Official Metaknight Discussion

[fkacyan]

Crow's data controls for popularity.

Wrong! People playing = playtime hours = More chances to find something new that is character specific and advance that character's metagame.

As for people being better, are you sincerely going to argue that people only win because they play MK? Do you think that the top 8 is actually going to change significantly in terms of who is winning when MK is banned?

@Crow!

You realize that number you've given is merely the chance of random distribution, correct? There are far too many factors that go into how people choose to play characters (What crew members play, what your teammate plays, favorite game series, playstyle, etc) to honestly believe that using that particular number gives us any real meaning.

Also, null reject numbers (Forgive me, I forget the character usually used to represent this) are often as low as .5%, so .8% is realistic by some standards as far as failing to reject goes.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, you haven't proven that a Snake main switching will make him better. In fact, you have committed the statistical taboo of extrapolation in claiming so! The only way to prove this would be with yet more data, taking into account control groups, skill levels, etc.

 

[rvkevin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKIxu669Y_A

It's plausible.

The funny part is that this video sums up anti-ban's argument quite well.

1. We only ban a character if he's broken.
2. If we have to play him or lose, then he is broken.
3. This video shows that MK can lose to non-MK.
4. Therefore we don't have to play MK or lose.
5. Therefore, MK is not worthy of a ban.

And before you say that you can also ban a character for over centralization, then I would ask how you would define such a term since I asked and either got deaf ears or "Play MK or lose."

 

[Omni]

At what point would you say that MK over centralizes the meta game?

That's pretty hard to measure. I've always felt that overcentralization needs to be obvious.

As long as tournament results are released with mixed results with several characters from several regions taking top places I don't see MK as overcentralizing the metagame.

As of the present metagame, Mew2King just dropped to 3rd place amongst the outliers. A Metaknight hasn't taken 1st place at a national for months. A Ness tying for 1st in a region where Seibrik and Co18 exist blows my mind. Someone posted recent results of a Midwest tournament that consisted of retardedly mixed results. Pretty much a high barrage of these incidents still occur and the issue is nearly non-existent outside of North America. This shouldn't happen if Metaknight is as bad as everyone says.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Omni: again, "national" isn't its own statistical envelope unless there are many many many nationals. There aren't enough of them to even be considered. MK hasn't won a "national" -- so what?

 

[fkacyan]

Omni: again, "national" isn't its own statistical envelope unless there are many many many nationals. There aren't enough of them to even be considered. MK hasn't won a "national" -- so what?

Allow me to rephrase this so you see why this is a dumb question:

"MK hasn't won a tourney with several hundred people, far more chances at elimination, with the hardest competition and largest cash prize for quite some time."

You're essentially asking why people think the Olympics matters more than a nation tourney of the same sport.

 

[Omni]

It's simply one of many reasons that contribute to my point, SFP.

MK not winning a national is a big deal considering any character that is up for being banned should be winning nationals on a consistent basis in my book. Regardless of how consistent nationals happen the most attendance and population goes into these. You can't discredit a national because it doesn't happen on a weekly basis.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Actually, I can.

Nationals aren't more relevant than any other tournament because there aren't enough of them to draw any conclusions from nationals alone. We can fold them into a larger envelope though, as we have done.

 

[Omni]

also can anyone answer me this outside of Crow? i'm trying to gain more understanding of the statistics/data that's being presented.

------

I was being nice to you. But if you don't want me to be that nice, I don't have to be.

Let's suppose that MK, Snake, AND Diddy Kong are all of equal skill level. Then the formula becomes:
(1/3)^13 * (2/3)^(18-13) * (18 choose 13). Sum this over 13 through 18 MKs.

The probability of 13 MKs out of 18 possible out of 3 characters is 0.000853.

That's less than a tenth of a percent, that's one chance in 1173, that's absolutely absurd to suggest.

As you add more characters, if becomes even more stupid.


Anything else for which you'd like me to abandon my "Assume the best possible case for the anti-ban argument" policy?

Keep it civil, Crow. You don't have to be a douche bag to make a point.

Isn't the data still supported by tournament results? Also, what is the earliest tournament results that are used to reflect information from this data?

The reason why I ask is because a metagame grows. What was a trend or results a year ago is not always the same in the present. Also, point contribution deals a lot with repetition of tournament attendance. A person who consistently places 5th in tournaments but goes to a tournament every weekend will have more points than a player who places 2nd consistently but goes to a tournament once a month. The person who consistently places 2nd is still the better player. The results become a bit skewed in this manner.

This isn't to say the data is invalid because certain players using certain characters do not show up on a consistent basis; that would be silly but it is a point to note.

*fixed*

Can you answer those questions? I'm not really good when it comes to statistics so most of my questions will be an attempt to gain clarity on the information being presented.

Edit: Error on my part. More than 7 exist in the recent metagame. What was the population sample used in your chart above, Crow?

 

[rvkevin]

As of the present metagame, Mew2King just dropped to 3rd place amongst the outliers. A Metaknight hasn't taken 1st place at a national for months. A Ness tying for 1st in a region where Seibrik and Co18 exist blows my mind. Someone posted recent results of a Midwest tournament that consisted of retardedly mixed results. Pretty much a high barrage of these incidents still occur and the issue is nearly non-existent outside of North America. This shouldn't happen if Metaknight is as bad as everyone says.

Because we all know that match up knowledge is a not a prerequisite of skill. In all seriousness, do you think Ness is somehow a MK counter? That MK shouldn't be banned because he can lose in a match up he has no/limited experience in (that has also happened in a different region, i.e. Fow v. Tyrant)? Also, MK can lose. He doesn't have 100-0 match ups with the rest of the cast. When only one or two MKs enter, its not 100% guaranteed that they will both end up top 3, even top 8 for that matter, upsets do happen, look at the bigger picture. Even if he 70-30s the entire cast, there will still be some non-MK's above him, would he not warrant a ban then?

 

[fkacyan]

Actually, I can.

Nationals aren't more relevant than any other tournament because there aren't enough of them to draw any conclusions from nationals alone. We can fold them into a larger envelope though, as we have done.

I think you don't understand that you can draw conclusions from any given data pool.

The accuracy of said conclusions changes based on how much data you have, yes, but as far as conclusions, anything drawn by anybody from nationals alone is actually statistically sound, especially considering the measures taken in tourney to make the results as accurate as possible.

 

[Omni]

Because we all know that match up knowledge is a prerequisite for skill. In all seriousness, do you think Ness is somehow a MK counter? That MK shouldn't be banned because he can lose in a match up he has no/limited experience in? Also, MK can lose. He doesn't have 100-0 match ups with the rest of the cast. When only one or two MKs enter, its not 100% guaranteed that they will both end up top 3, even top 8 for that matter, upsets do happen, look at the bigger picture.

My point is that broken characters that have been banned from games don't need to know match-up specifics. Since their character already exist outside of a realm from the rest of the cast they are exempt from the majority of this knowledge. The Ness still had to go through a large barrage of non-MK's just as well as the Pit.

You're taking a single point that I've made that contributes to overcentralization and using it to address my overall answer. In my opinion, the "isolated incidents" occur on a basis that is frequent enough for me to believe the metagame is still progressing.

I'm not looking for a character to come up and be the new Metaknight counter. I don't see that happening at all nor would its lack of appearance change my mind on the issue.

I have been looking at the bigger picture. I look through the tournament results all the time. Based on what I am seeing every week coupled with the fact that I believe he fits within the cast in terms of in-game character specifics I do not see him being a problem.

I'm not sure what you're looking for but I answered your question. Do you simply disagree with me or are you looking to change my mind?

 

[MarKO X]

Because we all know that match up knowledge is a not a prerequisite of skill. In all seriousness, do you think Ness is somehow a MK counter? That MK shouldn't be banned because he can lose in a match up he has no/limited experience in (that has also happened in a different region, i.e. Fow v. Tyrant)? Also, MK can lose. He doesn't have 100-0 match ups with the rest of the cast. When only one or two MKs enter, its not 100% guaranteed that they will both end up top 3, even top 8 for that matter, upsets do happen, look at the bigger picture.

And that is the basis of anti-ban.
it's not play MK or lose, and thus, he shouldn't be banned.

 

[Chuee]

The Ness still had to go through a large barrage of non-MK's just as well as the Pit and the Yoshi

Fixed for the truth.

 

[Crow!]

Keep it civil, Crow. You don't have to be a douche bag to make a point.

I thought I was being civil by trying to work with you as closely to your terms as possible, and at each turn assuming that you're a reasonable person. I'll try doubly hard this post.

Isn't the data still supported by tournament results?

Not sure what you're asking. Unless there's a miscommunication here, tournament results are "the data," so asking whether it supports itself would have no meaning...

Also, what is the earliest tournament results that are used to reflect information from this data?
The reason why I ask is because a metagame grows. What was a trend or results a year ago is not always the same in the present.

I was taking the player counts from your data; the dates from which it comes are whatever you chose. I was assuming that the dates you chose for your conclusion came from the timeframe you believed was the most relevant, since anything else would be, effectively, an attempt to mislead your audience.


If you're talking about my quoted number of how many times X is better than Y, I quoted the amount from the past 13 months of results because it comes from more data points and is subject to less random fluctuation. The past 6 months says MK is 2.42 times better.

Either way takes data which is more recent than the previous MK banning poll. Either way says that at equivalent skill levels MK should be more popular than he presently is.

Also, point contribution deals a lot with repetition of tournament attendance. A person who consistently places 5th in tournaments but goes to a tournament every weekend will have more points than a player who places 2nd consistently but goes to a tournament once a month. The person who consistently places 2nd is still the better player. The results become a bit skewed in this manner.

This isn't to say the data is invalid because certain players using certain characters do not show up on a consistent basis; that would be silly but it is a point to note.

To claim that this has any effect on a comparison between characters, you would have to establish a correlation between which character a player plays at high skill levels to their actual attendance at events. This would require complete attendance lists of all tournaments.

If you do find (or assemble) that data in a reasonable format to be analyzed, let me know and I'll even do the work for you if you want. Until then, the point is moot.

What was the population sample used in your chart above, Crow?

The population in my charts ("above?" more like "from many pages ago," but whatever) is all tournament results which Ankoku gathered in a given time frame, and it's weighted, in the ways Ankoku weights them, so that large tourneys are worth more than small ones proportionate with their sizes and entry fees. The 13 months of data have 564 tournaments (times 8 placements per tournament), and the 6 months of data chart have 211 tournaments.

I selected the most recent 6 months and most recent 13 months pretty arbitrarily. MK's dominance has grown some over that time frame, and the story doesn't become any different if I choose other time frames.

If the chart you're talking about the black and white MS paint thing I made, that was me using a picture to explain something which is hard to explain with words; namely, why the plateaus in combination with the previous results imply comparable skill levels.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm not sure what you're looking for but I answered your question. Do you simply disagree with me or are you looking to change my mind?

I disagree, but I am unsure what events would have to take play that would convince you to change your mind.

"In my opinion, the "isolated incidents" occur on a basis that is frequent enough for me to believe the metagame is still progressing."

At what point would the "isolated incidents" to be so uncommon enough to warrant a ban? Is it when a MK never loses to another character (100-0's the entire cast regardless of skill)? Because if that is the case, then I doubt anyone would be able to convince you via evidence. What new evidence would convince you that MK warrants a ban?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Crow, have my babies.

There's a sentence in his post that tells me just how much smarter Crow is than your average poster. Can you guys find it?

 

[Omni]

I thought I was being civil by trying to work with you as closely to your terms as possible, and at each turn assuming that you're a reasonable person. I'll try doubly hard this post.

Right.

Not sure what you're asking. Unless there's a miscommunication here, tournament results are "the data," so asking whether it supports itself would have no meaning...

Because using strictly tournament results to determine character ability could be a little tricky. A player's skill level contributes to how well or poorly a character is played. That's why I believe the term outlier was created to explain the fact that any character that did not fit a trend was being used by an outlier. However, player skill and usage still comes into play at high, mid, and low levels of play just not to the extent of ADHD, Ally, and M2K.

I was taking the player counts from your data; the dates from which it comes are whatever you chose. I was assuming that the dates you chose for your conclusion came from the timeframe you believed was the most relevant, since anything else would be, effectively, an attempt to mislead your audience.

The time I took was based on the current year if I'm not mistakened.

If you're talking about my quoted number of how many times X is better than Y, I quoted the amount from the past 13 months of results because it comes from more data points and is subject to less random fluctuation. The past 6 months says MK is 2.42 times better.

I'm not going to argue your statistics; I don't see you attempting to mislead them. However, the statement "MK is 2.42 times better" than Snake means what? Considering that there were 13 MK's and 2 Snake's in that data, wouldn't it make sense for MK to be... more than just barely 2x better than Snake in performance?

Either way takes data which is more recent than the previous MK banning poll. Either way says that at equivalent skill levels MK should be more popular than he presently is.

I don't really understand how you're drawing this conclusion.

To claim that this has any effect on a comparison between characters, you would have to establish a correlation between which character a player plays at high skill levels to their actual attendance at events. This would require complete attendance lists of all tournaments.

If you do find (or assemble) that data in a reasonable format to be analyzed, let me know and I'll even do the work for you if you want. Until then, the point is moot.

Does data really need to be gathered to make this point? A player who consistently attends tournaments and places at 5th place will gain more points than a player who does not consistently attend tournaments and places 2nd. My point is that repetition and consistency of tournament attendance does play into how points are contributed. Do you disagree with this, or do you believe it needs to be statistically proven in order to have weight?

The population in my charts ("above?" more like "from many pages ago," but whatever) is all tournament results which Ankoku gathered in a given time frame, and it's weighted, in the ways Ankoku weights them, so that large tourneys are worth more than small ones proportionate with their sizes and entry fees. The 13 months of data have 564 tournaments (times 8 placements per tournament), and the 6 months of data chart have 211 tournaments.

I selected the most recent 6 months and most recent 13 months pretty arbitrarily. MK's dominance has grown some over that time frame, and the story doesn't become any different if I choose other time frames.

If the chart you're talking about the black and white MS paint thing I made, that was me using a picture to explain something which is hard to explain with words; namely, why the plateaus in combination with the previous results imply comparable skill levels.

I'm not sure why but you didn't address the player rankings I posted. What are your thoughts on those rankings?

 

[Omni]

Also, I'm heading out for the evening to go study for an exam tomorrow. I'll try to address points/responses later tonight or tomorrow.

@rvkevin: I made a pretty large post answering that question a while ago. Just look through my posts in this thread and you should find it.

 

[fkacyan]

@Crow!

This actually interests me. Could you, as an extra bonus, instead of just making your sample larger, divide up the data by the month and post a monthly graph of the exact same data? i.e. 13 graphs, one for each month. Or maybe 6 graphs for 2 month periods, etc. I have a theory about the data and I'd like to see if it's confirmed by such a division. This would report character dominance levels each month separately and would allow us to see the changes in dominance.

 

[Crow!]

EDIT: Oh, Thiocyanide has another post.

Hmm, that becomes a three dimentional graph comparing multiple data sets, which makes it quite difficult to visualize.
Remember when Overswarm plotted character dominance at big tourneys as a function of time? Throw in a function of player rank and it gets really messy.

I could do it, but it would take a fair amount of time.

@Crow!

You realize that number you've given is merely the chance of random distribution, correct?

Of course. That was the idea.

There are far too many factors that go into how people choose to play characters (What crew members play, what your teammate plays, favorite game series, playstyle, etc) to honestly believe that using that particular number gives us any real meaning.

Among those playing the game truly competitively, all such factors mentioned above which they care about also reflect things relevant to winning in the tournament metagame. Letting something other than the ability to win the game influence a choice of yours is the definition of being a scrub.

Specifically, if two characters are equally good at winning tourneys, good competitive players would only preferentially select character A if character A is indeed better than B. By looking at the best players, I'm assuming I'm not looking at scrubs.

Other factors DO become an issue for lower levels.. this is the most reasonable explanation to why Ankoku's overall results say MK isn't dominating as much as he should be; at lower levels, for some reason, players don't want to choose MK as much as they should be choosing him, and scrubs (like me) let that sort of thing influence them.

Also, null reject numbers (Forgive me, I forget the character usually used to represent this) are often as low as .5%, so .8% is realistic by some standards as far as failing to reject goes.

Um, look at my post again? I think the small size of the forum's font threw you off. That's a 3, not an 8. Less than even the unusually strict standard you're citing.

And the symbol you're thinking of is alpha, I believe.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, you haven't proven that a Snake main switching will make him better. In fact, you have committed the statistical taboo of extrapolation in claiming so! The only way to prove this would be with yet more data, taking into account control groups, skill levels, etc.

Trying to figure out under which independent variable you're claiming I extrapolated rather than interpolating.. still not coming up with anything. I took what I showed was, in anti-ban's best case scenario for its argument, equivalent skill levels in each plateau, and averaged.

And frankly, the interpolation wasn't necessary to answer your question; I was addressing another idea at that point. Given the nature of your quesiton, once I showed there were MKs and Snakes on equal skill levels to compare, the case was closed; by any sensible definition of skill, two players at the same skill level could have choosen to play the character his equally skilled counterpart at the same level he does.

 

[Omni]

waiting for my ride to get here. should be here any second.

Given the nature of your quesiton, once I showed there were MKs and Snakes on equal skill levels to compare, the case was closed; by any sensible definition of skill, two players at the same skill level could have choosen to play the character his equally skilled counterpart at the same level he does.

do you really believe this?

 

[rvkevin]

@rvkevin: I made a pretty large post answering that question a while ago. Just look through my posts in this thread and you should find it.

Couldn't find it, a link would be appreciated...

 

[Crow!]

I'm not going to argue your statistics; I don't see you attempting to mislead them. However, the statement "MK is 2.42 times better" than Snake means what? Considering that there were 13 MK's and 2 Snake's in that data, wouldn't it make sense for MK to be... more than just barely 2x better than Snake in performance?

You're implicitly making this error again.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9481331&postcount=2419
The 2 Snakes aren't comparable to the 13 MKs in a simple averaging method.

As for the number quoted, I took the average ratio of Snake main score to MK main score within the plateaus. THAT works because the players within the plateaus are comparable. (Unless the MK mains are actually less skilled than the Snake mains, in which case things get even sillier. I've already shown it's not the other way around.)

I don't really understand how you're drawing this conclusion. [that MK should be more popular than he is]

See my post directed at Thiocyanide; it was again an issue of my making a mental jump which I thought was obvious but that I should have spelled out explicitly. If people chose the character proportionally to that character's likelihood to win at tourneys at a given skill level, then judging by how much better the comparable best MKs and Snakes are doing, overall MKs should be winning even more than they are.

Does data really need to be gathered to make this point? A player who consistently attends tournaments and places at 5th place will gain more points than a player who does not consistently attend tournaments and places 2nd. My point is that repetition and consistency of tournament attendance does play into how points are contributed. Do you disagree with this, or do you believe it needs to be statistically proven in order to have weight?

Miscommunication here. I wasn't denying that people who show up more often have a higher weighting. My point was that unless this effect unfairly favors one character over another, it doesn't do anything to the result.

The point you made, in the way you made it, is pretty obvious and as long as nobody contests it, it doesn't have to be proven. Whether the point is relevant to the analysis of characters, however, would have to be proven. By default, no correlation is assumed.

I'm not sure why but you didn't address the player rankings I posted. What are your thoughts on those rankings?

I saw you post them, but I didn't see any explanation for them. I think I've seen the chart posted before, too. I was hoping that by responding to other questions, you'd bring up how it was relevant. Instead you press me to respond to it with no further introduction either. Well, here's my reaction anyway, I guess:

I don't know the methods used to obtain them. The number of results per player there are very small and leave me wondering what the sample was. The scoring per player looks strange in several cases based on Ankoku's data and scoring methods, leading me to suspect that something else was used, but I haven't a clue what.

Another obvious concern is that it doesn't directly address characters, but instead players. As presented in that chart, people with multiple mains throws a monkey wrench into directly analyzing the results. At analyzing characters, my instinct to make that chart relevant would simply lead me to recreate the charts I have made already. In fact, this sort of thing was what inspired my methods in the first place.


BTW, I've got to get back to real life again. Don't expect any responses from this point forward for a while.

 

[fkacyan]

Trying to figure out under which independent variable you're claiming I extrapolated rather than interpolating.. still not coming up with anything. I took what I showed was, in anti-ban's best case scenario for its argument, equivalent skill levels in each plateau, and averaged.

And frankly, the interpolation wasn't necessary to answer your question; I was addressing another idea at that point. Given the nature of your quesiton, once I showed there were MKs and Snakes on equal skill levels to compare, the case was closed; by any sensible definition of skill, two players at the same skill level could have choosen to play the character his equally skilled counterpart at the same level he does.

The variable is players. You have proven that current MK mains perform better than current Snake mains - Cool! But that doesn't tell us what happens if the players switch.

 

[OverLade]

The variable is players. You have proven that current MK mains perform better than current Snake mains - Cool! But that doesn't tell us what happens if the players switch.

That's what I'm here to find out. Tune in next week for more data

 

[Master Raven]

At least Red is doing SOMETHING

 

[Kewkky]

The variable is players. You have proven that current MK mains perform better than current Snake mains - Cool! But that doesn't tell us what happens if the players switch.

What happens when the players switch? Well, their tourney placings are affected while they get used to their new mains, but after they learn their new characters more and more, they'll start placing better in tourneys. MK has some tools that Snake doesn't and will never dream of having (upB, tornado, uair, fair, dair, and a harder-to-punish recovery), so the previous Snake mains will put what they have learned with Snake to the test with their new character's traits. Same goes from MK to Snake, but obviously to a lesser extent, since they're changing from a character full of options to a character with less options... I see previous Snake mains doing better as MK mains if they dedicate time to MK alone, and previous MK mains doing worse as Snake mains when they dedicate time to Snake alone.

I have no idea how Crow will show this with data, in fact I have no idea where to start looking for data to prove this theory true, so you might not get a good answer until Crow has spare time and grabs a keyboard again (next weekend?).

 

[Tien2500]

The variable is players. You have proven that current MK mains perform better than current Snake mains - Cool! But that doesn't tell us what happens if the players switch.

Basically what you're saying is you want us to prove causation instead of correlation which is nearly impossible to prove. The only way the results make sense is if

A) MK is better.

or

B) MK's metagame is evolving faster.

or

C) MK players are better.

I find the second case to be highly unlikely. Regardless of the amount of MK players and the amount of MK players you would expect diminishing returns. Regardless of how many MK players there are Brawl's engine should limit growth at some point. There are only so many options to explore, and defeating MK is a focal point of virtually any character's community. Yet there is no sign of other characters catching up. Comparing the 13 month data set with the 6 month data set you can see that MK is actually improving.

C is also questionable. It has been claimed that the best players are attracted to MK because of his reputation as the best. This seems a bit sketchy to say the least. If these players are truly better you would expect them to be knowledgeable enough to separate hype from potential. If these players are just naturally better I'd expect them to be analyzing the game well enough to see for themselves who the best character is.

 

[rvkevin]

C) MK players are better.

C is also questionable. It has been claimed that the best players are attracted to MK because of his reputation as the best. This seems a bit sketchy to say the least. If these players are truly better you would expect them to be knowledgeable enough to separate hype from potential. If these players are just naturally better I'd expect them to be analyzing the game well enough to see for themselves who the best character is.

This is not why I don't accept using "MK players are better" as an explanation of results...

If MK players never lost a match to non-MKs, you could always say that the MK players are better than the non-MK players and you would never be able to ban MK.

 

[OverLade]

Good MKs are good players.

That doesnt mean good MKs are better players than good Luigis.

*goes back to Macro-econ HW*

 

[Justblaze647]

defeating MK is a focal point of virtually any character's community.

Quoted for the eerie truth. Nearly every character board has a "MK match thread" outside of the normal MU thread...

That's pushing on the boundaries of over centralization, imo

 

[WindMajor]

I've seen from my own boards that the first discussion ever discussed is MK, whether it be from the matchup thread, or "How to Overcome X Move".

 

[demonictoonlink]

That was me with the X move thing!!!

To be fair though, I still think Flaco is our worst MU.

 

[WindMajor]

Nah, MK is definitely our hardest matchup. Falco's recovery is gimpable, and he has bad stages. MK is just difficult.

 

[Espy Rose]

Sonics ran a "how to beat tornado" thread once.

Despite all the discussion and possible options that we DO have, we never did find a move that would outright stop it.

Our only reasonable option is to run.

 

[Atomsk_92]

Oh shi- I'm number 9

 

[ShadowLink84]

Sonics ran a "how to beat tornado" thread once.

Despite all the discussion and possible options that we DO have, we never did find a move that would outright stop it.

Our only reasonable option is to run.

Fsmash breaks it.
Bair from the top beats it.
Dair from the top.
Shield the **** thing and then punish with a dash shield grab. (yeah sonic can do that).

The main issue is thus, NO CHARACTER CAN JUST BEAT OUT TORNADO EASILY.

b-b-but Snake has nades. STFU who tornado's you while you hold a grenade?
b-b-Falco lasers. STFU WHO TORNADO'S AT YOU FROM AFAR WHERE YOU CAN EASILY LASER IT!?
b-b-, stfu period.

You punish once the move ends, its difficult to punish it unless it is used STUPIDLY..

 

[Espy Rose]

Fsmash breaks it.
Bair from the top beats it.
Dair from the top.
Shield the **** thing and then punish with a dash shield grab. (yeah sonic can do that).

The main issue is thus, NO CHARACTER CAN JUST BEAT OUT TORNADO EASILY.

b-b-but Snake has nades. STFU who tornado's you while you hold a grenade?
b-b-Falco lasers. STFU WHO TORNADO'S AT YOU FROM AFAR WHERE YOU CAN EASILY LASER IT!?
b-b-, stfu period.

You punish once the move ends, its difficult to punish it unless it is used STUPIDLY..

You're dumb.

I said our only REASONABLE option.

Go ahead and try those options in tournament, SL, and come back and tell me how good they are. The fact that you honestly think dair from above would work is laughable.

 

[Atomsk_92]

The main issue is thus, NO CHARACTER CAN JUST BEAT OUT TORNADO EASILY.

DDD CAN....


Suck from the top
pivot grab it
grab it when it first starts
Smash it
Gordo it
F-tilt will cancel it when it first starts
Utilt will flat out beat it unless they space it
D-tilt will beat it
Fair from the top will beat it
Dairing from the top onto the middle of it will beat it
Bair from the top will beat it
JET HAMMER BEATS THE TORNADO
Nair from the top onto the middle will beat it
Up b the top of it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You're dumb.

I said our only REASONABLE option.

Go ahead and try those options in tournament, SL, and come back and tell me how good they are. The fact that you honestly think dair from above would work is laughable.

No you are missing what I am saying.
I am adding to what you said in that there is no reasonable method by which we can just beat it out, but this goes for MANY characters, not just Sonic, and running away for Sonic is really ****ing good.
Where as most character have to sit down and take it like a *****, we can at least continue controlling our options.

DDD CAN....

Suck from the top

Why is he letting you suck him up?

pivot grab it

Why is he letting you pivot grab him?

grab it when it first starts

Why is he so close to let you grab it?

Smash it

Why would he be stupid enough to run into your smash?

Gordo it

RANDOM CHANCE GO!

F-tilt will cancel it when it first starts

Why is he so close?

Utilt will flat out beat it unless they space it

Why is he allowing you time to Utilt him?
Wait why is he trying to sit himself on your head?

D-tilt will beat it

Why is he so low?

Fair from the top will beat it

Why is he running into the Fair?

Dairing from the top onto the middle of it will beat it

Why is he letting you Dair him?

Bair from the top will beat it

So can Sonic. WOOHOO THEY HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON!
SONIC FOR TOP TIER!

JET HAMMER BEATS THE TORNADO

SHOOP DA WHOOP!

Nair from the top onto the middle will beat it

Wis he standing still?

Up b the top of it.

LOL


See? HE AGREES WITH ME!

You can list all these options, but why is MK falling for them?


For Sonic, there are two safe methods.
1. Run away!
2. Run away and if you cant avoid it, shield it and punish with dash shield grab.