Mindgames is what I do to make people get hit by Falcon Punch.
-
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!
Official SWF Matchup Chart v3.0
- Thread starter Ishiey
- Start date
- Status
So relying on complacency or laziness?
Or...
what bad characters need to do to do anything?
Or...
what bad characters need to do to do anything?
nailed it
^that's sadly true but everyone needs mix ups, reads and mind games. Mind games can be as simple as stepping backwards before Smashing/Tilting or dropping off a ledge>regrabbing>then returning to the stage.
Good players are smart players.
That to me seems more like a spacing exercise than a mindgame...
A good player will adjust their spacing for that purpose through stepping backwards/moving. Someone doing this "randomly" is going to lose to a player who's spacing is outside your immediate range but can strike your extensions/shields (i.e. every high level player of every high tier+ character). It's also the chance of you ruining a punish you might otherwise have had. If your choice of move isn't really punishable than it isn't really mindgaming, it's just being... smart? lol
Regrabbing the ledge before returning to the stage is the smart choice when you've wasted time and won't have your invincibility on another option. If someone's regrabbing the ledge repeatedly then they're probably going to go for a ledge drop AD option (as it's the "fastest", the one that actually relies on you having maximum invincibility/etc), in other words I can position for that naturally and cover your other options which post 100% will be laggier. Yes this is a readish, but it's more like I know what your options are and am choosing the best scenario for your best option as everything else is weaker and easier to react to.
Otherwise... unless the person ledge guarding you is bad, they aren't throwing out 30-40 frame moves or patterning that badly. Mid level players are going to be doing their charged smash attack or jumping repeatedly (sometimes including some sort of aerial), or standing at a certain distance so they can dash react to your off option. So yeah, regrabbing the ledge again before doing your final option is a... mind game.... for soso level players... Otherwise, the usage of a move in the ledge scenario as a reaction may or may not work due to timing issues, i.e. hitting 1 frame before their invincibility ends, ouch.
tl;dr
First example is spacing
The second example is intelligent usage of mechanics from the defending player (i.e. what everyone should be doing)
And on the attacker's side, at higher levels players feel their whiffs are timing issues, not a "mind game" or misread. Most good characters cover multiple options but require different timings from different responses to come out on top. Top players know those timings.
Pre100%, characters have quite a few options for getting off the ledge, and so you can try to "read" what they can do, but assuming proper execution (isn't a high technical threshold in this example) of their options, a mix up of like 8 different things is gambling from the attacker. Worser players are actually going to get punished for their mistimings and other related failures around the ledge, depending on the opposing character.
E.g. Marth pre100% has an invincible ledge jump fair that covers him for 2/3rds of the animation. Even if you read that (which you should, because it's the best option that will work 99% of the time when done properly) you still cannot really do anything about it and hence it isn't the invincibility fair you're punishing or reading, but what Marth does afterwards (in terms of mobility, etc) which a good player realises and hence focuses on reacting to the next choice of options.
A good player will adjust their spacing for that purpose through stepping backwards/moving. Someone doing this "randomly" is going to lose to a player who's spacing is outside your immediate range but can strike your extensions/shields (i.e. every high level player of every high tier+ character). It's also the chance of you ruining a punish you might otherwise have had. If your choice of move isn't really punishable than it isn't really mindgaming, it's just being... smart? lol
Regrabbing the ledge before returning to the stage is the smart choice when you've wasted time and won't have your invincibility on another option. If someone's regrabbing the ledge repeatedly then they're probably going to go for a ledge drop AD option (as it's the "fastest", the one that actually relies on you having maximum invincibility/etc), in other words I can position for that naturally and cover your other options which post 100% will be laggier. Yes this is a readish, but it's more like I know what your options are and am choosing the best scenario for your best option as everything else is weaker and easier to react to.
Otherwise... unless the person ledge guarding you is bad, they aren't throwing out 30-40 frame moves or patterning that badly. Mid level players are going to be doing their charged smash attack or jumping repeatedly (sometimes including some sort of aerial), or standing at a certain distance so they can dash react to your off option. So yeah, regrabbing the ledge again before doing your final option is a... mind game.... for soso level players... Otherwise, the usage of a move in the ledge scenario as a reaction may or may not work due to timing issues, i.e. hitting 1 frame before their invincibility ends, ouch.
tl;dr
First example is spacing
The second example is intelligent usage of mechanics from the defending player (i.e. what everyone should be doing)
And on the attacker's side, at higher levels players feel their whiffs are timing issues, not a "mind game" or misread. Most good characters cover multiple options but require different timings from different responses to come out on top. Top players know those timings.
Pre100%, characters have quite a few options for getting off the ledge, and so you can try to "read" what they can do, but assuming proper execution (isn't a high technical threshold in this example) of their options, a mix up of like 8 different things is gambling from the attacker. Worser players are actually going to get punished for their mistimings and other related failures around the ledge, depending on the opposing character.
E.g. Marth pre100% has an invincible ledge jump fair that covers him for 2/3rds of the animation. Even if you read that (which you should, because it's the best option that will work 99% of the time when done properly) you still cannot really do anything about it and hence it isn't the invincibility fair you're punishing or reading, but what Marth does afterwards (in terms of mobility, etc) which a good player realises and hence focuses on reacting to the next choice of options.
I've actually beaten and critiqued players because they used nothing but the best and most obvious moves for that situation. Everything has a weakness and strength, in a rock, paper scissors way. Although some characters have very good moves that force a hard read.
Mindgames are important. For example take returning from the ledge. If you're obvious you will suffer. For most characters all their options have an exploitable weakness so they need to stall sometimes, ledge hop attack, dodge, ledge jump, plank for extra damage and the opponent needs to make reads and react. People might not consciously think about it but mind games are a big part of Brawl.
Mindgames are important. For example take returning from the ledge. If you're obvious you will suffer. For most characters all their options have an exploitable weakness so they need to stall sometimes, ledge hop attack, dodge, ledge jump, plank for extra damage and the opponent needs to make reads and react. People might not consciously think about it but mind games are a big part of Brawl.
Options aren't as simple as using just fair or air dodging though.
They incorporate timing and spacing on every selection.
If you're in a situation which you're likely to lose, then for what reason were you in that situation in the first place? It's either a player mistake, or you're using a bad character (in general or in that MU). When you're in that type of situation, the best option is still likely to lose. That player could have mixed up a FF AD (for example) instead of something else and get away with it. But these situations played out properly and executed properly are frame trap scenarios. That's a mistake of the initiator, not some sort of mega mind game.
"Best options" are best because of how they are used, not because of their just "pure usage". We've struggled to deal with Meta Knight for half a decade because his best options are usually self sufficient in pure usage. In fact, tier lists generally reflect how easy it is for character's to impose their merit with their best options with little proficiency (especially early in the game's life time). The best characters can punish MK's everything though when not used properly... They can also still punish almost everything in a lot of scenarios when the MK DOES USE IT PROPERLY (!!!!!) [Sorry bad characters
] (Power shields are that ****ing dumb, fyi)
The best options when used correctly are generally not going to get punished. A good player getting past a best option used relatively well is as simple as a power shield or timing a roll, crouch or spot dodge. Getting past a best option used amazingly well, is, as some would expect, generally not punished. Usually player reaction at the time is something like "that was ****ing amazing".
Then we get the situation where Meta Knight's are properly timing/spacing their nados [incl the ending], the use of their mid air jumps properly for fast vertical acceleration frame trapping everything (!!!!) etc etc and this tippity top level of MK (which is still expanding) thwarts every character up to a certain point. Otori is beating characters he's never played before in his life just by being exceptional with Tornado. I've had Vinnie and Tyrant both say to me (well, listening to a conversation between the two) "Anti using ftilt properly is basically gg".
My personal vexations of MK are his inconsistent ability to approach and the level of skill required to actually achieve MK's best usages for his best options. Other characters are a little easier to define for their best options/usages (Falco: landing laser being silent, Marth hitting fair frame 4 or 7 only, Olimar fsmashing with yellow for it's vertical priority wall, etc etc), and when done consistently by the best players usually win. At the top level when you watch matches, you most often see the losing player as the one who's just executing poorly not the "oh my god mind game".
MK's **** requires great timing, great spacing and like 70 inputs per frame. **** that.
P.S. this notion from all this is the reason why some players (like ZeRo) are saying Brawl's getting faster, more aggressive and more like melee.
They incorporate timing and spacing on every selection.
If you're in a situation which you're likely to lose, then for what reason were you in that situation in the first place? It's either a player mistake, or you're using a bad character (in general or in that MU). When you're in that type of situation, the best option is still likely to lose. That player could have mixed up a FF AD (for example) instead of something else and get away with it. But these situations played out properly and executed properly are frame trap scenarios. That's a mistake of the initiator, not some sort of mega mind game.
"Best options" are best because of how they are used, not because of their just "pure usage". We've struggled to deal with Meta Knight for half a decade because his best options are usually self sufficient in pure usage. In fact, tier lists generally reflect how easy it is for character's to impose their merit with their best options with little proficiency (especially early in the game's life time). The best characters can punish MK's everything though when not used properly... They can also still punish almost everything in a lot of scenarios when the MK DOES USE IT PROPERLY (!!!!!) [Sorry bad characters
] (Power shields are that ****ing dumb, fyi)The best options when used correctly are generally not going to get punished. A good player getting past a best option used relatively well is as simple as a power shield or timing a roll, crouch or spot dodge. Getting past a best option used amazingly well, is, as some would expect, generally not punished. Usually player reaction at the time is something like "that was ****ing amazing".
Then we get the situation where Meta Knight's are properly timing/spacing their nados [incl the ending], the use of their mid air jumps properly for fast vertical acceleration frame trapping everything (!!!!) etc etc and this tippity top level of MK (which is still expanding) thwarts every character up to a certain point. Otori is beating characters he's never played before in his life just by being exceptional with Tornado. I've had Vinnie and Tyrant both say to me (well, listening to a conversation between the two) "Anti using ftilt properly is basically gg".
My personal vexations of MK are his inconsistent ability to approach and the level of skill required to actually achieve MK's best usages for his best options. Other characters are a little easier to define for their best options/usages (Falco: landing laser being silent, Marth hitting fair frame 4 or 7 only, Olimar fsmashing with yellow for it's vertical priority wall, etc etc), and when done consistently by the best players usually win. At the top level when you watch matches, you most often see the losing player as the one who's just executing poorly not the "oh my god mind game".
MK's **** requires great timing, great spacing and like 70 inputs per frame. **** that.
P.S. this notion from all this is the reason why some players (like ZeRo) are saying Brawl's getting faster, more aggressive and more like melee.
smashkng
Smash Lord
I believe that in top level play option limiting>>reads. Predicting is nothing that is ever 100% reliable. In the long run it's more reliable to cover options and then make tiny, tiny mix ups every now and then that cover the few options they have against the moves you threw out before. For example, in a lot of situations (usually when they have very few frames to get out). I can limit players options so that they have to choose between shielding and spot dodging (like right after they land to the ground). They shield, I can grab them and set up powerful strings. They spot dodge (which is the only thing that reliably punishes grab attempts), I can react to it and punish that. They attack, I can grab armor that or shield and punish. They try to roll, either it's too slow to punish the cooldown of missed grabs, or "too bad, I'm too far away for you to roll behind me" and if I don't attempt to grab, I can also react and punish that. It may not be guaranteed, but you can still see that by covering options it usually either ends on either no one taking damage or a huge reward for the attacker, which means "low risk, huge reward". In this case the spot dodge is the only move that can allow the defender to put any damage on the attacker if he grabs, but spot dodging also being easily punishable if the attacker decides not to grab.
Knowing how to position so that most of the opponent's moves become reactable and when moves are reactable to is really important IMO because reacting, unlike prediction, is something you can rely on. So I'd say that whenever there is a chance to play reactive, it should always be done, unless you know that you can get a hard read that allows a much severe punishment than the punishment you can get by reacting (and most top tiers do have fast enough punishments that also give huge rewards, to be done reactively in many situations).
Knowing how to position so that most of the opponent's moves become reactable and when moves are reactable to is really important IMO because reacting, unlike prediction, is something you can rely on. So I'd say that whenever there is a chance to play reactive, it should always be done, unless you know that you can get a hard read that allows a much severe punishment than the punishment you can get by reacting (and most top tiers do have fast enough punishments that also give huge rewards, to be done reactively in many situations).
Marth mains know whats up. Gotta keep preaching.
smashkng
Smash Lord
Props to Zero and Shaya for their amazing advice. I wish there were more top players who could explain in depth how to become a top player.
Master Raven
Smash Master
lol what is everyone's problem with ESAM repping Pika in MUs?
Does it not make sense that higher level play is taken into account of MUs, because high level players are able to use more of their character's tools, thereby better representing what their character is capable of? Why would I care what's going on in lower levels of play, when lower level players aren't using all the tools available to them? idk it makes more intuitive sense to me.
Does it not make sense that higher level play is taken into account of MUs, because high level players are able to use more of their character's tools, thereby better representing what their character is capable of? Why would I care what's going on in lower levels of play, when lower level players aren't using all the tools available to them? idk it makes more intuitive sense to me.
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,310
I think the main issue is partially rooted from the MK v Pikachu issue. If you want to follow my logic:
-ESAM is considered to be the "outlier" of skill that represents top level Pikachu play, with no Pikachu really putting up anywhere near similar results. That being said, a huge reason the MU is considered "even" is because of how "well" ESAM does against top MKs
-When considering sets against similarly ELO'd MKs (and thereby figuring he's similarly skilled as them based on ability to win, regardless of MU), he has a very disadvantageous game count against MKs since Apex 2012 (which is the time period considered for the MU chart) in tournament sets. Given he's the only Pikachu that's managed to even take multiple games off of more than one top MK, he again confirms the idea he's the top Pika to consider in comparison to the rest that get lit up almost universally by MK.
-Despite statistical trend indicating a clear results based conclusion, ESAM leverages his ethos as a top player in order to argue an option vs. option evaluation for an even matchup in theory, running contrary to the reality of wins and losses creating a disconnect.
- By in large, many people seem to associate that same disconnect from reality in results and theory and attribute it to ESAM's character pride creating an inflated MU spread. Ironically and unfortunately, he actually has the results (as far as I know since I haven't actually counted for other characters like I have for MK) to back other claims that people seem to scream "outlier" (see Pika v Marth).
TLDR - If anything ESAM makes the IC v MK MU look even, not the Pika v MK MU
-ESAM is considered to be the "outlier" of skill that represents top level Pikachu play, with no Pikachu really putting up anywhere near similar results. That being said, a huge reason the MU is considered "even" is because of how "well" ESAM does against top MKs
-When considering sets against similarly ELO'd MKs (and thereby figuring he's similarly skilled as them based on ability to win, regardless of MU), he has a very disadvantageous game count against MKs since Apex 2012 (which is the time period considered for the MU chart) in tournament sets. Given he's the only Pikachu that's managed to even take multiple games off of more than one top MK, he again confirms the idea he's the top Pika to consider in comparison to the rest that get lit up almost universally by MK.
-Despite statistical trend indicating a clear results based conclusion, ESAM leverages his ethos as a top player in order to argue an option vs. option evaluation for an even matchup in theory, running contrary to the reality of wins and losses creating a disconnect.
- By in large, many people seem to associate that same disconnect from reality in results and theory and attribute it to ESAM's character pride creating an inflated MU spread. Ironically and unfortunately, he actually has the results (as far as I know since I haven't actually counted for other characters like I have for MK) to back other claims that people seem to scream "outlier" (see Pika v Marth).
TLDR - If anything ESAM makes the IC v MK MU look even, not the Pika v MK MU
I think we're on the same page and just have slightly different definitions, lol.
Options aren't as simple as using just fair or air dodging though.
They incorporate timing and spacing on every selection.
If you're in a situation which you're likely to lose, then for what reason were you in that situation in the first place? It's either a player mistake, or you're using a bad character (in general or in that MU). When you're in that type of situation, the best option is still likely to lose. That player could have mixed up a FF AD (for example) instead of something else and get away with it. But these situations played out properly and executed properly are frame trap scenarios. That's a mistake of the initiator, not some sort of mega mind game.
"Best options" are best because of how they are used, not because of their just "pure usage". We've struggled to deal with Meta Knight for half a decade because his best options are usually self sufficient in pure usage. In fact, tier lists generally reflect how easy it is for character's to impose their merit with their best options with little proficiency (especially early in the game's life time). The best characters can punish MK's everything though when not used properly... They can also still punish almost everything in a lot of scenarios when the MK DOES USE IT PROPERLY (!!!!!) [Sorry bad characters
The best options when used correctly are generally not going to get punished. A good player getting past a best option used relatively well is as simple as a power shield or timing a roll, crouch or spot dodge. Getting past a best option used amazingly well, is, as some would expect, generally not punished. Usually player reaction at the time is something like "that was ****ing amazing".
Then we get the situation where Meta Knight's are properly timing/spacing their nados [incl the ending], the use of their mid air jumps properly for fast vertical acceleration frame trapping everything (!!!!) etc etc and this tippity top level of MK (which is still expanding) thwarts every character up to a certain point. Otori is beating characters he's never played before in his life just by being exceptional with Tornado. I've had Vinnie and Tyrant both say to me (well, listening to a conversation between the two) "Anti using ftilt properly is basically gg".
My personal vexations of MK are his inconsistent ability to approach and the level of skill required to actually achieve MK's best usages for his best options. Other characters are a little easier to define for their best options/usages (Falco: landing laser being silent, Marth hitting fair frame 4 or 7 only, Olimar fsmashing with yellow for it's vertical priority wall, etc etc), and when done consistently by the best players usually win. At the top level when you watch matches, you most often see the losing player as the one who's just executing poorly not the "oh my god mind game".
MK's **** requires great timing, great spacing and like 70 inputs per frame. **** that.
P.S. this notion from all this is the reason why some players (like ZeRo) are saying Brawl's getting faster, more aggressive and more like melee.
""Best options" are best because of how they are used" this is what I meant by what a smart player does. Options have to be used properly. What I meant was more about players always using the obvious choice as bad. For example a Fox would almost always Dair>Usmash at kill %s which was a good option but I started to see it coming and he became extremely punishable even for a bad character like Link. This could be considered a dumb use of good options but in that not the best option.
MK is well, MK
. He's really good in almost every option. I agree with your points and that PS are stupid. A good shield game can make or break a character in Brawl. If we went down the tier list a bit characters have to rely more and more on mindgames and reads, some more than others. A diddy who's smart with bananas is harder than one who's aggressive with them. If I'm playing as G&W, a smart Peaches can be a ***** to fight because their spacing mindgames and mixups. Which is what you meant in general anyway; proper use of best options. What smashkng said in post 288 describes some characters better than others. It sounds like the way to go for Marth
"low risk, huge reward" is not in most of my characters vocabularies lol.
smashkng
Smash Lord
Yeah Link doesn't really have that. For example his grab is so bad. His moves aren't really safe on block either except Zair. But don't you use Wolf Rizen? I'm pretty sure that Wolf has such "low risk, huge reward options" considering how good his Bair is (which is similar to Marth's Fair other than the hitbox not being an arc), he having actually a pretty decent grab and he having pretty good strings.
Wolf's Bair is great. I never thought of it as a huge reward but it's low risk and very good for sure. Wolf gets exploited bad by annoying tactics some characters have and that brings him down in ranking. He has several great tools.
In some MUs I'd consider G&W to be a low risk, high reward character but other MUs he must take bad gambits.
In some MUs I'd consider G&W to be a low risk, high reward character but other MUs he must take bad gambits.
GW is such a weird character. You have no choice but to be super obvious with your game and you can still pull off a win if you can outpace or outspace your opponent with your bull****. And most of his stuff is unsafe too, unless you make them scared you are going to have a hard time. I don't think he has low risk / high reward against any good character.
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
I'm happy that I understand and agree with this.
I'm still working my way on being good at it, though ha.
Everyone is like that vs them.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
That match-up is difficult because of dtilt, not bair.
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
Oh wow I just realized the discussion Rizen and I had on Link - Lucas was a bit useless, the MU is already +/-1. Hehe he was talking about Lukin's comment. Well fair enough. :D
Hey Grim since you're here and Lukin also touched on it, what do you think of Jiggly - Lucas?
Hey Grim since you're here and Lukin also touched on it, what do you think of Jiggly - Lucas?
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Winnable for either party, don't know it well enough to give an exact ratio, but I can't ever say any match-up is in Jigg's favour or even - so it'd have to be -1 Lucas' favour.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
this whole 'if someone has an advantage, they should always win' concept... Where did that come from. Because who ever came up with that is stupid.
Lets say you have a character that has a strong advantage on another. but that advantage only comes into play when the character is offstage. Character A has all the tools to kill character B every single time he goes offstage. But character B has all the tools necessary to keep character A from getting in on him and putting him offstage for the entire match.
Character A may have the advantage in the matchup, because he can get a kill every time he gets in successfully. But that doesn't mean that character is going to win every single time, Because Character B may be able, at times to keep him out for the entire game and win the match.
So while character A has an advantage overall in the matchup, the main advantage comes from a time and position that the character will not always have the ability to exploit. Thus, it would be stupid to say that Char. A should win every single time just because he has a minor advantage.
Whoever said that is bad and should feel bad.
Lets say you have a character that has a strong advantage on another. but that advantage only comes into play when the character is offstage. Character A has all the tools to kill character B every single time he goes offstage. But character B has all the tools necessary to keep character A from getting in on him and putting him offstage for the entire match.
Character A may have the advantage in the matchup, because he can get a kill every time he gets in successfully. But that doesn't mean that character is going to win every single time, Because Character B may be able, at times to keep him out for the entire game and win the match.
So while character A has an advantage overall in the matchup, the main advantage comes from a time and position that the character will not always have the ability to exploit. Thus, it would be stupid to say that Char. A should win every single time just because he has a minor advantage.
Whoever said that is bad and should feel bad.
Dekillsage
Smash Lord
So many essays
so little time
so little time
Djent
Smash Champion
You're correct, but you could have just said "variance" and been done.
Good players may have higher probabilities of picking the correct option, but a correct choice is never 100% guaranteed. If it were, we'd frequently see JV 4 stocks among players of vastly different skill levels. But because skill relates to option selection probabilistically, there's a lot of wiggle room so long as matchups aren't horribly lopsided.
It's because of factors like these that even slightly bad matchups can be overcome among players of equal skill.
Good players may have higher probabilities of picking the correct option, but a correct choice is never 100% guaranteed. If it were, we'd frequently see JV 4 stocks among players of vastly different skill levels. But because skill relates to option selection probabilistically, there's a lot of wiggle room so long as matchups aren't horribly lopsided.
It's because of factors like these that even slightly bad matchups can be overcome among players of equal skill.
1PokeMastr
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,251
Falcon vs Jiggs..
Jiggs can Bair all day and cross it up out of the wa-zoo.
Jiggs can Bair all day and cross it up out of the wa-zoo.
Vinnie
Smash Master
I wanted nothing to do with the project because bad people are allowed to input their opinion, thus, defeating the purpose of an 'official matchup chart'
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Jiggs beats Falcon like +2
Falcon really sucks
Falcon really sucks
| Big D |
Smash Master
WHERE WERE YOU DURING THE 100+ POST DISCUSSION OF ICS DDD?!
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN WE HAD TO SORT THROUGH ESSAY UPON ESSAY TO GET OUR +1 OVER YOSHI?!
You had the opportunity to make a difference and you didn't take it. It's easy to make a list, it's another thing to debate the change against opposition.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
You misinterpreted.
I didn't say that if someone has an advantage, they should always win. I said that if a character has an advantage, they should always win. Obviously player variance makes this moot in reality, but MUs assume two players of equal skill.
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
Didnt Yika and I agree with you guys though? Lol.
| Big D |
Smash Master
You never actually posted in the discussion and Yika argued for even.
Was basically me and Lux vs the world.
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
what round was that discussion in?
| Big D |
Smash Master
It was round 1.
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
Im like, 95% sure I commented at least 3 or 4 times. I think I dropped out of the discussion towards the end, but I definitely remember in the beginning saying I thought it was a disadvantage for us.
I went to go check but all the threads are inaccessible now lol.
I went to go check but all the threads are inaccessible now lol.
| Big D |
Smash Master
You and Yika suggested to change ICs Yoshi to -1 in your panel thread where your panel came up with changes to present. That's probably what you are thinking of.
In the actual discussion where both panels were present, Yika argued even and you didn't post.
(I still have access)
In the actual discussion where both panels were present, Yika argued even and you didn't post.
(I still have access)
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
Ah, thats probably it. I remembered saying that, guess it just wasnt in the place Im thinking I said it.
- Status