I agreed that talking about a character taking away another specific character's slot (except possibly another character from the same game/series... see: Robin and Chrom) doesn't make sense, because it makes too many assumptions. Namely, it assumes that your favored character was next in line... when it might be quite far down the list.
The assumption that there are limited resources/time/desire is not silly or unjustified. That's the way the world generally works. I see the assumption that they can always just add another character as the one that requires evidence, not the other way around. There are more worthy characters that they could add than they will add; I don't see that as a controversial statement.
Simply put, not working on Roy frees up time and effort that they could use on a different character. I really don't see how this can be disputed.
Not really. You're attempting to explain why the factors I think should matter don't matter to the devs, but none of that is actually an argument that I, personally, shouldn't care about them. I'm irritated at how much representation Fire Emblem gets, especially given how I see it as less deserving than, say, DK in pretty much every dimension (including the objectively measurable ones). I didn't like Fire Emblem getting four reps and therefore I don't want more Fire Emblem characters to get in. People like different things than you. Like I said: Get over it.
I think you're the one who's off-base.
http://smashboards.com/threads/rate...cial-group-today.351920/page-58#post-16747675
I actually did the math. Using just sales (on a logarithmic scale, technically) + previous roster (i.e. the bias against cutting veterans) has a pretty decent correlation (R^2 = 0.76) with the number of slots a franchise gets. Why would there be this strong mathematical correlation if I was "completely off-base"? And yes, the new roster has a similar correlation with what the statistics would predict (and it does even better if you exclude the last-minute clones not subject to the same decision process, and the Ice Climbers who were cut for technical reasons, interestingly enough...).
You are arguing based on what appears to be opinion. But when I say franchise sales matter, I have hard evidence. You apparently didn't take me seriously when I said that this was an actual statistical relationship. Not "hearsay."
I agree that there are plenty of other factors. But a correlation with R^2 of 0.76 is nowhere near irrelevant.
And I already stated in the post you're replying to that the Smash Ballot is a very good reason to think that the factors will be weighted differently for DLC. But it isn't a good enough reason for me to say that now we can completely ignore those factors. Give them less importance, yes. Say that they don't matter, no.
Yes, they added Robin and then not Chrom, which is entirely consistent with number of reps for franchises mattering. Not sure how this argues against what I said.
(Lucina was minimal effort since they had already made her as an alt skin, so she doesn't quite fit into the same reasoning.)
Which is why I specifically said that these are not the only factors! You're beating a straw man.
Reread what I said, and don't assume that when I'm saying sales/slots/reps matter, that this means I'm saying they're the only thing that matters. Especially because I explicitly said they weren't the only things that matter in my post.
Is it that they had initially considered Ryu instead of Mega Man?
Last edited:
