NC Brocator Thread!

[Dark Hart]

Chappelle show

 

[Bl@ckChris]

aha.

i still like the bathroom stall idea. jreece knows why.

 

[Dr Peepee]

LMAOOOOOOO

peepin jree

 

[Todd Bonney]

LOL Brawl sucks

 

[Ragnar0k]

stfu Jreece

 

[Black Mantis]

i don't know where that nickname came from.
....

Blackchris I thought you would be the first to get the joke.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

you thought wrong hater.

haven't watched chapelles show in years.

 

[Lightsyde]

Lmfao @ Theo's post. I was reading dialogue between those two and before I had scrolled down I was wondering who they got from NC to explain it. As soon as I read my name I just started laughing. Fortunately, I spit the hard truth thoroughly. Kevin does in fact hate me.

 

[Dr Peepee]

and samus obv

 

[Lightsyde]

Why are you still arguing about this.

http://web.mit.edu/evelina9/www/Downloads/Journal pubs/Fedorenko & Kanwisher 2011.pdf

Just stop.

Did you read this paper? I'm still reading but I've read the first few pages and nothing supports anything you said; it seems to even be contradicting your comments about language pretty early on.

"What we have argued is the following (see Fedorenko et al. 2010, for additional discussion): although some linguistic tasks quite consistently activate particular brain regions, traditional groupbased methods have so far largely failed to detect functional specificity that is replicable across studies and labs (see Section 3, for additional discussion). As a result, for any language-sensitive brain region, it is not yet known whether this region (a) selectively supports a particular linguistic process (e.g., processing speech sounds, or forming dependencies between syntactic elements), or (b) selectively supports language (i.e., does not support any non-linguistic processes, such as, for example, general working memory, arithmetic processing, or musical processing)."

"Setting aside the fact that language is supported by a host of brain regions and, as stated above, in our opinion, no consensus exists on the role of any of these language-sensitive regions in language processing or on the extent to which they are specialized for language, even with respect to Broca’s area, Grodzinsky’s representation of the available evidence is incomplete."

Continuing reading.

 

[AlcyoNite]

typically, its the job of the person who does the referencing to interpret the source...

 

[Lightsyde]

That's silly in this instance though. I wrote out my arguments in response to something he said. He linked me to a scholarly paper rather than offer further explanation. So far in my reading it has multiple times where the writers of the paper say stuff like "no consensus exists on the role of any of these language-sensitive regions in language processing or on the extent to which they are specialized for language".

I'm unsure how to interpret that differently...

 

[AlcyoNite]

That's silly in this instance though. I wrote out my arguments in response to something he said. He linked me to a scholarly paper rather than offer further explanation. So far in my reading it has multiple times where the writers of the paper say stuff like "no consensus exists on the role of any of these language-sensitive regions in language processing or on the extent to which they are specialized for language".

I'm unsure how to interpret that differently...

that's my point. you shouldnt have to.

 

[ph00tbag]

Did you read this paper?

It starts out as a critique of Grodzinsky's methods, which show, inconclusively, that there are areas of the brain that show specificity when interpreting language. Then, using methods that they find more accurate, find more conclusive evidence of specificity. To wit: "Indeed, it is a crowning irony of Grodzinsky’s critique that the very method we advocate has the highest chance of detecting functional specificity of the kind he hypothesizes if such specificity is present in the language system."

And ultimately, this is only half the argument. The other half is that although the functions of the human brain do overlap in several areas, there are parts that are involved in problem solving, pattern recognition and critical thinking that are not involved in language processing, and vice versa.

 

[Dark Hart]

Uhhhhhhhmmmmm I like this post what do y'all think?

In psychology, there is a theory known as Belief Perseverance. This is the tendency for people to have continual belief in some train of thought, even after the logic or information on which that belief is based, has been thoroughly disproved. What does this have to do with smash? Absolutely everything.

The smash community at large refuses to admit changes in the power structure of this game, and will find any number of excuses to maintain the current structure, even when overwhelming evidence proves we are wrong. It took 2.5 years for us to move jiggs up the tier list after she started to win literally everything between 2007-early 2010. Instead, we insisted that mango was just "too good." Again today, most people wll insist that peach is probably still a relatively weak character (compared to spacies/sheik/puff), and instead, Armada is just "too good." People will tell you that fox still has some ridiculous matchup vs peach like 7-3 or 6-4, except all the foxes are "doing it wrong" or Armada is just "way better than all the current foxs." My point is, people will attribute internal reasons for objective results, instead of considering external factors like (like holy ****, maybe peach is an even matchup with fox? mindblown.) These are just a few examples.

Point being, no matter what the evidence is for Fox not being that good anymore, the fact that we have believed he was the best for the last 7 years, pretty much means that we're going to continue t believe it, no matter how much objective evidence exists to the contrary. Top players will routinely go out and destroy the fox competition, then come back and say "my character still loses to fox"

Personally, I believe falco is currently the best in the game for winning tournaments from a practical standpoint. After him, I believe the next 3-4 characters are so evenly matched that its impossible to really determine the difference.

As a side note, I think fox's combo break opportunities are so stupid. You can drop combo's fpr arbitrary reasons like sdi'ing out of dairs (some characters like samus do this semi-automatically), sdi'ing out of upairs, and ground landing cancelling shine stun. Escaping falco combos are way harder/impossible.

I love melee. 10 years strong and we are still arguing about tiers and matchups.

tl;dr Fox is no longer the best, but we wont ever really change our minds because we're stubborn.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

our minds haven't changed about fox being the best because the game itself hasn't changed.

fox still has the best options in the most scenarios, and the best punishes after those scenarios.

he's the best character because the game design has him as the best character.

 

[ph00tbag]

our minds haven't changed about fox being the best because the game itself hasn't changed.

fox still has the best options in the most scenarios, and the best punishes after those scenarios.

he's the best character because the game design has him as the best character.

Can you post this in the thread? We need more people making valid points in that thread.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

what thread is it?

edit: nvm i'll just follow the quote.

 

[Dark Hart]

Would Fox's... Ability (for a horrible lack of a better word) to mess up more (reference to something Kevin said about current fox's some time ago) make that a realistic boundary for Fox players to deal with?

Okay wtf did I just say?

Goddamnit I'm ******** beyond belief

 

[Bl@ckChris]

that depends on how you play him. if you try to be the next mango, it will most certainly be a huge hump that will feel almost impossible to overcome. but if you try to be like chaddd/jman fox, then the propensity to mess up becomes less and less as you choose safer, less risky options.

i don't believe a tech skill barrier is that which can keep fox from being played at top level. now to reach full potential, maybe, but a fundamental fox always probably has an option that's hard to execute with great reward and an easier to execute, safer option as well.

 

[ph00tbag]

Fox doesn't have an ability to mess up any more than any other character. Modern Foxes just have weird boners for illusioning off stage.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

it depends on what you're trying to do.

i can't even imagine trying to shine dair/nair someones shield who knows how to move their shield/shield DI.

 

[stingers]

fox is a lot harder to use than falco so in reality falco is better
idk how many times I've said this but at least jpobs agrees with me >.>

 

[ph00tbag]

Harder to use has nothing to do with what's in the game, though.

it depends on what you're trying to do.

i can't even imagine trying to shine dair/nair someones shield who knows how to move their shield/shield DI.

That's fair, but I'd say that comes down to predicting how your opponent will react. It's not a whole lot different from tech chasing, really.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i'd still say it depends on how you play fox.

if i played him how i wanted to all the time, i'd get on a shield with a dair shine wavedash behind them -> bair and then leave them alone. whatever happens after that is probably beautifully in my favor as something i can react to with an upsmash, or something that just puts them in a ****ty place that they probably don't want to be.

also, have you SEEN yay's fox?

basically, i think fox has the best shield pressure, both real and implied, and still has the best follow ups that are reactable.

falco is pretty beast in the neutral position too but *shrug*

 

[Dr Peepee]

Ease of use shouldn't be an argument. If people want to win then they'll master what they can realistically master(which Foxes have done and will do again).

People like tourney results. It's supposed to be more of a support to an argument than an actual argument but people don't care about that a lot.

Jpobs still made a good point but there's a problem with letting everything new coming along influence you as well. I've had my opinion change on tiers before but this is not one of those things that forces me to change my mind.

I'll give one of those wordy responses in that dern thread tomorrow.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i mean lovage just won a tourney =\ fox is still pretty good.

and once you get to a high enough level, it's all player vs player anyway so who gives a crap.

 

[Dr Peepee]

Heck Mango went Fox when he wanted to do better at Genesis 2. I could go the Mango route but that road is so littered with things like alcohol and home run contest we'd lose track of the argument quickly.

And that player vs player thing only extends so far(it is not absolute in other words even though it is a good rule of thumb), but I haven't seen the modern metagame fleshed out enough to give a better/more complete response to the topic than that.

 

[Dark Hart]

Fox doesn't have an ability to mess up any more than any other character. Modern Foxes just have weird boners for illusioning off stage.

I disagree completely with this post. Fox has more chances to make a mistake than every character except for maybe Falco since you need to press buttons to play them. And saying 'modern fox's illusion off stage more now than they did at any other time is a falacy that's impossible to prove either way and you know it lol and that statement also proves JPOBS main point

Imo

And wait what? Harder has nothing to do with what's in game? Really? Wow wtf James lol

 

[Ocean]

dead leaves and the dirty ground
when I know you're not around
shiny tops and soda pops
when I hear your lips make a sound
when I hear your lips make a sound

thirty notes in the mailbox
will tell you that I'm coming home
and I think I'm gonna stick around
for a while so you're not alone
for a while so you're not alone

if you can hear a piano fall
you can hear me coming down the hall
if I can just hear your pretty voice
I don't think I need to see at all
don't think I need to see at all

soft hair and a velvet tongue
I wanna give you what you give to me
and every breath that is in your lungs
is a tiny little gift to me
is a tiny little gift to me

I didn't feel so bad 'til the sun went down
then I come home
no one to wrap my arms around
wrap my arms around

well any man with a microphone
can tell you what he loves the most
and you know why you love at all
if you're thinking of the holy ghost
if you're thinking of the holy ghost

 

[ph00tbag]

I disagree completely with this post. Fox has more chances to make a mistake than every character except for maybe Falco since you need to press buttons to play them.

I suppose you and I differ as to what constitutes a mistake.

The illusion comment was a joke. lo

 

[Dark Hart]

So you are Saying Technical errors don't count as mistakes? Explain

 

[Dr Peepee]

totally pointless aside, but ph00t your avatar doesn't match your personality at all

it's awkward to read your posts with it there LOL

 

[Dark Hart]

Staying cool in deep thought? Sounds like ph00t to me

 

[Ocean]

Fox doesn't have an ability to mess up any more than any other character. Modern Foxes just have weird boners for illusioning off stage.

if fox, on average, requires 300 inputs per minute while another character requires 150 inputs per minute, then simple probability is that the fox is going to have more errors. it's possible to play any character more risky or less risky but that doesn't mean that some characters by nature are riskier.

 

[ph00tbag]

I'm saying Technical errors aren't the only kind of mistake.

 

[ph00tbag]

totally pointless aside, but ph00t your avatar doesn't match your personality at all

it's awkward to read your posts with it there LOL

You don't think I'm sexy?

 

[Dr Peepee]

that is not an okay question

 

[Dark Hart]

I'm saying Technical errors aren't the only kind of mistake.

I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying they're a very relevant mistake in this argument when it comes to spacies

Imo

 

[0Room]

Well one thing that I think is interesting to note is that at the Big House
The highest placing Falco was 14th

Not saying anything about player skill/if Kevin [for example] had been there or anything
Just wanted to point that out because I think that counts for something
I dunno what it counts for but it just struck me as odd that

when everyone's saying how good he is and how broken he is
Top 13 doesn't even have a Falco in it

Now I know this is kind of an exception I'm sure
Just saying, it's interesting