Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

[SinisterB]

G3NESIS BABY

i'm there

 

[`dazrin]

Also im always down for PM

 

[Asa]

Y'all better go to ****ing genesis

 

[SKidd]

god ****ing damn im still hype



smash is best game in the world no questions asked



also mchaze

 

[Asa]

Esam was so salty that Salem was in gf looool

 

[NeeBee]

////////::

 

[Arcansi]

You're hopeless. Nevermind.

Aaaaaaand it happened.

I 100% don't understand thing like this. People seem willing to talk to me up to a random point, and then outta nowhere stop.

What happened?

I really want Arcansi to read these two by themselves without context, and ask himself, honestly and seriously, who is the one who isn't bringing up "proof" about the topic on hand.

So is MK banned in BC still, or no? Because I'm really curious about that.

1. Arguments have context.

2. Breez is telling stories & making claims. This looks a lot like proof but isn't.

He's bringing up stuff. The problem is most of this stuff is unusable as-is (no proof) or a story. (argument by emotion, partially. General lack of a point.)

 

[`dazrin]

Jamaipex 2014

 

[NeeBee]

////////::

 

[Lib3r4t3]

I 100% don't understand thing like this. People seem willing to talk to me up to a random point, and then outta nowhere stop.

What happened?




1. Arguments have context.

2. Breez is telling stories & making claims. This looks a lot like proof but isn't.

He's bringing up stuff. The problem is most of this stuff is unusable as-is (no proof) or a story. (argument by emotion, partially. General lack of a point.)

I think you used the term yourself: strawman. Take a look at the small exchange we had. I presented your two arguments, the one where he actually mentioned Metaknight, and the one where you either just declared that what he was saying was either not relevent or used detached allusions yourself to counter his points. You argued no points for yourself, and instead tried to negate his reasons in order to assert that your opinion, by proxy, was therefore correct. Even your posting style enables you, intentionally or not, to strawman, by removing the order of context from your arguer's argument, and with any small thing that's "not relevent" without context is therefore negated by your standard and doesn't count to the overarching picture that whoever argues you makes.

Context is damn important for arguments, you're right about that, but it only really breeds excuses when you try to see your self awareness and keep the context at the same time. You exaimed what breez did, but you have not really said what you were doing. That's a whole half of the quotes you ignored. Without context, ie knowing either player, or knowing either subject, which of the two, would you honestly favor, at presenting information and forming an argument for? Someone who just responds and tries to negate the post, or someone who is actually making points and drawing real life examples that pertain to both posters?

That's why (I'd think) breez thinks you're hopeless, and I'd be damn surprised to see you actually start to see your faults, instead of making more excuses and breaking my post down quote by quote.

 

[Arcansi]

And I'd be damn surprised to see you actually start to see your faults, instead of making more excuses and breaking my post down quote by quote.

First off, I only break down posts because it's extremely unwieldy not too. Having to scroll a ton and keep track of where I am on the post otherwise is nigh impossible.

In this post I can't, because the point is summed up in the second paragraph. But my response here doesn't need to anyway.

I think you used the term yourself: strawman. Take a look at the small exchange we had. I presented your two arguments, the one where he actually mentioned Metaknight, and the one where you either just declared that what he was saying was either not relevent or used detached allusions yourself to counter his points. You argued no points for yourself, and instead tried to negate his reasons in order to assert that your opinion, by proxy, was therefore correct. Even your posting style enables you, intentionally or not, to strawman, by removing the order of context from your arguer's argument, and with any small thing that's "not relevent" without context is therefore negated by your standard and doesn't count to the overarching picture that whoever argues you makes.

Context is damn important for arguments, you're right about that, but it only really breeds excuses when you try to see your self awareness and keep the context at the same time. You exaimed what breez did, but you have not really said what you were doing. That's a whole half of the quotes you ignored. Without context, ie knowing either player, or knowing either subject, which of the two, would you honestly favor, at presenting information and forming an argument for? Someone who just responds and tries to negate the post, or someone who is actually making points and drawing real life examples that pertain to both posters?

I'm not sure what you mean by see your self awareness.

I wouldn't favour either. I don't go into an argument with favour for either side without being presented proof, and neither argument actually really presents any objective proof. (in those two posts)

I actually thought about this myself earlier, the fact that my posts had no points in themselves.

The problem is breez has gone so far off topic that I can't anymore. I just wanted input on the ruleset, that's all. (EDIT I do have an opinion on the issue, but there was no reasonable way to get it out there.

Breez has attempted to say his side is invariably correct, and I am simply proving him wrong. I couldn't find a reasonable way to say "here's why I'm right" because he was going off on tangent after tangent, and I was waiting for a stable discussion platform.

[removed sentence here. I apologize.]

Coming in halfway through this argument is REALLY unwieldy, though. But this is somewhat unavoidable, unless I keep restating myself like a broken record.

Also, in context I don't even need to state most of my points until breez asks for them. He seems to assume a lot of them, and he doesn't seem wrong yet, so I'm okay with this. (This is unapparent from an outsiders' perspective.)

I have a lot of points I could present. In hindsight, perhaps I should have presented some, may have been able to focus the argument more. I'll admit I know barely anything about how most people discuss things. I just know how to do it logically.

If he really wanted me to bring something up, all he had to do was ask. As a result of not knowing a lot, I'm very open to feedback. I argue logically, but most people don't seem to like that.

That's why (I'd think) breez thinks you're hopeless

This is, I believe, the right part in the response for this quote. I may be wrong here.

I feel that he should have asked more of me before giving up. He wasn't getting a response he liked, but that's normal in any legitimate argument that doesn't end immediately.

He wasn't getting a response he felt he could get anywhere with, though, is something we can deal with. If he wanted one, all he had to do was ask. Or stop going off on tangents, but he seems to like that.

The by proxy thing is partly right and partly wrong. When you start discussing something, one person can sit back sometimes and just bounce back other arguments. This is because at some point one side has asserted something that, if unable to be proven, results in the other side being right.

In this discussion, that was 'Metaknight has an advantage' (This is a given) 'This advantage is not overbearing (sic)' can be proven wrong, and if it is makes my point correct.

The burden of proof was on me, but breez never actually used it. Had he, I would have been happy to present something.

The problem with the overarching picture is that irrelevant things detract from it by nature.

Logically, unless all the presented parts of the picture line up, the picture doesn't. Something less coherent does, and breez may or may not want to present that. That's his choice.

Like, with his Starcraft analogy, most of it was irrelevant. It's a different game with a different gamestyle. But there are relevant points in it, but those are mostly based on new tech coming into the game in question, which is not happening in brawl. If it was, the point would be more effective.

I'm not sure I fully get what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're trying to say that by taking apart the posts, I remove the general point from them because parts of them are wrong. But I am not seeing this. His points are all responded to, from what I can tell. If you can point something out I'll be happy to respond. Or, I might be interpreting what you're saying wrong.

I THINK I can end here. So, in finishing, while mine looks worse to someone outside the argument, that's because breez's posts are more attuned to people outside the argument. Both because he thinks a lot more like them and because he is arguing more emotionally than I am. (Which is a fallacy in itself, people.)

This is not a correct thing to do, but it can look like so sometimes.

:fluttershy:

 

[Yakal]

I had fun watching brawl

not the gameplay that was whack but the determination

was cute seeing salem finally crack a smile right at the end while he was pokerface the entire tourney

zss

 

[Alphicans]

I think the most interesting thing about the new brawl meta game is that time outs are never really intentional and are never really super lame like they used to be

 

[Asa]

^ this. It's like Japan. They are actually playing really gay when they're spacing and zoning each other out And ****, so matches will take long, but it's still very interesting and exciting

 

[StarWaffle]

I wanna travel somewhere to play smash! I'd just hate to rep BC.

 

[Arcansi]

I just want to play smash.

:fluttershy:

 

[Asa]

Stop yer *****in an play weefee ya bloke!


And jerbear, go to genrsis3

 

[Arcansi]

Stop yer *****in an play weefee ya bloke!


And jerbear, go to genrsis3

I might actually play some wifi to remember everything for gottacon.

Probably.

EDIT: My main problem with wifi is accessability. I can't do the stuff I would be able to do at a smashfest on wifi. Delay comes in somewhere, but I could get over that given other things.

 

[Alphicans]

No johns. If salem can win apex after mainly being a wifi warrior you can do wifi.

 

[Asa]

Good ****, my son.

Nvm is johning more

 

[Arcansi]

No johns. If salem can win apex after mainly being a wifi warrior you can do wifi.

If I had a way of getting legitimate feedback, sure.

I mean, talking to Jason is cool and all but me asking 'How do I get around X' and him going 'uuuuuh, idk.' doesn't help all that much.

Not to mention 90% of people won't even play me on wifi. Given the ability to do smashfest-like things over wifi, I would do them. I just don't think that's a thing that I can do.

I might try, though. Input lag hurts, but it may be better than nothing, assuming I have free time.

EDIT: I guess these are classified as 'johns', because johns is a blanket term. But legitimately, I have to prioritize my time. I already have very little chance of being able to apply myself in Brawl for at least 3 months, which puts it below things like LoL.

But, I have a lot of free time at the moment, so I'll probably find time to play.

 

[Alphicans]

You'll be able to play anyone on ladder. Just challenge them.

Getting feedback rarely helps because that's not how people learn to get good. Just playing the game more and more will allow you to see patterns more consistently, and that's what is important, not feedback from players. Not saying it doesn't help, but I guarantee the majority of top level players don't fully understand why they're so good.

And yes those are really terrible johns not gonna lie

 

[Arcansi]

You'll be able to play anyone on ladder. Just challenge them.

Getting feedback rarely helps because that's not how people learn to get good. Just playing the game more and more will allow you to see patterns more consistently, and that's what is important, not feedback from players. Not saying it doesn't help, but I guarantee the majority of top level players don't fully understand why they're so good.

And yes those are really terrible johns not gonna lie

Did not know not knowing why you're good is a thing. I guess if that's the way it works for me (it may not, but I don't know either way so I'm willing to go with it) then those do look like bad johns.

Time management is a thing though.

Not knowing why you're good isn't a thing I get. But I'm going to hope it works anyway.

 

[Alphicans]

NVM misread

 

[Captain L]

I didn't know why I was good

 

[traffic.]

The point being knowledge doesn't save you from having to spend that time practising. If you don't play a lot, you don't know what you die from a lot, because you're not dying a lot. If you spend the time losing, then you will know what you lose to the most, and what to work on because you will already be working on it.

When I was picking the game up, I would do 99 stocks, and pick something to work on. I was completely useless off stage, so every stock I would throw myself off the stage and get punished over and over until I started surviving and recovering. Feedback helped for ideas on how to do it, but didn't replace the need to keep doing it. Knowing what to do didn't make me better at doing it, and doing something you're told means that it won't be organic or natural feeling until you can put in a lot of time experimenting with those options and making it stronger through consistent failure.

It's not about what you do or don't know, it's about what you do or don't practice. If you think there is a shortcut that allows you to get good without practice, then it doesn't matter what people tell you to do, because you're not doing it regardless.

 

[Arcansi]

It's not about what you do or don't know, it's about what you do or don't practice. If you think there is a shortcut that allows you to get good without practice, then it doesn't matter what people tell you to do, because you're not doing it regardless.

For me I see a learning process like this

1. With feedback: Do something wrong - someone says 'try X' - see if X works, loop until you find what does work.

2. Without: Do something wrong - make a guess - see if it works, loop until you find what does work.

Usually someone telling you what works and how (e.g. pits uair is a solid answer to G&W dair, but you have to be on the side) makes it a lot faster than not.

 

[| Big D |]

Word on the street is if you can chain grab you become a good ICs.

 

[_GrapE_]

Esam beat 9B during the crew battle, so Landon has no excuse for not using Pikachu.

 

[Captain L]

my excuse is that I'm not esam and also worse than dawson

 

[SKidd]

nairo salt is amazing lmao

 

[`dazrin]

anyone free to smash on wednesday or thursday?

 

[~Firefly~]

I will be free either day, both, or neither, not sure yet.

I know that doesn't help much, but I do what I can~

 

[| Big D |]

Might be able to go Wednesday depending on how much homework I get done tomorrow lol.

 

[traffic.]

For me I see a learning process like this

1. With feedback: Do something wrong - someone says 'try X' - see if X works, loop until you find what does work.

2. Without: Do something wrong - make a guess - see if it works, loop until you find what does work.

Usually someone telling you what works and how (e.g. pits uair is a solid answer to G&W dair, but you have to be on the side) makes it a lot faster than not.

You'll notice that both involve spending time practising until it works, you can find most of the information you're looking for (what move is best in what situation) on the boards here (after filtering out the dummies) and still have a strong idea of what to practice. Watching videos to see new and awesome ideas and reading the boards has been more beneficial that presuming your practice partner knows everything the best anyway. No one is saying getting feedback doesn't help, but it is not the paramount answer above hard work and time spent. The real benefit of a solid practice partner is having someone who can dedicate time to practising a concept more so than telling you what to do, you'll come up with your own style and surprise any opponent by doing something different than the usual advice. If there was a concrete best move in every situation there would be no meta-game, just a set of rules that you either apply properly or you don't. Nothing will ever mean more in a game than your own style developing organically, and it's not until you spend time experimenting and trying many options that this will happen.

 

[Jason!]

Smashfest Friday at stronk:

Me
jake
dawson
Ben
Eric
Tyler
Yakal

 

[~Firefly~]

You'll notice that both involve spending time practising until it works, you can find most of the information you're looking for (what move is best in what situation) on the boards here (after filtering out the dummies) and still have a strong idea of what to practice. Watching videos to see new and awesome ideas and reading the boards has been more beneficial that presuming your practice partner knows everything the best anyway. No one is saying getting feedback doesn't help, but it is not the paramount answer above hard work and time spent. The real benefit of a solid practice partner is having someone who can dedicate time to practising a concept more so than telling you what to do, you'll come up with your own style and surprise any opponent by doing something different than the usual advice. If there was a concrete best move in every situation there would be no meta-game, just a set of rules that you either apply properly or you don't. Nothing will ever mean more in a game than your own style developing organically, and it's not until you spend time experimenting and trying many options that this will happen.

That experience with other games is showing. Good posts.

stronkadonk

 

[Firestorm88]

Grand Finals of Apex was amazing and I'm happy I stuck through the Meta Knight dittos to see it. However, the commentators were godawful. Keitaro and Coontail should never be given a microphone. They're completely biased, homophobic, misogynist, unprofessional ****stains. Are they regular commentators and if so, why? Absolutely useless at explaining what's going on in the match and offensive to boot. It was embarrassing to have them represent any Smash Bros. game like that to the larger gaming community.

To end this post on a high note, Salem is a god <3

 

[Blunted_object10]

You'll notice that both involve spending time practising until it works, you can find most of the information you're looking for (what move is best in what situation) on the boards here (after filtering out the dummies) and still have a strong idea of what to practice. Watching videos to see new and awesome ideas and reading the boards has been more beneficial that presuming your practice partner knows everything the best anyway. No one is saying getting feedback doesn't help, but it is not the paramount answer above hard work and time spent. The real benefit of a solid practice partner is having someone who can dedicate time to practising a concept more so than telling you what to do, you'll come up with your own style and surprise any opponent by doing something different than the usual advice. If there was a concrete best move in every situation there would be no meta-game, just a set of rules that you either apply properly or you don't. Nothing will ever mean more in a game than your own style developing organically, and it's not until you spend time experimenting and trying many options that this will happen.

LISTEN TO THIS MAN!

(Like)

 

[SKidd]

i for one like coontail and keitaro



on the flipside




pierce is a ****ing horrible commentator
and gunblade isnt THAT bad, he's kinda funny sometimes
























sky tho