I think you've probably been called out well enough here, but I'll just also say that your statements, while some are factually correct, go one step too far into "I understand things way better than you kids, so peace out." Your last line in particular. We can't speak to your personal life, but self-elevation on your way out the door is a little unrefined.
It's my opinion. My well-trained eye that has been watching and competing since 2006. Obviously it's a subjective, nebulous gray area. I don't particularly care if you agree or disagree with me, though, at least with regards to the last line.
That it's highly addictive? I can back that up easily. Not nebulous at all.
That doesn't have to reduce or negate people's enjoyment of the experience - it's not like sports don't have extremely slow "meta" changes. People still enjoy them for the skill on display and the competition involved.
My post applied to no one but myself. I'm not here to impinge on anyone else's enjoyment. It was a therapeutic post for me.
And I feel the same way about all sports. I was a big sports fan for much of my life. Don't care anymore. It's childish imo. Soap opera for men. Life has much bigger and better to offer.
I disagree that Mango wasn't dominant on Sunday.
... It was hardly camping (don't think it was ever more than 3 lasers), but it did exactly what it needed to do - it prevented Armada from simply countering his moves and forced him into an unwise attacking position on Fox.
To me, the difference is that Armada was maybe 80% of his prior peak, if that.
It's not new to me that a focused Mango is significantly better than every other player. We know that. It's whether a focused Mango could topple a peak Armada. Armada proved over and over that it doesn't really matter how focused Mango is; Armada is much better. But Armada quit and wasn't remotely close to peak Armada, and now never will be again, because this game is brutally unforgiving.
It's a huge drop in talent/skill and it left me that much more uninterested in the tournament/scene as a whole. -shrugs-
Well, I admittedly tend to be rather sharp in my replies to stuff I consider to be stupid, because I can't be bothered to be nice all the time and I don't like lying to people in general. it's the Internet
Fixed your post.
Maybe I'm even a bit hung up on semantics here. "Solved" is the word I (and tons of people with a decent background in mathematics or more specific game theory) would use for connect four or sth. where we have a distinct way to always win, which is mathematically proven to be undefeatable.
With Melee? No way. Why are there different approaches to the same character if there would be a clearly superior stye? Why is there any discussion on how to handle situations, if we know eveything already? Hell, most of us don't even know the entire "rules" to the game yet (e.g. discovering stuff like shieldstop pivots / shield drops / whatever).
You're just being pedantic. Don't take it so literally.
Pseudo-intellectual debate isn't going to change how I feel about the game. So what's the point? Who cares?
Do you feel special saying this?
No.
). Well, I don't think melee is even remotely close to the point, where we could determine optimal play in any situation, so I'm still disagreeing... but we're certainly entering an at least somewhat fuzzy territory here. 
