R.I.P. Kjell Anders "Nappy" Peterson.

[Berserker.]

Wow this Social thread became more like a research thread

Really cool job Susa and xeylo

 

[Attila_]

i am so glad susa is back... the snake boards are being so constructive.

<3

 

[RATED]

SuSa you are really bored I assume. Also IMO stop worrying THAT much about Pummels, is important but there's better stuff to research or just to learn.

spamming dat **** like SuSa.

 

[etecoon]

my snake lost to someone on aib today that I two stocked twice in a row last month in person, why do people think snake is good online loool

 

[MJG]

Snakes broken on wifi.


Wifi is so bad anyways..why do people play it still...wait, why am I here? lol..

oh yea..whats the deal with the thread title? XD

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

Let's just all go Pit.

10s

 

[etecoon]

Snakes broken on wifi.

said the TOON LINK player LMFAO

 

[MJG]

I don't even play wifi...

Stop complaining about wifi please. Most people know its bad

 

[RATED]

Snakes broken on wifi.


Wifi is so bad anyways..why do people play it still...wait, why am I here? lol..

oh yea..whats the deal with the thread title? XD

I want to play your TL, I saw your TL vs Bassem's Wario and another match vs Atomsk.

sadly I live too far, but I know the TL matchup a lot. Playing TL every smashfest, friendlies, tourney and even my team partner is a TL. ( TLMsheikant) you know him lol

come to Puerto Rico, let's play MM then go back :D ( jk)

 

[MJG]

@Rated: Lmao..that would be such a good reason to go to PR. Aren't you guys going to pound 5? and yes...Sant and I are TWINS.

But really..I haven't played wifi in so long rated and I don't plan on playing it again...so, we will only be able to play offline some day.

 

[etecoon]

I don't even play wifi...

then you decided to chime in on it...why?

 

[Calzorz]

im very bored in other news i heard Ultimate Razer beat mikehaze and gnes and won the tourny ? if so good stuff

 

[etecoon]

yeah razer 2-0'd him, very surprising given mike's history with snake(2-1 vs ally), good **** razer!

 

[Calzorz]

yeah razer 2-0'd him, very surprising given mike's history with snake(2-1 vs ally), good **** razer!

haha very true was like a year ago when ally vs haze last played though ,

but still razer did us snakes proud

 

[MJG]

then you decided to chime in on it...why?

I came to this thread for the title (and no one has answered my question still). Then saw your comment about wifi. Thats why.

 

[Morningstar]

Razer vs. Haze vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maL1AJ7BgYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xloysxj8XO8

 

[etecoon]

razer has the funnest tricks, most fun snake to watch IMO

 

[Tech-Nelium the Shark]

Razer stepping it up. Good stuff

 

[SuSa]

**** this normal skin, it loads soooooo slow. =|

You have 822 messages stored, of a total 70 allowed.

Gf anyonewho ever needs to PM me about something.. hahaha. I'm disabling my wall

EDIT:
Full PM Box
Disabled Wall
Invisible Mode

If you need to contact me, name drop me.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[UltimateRazer]

Thanks guys I was determined to win that tournament hehe. Enjoy the videos that follow.

 

[SuSa]

Good **** Razer! Watching the vids now.

The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Cherry64]

Razer vs. Haze vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maL1AJ7BgYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xloysxj8XO8

those were ****ing sexy. That was great playing.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Well, SuSa is a name searcher, so I have to come up with a name he will not name search. Sooth-Sayer perhaps.

 

[etecoon]

susa doesn't really name search

he just reads every post on this website

 

[SuSa]

I'll search that. XD

Anyways... one of the mods (or its a glitch from me getting infracted) caused my Pm box to go back up to 9999.

I'm assuming someone from the SL had something to do with it....

Then again, I wonder how you'd get the automatic PM for being infracted if your PM box is full? :o


Soooooo I'm going to try and get it filled up. Go ahead and spam me. =P

The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

SuSa has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

If you are trying to send this message to multiple recipients, remove SuSa from the recipient list and send the message again.

Betrayal SuSa!

 

[SuSa]

I forgot I overlooked that option.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[napZzz]

I am dropping Snake for ROB as far as singles are concerned. I will still use Snake in doubles.

LMMAAAOOOOOOO

you'll be back after a few rounds in tourney, probably just 1

 

[ErikG]

LMMAAAOOOOOOO

you'll be back after a few rounds in tourney, probably just 1

Like there is a 50% chance of me having to do a Snake ditto at any possible round in a NE tourney. I always lose the ditto.

 

[Underload]

Unmods get a big inbox.

Story about yesterday:

Go to Smashfest
Play Marth for a while, since he's who I've been practicing for the past few weeks
Get mostly beaten
Go to Snake for the tournament, with zero practice
2 stock people, do better against MKs
"Yep, my state still doesn't know Snake"

Probably sticking with this character for a while.

Also, when I played Mike's Marth & MK a few months ago, I could tell he was good at the matchup, but I never once got the 'brick wall' feeling while playing against him. It wasn't in tournament, but hey, I get the brick wall feeling all the time in friendlies anyway. Great **** to Razer for taking him out in tournament

 

[SuSa]

Underload, I don't know where it says I'm an unmod....

Here's a hint:
I can no longer see the staffer shack

 

[Underload]

Wait, did you lose your Smash Researcher and Debater majiggers?

 

[Zajice]

He probably hid his postbits.

 

[SuSa]

Hid postbits + chose regular title.

Having them be shown would make people think I'm a good person to request information from. Considering my wall+PM are now disabled I figured it'd be best to give people little reason to try and contact me.

 

[Underload]

Uhh, your private messaging's disabled? Did you do that yourself?

And more importantly, why the **** would you do any of this?

 

[SuSa]

I did.

Do any of what?

 

[Zajice]

SuSa's salty @ smash community, that's why.

 

[SuSa]

At most of it.

Also my Wall and PM systems were somehow enabled again? I'll assume PM from my infraction, but WTF? My wall enabled itself?

 

[Zatchiel]

Hey guys, i'm trying to pick Snake up as an alternative because i'm losing every match i play with F tier.
Any basics?

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

Camp with nades, space with F-Tilt?

Just try the directory thread.


Also guys, I thinking about solo'ing Snake. Every tournament I've ever placed well in was because of Snake. My D3 is solid but it hasn't been doing it. Not sure if I should just go all Snake or not yet but it may be a better idea.