Hax has a really ineffective playstyle

[Fortress | Sveet]

Basketball metaphor means nothing to me.

Lets just say, the gap between Mango and Hax is virtually 0 compared to the gap between you and either of them.

 

[zuloon]

Basketball metaphor means nothing to me.

Lets just say, the gap between Mango and Hax is virtually 0 compared to the gap between you and either of them.

Yet another ad hominem that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is possible to analyze players without being as good as they are.

Also, even if you couldn't exactly grasp the basketball metaphor I would've assumed that you would have at least understood the basic concept of what I was talking about - that it is possible for there to be a noticeable skill gap between two players who may be ranked closely.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The gap between you and them is giant. The gap between them is very small.

 

[xbombr]

The gap between you and them is giant. The gap between them is very small.

This is something to keep in mind.

What really gives anyone in this thread the right to criticize Hax's play style?

This sort of thread really contributes nothing to the discussion of melee.

Tech skill is important in the meta, especially for someone who plays spacies. It's not the only thing that determines match ups, and if Hax had good tech skill but was an awful player otherwise, he wouldn't be able to compete with the players he does. How can you say his style is ineffective when he's clearly a really good player?

 

[-ACE-]

Like I said originally.

FULL BLOWN BAN.

 

[Oskurito]

Yet another ad hominem that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is possible to analyze players without being as good as they are.

Also, even if you couldn't exactly grasp the basketball metaphor I would've assumed that you would have at least understood the basic concept of what I was talking about - that it is possible for there to be a noticeable skill gap between two players who may be ranked closely.

Apart from the fact that they way more experienced than you, I think you're missing the fact that they understand the game in ways you can't comprehend. I think most of the people here are trying to point this out. You can't judge nor analyze things that you yet don't fully understand, is like trying to understand quantum mechanics without haven't even taken a basic physics course.

Hax is like a smash demigod, what are you?

This is what I think about each one of the quotes you posted:
"I showed that I had the potential. It's just a matter of consistency."
I think exactly the same, is a matter of consistency, specially if you play fox or falco (even more so with fox).

"My peak skill is soooo high."
Goddamn right.

"20xx is a serious ideology. I'm going for the perfect option."
I'm exited to see if you'll be successful with this playstyle.

"I study fox frame data like a madman."
Like every good fox should do.

"To catch a buffered roll, you need to jump on frame 7 out of shine, and then you need to shine on frame 10"
Impressive knowledge.

 

[Bones0]

Zuloon isn't claiming anything based on understanding of the game though. He's not even remarking on a particularly new concept. Many people have said for a while that there is an inexplicable gap between the top 5 and the tier of players below them. Hax has been tying for 5th for years, so to postulate that perhaps his play style or perspective on the game is holding him back doesn't seem that out of left field, even if you happen to disagree with it.

I think you're sleeping on slox you **** boy.

I called him an up-and-comer for a reason. I watched their set and Slox is definitely no slouch, but I also haven't heard of Slox placing top 5 at nationals so my point that Hax has really close sets with people he far outplaces still stands. I actually was thinking of a different set from TBH that Hax had, but I couldn't remember who it was so I went with Slox. There are plenty of people who have gotten way closer to beating Hax than their overall placing would normally indicate.

 

[zuloon]

Zuloon isn't claiming anything based on understanding of the game though. He's not even remarking on a particularly new concept. Many people have said for a while that there is an inexplicable gap between the top 5 and the tier of players below them. Hax has been tying for 5th for years, so to postulate that perhaps his play style or perspective on the game is holding him back doesn't seem that out of left field, even if you happen to disagree with it.

Thank you. Your post speaks to the heart of the matter. I am trying to understand what is the reason for the gap between the top 5 and the players below them.

Like I have said numerous times in this thread, my analysis could be wrong. I'm open to criticism on that front. What I will not tolerate, however, is all these personal attacks that do nothing to foster an intelligent dialogue and, to be honest, represent the smash community in a very negative light.

Also, for those of you saying "Who are you to criticize Hax? You're a nobody." Well, maybe I am a nobody. But that kind of logic is simply infantile. It's like saying that Phil Jackson can't coach Michael Jordan because Michael Jordan is so much better at basketball than he is.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

>says that other people should take a reading comprehension course
>fails at reading comprehension himself

>the argument is that there is a clear skill gap
>you claimed that there was not a clear skill gap
>Sunny made it clear that there is a clear skill gap
>now you are backpedaling



>Strong ad hominem.
>Two can play this game.
>My join date: 2006
>Your join date: 2009

the **** is this? 4chan?

all i wrote on the subject of mango and hax was that you were exaggerating the skill gap. that was not me "claiming that there was not a clear skill gap". apparently you also could use some reading comprehension classes.

sunny did not make it clear because he wrote out a ****ty meme arrow argument and completely misinterpreted my post, similar to how you're misinterpreting my post right now. you're probably thinking to yourself "damn this guy wrote out an insult to me. i must beat him in forums"

backpedaling? wat

alright for the second paragraph of meme arrows i have my own hastily crafted meme arrow argument. here goes.

>take a drink every time zuloon uses the word "ad hominem" itt
>kind of tipsy
>awijeofsdkl
>oh look this guy joined in 2006 but somehow doesn't know what he's talking about. i didn't even know that was possible.

 

[Young Rinku]

[Buzzwords intensify]

 

[Phan7om]

inb4 locked

 

[BTmoney]

Like I have said numerous times in this thread, my analysis could be wrong. I'm open to criticism on that front. What I will not tolerate, however, is all these personal attacks that do nothing to foster an intelligent dialogue and, to be honest, represent the smash community in a very negative light.

Idk why consistently people get so offended when people try to talk about things on the boards. This is a discussion forum lol.

Many people have said for a while that there is an inexplicable gap between the top 5 and the tier of players below them.

Has this not been common knowledge or something? Is this a new, radical concept? You couldn't even defend an argument that there isn't a notable gap between Mango/Armada and M2K/Hbox. So of course there is a pretty large gap between Mango and say Hax and there are many many sets you can use to piece together this claim. You can watch the head to heads, you could watch how the players do vs. the same opponent, you can count accolades, you can look at the way that one of them has been dominating melee for years while the other one has never reached that level on any given day. The basketball metaphor makes perfect sense and is a really simple metaphor. You can apply a lot of competition/sporting concepts to video game competition (i.e. nerves on the big stage are a part of both and mannnnnnnnny other aspects are shared).

We aren't talking about these players relative to ourselves, that's 100% irrelevant to the conversation. Sure whatever, we're bad, so, so bad but we are not unintelligent people incapable of analyzing a video game and discussing competition lol. Just put your suspension of disbelief aside and humor the arguments, the logic.

As a competitor, if you're not the best in the world then you're doing something wrong. That is irrefutable.

I think @ zuloon is doing something right. To me its worse for a person to simply take what others say at face value without challenging what they are saying. At the very least seek out more information on why something is "right or wrong".

I think this, and Xeylode thinks this. Is It more right or something that he thinks this? Reread my first post and I'll be glad to hear what's wrong with it.

Sunny that quote "joke characters" came from a tweet by Hax, seemingly because he really wanted to play vs mango's main (well it would have been falco).

Right, I saw and understand that. Last time they met while Hax did win in WF, Mango 6-0'd him Falco vs. Fox in a kind of embarrassing fashion (mostly 2 and 3 stocks IIRC, point is it wasn't close at all and it didn't look to me like this happened on accident because the same thing happened to Hax when he played PP the last two times as Fox. He got shut out.) so he probably didn't feel like he had to play Falco to win and it looks to me like he was right lol.

what ace said.

also if you're trying to imply that i'm arguing that there is no skill gap between mango and hax then you should go back and re-read my post and take a reading comprehension course. we don't speak meme arrows here buddy.

when i say m2k and hax "go toe-to-toe" i'm not strictly talking about wins/losses; i'm talking about how close the actual games are. i feel like too many people on smashboards don't actually watch sets, they simply skip ahead to the end and go "oh look, that player won. he's much better" or solely read statistics on miom and use that as the basis for their arguments.

No I was not trying to imply that lol calm down, I read your post (so you know, that's how I responded to it. I figured the "magnitude" of the skill gap was implied since that's what we were talking about). Yes obviously, that's what "toe-to-toe" would mean when you use it to describe a situation where one player "never" wins. If I didn't watch the sets (or sets in general) I wouldn't be posting here because I would have no opinion. I don't know anyone who does that and I have never read statistics on miom lol. I'm not acting like I know everything (once again this is a discussion forum lol). I started following the scene during Apex 2012 and I pretty much watched every major/national since then, been to a few of them. I have a decent idea of what's going on after being involved for about 3 years and going back and watching through 2010-2009 or so. You don't need to play this game for 5+ years to form a logical opinion lol. Not even close to 5 years.

Are you one of those people who think they're "smarter" or "better" than someone else because you've been playing longer than someone else? For whatever reason, this game is so inconceivable that it is beyond the comprehension of the plebs that joined after you? When I started playing in 2012 I saw vids of playing doing shield drops consistently. I told my region, players who are probably much better than you (Hanky Panky, Abu) and definitely better than me, "Hey we should learn this, it's realllllllllly good" and people told me "no you're just a noob, it's just stupid tech skill". They were and are better than me and have been around for a good while longer than I have. Does that mean I shouldn't have questioned them lol? That's obviously a dumb way to go about this game or anything in life. Look who was right lol.

Do people not understand that we are humans capable of forming complex thoughts and we have the capacity to question things? The points that @ zuloon made so far have yet to be refuted by anything logical. We don't have to be top players to ask questions and analyze things. I don't even have to better than someone else to criticize their gameplay.

We're just trying to question something and have a stimulating conversation. You don't have to post here if you don't want to do that. Of course I can do nothing to stop you.

I swear a lot of you guys are just weirdos on ego trips and don't really have anything constructive or interesting to say and just want to push your ideas on other people. it's discouraging and makes posting here a waste of time.

 

[Tityboi]

If I hear the term optimal playstyle one more time, I might shoot myself.

 

[-ACE-]

Back when M2K beat everyone but mango, and consistently lost to mango, would someone have been right to say that his playstyle is "ineffective"? This is only a slightly exaggerated example of what is going on here.

 

[Flippy Flippersen]

Back when M2K beat everyone but mango, and consistently lost to mango, would someone have been right to say that his playstyle is "ineffective"? This is only a slightly exaggerated example of what is going on here.

Tbh I feel this could have been said back then as well. I'm not that old so keep in mind this is just from things I've heard from players that are and what I say is just second hand information so may not be true but from what I heard before mango was a thing m2k showed people their play was not optimal enough and because of this created a scenario where new people felt they had to learn how to play perfect over everything else. Enter mango who just got in his head without playing perfect showing that a perfect playstyle isn't the absolute best way to play and mindgames have their place. Now hax is trying to convey the same point. Whilst none of us can argue why 20xx is/isn't doable to the extend they can it doesn't mean we aren't able to discuss wether or not this is the case. I'd even say we are allowed to be as daring to use the players that bring those playstyles to their current peak are allowed to be used as an example.

What I don't agree on with kazoon is how the first thing this thread states is that hax has a really ineffective playstyle. Where I personally feel he should have prolly just have arguments of "perfect" playstyle versus the innovative playstyle and potentially use hax as an example (perfect is in brackets cause so far perfect players don't exist yet at least) The argument is a perfectly fine one however and is actually relatable to lower level players in the sense of what we should focus on more/ what style we currently have.

 

[SAUS]

... just have arguments of "perfect" playstyle versus the innovative playstyle and potentially use hax as an example (perfect is in brackets cause so far perfect players don't exist yet at least) The argument is a perfectly fine one however and is actually relatable to lower level players in the sense of what we should focus on more/ what style we currently have.

I think it is a poor way to think about it, though. I think it is more like each one is a separate skill that can be expanded without sacrificing the other skill. If Mango didn't have the tech skill he has (let's say he couldn't wavedash or maybe couldn't even short hop), he wouldn't be able to perform well even with the beastly mental game that he has. Another way to look at it is with beginners. They can't do anything because there is a large technical/knowledge barrier to start actually competing with strong players.

The way I see it, there are 3 main skills used in melee:
Technical Ability: ability to control/use your character's moves/options (wavedash, for example).
Strategy: ability to use your character's moves/options effectively against your opponent (option coverage, for example).
Mental Game: ability to read and adapt to your opponent and apply the correct strategy (replaces some strategy and tech skill because you can just choose an easy option that will beat their option due to anticipation).

Increasing your ability in any of these skills will improve your overall performance in melee.

What 20XX is basically trying to do (I think) is make technical ability infinite such that there is no barrier to perform the strategies you want to perform and then create strategies such that all options are covered (at least for almost all situations for not-fox characters) and to remove the mental game completely since reads won't save you from 100% option coverage at every moment.

I think it is flawed because it is at least somewhat unrealistic and mental game will probably always play at least a small part in the game. However, I don't think exploring extreme levels of technical ability and strategy is a bad thing. I just think that you shouldn't forget about the mental game.

 

[EddyBearr]

I don't think 20xx was ever close to realistic. I don't even see the idea of all top (both 20ish and few) players being foxes realistic.

 

[-ACE-]

Hax realizes the 20xx ideology is all within reason. It's about maximum punishment, and creating opportunities through frame perfect tech skill that virtually no one else uses. It's not about playing like a TAS bot or some sh*t.

 

[BTmoney]

Back when M2K beat everyone but mango, and consistently lost to mango, would someone have been right to say that his playstyle is "ineffective"? This is only a slightly exaggerated example of what is going on here.

I'll backup a step and say that I glanced over the title of the thread and thought it said "inefficient" not "ineffective" lol. But everything I was going for still applies, it's just less extreme than it may have sounded.

"inefficient" is very different from "ineffective" so I can't argue the latter (nor do I think it's true)

 

[Bones0]

Has this not been common knowledge or something? Is this a new, radical concept?

Read the rest of the paragraph...

 

[-ACE-]

Honestly if the title had said inefficient instead of ineffective I wouldn't have posted.

Edit: not that I agree with inefficient, it's just that saying his style is ineffective is absolutely absurd.

 

[BTmoney]

Read the rest of the paragraph...

I was agreeing with you

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Honestly if the title had said inefficient instead of ineffective I wouldn't have posted.

Edit: not that I agree with inefficient, it's just that saying his style is ineffective is absolutely absurd.

Yeah my problem is with this too. Sure, there are things Hax can improve on, but everyone has places to improve, thats one of the beautiful things about melee.

Is there a skill gap between Mango and Hax? Sure, Mango wins the head to head consistently. But hax takes games and, win or lose, the games are close. If you are putting up a fight, your skill levels are in the same ballpark. So no, I don't think there is a huge skill gap.

 

[ReDDeFFect]

I don't think he ALWAYS goes for the best option. Sometimes the best option is not a good option because your opponent knows it is the good option and will hard read you.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

No I was not trying to imply that lol calm down, I read your post (so you know, that's how I responded to it. I figured the "magnitude" of the skill gap was implied since that's what we were talking about). Yes obviously, that's what "toe-to-toe" would mean when you use it to describe a situation where one player "never" wins. If I didn't watch the sets (or sets in general) I wouldn't be posting here because I would have no opinion. I don't know anyone who does that and I have never read statistics on miom lol.

i guess my point was that you and that other guy have been pretty much only backing up your argument with examples of when hax gets stomped by mango. as sweet just pointed out, there are examples of times where hax takes games and even in the sets he loses, he usually doesn't lose by a huge margin. that is why i questioned whether you actually watched hax's sets.

Are you one of those people who think they're "smarter" or "better" than someone else because you've been playing longer than someone else?

are you one of those people that has to make people in to whatever suits your preconceived notions? because that's what you sound like right now. i never claimed that i knew more than you because i've been playing longer.

Do people not understand that we are humans capable of forming complex thoughts and we have the capacity to question things? The points that @ zuloon made so far have yet to be refuted by anything logical. We don't have to be top players to ask questions and analyze things. I don't even have to better than someone else to criticize their gameplay.

b-b-but i never said any of these things.

We're just trying to question something and have a stimulating conversation. You don't have to post here if you don't want to do that. Of course I can do nothing to stop you.

and i am questioning your reasoning.

I swear a lot of you guys are just weirdos on ego trips and don't really have anything constructive or interesting to say and just want to push your ideas on other people. it's discouraging and makes posting here a waste of time.

this is kind of how i see you guys right now. you're so caught up in your own ideas that you can't take a step back and see what i'm actually trying to say. i'm sorry i didn't give you or zuloon very respectful replies, but if you're just going to post logical fallacies in the form of arrows i'm not going to take your posts seriously. but hey, according to your demented view of this thread that's just my ego talking.

 

[bolt.]

I called him an up-and-comer for a reason. I watched their set and Slox is definitely no slouch, but I also haven't heard of Slox placing top 5 at nationals so my point that Hax has really close sets with people he far outplaces still stands. I actually was thinking of a different set from TBH that Hax had, but I couldn't remember who it was so I went with Slox. There are plenty of people who have gotten way closer to beating Hax than their overall placing would normally indicate.

Stay ignant foo

 

[Bones0]

Falcon can punish harder than fox? Fair enough (in some situations), but who punishes more often? Who has more opportunities to punish? Fox's overall punish game is incredible due to the amount of openings he receives.

Hax is incredible and a lot of you guys are trippin hard. Hax is what, #7-9 in the world? Excuse me while I LMFAO. If you don't like his approach to melee, don't copy it. Let's be honest he's too hard for anyone posting here to copy anyway.

Mango/darkrain/kage dissect the player, Hax/m2k dissect the game (broad generalization), the styles are different but you can't criticize results.

I missed this, but yeah, Falcon obviously punishes harder... like WAY harder, I didn't realize some people thought otherwise. Fox can get some solid combos on FFers with usmashing, utilting, and tech chasing, but vs. Marth/Sheik weight/gravity combinations he does a lot of pseudo-juggles with uairs that are often escaped, and floatier than that means he's rarely getting more than 3-4 hits per sequence. Falcon not only KOs way earlier with knee, but his combos vs. floaties are insane. If he can't techchase you, he can straight up grab combo you, including large portions of the cast that Fox cannot uthrow uair.

I agree Fox makes up for this by being able to get more openings, but my whole point was that Hax does not approach hardly at all so he never benefits from that aspect. If you are going to DDWD camp someone waiting to grab a mistake, then Falcon is the best character to do it as. Fox can obviously DD camp well, but on average he has to catch the opponent in a mistake several times per stock more than Falcon would, ESPECIALLY vs. floaties. He also has more need to approach and keep pressure on an opponent in order for his DD camping to work whereas Falcon has enough range that he can just go into crazy leg mode and scare the **** out of people.

 

[-ACE-]

Did you really just argue with me implying that Fox punishes harder than falcon in "some situations"? Lol. I'd say multiple waveshining someone into dsmash at ledge and an easy edgeguard is a good punish. But anyway, falcon's nair can be beaten by so much ****. First hit can be CC'd at any % as it has no kb growth. Ganon at 999% can jab falcon out of nair EVERY TIME for example. And that's Ganon, so "crazy leg mode" doesn't always cut it. Single-instance punish game means very little if the character suffers in the neutral game. Ganon punishes harder than Falcon in a lot of situations (most actually, considering the chaingrab no one has really masteted) and he is nowhere near as good because he gets less opportunities to do so. I think saying Hax "hardly approaches at all" is a slight exaggeration also. But I'm wasted now and can't continue LOL. peace

 

[X WaNtEd X]

I called him an up-and-comer for a reason. I watched their set and Slox is definitely no slouch, but I also haven't heard of Slox placing top 5 at nationals so my point that Hax has really close sets with people he far outplaces still stands. I actually was thinking of a different set from TBH that Hax had, but I couldn't remember who it was so I went with Slox. There are plenty of people who have gotten way closer to beating Hax than their overall placing would normally indicate.

it's far more normal these days for the best of the non gods to have close sets with a lot of people because the skill gap between players these days is smaller than we'd like to think. think about it. with the ability for everyone to practice extremely efficiently in just about all aspects of play with the 20xx hack pack, and all the resources players have at their disposal to train/learn, it's no wonder we're seeing so many players come out of no where and almost beat established players like hax. it's pretty crazy.

 

[Darklink401]

The way Hax studies frame data and wants to play a perfect game reminds me of M2K.

So I guess there's that. not everyone can be a machine though.