviable characters can sometimes maybe place Top10... at minor tournaments (and once in a blue moon, major ones). Yay!

I can't even begin to fathom how this, to you, is a valid argument. Seriously, ANY player could start doing fantastically well with a D tier and you'd simply shove it off as another one of these "best players in the world" case. It sounds like you simply took upon yourself to draw an imaginary line between what should be feasible and what should not, and hand-pick cases from then onwards. Being so adamant in discussing matters regarding to the highest level of play possible, you really aren't being coherent.

 

[Natch]

Hive, there is a misconception you have about good and bad characters.

Every character in the game is "good." That is, they can jump, attack, shield, run, walk, attack, do aerials, and do smash attacks. Even Sakurai cannot make a truly garbage character simply because the smash team has been making this game for awhile and knows the basic forumla pretty well.

Because of this, every charactrer is "good." However, a "good" character does not WIN tournaments. When we talk about tournament viability, we are talking about characters in a video game that you can play to win money with. WIN MONEY. MONEY. $_$

Peach is "good". Sky, Edress, etc...those guys are exceptional. See, Hive, you just need to learn by the super-high standard we base characters from. If someone were to say the Wright Brother's Plane was complete garbage, they would probably be cross referencing with your modern jet plane. Peach is probably a late WWII-era jet. Not bad, per se, but outdated.

 

[Sliq]

This is a very cool idea and I endorse it.

Hive, there is a misconception you have about good and bad characters.

Every character in the game is "good." That is, they can jump, attack, shield, run, walk, attack, do aerials, and do smash attacks. Even Sakurai cannot make a truly garbage character simply because the smash team has been making this game for awhile and knows the basic forumla pretty well.

Because of this, every charactrer is "good." However, a "good" character does not WIN tournaments. When we talk about tournament viability, we are talking about characters in a video game that you can play to win money with. WIN MONEY. MONEY. $_$

Peach is "good". Sky, Edress, etc...those guys are exceptional. See, Hive, you just need to learn by the super-high standard we base characters from. If someone were to say the Wright Brother's Plane was complete garbage, they would probably be cross referencing with your modern jet plane. Peach is probably a late WWII-era jet. Not bad, per se, but outdated.

No. There is a difference between having moves and having good moves, are even USEABLE moves.

Not every character is good. The only good characters are high tier and up. Middle tier = mediocre.

 

[BentoBox]

CoT4:

1 Mew2King - MK
2 Ally - Snake
3 teh_spamerer - MK
4 Dojo - MK
5 LeeMartin - Lucario/MK
5 NinjaLink - Diddy
7 Judge - MK
7 Chu Dat - Kirby

What have we learned today kids?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I have to prove there are Snakes, Diddys and MKs capable of winning national tournaments? Despite the fact that we regularly see such players place Top 7, right after M2K and Azen?


Actually, I have infractions. It would be a lie to claim I have no infractions. However, let's take a look at the reasons why I got these infractions:
* One-line post
* Double post


What progress, really? I already established several pages back that this concept of Edrees is total baloney. So I managed to, in just two posts, both pick apart Edrees inability to make it clear that he was merely trying to illustrate a concept and said concept itself.

It's called efficiency.


As opposed to yours, Mr. "Captain Falcon is as viable as anyone else and Pokémon Trainer will undoubtedly become an MK counter"?


Tell The Halloween Captain that and wait as uses his logic to come to the conclusion that Bowser was, indeed, High Tier in Melee.

Yes Yuna, you have to prove that there are other top 7 Diddy kongs than Ninja Link, as in, actually point a few of them out. For Lucario, I can think of DJbrownie and Blood Hawk immediately.

Not only that, but I seem to recall you adamently telling me that MK had 4 midair jumps some time ago. This was while MK was one of twelve characters you claimed to main at some level in your old sig. I admit I change my opinion on matchups a little too frequently, but the uncontroversal "facts" you present are often wrong, especially those concerning gameplay mechanics.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Lol at you people using old ammo, way outdated on each other. Bowser melee high tier, old signatures, Falcon viables....

I like the idea, just hard to execute. And I disagree that Peach is above Snake at perfect play :O

 

[Natch]

No. There is a difference between having moves and having good moves, are even USEABLE moves.

Not every character is good. The only good characters are high tier and up. Middle tier = mediocre.

But every character has good moves. Everyone will say this. You're saying it. The phrase "this character has good moves" is probably one of the core things Hive was thinking. Hive thinks Peach is "good", not good.

Notice how I put "good" in quotes. There is significance here. Hive thought "good" was good. In reality, Hive thinks "usable" is good. By our definition of useable.

I am trying to prevent a further spread of misinformation. Hive did not grasp the concept of "good" and "useable." You are making a fininite clarification which would only serve to confuse Hive more, trust me. I agree with you, but my post is the starting part for Hive to make these clarifications. The basics. I am talking to people who were simply unaware of how this all worked. You are talking to people who ARE aware of how this works, which isn't the purpose of my post.

We cool?

 

[Genome Squirrel]

Hive, there is a misconception you have about good and bad characters.

Every character in the game is "good." That is, they can jump, attack, shield, run, walk, attack, do aerials, and do smash attacks. Even Sakurai cannot make a truly garbage character simply because the smash team has been making this game for awhile and knows the basic forumla pretty well.

Because of this, every charactrer is "good." However, a "good" character does not WIN tournaments. When we talk about tournament viability, we are talking about characters in a video game that you can play to win money with. WIN MONEY. MONEY. $_$

Peach is "good". Sky, Edress, etc...those guys are exceptional. See, Hive, you just need to learn by the super-high standard we base characters from. If someone were to say the Wright Brother's Plane was complete garbage, they would probably be cross referencing with your modern jet plane. Peach is probably a late WWII-era jet. Not bad, per se, but outdated.

captain falcon is garbage, if you can defend that please do
and your analogy is bad
you can't call peach outdated when sakurai concurrently designed her with the whole cast
if anything you should compare modern transportation methods or be more direct, like what sky' did with the marth counterpick example

 

[Natch]

Yes Yuna, you have to prove that there are other top 7 Diddy kongs than Ninja Link, as in, actually point a few of them out. For Lucario, I can think of DJbrownie and Blood Hawk immediately.

Not only that, but I seem to recall you adamently telling me that MK had 4 midair jumps some time ago. This was while MK was one of twelve characters you claimed to main at some level in your old sig. I admit I change my opinion on matchups a little too frequently, but the uncontroversal "facts" you present are often wrong, especially those concerning gameplay mechanics.

Halloween Captain, then go out there and prove Diddy Kong is not viable.

And big whoop. Yuna will admit he was wrong. Will you?

Also, the bold has no relation. "I admit I mess up, but you mess up more than me, especially when it comes to X. This is all based on you miscounting MK's jumps by ONE."

The fact remains, you mess up.

captain falcon is garbage, if you can defend that please do
and your analogy is bad
you can't call peach outdated when sakurai concurrently designed her with the whole cast
if anything you should compare modern transportation methods or be more direct, like what sky' did with the marth counterpick example

"Good" is in quotes. I'm speaking to Hive here.

Read that sentence over, and piece it together. Read my previous post. It explains things nicely.

My analogy works for all intents and purposes. Nitpick how you want.

 

[Sliq]

But every character has good moves. Everyone will say this. You're saying it. The phrase "this character has good moves" is probably one of the core things Hive was thinking. Hive thinks Peach is "good", not good.

Notice how I put "good" in quotes. There is significance here. Hive thought "good" was good. In reality, Hive thinks "usable" is good. By our definition of useable.

I am trying to prevent a further spread of misinformation. Hive did not grasp the concept of "good" and "useable." You are making a fininite clarification which would only serve to confuse Hive more, trust me. I agree with you, but my post is the starting part for Hive to make these clarifications. The basics. I am talking to people who were simply unaware of how this all worked. You are talking to people who ARE aware of how this works, which isn't the purpose of my post.

We cool?

We were never uncool to begin with. Trust me, you will know when someone is not cool to Sliq (Crimson King is a good example).

 

[Genome Squirrel]

natch, sarcasm and hyperbole don't work on the internet. people take them literally, especially when you seem to validate it "Even Sakurai cannot make a truly garbage character simply because the smash team has been making this game for awhile and knows the basic forumla pretty well."

i suppose sakurai = good should always be read as sarcastic; i wonder is sakuria could manage to redeem himself, that trailer for TMNT doesn't look all that good for a game due in 7 more months.