Vex Kasrani
Smash Master
And that's why your sig is your name with a ****** Yoshi
ASKLDJ AKLDJALKJDSIAJHDIU9WHT89W
Jk, but still. Wolf doesn't go even, go home be a family man.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
And that's why your sig is your name with a ****** Yoshi
ASKLDJ AKLDJALKJDSIAJHDIU9WHT89W
Jk, but still. Wolf doesn't go even, go home be a family man.
Chuee turn to fuse they're showing Lady Gaga videos for the next hour!I care about all the forest animals.
lady gaga is a disgrace to society.Chuee turn to fuse they're showing Lady Gaga videos for the next hour!
Can I semi-accurately judge the MK - Link MU after watching a set or two?Looking at a set or two doesn't come close to determining a MU.
If that were the case people would say Fox beats MK based on TKD's past performance in the WC.
Who said he goes even? Close to even is what I saw(then again I only read the last few pages). Even so, you shouldn't be negating Wolf from this discussion. He's not bad, dude.Jk, but still. Wolf doesn't go even, go home be a family man.
Actually, for a short period he was considered the best in NA. I'm pretty sure he used to consistently beat M2K for a few month period about 2-3 years ago and win most nationals.And no Ally was never arguably the best player in the world UNTIL he picked MK...... he magically got better the exact instant he picked MK in tournament........it's not like he was arguably the best player with Snake and then lost due Snake having some bad MU's with MK, Olimar, (maybe wario?) and Marth.............................
I'm talkin recent.Actually, for a short period he was considered the best in NA. I'm pretty sure he used to consistently beat M2K for a few month period about 2-3 years ago and win most nationals.
rofl, no offense but this is a pretty bad analogy. First of all your example with ESAM works agains your point since ESAM went from losing to Seibrek to going even to beating him consistently. By your logic guess Pikachu beats metaknightLets say someone else and myself play each other all the time. We will say that I play someone like Snake and my friend plays MK. Snake doesn't get decimated by MK but i think he loses. Assuming we are both not new to the game if we play each other and I consistently win its an obvious indication that I am the better player at the moment. Now if I am the ONLY Snake that my friend ever plays do you think he will surpass me anytime soon? Chances are he won't everytime he plays me and learns the MU, I also learn the MU for MK and get better. We are getting better at the MU at the same rate (this is of course ideally). If he were to surpass me overtime I feel that would be an indication in the MU slanting in his favor.
Same goes with ESAM. ESAM is the ONLY top level pikachu Seibrek really plays. Every single time Seibrek plays ESAM and gets better at the MU, ESAM gets better at the MK MU too (he probably learned a good majority of the MU from Seibrek). Combine that with the fact that ESAM has probably played tons and tons of good MK's in tournament, ESAM is always getting smarter at the MU and learning it from different angles (as each MK plays different). I think its a very safe assumption to say that ESAM has played the Pika MK MU quite a bit more than Seibrek has and therefore he probably knows it better.
Tyrant may spend a lot of time studying the Fox MU. But I bet he didn't study the Fox MU like crazy when he was first learning the game. I bet when TKD was first learning the game he was studying the MK MU like most all of us have. I bet TKD still studies that MU to this day. I bet TKD has a very very large gap in the amount of time he has spent playing against MK with Fox than Tyrant has against Fox with MK. Has Tyrant gone to (wherever he lives) to play Zeton or Trevant to learn the MU? Cause I know countless people who travel to go play top lvl MKs. I think the second best player where TKD is from plays MK. I bet they have played alot.
Until I see that I don't buy it.
KTAR was not a national, and in any case 3 MKs in the top 8 doesnt really support your argument since they did not win. And saying MK took first in the other two is disingenuous, since non-mk characters were essential to that first place win.If I missed any nationals in 2011, let me know.
KTAR 4 - http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=295749 - 3 MKs in Top 8
Pound 5 - http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=298137 - 3 MKs in Top 8
WHOBO 3 - http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=300010 - 4 MKs in Top 8
In all 3 tournies, MK also took first.
What was that about highest level of play?
Umm NO ESAM's example DOES NOT prove my point worng. I find it hard to believe that I put a qualifying condition on my analogy AND made it CAPS to make it easier to see and yet you still somehow overlooked it. IF I WAS THE ONLY SNAKE HE EVER PLAYED....................... is seibrek the only MK that ESAM plays? If so then ESAM must never place high out of state because there are almost always MKs in top 8 in every region.You said Ally was never the best player in NA until he picked up MK, which is false. Last year he was consistently beating m2k up until mlg.
rofl, no offense but this is a pretty bad analogy. First of all your example with ESAM works agains your point since ESAM went from losing to Seibrek to going even to beating him consistently. By your logic guess Pikachu beats metaknight
Secondly learning MUs has a saturation point or limiting returns. The game doesnt magically invent moves and tactics as we keep playing it, at some point you either know what a characters tools are or you dont. Any further progress is through player skill and knowledge of your opponent, not characters.
Lastly you have no way to prove your argument one way or another. People are always going to have more MU experience against the most popular character in the game, so asking anyone to prove the opposite or believing your argument is affirmed by lack of such proof is poopoo.
KTAR was not a national, and in any case 3 MKs in the top 8 doesnt really support your argument since they did not win. And saying MK took first in the other two is disingenuous, since non-mk characters were essential to that first place win.
The qualifying condition doesnt matter, in fact its not really a qualifier at all since the two explanations work indepedantly, and one is clearly better than the other.Umm NO ESAM's example DOES NOT prove my point worng. I find it hard to believe that I put a qualifying condition on my analogy AND made it CAPS to make it easier to see and yet you still somehow overlooked it. IF I WAS THE ONLY SNAKE HE EVER PLAYED....................... is seibrek the only MK that ESAM plays? If so then ESAM must never place high out of state because there are almost always MKs in top 8 in every region.
As already mentioned in this thread the key word is high level. At the very least youd need multiple high level metaknights you could play consistently, considering the proportion ESAM has been able to play seibrek vs other MKs it becomes negligible.I guess Seibrek shares the same luxury, he probably plays at least 6 pikachus every tournament he goes to.....................
Your argument that theres more to learn about characters is that we might not know about spacing xD? Theres something to be said for evolving strategies allowing the metagame to constantly evolve, but characters don't evolve. I mean maybe theres something obscure, but its rare that anything game changing might exist.And BS at some point you can no longer learn aspects of a MU that are based around the character. NO ONE understands every aspect of any given MU. This game (and just about any other game) are way too complex for anyone to understand every single aspect of it. It can be as simple as understanding that if you stand an arbitrary distance away (maybe like exactly 4 steps away they lose some option that is present at every other distance) you never know and to pretend you can or that people aren't always learning more about a MU concerning character aspects is stupid.
No the two arguments aren't independent. The argument about not learning the MU better than someone who you play all the time was stated with that exact qualifier. If the qualifier is not present then you can't use whats stated after the qualifier.The qualifying condition doesnt matter, in fact its not really a qualifier at all since the two explanations work indepedantly, and one is clearly better than the other.
As already mentioned in this thread the key word is high level. At the very least youd need multiple high level metaknights you could play consistently, considering the proportion ESAM has been able to play seibrek vs other MKs it becomes negligible.
Of course even that is assuming that if youre playing MK twice as much you know the character twice as well, the problem is at some point returns diminish on how well you can know a character and your gains essentially flatline.
Your argument that theres more to learn about characters is that we might not know about spacing xD? Theres something to be said for evolving strategies allowing the metagame to constantly evolve, but characters don't evolve. I mean maybe theres something obscure, but its rare that anything game changing might exist.
You gain skill from playing your consistent opponent. You gain skill from playing a different opponent. They are independent factors, one doesn't depend on the other. One does improve your skill more than the other, especially as the ratio of the first greatly increases over the second.No the two arguments aren't independent. The argument about not learning the MU better than someone who you play all the time was stated with that exact qualifier. If the qualifier is not present then you can't use whats stated after the qualifier.
A little more about MK? Maaaaaybe. A whole lot more? Doubtful. Did he learn alot about tyrant as an MK player. Very likely yes. Also your analogy with luigi doesnt work in reverse (assuming the luigi player is lesser skilled).You don't have to play an MK a whole lot more than the one your used to. So your telling me that you don't learn new things every time you play the game? If I play a luigi (like my buddy crash) all the time to where I have a good feel for the MU, then play both boss and big lou in tourney (which heavily factored into why i did as well as i did) it gives me a whole new perspective on the MU. I got to play someone who thinks differently and acts differently with the same character. I would be willing to be that ESAM would admit he has learned a whole lot about the MK MU from other MK's like Tyrant.
I think your overrating this different perspectives thing in regards to how much you learn about a character itself.You can't honestly try and convince me that ESAM doesn't know the MK Pika MU better than Seibrek simply because he plays it a whole lot more. Seibrek doesn't get to see the MU get played differently from different Pikas cause there aren't any others at that level.
non obvious? likely. Quite important? very unlikely.And please tell me you aren't serious about the question you asked regarding they don't know the MU because of spacing???? It was quite obviously an example to demonstrate that there are lots of very non obvious apsects to MU that can be quite important.
I wanna know on what basis you argument concerning that ratio was founded on. You learn more by playing one player individually more so than playing the same amount of time divided amoungst multiple players? How are you sure about that. Also I actually think thats wrong if thats what ur saying. I think if I spent 3 days playing 7 MKs and you spent 3 days playing the same one I would get a better feel for the MU.You gain skill from playing your consistent opponent. You gain skill from playing a different opponent. They are independent factors, one doesn't depend on the other. One does improve your skill more than the other, especially as the ratio of the first greatly increases over the second.
A little more about MK? Maaaaaybe. A whole lot more? Doubtful. Did he learn alot about tyrant as an MK player. Very likely yes. Also your analogy with luigi doesnt work in reverse (assuming the luigi player is lesser skilled).
I think your overrating this different perspectives thing in regards to how much you learn about a character itself.
non obvious? likely. Quite important? very unlikely.
The ratio was specific, the amount of time people spend playing local players is considerably greater than what they spend playing at nationals, especially in ESAMs case.I wanna know on what basis you argument concerning that ratio was founded on. You learn more by playing one player individually more so than playing the same amount of time divided amoungst multiple players? How are you sure about that. Also I actually think thats wrong if thats what ur saying. I think if I spent 3 days playing 7 MKs and you spent 3 days playing the same one I would get a better feel for the MU.
A character is defined by their characteristics and capabilities, the player by how they use them.Also how can you distinguish if an aspect of the MU is related to the character or the player? Perhaps as Snake I think a huge part of the MK MU is falling backwards to the ground with a grenade plucked at an MK because the person I play with always falls for that one. Then I come later to find out that actually that's not always a safe option (hardly ever is it)
I mean you dont learn much if you play the best luigis then move onto lower level players. Of course you will learn more when you play a high level player if you have not before.And the luigi analogy if very related to this situation. I have a much better outlook on the MU from playing boss and big lou than i did just playing crash. Idk if your trying to say it doesn't apply or its not true but neither of those are the case.
People travel to meet and play players and their styles. And Im not saying its completely irrelevant to learning more about a character, but its not that significant.I don't think I'm overrating it at all. I think its one of the most important reasons for people to travel. Even people from the strongest regions still travel and I think its a large factor for it. Do you think M2K might have benefited from playing GNES in Texas instead of just sticking around and playing ADHD all the time? I think most people would agree with me on this idea.
I meant anything new, not what already exists.And some of the most important aspects to certain MU's aren't or seem like tiny details. One obvious one is that characters (especially falco and peach) shouldn't jump about 1/3 distance of FD away from sheik. She gets kills for that. How about luigi's standing right in front of banana (between diddy and the banana) while fighting diddy to prevent getting punish on shield slide? What about Snake positioning himself in such a way that when he gets caught by nado the nade drops the direction MK will be moving instead of away or the reverse of MK scooping Snake with nado the opposite direction the nade is on.
Those are all very tiny and not necessarily obvious things that can be a very important factor in a MU. And besides who cares if it's not even huge when the matches are close every little thing matters.
The ratio was specific, the amount of time people spend playing local players is considerably greater than what they spend playing at nationals, especially in ESAMs case.
A character is defined by their characteristics and capabilities, the player by how they use them.
I mean you dont learn much if you play the best luigis then move onto lower level players. Of course you will learn more when you play a high level player if you have not before.
People travel to meet and play players and their styles. And Im not saying its completely irrelevant to learning more about a character, but its not that significant.
I meant anything new, not what already exists.
Woah no way lol thats awesome!Guys, guys, calm down.
It's Seibrik.
There is one I.
It's Kirbies backwards.
****Guys, guys, calm down.
It's Seibrik.
There is one I.
It's Kirbies backwards.
Is that related to why he started with DDD?Guys, guys, calm down.
It's Seibrik.
There is one I.
It's Kirbies backwards.
I, too, would like to stop by here and marvel at this wonder in a cheap attempt to get my post count up.Guys, guys, calm down.
It's Seibrik.
There is one I.
It's Kirbies backwards.
actually it's related to why i started with KIRBYIs that related to why he started with DDD?
Wh atGuys, guys, calm down.
It's Seibrik.
There is one I.
It's Kirbies backwards.