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!
Just because my name is purple? Lol
yohoho
That was my "suggested starting point for debate" criteria, and a nice rounded criteria.
Scrubbieness! You disapoint with your lack of acceptance of valuable tactics, no cool points for you.
Wrong question, not that there aren't plenty of good reasons to ban him assuming that he meets your personal criteria, but you don't need to prove the negative to force inaction.
Logic, and a rigid data-based criteria (in other words, uses numbers, so the losing side can't weasle out).
Yes, I would love cake, but sadly, and I'd honestly love to see MK banned. But as much as I would love these things to happen, I don't think that I should be switching my criteria simply because I want something to occur, I am all too aware of the massive issues that bias that goes into these decisions, so swaying my criteria simply because I don't like the results it gets me...
When a single technique that's not part of the natural moveset of the character moves a character from "clearly not banworthy" to "lol omg, akuma has nothing", I think it's the technique that's banworthy, not the character.
Good man, you know where it's at.
"Otherwise viable", explained that to you before, but I probably should've noted that, that's also the reason why I support a temp ban (under the conditions that I stated in the discussion of course), to establish that what characters are "otherwise viable" through experimentation.adumbrodeus, I think you should retract yours 75% characters unviable and approach it from a "viable characters" approach.
First, make your own personal definition of "viable character". What % of top X do they need to be considered 'viable'? Are you using top 1, top 2, top 4, top 8?
Once you have this down (which is admittedly arbitrary), you can shorten your list of characters in Brawl to the list of viable characters (viable characters should be playable at a high level of play and NOT just by one individual) and then determine dominance ratios using the same criteria you used to determine viable characters.
The follwoing could be considered "spoilers" if you forgot, but I've already posted them so...
I've already posted the data in the back room and you've seen it, so this is the current standing:
If you believe only MK, Snake, and Diddy are viable, here is the dominance rating (I used top 2, was focusing on money placements):
If you believe it went down to say, Lucario:
The dominance % changes based on how many characters are considered viable. Doing this prevents people from saying "look, he's X% away!" when 5% of dominance is spread out over irrelevant characters like captain falcon and jigglypuff that obviously aren't viable but are given points by good players or medicore players in bad regions.
Wait hold on....in what situation was I not following him trying to get the lead back(save doing retreating naner pulls)...but whatever...
wtf, dude. I know someone else already commented on this, but seriously? You probably would've been better off sitting in front of your TV watching two characters in a neutral position for an hour.
Isn't it guaranteed if you read a roll behind you and fsmash in that direction on the same frame (or close) as when they roll? I suppose that might qualify as human error, but you would've been fine if the Ike hadn't predicted your roll and started the fsmash the same time you did (also depends on the rolling character's roll frame data, but you get what I mean).
Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, Jiggs, Peach, CF are all very viable. Leaving out Jiggs and Peach is pretty ridiculous.
I ****ing lol'd.
Oh, he's had that for a while. Just now, we can't find a way to ban it easily. :V
Ignore that guy, he just doesn't know how **** works.
This is a good question.
Didn't notice this, even by the most conservative estimates, jiggs is viable. Most estimates place it as far down as Ganondorf.
Wow, no.=wtf, dude. I know someone else already commented on this, but seriously? You probably would've been better off sitting in front of your TV watching two characters in a neutral position for an hour.
...unless you were peeping at a neighbor chick or something...
But he's promised it to be nice and moist...
Lol, I want cake too...
I'll give you a slice when it happens then. <3
That makes more sense. Next time, I'd avoid telling people you just sat in the bushes for an hour for no good reason unless you want to arouse suspsicion
Now you see, I actually used to train like this, just picking a random bush, and being perfectly silent for about 15 minutes, it's a survival skill. I do parcour for the same reason, and like a million martial arts.That makes more sense. Next time, I'd avoid telling people you just sat in the bushes for an hour for no good reason unless you want to arouse suspsicion
Slightly offtopic:
Is your 'mathematical method of micro-analyzing matchups' underway yet, or has it been shelved in favor of the current SBR matchup project? I figured your new status would give you access to knowledgable people willing to help, if you were to go that route.
Awesome, cake!
Adumb for prez
What I meant was that if the platform's on the left, in the hypothetical situation that I would've DQ'd you, you'd be on the right side of the stage. And when it starts moving right and M2K goes under the stage so he can meet the platform on the right, you move to the left side of the stage.
I was nice about it, but honestly it's not so much a matter of being a moron as lacking experience, in which case lurking is useful, but finding a good community to help you get experience in the game is more useful.
?
No, sorry.
