Project M Social Thread Gold

[Arcturian]

Also he may be a master archer, but in the episode I just watched he shot a grenade that was fired out of a grenade launcher like 10 feet in front of him. The man doesn't even have super intuition or a spider sense, he's just a highly trained dude. He didn't even have his bow drawn when the grenade was fired.

 

[Lizalfos]

Also he may be a master archer, but in the episode I just watched he shot a grenade that was fired out of a grenade launcher like 10 feet in front of him. The man doesn't even have super intuition or a spider sense, he's just a highly trained dude. He didn't even have his bow drawn when the grenade was fired.

So he is a force user? You know. Like how Walter White and Gus are force users who will rule the drug industry as cook and distributor.

 

[CORY]

I'd say "Just let them get stabbed instead", but in Star War universe it's lightsabers and it's not cool to stab people with those. Those things hurt

At least light sabers cauterize their wounds. You don't need to worry so much about a later infection causing issues.

 

[Bleck]

Would the best female MMA fighters be able to keep a fairly even score with the best male MMA fighters?

yes, because the slight, nigh-unnoticeable advantages that some men may have over some women with regards to physical strength don't account for the much more important differences in skill

to put it in terms you may be more familiar with - how do you explain people winning Melee tournaments as characters who aren't Fox, even though Fox is objectively the best character by a noticeable margin?

 

[PlateProp]

This avatar is god tier

 

[MechWarriorNY]

 

[Mansta]

Ugh I forgot to bring my mouse to my Grandma's house, trackpads suck and my hands hurt now from all the stylesheet stuff I did earlier.

 

[DrinkingFood]

yes, because the slight, nigh-unnoticeable advantages that some men may have over some women with regards to physical strength don't account for the much more important differences in skill

to put it in terms you may be more familiar with - how do you explain people winning Melee tournaments as characters who aren't Fox, even though Fox is objectively the best character by a noticeable margin?

I would hardly call them slight differences. And yeah, in order for them to NOT make a difference, the women would have to be more skilled on average. There's no evidence for women being more skilled fighters on average, yet plenty of evidence for the physical strength difference. How is this really worth arguing?

 

[MechWarriorNY]

>talking to Bleck

How is this really worth arguing?

>not knowing in advance that the answer to that question is "Arguing with this goon is never worth it."

 

[Bleck]

yet plenty of evidence for the physical strength difference

where is this evidence

 

[Fortress]

What the **** is this neckbeard thread.

 

[Bleck]

What the **** is this neckbeard thread.

are you talkin' about the anime stuff or the sad, soft nerds still clinging desperately to the notion that they are, at the very least, inherently physically superior to women

 

[DrinkingFood]

where is this evidence

https://www.researchgate.net/public...lar_strength_in_equally-trained_men_and_women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17186303
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=male+female+physical+strength+study

bleck don't be obstinate. This is an incredibly common kind of study done. I literally pulled the first 3 results for studies on google. You could have easily checked yourself if you were willing to be wrong.

Spoiler

but drinkingfood, some of those are just abstracts!

yeah the world of scientific publishing can be stupid sometimes, stuff ends up behind paywalls because there's not always money behind the publishers without that. The full papers are likely behind said paywalls, unless there's a free link somewhere on those pages, I didn't check because the abstract already holds the conclusion/results

are you talkin' about the anime stuff or the sad, soft nerds still clinging desperately to the notion that they are, at the very least, inherently physically superior to women

this isn't about anyone being physically superior. it's about facts. Is that hard to understand?

 

[MechWarriorNY]

DrinkingFood What are you doing.

are you talkin' about the anime stuff or the sad, soft nerds still clinging desperately to the notion that they are, at the very least, inherently physically superior to women

Both.

 

[Lizalfos]

are you talkin' about the anime stuff or the sad, soft nerds still clinging desperately to the notion that they are, at the very least, inherently physically superior to women

Lol not me specifically but I had always believed that men can just build more muscle.
Actually what am I doing I just had an hour and a half game of dota **** that game awful every time my friends drag me into it.

 

[Fortress]

Weird way to spell 'Inferior League'.

 

[FPSWalrus]

Spoiler: Undertale Discussion

What else do you think the hand holding scene in the beginning was for?

I also think the game was designed to be simple enough for most people to beat as the only non hand holding portions of the game are in the genocide section and learning bosses patterns.

Hell some of the puzzles solve themselves if you fail them enough.



I'd agree with that. The other routes didn't have build up but was more focused on the player enjoying a laugh at some bad jokes for the most part.

Outside of genocide which boss fight did you like the best?

Spoiler: cont undertale spoilers

flowey fight was super hype

your game crashing and then his ass calling himself god while you fight this giant abomination of a graphic designers passion while one of the scariest OSTs in the game play

and then the hearts start rebelling and his defense drops to zero and the ****ing best theme comes on while you make him screech with ever increasing damage

like holy **** then you have the option to save him
just yoooo

 

[Bleck]

glub

the first study's results are invalid because they don't quantify the differences in training regiments in subjects (the widespread belief that women are inherently weaker than men will invariably cause women to train to achieve lower results than men, which skews the data)

the second study measures the amount of muscle fibers in male and female subjects, but the result is, again, meaningless without actually comparing to previous physical activity

the third study accounts for trained women athletes, and concludes the the women athletes are even then rarely as strong as the men, but doesn't actually define under what circumstances the men in the study are considered to be "untrained", nor does it define the circumstances under which the women trained their grip strength (it notably mentions that handball requires "high grip strength", which is vague at best and kind of laughable at worst)

the wikipedia article takes a vague stance; it notes what the trends are, but maintains that they are trends (as opposed to physical laws), and hypothesizes that men have a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy - while it links this to the presence of testosterone, it fails to note that the ovaries in females also produce testosterone, and that the amount of testosterone produced is linked to physical activity

like you googled all of that stuff real quick but it sort of sounds like you either didn't read it or didn't stop to consider what it means and/or how it could be wrong

 

[Kurri ★]

the first study's results are invalid because they don't quantify the differences in training regiments in subjects (the widespread belief that women are inherently weaker than men will invariably cause women to train to achieve lower results than men, which skews the data)

the second study measures the amount of muscle fibers in male and female subjects, but the result is, again, meaningless without actually comparing to previous physical activity

the third study accounts for trained women athletes, and concludes the the women athletes are even then rarely as strong as the men, but doesn't actually define under what circumstances the men in the study are considered to be "untrained", nor does it define the circumstances under which the women trained their grip strength (it notably mentions that handball requires "high grip strength", which is vague at best and kind of laughable at worst)

the wikipedia article takes a vague stance; it notes what the trends are, but maintains that they are trends (as opposed to physical laws), and hypothesizes that men have a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy - while it links this to the presence of testosterone, it fails to note that the ovaries in females also produce testosterone, and that the amount of testosterone produced is linked to physical activity

like you googled all of that stuff real quick but it sort of sounds like you either didn't read it or didn't stop to consider what it means and/or how it could be wrong

B-But you're wrong because you're Bleck and you're dumb or something like that.

 

[Binary Clone]

I think he missed the point of my post. Hosting Female Only events, I think, would suggest or imply to a lot of people that we made the events with the mentality of "Well they are Girls, they aren't equal in Smash Skill so let's have these events so they can 'compete'". If you're trying to promote an all-inclusive environment, separating people into a different event seems counter-intuitive.


I also don't think hosting Female Only events would address most possible root causes. Like you host a Girl's Only bracket one week, next week they come back to a "regular" event with guys who are still sexist, creepy, gross, etc. Hosting those events wouldn't be tackling any issues like that, wouldn't fix the enviornment, etc.


MMA and contact sports are kind of an unfair example, because many blatantly separate people into weight classes regardless (with the mentality that extra weight/muscle gives an advantage vs leaner fighters past certain thresholds).

Some sports, men are expected to hold a physical advantage in based on average height, weight, limb reach, muscle mass / body fat proportions, etc. Whether it's fair or desirable to separate Genders in those sports because of those expected advantages (or vise versa: sports/activities Women are expected to have an advantage in) is something my original post doesn't care about. The fact that current sports and activities often make these distinctions/assumptions with separate events, then having us running a separate event in Smash, would carry over the advantage presumption.


I dunno if that presumption is true or fair for other things, but I'd say on face value that it should not be true for Smash. Which was the whole point of my post you dingus

Well I mean, I think it's easier to break this down into points that should be fairly uncontroversial and go from there, at least where the idea of female-only events are concerned.

1. There are more male smashers than female smashers
2. There are more professional male smashers than professional female smashers
3. It is feasible that the typically male-heavy events have the potential to make female smashers feel out of place or uncomfortable, regardless of whether or not the males in question are treating them as they should (which is to say, as smashers, with no extra distinctions as to sex or gender).
4. Diversity is good.

So long as the female-only events are centered around the comfort and acceptance of a group of smashers that is small or feels out of place, etc., I think they could be a positive thing. The challenge, I suppose, is finding a way to help increase diversity without ending up segregating things completely and having things like men's leagues and women's leagues or anything.

I don't think it's cut-and-dry, though. I don't know the answer. I think the best thing would be if it were put on by women, for women, with an express purpose in mind, if it were to happen. I'd totally help out, and I would support events like that, but it's really out of my hands, to me.

 

[Bleck]

Weird way to spell 'Inferior League'.

dota 2 is so bad don't even get me started

 

[standardtoaster]

Just calm down and play ultra imo

 

[Rᴏb]

I just got Ultra the other day, could any of you guys recommend me a cheap fight stick?

 

[Fortress]

Just calm down and play ultra imo

Already doing that. Where are you, fool?

I just got Ultra the other day, could any of you guys recommend me a cheap fight stick?

Madcatz TE2. $200, venerable model. Very easy to replace all parts. If you want cheap, you're looking at the Quanba Q2.

 

[Fortress]

Goddamnit, Vashimus I ****ing see you in the thread. Fight me already.

 

[Rᴏb]

**** dude I'm not made of money. by cheap I'm talkin $60 at the most

 

[Kurri ★]

**** dude I'm not made of money. by cheap I'm talkin $60 at the most

I don't think you'd want a stick if it's less than $60, you may be better off finding a fightpad then.

 

[Fortress]

**** dude I'm not made of money. by cheap I'm talkin $60 at the most

Pft. I blew every dime I had at the time on mine. You gotta want it.

 

[MonkUnit]

I just got Ultra the other day, could any of you guys recommend me a cheap fight stick?

Mayflash PS2 PS3 PC USB Universal Arcade Fighting Stick $45 + Free Shipping
Qanba Q1 $80 + Free Shipping

I have not used the Mayflash stick, but I did use the Qanba Q1 for at least a year before getting a Hori RAP4.

 

[Fortress]

I moved on to my TE2 after breaking my Q1. I still have the parts after I stripped it. Honestly, if you're going to go with a stick that you're planning on putting serious work into, you're best off getting one of the high-end models. The entry ones won't last you long with heavy use.

 

[standardtoaster]

**** dude I'm not made of money. by cheap I'm talkin $60 at the most

 

[DrinkingFood]

the first study's results are invalid because they don't quantify the differences in training regiments in subjects (the widespread belief that women are inherently weaker than men will invariably cause women to train to achieve lower results than men, which skews the data)

the second study measures the amount of muscle fibers in male and female subjects, but the result is, again, meaningless without actually comparing to previous physical activity

the third study accounts for trained women athletes, and concludes the the women athletes are even then rarely as strong as the men, but doesn't actually define under what circumstances the men in the study are considered to be "untrained", nor does it define the circumstances under which the women trained their grip strength (it notably mentions that handball requires "high grip strength", which is vague at best and kind of laughable at worst)

the wikipedia article takes a vague stance; it notes what the trends are, but maintains that they are trends (as opposed to physical laws), and hypothesizes that men have a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy - while it links this to the presence of testosterone, it fails to note that the ovaries in females also produce testosterone, and that the amount of testosterone produced is linked to physical activity

like you googled all of that stuff real quick but it sort of sounds like you either didn't read it or didn't stop to consider what it means and/or how it could be wrong

What would be your criteria then, for men being physically stronger? Do we need to test two 25 year olds who have been training since birth every day til they collapse only to repeat the procedure the next day? You are moving goalposts- there's no reason to believe that's there's any value to the statement "The strongest a women could potentially be is as the strongest a man could potentially be"; meanwhile, men being in general stronger than women has clear consequences in every day life, and male athletes almost always being stronger than female athletes leads to them being better fighters the majority of the time given equal skill. Those things are real questions worth asking, and have already been answered with men being physically stronger in any equal, practical situation. Basically, the only scenario where this is worth questioning is a stupid, pointless scenario, one that leads to a stupid, pointless question.

There's no reason to believe that if trained females are weaker than a portion of the population of untrained men that those women, if they trained harder, would see a boost in performance greater than the men would if they trained. Strength training, like many kinds of training, function on the property of diminishing returns. If men have higher lower bounds for strength, it's not an unsafe assumption that an equally high amount of training would provide at least equal returns, giving higher total strength. While there's no clearly defined upper limit for strength, setting any possible boundary clearly places women at much less likely to reach that goal, or even come close.

Also, do you really just want hard raw numbers? Here. Body building. It's not scientific, no, but you seem to be the kind of person that ignores scientific consensus anyway. Inb4 "but these doesn't take into account that the strongest potential woman just didn't get into strength training and as such she was never able to match men's powerlifting etc etc". Again, not a practical criticism.
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-world
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/world (men's; scroll down to drug tested results- for some reason there is no separation for drug tested results for women)

 

[MechWarriorNY]

>arguing about gender-based things on the Internet
>arguing about them with Bleck

 

[Rᴏb]

I moved on to my TE2 after breaking my Q1. I still have the parts after I stripped it. Honestly, if you're going to go with a stick that you're planning on putting serious work into, you're best off getting one of the high-end models. The entry ones won't last you long with heavy use.

thing is, since I'm so new to modern fighting games I don't really know how far I'm gonna end up taking this. I doubt I'm going to put serious work into the game for the foreseeable future, and I don't even know if I'm capable of heavily using a stick. If I buy the Q1 that Monk linked, should I expect it to break from casual use?

 

[Bleck]

just don't get a stick, louffy proved you don't need one

 

[Arcturian]

 

[standardtoaster]

thing is, since I'm so new to modern fighting games I don't really know how far I'm gonna end up taking this. I doubt I'm going to put serious work into the game for the foreseeable future, and I don't even know if I'm capable of heavily using a stick. If I buy the Q1 that Monk linked, should I expect it to break from casual use?

The Q1 will be perfectly fine. I had the Q1 for over a year and played almost every day.I've never had any issues.

 

[MonkUnit]

Regardless of the cost of the stick, if you don't like the stick or just end up not using for whatever reason, you can always sell it and make some of the money back.

 

[Fortress]

thing is, since I'm so new to modern fighting games

Street Fighter is as old as dirt, man.

I don't really know how far I'm gonna end up taking this.

You should put some serious work in. I can get you on the right track in a week. Add me on Steam. Actually, if you're on, we can start right now.

I don't even know if I'm capable of heavily using a stick.

Were you capable of using a GC pad competently when you started?

If I buy the Q1 that Monk linked, should I expect it to break from casual use?

Depends on what you mean by 'casual'. Mine lasted me for about half a year before the wear started.

You honestly don't need a stick to perform well in these games. Just use whatever's handy. The important part is that you're playing at all. Plenty of top-professionals are pad warriors, like my boy, Tampa Bison.

 

[Vashimus]

I've met a player named Mahouko in tournament. Amazing Northeast Guilty Gear player, arguably the best Bridget player in the country during Accent Core, great May in Xrd. He made top 8 regularly with this $7 piece of **** PS2 stick.

I know he has a Qanba which he occasionally switches to now, but he says this one is his favorite.

It's certainly possible to play with a crappy stick but if you've never touched a stick before, you're better off learning with a quality one. You definitely get what you pay for, those suckers can take a lot of punishment. Not to mention you get better resale value from a quality stick than a crappy one if you end up not liking it.