Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[IAW]

I know everyone is say that the match-up can't actually be a 0-100 matchup because there is the possibility that the dk would make no mistakes and not get grabbed 3 times. Since we are dealing with ratios here which can be converted to percentages allow me to switch out the word possibility for probability. If we are looking at strictly the probability of the match up then it is possible to make the argument that it is a 0-100 matchup. There is such thing as a statistical impossibility. I believe anything with odds less than 1 out of 10^200 is statistically impossible to ever happen. There are too many variables to account for to find out if it is worse than those odds. One could make simplifications but it would always be innaccurate. Regardless, saying the matchup is definately not 0-100 is false unless it can be proven that the odds or better than that.
Just an example of how one might calculate the probability of those odds would go as follows. If there is a 10% chance of landing a hit with dk without getting grabbed then in order for it to be "possible" for dk to win the match then he would have to be able to win in 200 "hits". (the inverse of 10% = 10 which taken to the 200th power = the statistic impossibility mark). Anyway, you can argue about the numbers all you want, but the point is that blindly stating that it is not an impossible match very well may not be true.

P.S. I did that statistacal analysis pretty quickly, so it may be wrong, but don't try to argue and the statistical analysis itself unless you also have a farily extensive knowledge of statistics itself. I have taken 3 college statistics courses and am a civil engineer. You'll just make yourself look dumb.

 

[IAW]

on the above, I forgot to multiply by 3 for having to grab three times in the analysis, sorry.

 

[Skyshroud]

K, I was gonna leave, but I just thought I should clarify one thing first. If a Fox can't beat a Pikachu 20% of the time when both are playing at the highest levels, then the matchup numbers don't actually apply to the highest level of play. Which they do. Therefore, if the Fox is at the highest level of play, the Pikachu will lose if he is in the bottom 20% of the highest level of play. If you can't accept this, that that means those numbers don't actually apply to the highest level of play.

Later.

Lolwut? Regardless of the fact that both players being equal is highly unlikely, (you have to account tech skill, playing 'smart', matchup knowledge, stage, knowledge of the other player's style, and a whole slew of things) that still doesn't make any sense. Why would Pikachu have to be in the BOTTOM 20%? Going by your logic, it should really be 20% worse than the other player. However, the matchup numbers only mean that at the same level Pikachu wins the match 20% more often. Regardless of the fact that these numbers are quite arbitrary, it is impossible to translate how much each skill and asset is to a specific matchup on a percentage basis. You would literally have to find out all of the skills the lacking player is missing, assign them a percentage number, and then adjust the matchup according. Not going to happen.

 

[Yuna]

K, I was gonna leave, but I just thought I should clarify one thing first. If a Fox can't beat a Pikachu 20% of the time when both are playing at the highest levels, then the matchup numbers don't actually apply to the highest level of play. Which they do. Therefore, if the Fox is at the highest level of play, the Pikachu will lose if he is in the bottom 20% of the highest level of play. If you can't accept this, that that means those numbers don't actually apply to the highest level of play.

Later.

No, match-up ratios do not equal probability ratios.

80-20 does not mean that 2 out of every 10 matches will be won by Fox. 80-20 means that for every match played, in each match, Fox will stand a 20% of winning and 80% of losing.

This does not stack up between matches. This does not mean that on average, Fox wins 2 out of 10, 4 out of 20 or 20 out of 100 matches. Unless I'm horribly mistaken for years and no one's ever corrected me on this.

 

[Skyshroud]

No, match-up ratios do not equal probability ratios.

80-20 does not mean that 2 out of every 10 matches will be won by Fox. 80-20 means that for every match played, in each match, Fox will stand a 20% of winning and 80% of losing.

This does not stack up between matches. This does not mean that on average, Fox wins 2 out of 10, 4 out of 20 or 20 out of 100 matches. Unless I'm horribly mistaken for years and no one's ever corrected me on this.

You are correct, sir, and you worded that part much better than I did.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Fairness is analog, not binary.

You have yet to show why fairness is even an issue at all.
There are many things that could be considered unfair but they are not banned for the same reasons th infinite will not be banned.
Fairness is simply not a factor that can be used because of the differences between individuals. That alone means it cannot be used because not everyone will agree.

Are the two really that distant from each other? What are we searching for but the meaning of "Brawl"?

The world will never know?

It is unfair. It's unfair because the other team has to do the same thing or lose. And it breaks the game for the same reason. The two really go hand in hand.

Not really, because i could be said it is unfair if the opponents were not allowed to conduct the same tactic.
Since they can use the same tactic their on even ground which can be considered perfectly fair.

Sooo your point was that the second definition was most distant from my argument and you pointed that out because that definition applied most closely to what I was trying to dictate? K. Guess you win this argument!

Don't know it sounded prettiest >_>

Seriously, when I read your post I figured it would be the closest to what you were coming to because it concerns uneven advantage/disadvantages gained.

 

[1048576]

I think 80-20 can mean either. If you have a 20% chance to win in a given match, then on average, you will win 20/100 matches.

I think that's how it works. Of course, if you and your opponent play exactly equally well for the duration of the match, you will lose every single time if you're the 20 guy.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No, match-up ratios do not equal probability ratios.

80-20 does not mean that 2 out of every 10 matches will be won by Fox. 80-20 means that for every match played, in each match, Fox will stand a 20% of winning and 80% of losing.

This does not stack up between matches. This does not mean that on average, Fox wins 2 out of 10, 4 out of 20 or 20 out of 100 matches. Unless I'm horribly mistaken for years and no one's ever corrected me on this.

Yuna I think you just contradicted yourself. "Matchup rations do not equal probability ratios. Fox will stand 20% chance of winning and 80% chance of losing." This is probability isn't it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Actually, Yuna's kind of right and kind of wrong. In terms of mathematical probability, a percentage (out of 100%) is the ratio of one event's probability to another (or multiple others). The reason 15% means anything is because of the 15%'s relation to the other 85%. There is a logical fallacy in probability called the Gambler's fallacy that states it is fallacious to assume that previous outcomes of events are mathematically connected to future outcomes (for instance, "I've flipped tails 10 times, so the next one HAS to be heads."). The problem is that probability is over time. What that means is that, given an infinite number of coin flips, the ratio of heads to tails SHOULD approach 50:50. This translates to matchup numbers pretty simply. Given an infinite number of matches (at the highest level of play), a Fox : Pika matchup SHOULD approach 20:80, and so Fox, in theory, would win 20% of the matches. This is only theoretical, though. 500 matches could play with Fox losing. The ratio only has meaning when taken in the context of theoretical probability over time.

...I'm pretty sure.

 

[IAW]

Yuna, I don't know what you've learned in statistics, but saying "for every match played, in each match, Fox will stand a 20% of winning and 80% of losing." is in fact a probability. I know this may come to a shock to you, but a probability is the percent chance out of 100% that a certain outcome will happen. So, I believe you proved yourself wrong. Match-up ratios can in fact be turned into probabilities.

 

[cutter]

Assuming the Pika/Fox matchup is 90/10 in favor of Pika:

In THEORY, you will win 10/100 of matches as Fox.

In reality, you won't win any as Fox.

 

[salaboB]

Assuming the Pika/Fox matchup is 90/10 in favor of Pika:

In THEORY, you will win 10/100 of matches as Fox.

In reality, you won't win any as Fox.

Flaw in the numbering then, it should be 100:0.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^You should also note that the actual numbers used are picked arbitrarily. There is no formula to explain why any specific matchup is listed as a particular ratio. In this case, the ratio 20:80 was just picked because they felt it was more difficult than a 30:70 (whose numbers were also picked arbitrarily), thus there could be many different opinions on what the numbers should be. Should it be 25:75? should it be 15:85? Should it be 10:90? There will be different opinions about what matchup ratios should be applicable, because there are different opinions on how hard the matchup is in comparison to other matchups.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

Flaw in the numbering then, it should be 100:0.

Pika/Fox=90/10

So if fox wins TEN percent of all matches, then he should win 10/100...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes, calling my arguments inane is an insult.

You're insulted that your arguments are attacked...

I'm sorry but the entire point of debate is to prove just that, that the opposing side's argument's are poor.

Granted, Yuna could've used nicer terminology BUT attacking a person's argument is NOT a personal insult, learn to seperate yourself from your argument. Only then is it possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I know. I've brought it up several times in this thread.

Besides, even if everyone and their mother has it, why should it not be banned? Should we ban stuff only if it's one single character who has this one deadly combo on this one other character (or a few characters)? So what if several characters have similar death combos? It's a single combo that is 0-death. Ban them all.


Peach has set-ups for grabs. Also, this is eerily similar to the D3 vs. DK infinite, which is why I brought it up.

Really? I was under the impression that peach was in the same boat as everyone else, and grabbing Wario just didn't happen in that match-up. Fair enough.

Technically items were banned because they weren't fair: They're random. It's as simple as that.

Stages with walls are banned because lots of people have wall-infinites, not just Dedede. Are there characters that can avoid these infinites? Yes, but the game would overcentralize to the characters that could avoid them.

Not that this helps the pro-ban argument in any shape or form.

No, items are turned off on standard because they created a fundamentally inferior game, in the same way that 5 card stud is inherently an inferior game to texas hold'em.


You may consider randomness unfair, but "unfair" isn't the real issue in the first place, the more random the game is, the inferior it is competitively.

But keep in mind, items have a much lower threshold for removal because the game design allows them to be removed without the need for a ban (same as removing stages from the neutral stages vs. a ban). Other aspects of randomness (ex. Peach's down-b, G&W's over-B, etc) are not removed from competative play because the game design doesn't allow it without a ban.

Falling to luck rather than skill is practically the definition of unfair. Your counter-argument is self-contradictory.

Yes, but that's not why we removed them. It's a matter of being an inferior competitive game.

MK DITTOS ALL DAI

Smooth Criminal

Can't we do captain falcon dittos instead? Pretty please?

The difference is number of errors.

It's realistic that M2K vs. Bum, Bum would make 2 or 3 less mistakes and that would win a match at a 60:40. DDD vs. DK, the number of mistakes more than Bum that M2K would have to make is no longer realistic.

But you're missing the point.

We're annoyed at you because you guys keep making MATHEMATICAL mistakes, specifically in the areas of probability.

Let me put it this way, it's not even literally impossible that an invisible pink unicorn is galloping around my living room right now.

To be literally impossible, it must be disproven, and I have yet to see any concrete reason that requires DDD to grab DK 3 times, it's just prohibitively hard to prevent.

It's a HORRIBLE match-up, but don't make math mistakes in your exaggerations.

I know everyone is say that the match-up can't actually be a 0-100 matchup because there is the possibility that the dk would make no mistakes and not get grabbed 3 times. Since we are dealing with ratios here which can be converted to percentages allow me to switch out the word possibility for probability. If we are looking at strictly the probability of the match up then it is possible to make the argument that it is a 0-100 matchup. There is such thing as a statistical impossibility. I believe anything with odds less than 1 out of 10^200 is statistically impossible to ever happen. There are too many variables to account for to find out if it is worse than those odds. One could make simplifications but it would always be innaccurate. Regardless, saying the matchup is definately not 0-100 is false unless it can be proven that the odds or better than that.
Just an example of how one might calculate the probability of those odds would go as follows. If there is a 10% chance of landing a hit with dk without getting grabbed then in order for it to be "possible" for dk to win the match then he would have to be able to win in 200 "hits". (the inverse of 10% = 10 which taken to the 200th power = the statistic impossibility mark). Anyway, you can argue about the numbers all you want, but the point is that blindly stating that it is not an impossible match very well may not be true.

P.S. I did that statistacal analysis pretty quickly, so it may be wrong, but don't try to argue and the statistical analysis itself unless you also have a farily extensive knowledge of statistics itself. I have taken 3 college statistics courses and am a civil engineer. You'll just make yourself look dumb.

Match-ups are raw probability, we don't use statistical thresholds of "impossibility". "Statistical impossibility" is not "impossible" it's just very improbable from a mathematical perspective.


Also, I have a similar background, so yeah, justify your 10% figure, account for punishment, and the very many other ratios.

Also, your use of the "hits" framework is at issue, since that's not how matches develop at all. Options, counters, and punishability. From there, define the average chances that DK will get grabbed in every "engagement" and how much damage he will do on average in each (accounting for flubbed grab attempts).

Or you can abandon the statistical framework because, as I stated before, we're not talking about "statistical impossibility" we're talking about literal impossibility.

Yuna, I don't know what you've learned in statistics, but saying "for every match played, in each match, Fox will stand a 20% of winning and 80% of losing." is in fact a probability. I know this may come to a shock to you, but a probability is the percent chance out of 100% that a certain outcome will happen. So, I believe you proved yourself wrong. Match-up ratios can in fact be turned into probabilities.

Yes it would be.

However match-ups don't really correlate to probability. They're difficulty ratios within the context of the game.

 

[Brinzy]

There's a difference between theory and practice.

Theory explains match-up numbers perfectly. 30-70 means that, theoretically speaking, the two characters should be approaching a ratio of wins that resemble 30-70.

In practice, this may not be the case. We probably don't have someone of truly equal skill to play match-ups that perfectly reflect a ratio, and even if we did, we have other things to consider, like how one person is feeling or how one person is focused. Basically, if you've played Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance or Radiant Dawn, this is the "biorhythm" of our fights. If you haven't, think of it as having "good" days and "bad" days.

DK vs. DDD is, in theory, 0-100. When you analyze a match-up in theory, you assume that each player will not make an inordinate amount of mistakes. You never assume that the DK player will be at his best while the DDD will be at his worst to such a degree that DK wins. This is saved for practice.

In practice, DK vs. DDD is ever-so-slightly more winnable than in theory. This is because there could be a difference in skill (even at high levels of play, though that would be a minor difference of skill), the DK player could be on top of things while the DDD could be a bit sloppy, etc. It's not truly 0-100 because there's always that very slight chance that the DK's lottery numbers are being picked and he wins.

However, it is still closer to 0-100 than it is to... say, 05-95 because the chances of a "perfect" DK and a very high level player playing at their worst going against each other is pretty much non-existent... and even if the DK player wins, it is very unlikely that the two players were evenly skilled and had even of everything else (reflexes, focus, etc.), and even with this considered, they're not going to play 100 matches against each other..... and for the third time, even if this is considered, they're not going to be 100% consistent with all of their factors in all 100 matches.

In short, while it's important to see what happens in practice, we mostly have to work off of theory when it comes to DK's chances of winning. Either way, he's probably not going to win.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Actually, Yuna's kind of right and kind of wrong. In terms of mathematical probability, a percentage (out of 100%) is the ratio of one event's probability to another (or multiple others). The reason 15% means anything is because of the 15%'s relation to the other 85%. There is a logical fallacy in probability called the Gambler's fallacy that states it is fallacious to assume that previous outcomes of events are mathematically connected to future outcomes (for instance, "I've flipped tails 10 times, so the next one HAS to be heads."). The problem is that probability is over time. What that means is that, given an infinite number of coin flips, the ratio of heads to tails SHOULD approach 50:50. This translates to matchup numbers pretty simply. Given an infinite number of matches (at the highest level of play), a Fox : Pika matchup SHOULD approach 20:80, and so Fox, in theory, would win 20% of the matches. This is only theoretical, though. 500 matches could play with Fox losing. The ratio only has meaning when taken in the context of theoretical probability over time.

...I'm pretty sure.

I was wrong sorry guys.

 

[salaboB]

But you're missing the point.

We're annoyed at you because you guys keep making MATHEMATICAL mistakes, specifically in the areas of probability.

Let me put it this way, it's not even literally impossible that an invisible pink unicorn is galloping around my living room right now.

To be literally impossible, it must be disproven, and I have yet to see any concrete reason that requires DDD to grab DK 3 times, it's just prohibitively hard to prevent.

It's a HORRIBLE match-up, but don't make math mistakes in your exaggerations.

Considering I was only defending against a claim of "You're being arbitrary when you say 90:10 requires more mistakes than 60:40" for him winning or not, and nothing mathematical in the post you quoted, I think it's fair to say that I'm annoyed at you (And a number of the other people who keep responding to me in a similar manner) for ripping my posts out of the context that they're made in and rebutting a point I'm not even making.

So stop it.

 

[RDK]

In any case, stop using mathcup ratios. Most of you are completely butchering the actual ratios and just posting uninformed garbage to make your point about D3 vs. DK being virtually unwinnable.

Yes, the match is dismally bleak in higher levels of play. There's no reason a half-competent D3 player shouldn't be able to get a grab in at some point in the match. But it's not a 100:0 matchup, so shut up with the ratios already.

 

[Brinzy]

Yeah, I'm kinda tired of the ratios as well, even though I just added my six cents to it.

 

[IrArby]

I'm also sick of ratios. For those of you who haven't heard this before (I've heard it to often in fact) Mark Twain once said "There are lies, there are d@mn lies, and there are statistics." The way were reading matchup ratios is somewhat misleading.

And d@mn you ambrodeus for getting to it before me. jk, good stuff. I was planning to use the word "encounter" instead of "engagement" but the idea is that the sum total of all interactions between the two characters would average out to give the better character a 9 out of 10 probable chance of benifitting from any given encounter. That and/or the results of a few encounters would be so benificial for the favored character, they'd raise the average of the so-so encounters. I think thats the best representation of what people do when they make matchup ratios.

 

[Yuna]

I think 80-20 can mean either. If you have a 20% chance to win in a given match, then on average, you will win 20/100 matches.

I think that's how it works. Of course, if you and your opponent play exactly equally well for the duration of the match, you will lose every single time if you're the 20 guy.

No, this is not the equivalent of rolling a dice where if you roll it 6 times, chances are, you will roll a 6 once and if you roll it 36, the odds say you will have rolled the 6 6 times.

This is a fight where one fighter has the upperhand in every single match. Just because you fight 10 matches doesn't mean you'll win 2 out of those. You have to fight losing odds every single time.

It's like if an olympic runner was a favorite to win in every race he participated in with another runner a favorite to come in 2nd. The odds wouldn't be 100-0. They'd be maybe 70-30. The favorite to come in second is always an average of 0.80 second slower than the favorite to win. However, since this is a small gap, there's a possibility he'll win eventually if they face each other often enough.

An 80-20? No.

An 80-20 is so much in favor of one side that you are facing close to insurmountable (ever) odds. In a game of chess, if I were to go up against <insert great chess player here>, I'd be the obvious underdog. The odds would be 80-20 I'd lose (let's assume they are). If we played 100 games, I would not win 20 out of those, because I'd be fighting a losing battle every single time.

For every game played, I would stand an 80% chance of losing. I'd have to outwit, outplay and outlast him every single time. He'd just be that much better than me at chess. He'd be able to read further in advance, know better plays, gambits, etc.

I'm not that bad, the odds aren't 100-0, it is not impossible for me to win. It's just that it'd require me to make absolutely no mistakes while he made plenty of them because he's just that much better than me.

The same goes in a street fight. Me vs. adumbrodeus. I'm a scrawny little Asian kid who's only good at holding on tight to people struggling to get out and who can literally kick *** because my legs are pretty strong. I suck at punching, have little stamina and if you sucker punch me, chances are I'll go down.

Let's assume adumbrodeus is a sexy guy with lots of muscles and who can beat to the ground. But it's not a 100-0 since I still have stuff up my sleeve. I've got some karate moves (I'm totally making that up, let's say that I do), I, as aforementioned, am good at kicking and I'm pretty good at evading.

The match-up is nonetheless 80-20. If we fight 100 fights, in every single one of those fights, he will hold the advantage. In every single one of those fights, I will stand only a 20% chance of winning and a 80% chance of losing.

How would I win? If I were able to block, parry or evade 90 out of 100 of his moves while he was only able to block, parry or evade 20 out of 100 of mine (since he can take more punishment and he's stronger), if I can outread him 90 out of 100 times while he could only outread me 20 out of 100 times, etc., etc., etc.

It's not that I don't stand a chance. It's not that I won't ever win unless I cheat or a freak accident occurs, it's that the odds are just so not in my favor. And even if we play 100 matches, the odds are not that I will win 20 of those.

Because in every single one of those 20 matches, I will still be facing a losing battle where I just have to do much, much, much, much, much better than him in order to win. So unless he keeps messing up those combos, chaingrabs, that spacing, that raging, that stage control in 20 out of 100 of those matches, I will not win a single one.

Now, if adumbrodeus (Pikachu) was unfocused for one of the fights, was feeling bad, had injured some vital body parts required for the match, such as their fingers, then the odds would be different, then I might stand a chance.

But at the highest level of play, i.e., a level in which adumbrodeus isn't handicapped and is focused, unless he screws up monumentally, he will not lose a single one of those matches.

60-40s are so close that it doesn't require monumental screw ups to lose/win them. 70-30s are not that close but still close enough for wins once in a while, but the vast majority of the time, the 70-holder will come out victorious.

80-20s? Once in a blue moon. In 1 out of 100, 200, 300 or maybe even 500 matches, if both players are of roughly equal skill level, focused, playing at their best and at the highest level of play.

An 80-20 is the equivalent of me going up against someone armed with a handgun while all they have is a knife and we start from 90 feet away and we assume that I'm pretty good at handling handguns. It's not hopeless, he still stands a chance, but just because the odds are 80-20 doesn't mean that 2 out of 10 times, I will miss every single one of my shots 'til he manages to run up to me and stab me.

 

[da K.I.D.]

The same goes in a street fight. Me vs. KID. I'm a scrawny little Asian kid who's only good at holding on tight to people struggling to get out and who can literally kick *** because my legs are pretty strong. I suck at punching, have little stamina and if you sucker punch me, chances are I'll go down.

Let's assume KID is a sexy black man with lots of muscles and who can beat me to the ground (since we all know its true). But it's not a 100-0 since I still have stuff up my sleeve. I've got some karate moves (I'm totally making that up, let's say that I do), I, as aforementioned, am good at kicking and I'm pretty good at evading.

this right here, is really important and just overall good info to have

 

[IrArby]

Still, we can't help but like Yuna in all his Asian scrawnyness. Traits that Kid has never had however tough and sexy he might be in real life.

LOL. (no not really)

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Even though I may disagree with you on this "banning the CG" business, you're still amazing KID.

I lol'ed at the edit.

Edit:

Still, we respect actually Yuna for being a good intelligent debater. Traits that Kid has never had however tough he might be in real life. Intelligence, now thats some really important and just overall good info to have.

LOL. You can't cry foul on this one cause you definitely put yourself out there.

Yeah, and you should respect KID for having a great sense of humor pertaining to the subject. Just because he isn't as eloquent or as versed in debate as some of the posters around the SWF doesn't make him any less of a person.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm pole-jocking people, but you're beginning to piss me off with your ****ty attitude towards other people Arby. At least Yuna, Adumbrodeus, and myself (however limited my participation has been, what with reinforcing/agreeing with arguments already made) have the decency to not demean somebody while illustrating our points.

Smooth Criminal

 

[M.K]

I am just sick about how much the mains who get "OMG teh pwned" by this match-up just WHINE and WHINE about having a horrible disadvantage. It's called "counterpicking", the system of COUNTERPICKING was created/used/invented/made for THIS SPECIFIC REASON.
Counterpick that match-up and shut the hell up about it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The same goes in a street fight. Me vs. adumbrodeus. I'm a scrawny little Asian kid who's only good at holding on tight to people struggling to get out and who can literally kick *** because my legs are pretty strong. I suck at punching, have little stamina and if you sucker punch me, chances are I'll go down.

Let's assume adumbrodeus is a sexy guy with lots of muscles who's also martial arts enthusiast who's spent years learning a variety of different styles in order to learn how to fight effectively, resulting in developing a varied fighting style including a variety of effective locks, breaks, strikes, pressure point attacks, grappling techs, etc. Let's also assume he's very tall and has long limbs which make him very good at keeping opponent's at bay. Let's also assume that his best attribute is his spacing, and he's an expert at keeping people at the range he wants inherently. But it's not a 100-0 since I still have stuff up my sleeve. I've got some karate moves (I'm totally making that up, let's say that I do), I, as aforementioned, am good at kicking and I'm pretty good at evading.

*fixed

95-5.

Sorry, when you get to scrawny... long limbs plus being amazing at spacing sort of hard counter that.

Yeah, IRL I'm Marth (except for the part about being a woman), it's all about spacing for me.

this right here, is really important and just overall good info to have

Lol, I love you Kid, marry me. That was amazing.

Still, we respect actually Yuna for being a good intelligent debater. Traits that Kid has never had however tough he might be in real life. Intelligence, now thats some really important and just overall good info to have.

LOL. You can't cry foul on this one cause you definitely put yourself out there.

Funny but, there were a million ways of making it funnier without being so insulting. Be nice.

 

[IrArby]

Firstoff, sorry. I didn't mean to come off mean (I put LOL hoping it would make the whole thing seem lighter) and it only struck me as moderately funny so sorry. Maybe I was being defensive as I'm inlcined to do in this thread but essentially da Kid said he could beat Yuna into the ground (cause we all know its true) and I didn't see humor in that part at all.

The only part I thought was funny was the sexy black man with big muscles thing. So da Kid, I apologize if you took this to be offensive. The intention was not to make it so. I'll even edit it (not to erase what I wrote) but to fix it so as its not insulting anyone. The dig thrown at Kid was meant to be minor.

@Smooth Criminal: I don't think I've unneccesarily demeaned anyone except gantrain in my posts and I have really disliked that guy since Yuna's original balance thread where he insulted me and my internet crashed before I got to finish my equally insulting response. Calling him gaytrain was hardly more demeaning than him posting how I lost to my 4 year old brother in Brawl and thats why I don't like the game. Yea its stupid . . .

 

[salaboB]

I don't think I've unneccesarily demeaned anyone

I'm pretty sure demeaning anyone at all on these forums is unnecessary.

 

[ftl]

No, this is not the equivalent of rolling a dice where if you roll it 6 times, chances are, you will roll a 6 once and if you roll it 36, the odds say you will have rolled the 6 6 times.

This is a fight where one fighter has the upperhand in every single match. Just because you fight 10 matches doesn't mean you'll win 2 out of those. You have to fight losing odds every single time.

Yuna,

It's like if an olympic runner was a favorite to win in every race he participated in with another runner a favorite to come in 2nd. The odds wouldn't be 100-0. They'd be maybe 70-30. The favorite to come in second is always an average of 0.80 second slower than the favorite to win. However, since this is a small gap, there's a possibility he'll win eventually if they face each other often enough.

An 80-20? No.

An 80-20 is so much in favor of one side that you are facing close to insurmountable (ever) odds. In a game of chess, if I were to go up against <insert great chess player here>, I'd be the obvious underdog. The odds would be 80-20 I'd lose (let's assume they are). If we played 100 games, I would not win 20 out of those, because I'd be fighting a losing battle every single time.

For every game played, I would stand an 80% chance of losing. I'd have to outwit, outplay and outlast him every single time. He'd just be that much better than me at chess. He'd be able to read further in advance, know better plays, gambits, etc.


The same goes in a street fight. Me vs. adumbrodeus. I'm a scrawny little Asian kid who's only good at holding on tight to people struggling to get out and who can literally kick *** because my legs are pretty strong. I suck at punching, have little stamina and if you sucker punch me, chances are I'll go down.

Let's assume adumbrodeus is a sexy guy with lots of muscles and who can beat to the ground. But it's not a 100-0 since I still have stuff up my sleeve. I've got some karate moves (I'm totally making that up, let's say that I do), I, as aforementioned, am good at kicking and I'm pretty good at evading.

The match-up is nonetheless 80-20. If we fight 100 fights, in every single one of those fights, he will hold the advantage. In every single one of those fights, I will stand only a 20% chance of winning and a 80% chance of losing.

How would I win? If I were able to block, parry or evade 90 out of 100 of his moves while he was only able to block, parry or evade 20 out of 100 of mine (since he can take more punishment and he's stronger), if I can outread him 90 out of 100 times while he could only outread me 20 out of 100 times, etc., etc., etc.

It's not that I don't stand a chance. It's not that I won't ever win unless I cheat or a freak accident occurs, it's that the odds are just so not in my favor. And even if we play 100 matches, the odds are not that I will win 20 of those.

Because in every single one of those 20 matches, I will still be facing a losing battle where I just have to do much, much, much, much, much better than him in order to win. So unless he keeps messing up those combos, chaingrabs, that spacing, that raging, that stage control in 20 out of 100 of those matches, I will not win a single one.

Now, if adumbrodeus (Pikachu) was unfocused for one of the fights, was feeling bad, had injured some vital body parts required for the match, such as their fingers, then the odds would be different, then I might stand a chance.

But at the highest level of play, i.e., a level in which adumbrodeus isn't handicapped and is focused, unless he screws up monumentally, he will not lose a single one of those matches.

60-40s are so close that it doesn't require monumental screw ups to lose/win them. 70-30s are not that close but still close enough for wins once in a while, but the vast majority of the time, the 70-holder will come out victorious.

80-20s? Once in a blue moon. In 1 out of 100, 200, 300 or maybe even 500 matches, if both players are of roughly equal skill level, focused, playing at their best and at the highest level of play.

An 80-20 is the equivalent of me going up against someone armed with a handgun while all they have is a knife and we start from 90 feet away and we assume that I'm pretty good at handling handguns. It's not hopeless, he still stands a chance, but just because the odds are 80-20 doesn't mean that 2 out of 10 times, I will miss every single one of my shots 'til he manages to run up to me and stab me.

Yuna, you might know your Smash, but your attempts to use probability to justify it are downright pathetic.

If there's an 80% chance of an outcome, that means that it will happen approximately 80 times out of 100. That's almost the definition of "an 80% probability". If you have an 80% chance of winning and a 20% chance of losing, that means that, on average, you'll win 8 out of 10 and lose 2 out of 10. That's how probability works. That's what it means to say there's an 80% probability of something happening. If you're winning on average more than 8 out of 10, then your probability of winning is higher than 80%.

I can still agree with most of what you say but that's because I don't interpret matchup ratios as "probabilities of winning" in the first place.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

@Smooth Criminal: I don't think I've unneccesarily demeaned anyone except gantrain in my posts and I have really disliked that guy since Yuna's original balance thread where he insulted me and my internet crashed before I got to finish my equally insulting response.

Okay. But still. My point stands.



*flexes no muscle.*

Smooth Criminal

 

[da K.I.D.]

everyone chill...

i think everything since my edit has been absolutely hilarious.

i will have to say that i disagree with SC about yuna not demeaning people during his posts. but as long as he doesnt say anything and as long as I can repost that whenever he gets out of line, than im cool with it.

lol

 

[Smooth Criminal]

i will have to say that i disagree with SC about yuna not demeaning people during his posts. but as long as he doesnt say anything and as long as I can repost that whenever he gets out of line, than im cool with it.

lol

I've said this before about Yuna:

His style is coarse and abrasive, but never (except for on select occasions) has he insulted someone DIRECTLY. He has insulted the nature of people's arguments, but never the person in question.

So, .

You're still a cool guy in my book, KID.

Smooth Criminal

 

[IrArby]

Okay. But still. My point stands.



*flexes no muscle.*

Smooth Criminal

K cool . . .

*looks around . . . *

Wheres the debate?

Man I've learned more about people in this thread in the last to pages than I have in the last 2 weeks of the debate (Yuna's an Asian in Sweden? Never saw that coming. And da Kids a sexy black man with big muslces ofcourse. Go figure.) For all I know you guys look like your avatars in which case I'm a doll. I've come to grips with that fact and I think I can cope.

 

[da K.I.D.]

SC is amazing, and even if i had never met you before, you would still be awesome because I contributed to creating your sig...

as for yuna,
the line between stating flaws in somebodys arguement and stating what you think are flaws in somebodys character get REEEEEALLY blurry with him...

but i still admire people who are able to poke fun at themselves like that, cus if you cant laugh at your self...


EDIT
@IrArby
i only found out that yuna was an asian in sweden, (thats gay) like 2-3 weeks ago, and it freaked me the hell out too.

2. just in case you thought i was joking, i really am a muscular black dude,

3. about what you look like, its a funny story in my mind with you...
I see your name, i automatically think arbys, and than I think of the arbys spokesperson, but arbys doesnt have a visual representation. so I think of the next closest name... Wendy's.
and I think of the visual representation of wendy's which is the little girl, but than I reallise you are a dude.

So everytime I see you post, I think of Dave Thomas

 

[ShadowLink84]

Oh my ****ing god going through the deathclaw sanctuary is a traumatizing experience. T_T

 

[adumbrodeus]

everyone chill...

i think everything since my edit has been absolutely hilarious.

But my marriage purposeful wasn't meant to be hilarious



Lol, anyway it's nice that you took it well but, jokes poking at the intelligence of a person you're debating with really aren't Kosher imo, because they come off as a bit too serious.

But whatever, your decision. I'm not about to argue with a sexy black man with lots of muscles, it's a 30-70 match-up against me.

Oh my ****ing god going through the deathclaw sanctuary is a traumatizing experience. T_T

We've moved on to fallout?

 

[ShadowLink84]

We've moved on to fallout?

Yes, it is the win.
Deathclaws are scary, right as I left the sanctuary I got chased by three of them.

 

[da K.I.D.]

oh, thats what that is?
fallout?
hmmm...

@adum.
sory brah, not gay, and btw. if you are as lanky and know as many fighting styles as you said, i should only be a 60-40 soft counter on you.
and on that one particular instance with arby, I put myself out there to get bagged on, the same way yuna did by admitting to being a scrawny asian kid.

And for more lulz check the EDIT on my last post

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adum.
sory brah, not gay,

Wait... you're a guy?! *retracts marriage proposal*

j/k (about the being a guy thing)

and btw. if you are as lanky and know as many fighting styles as you said, i should only be a 60-40 soft counter on you.

Not really lanky, I'm tall (6'3") but muscular enough to not qualify as lanky.

But yeah, that was all true. My smash time is nothing compared to the time I put into my martial arts.


But ok, maybe. But could you please keep telling everyone it's a 60-40, I need a hard counter so I don't get banned.

and on that one particular instance with arby, I put myself out there to get bagged on, the same way yuna did by admitting to being a scrawny asian kid.

Lol, I think we all did in one way or another in the last few posts.

Still, again, I think that the particular choice of subject matter was a bad idea. Personal opinion, feel free to continue disagreeing.

2. just in case you thought i was joking, i really am a muscular black dude

I seem to remember you mentioning this in a previous thread, minus the muscular and sexy.


*is actually a tall, muscular, martial-arts obsessed white boy. Who for whatever reason acts really filipino, minus the desire to go into medicine*

3. about what you look like, its a funny story in my mind with you...
I see your name, i automatically think arbys, and than I think of the arbys spokesperson, but arbys doesnt have a visual representation. so I think of the next closest name... Wendy's.
and I think of the visual representation of wendy's which is the little girl, but than I reallise you are a dude.

So everytime I see you post, I think of Dave Thomas

Lol, you're full of win tonight KID.

Yes, it is the win.
Deathclaws are scary, right as I left the sanctuary I got chased by three of them.

Fun, reminds me of the time I was playing FFX, and I just beat Lady

Spoiler

Yunalesca

, and I got ambushed by the monster group with the 2 flamethrowers and the robot, who proceed to wipe out two of my party members, and every revival, same story, until I finally got the upper hand. Most traumatizing experience ever because I hadn't saved yet.