Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** (Post-podcast)

[bobson]

Also, can we please stop making sweeping generalizations? I'm getting tired of seeing "the pro-ban side consistently ignores unfavorable arguments so as to save face and as a whole smells terrible" and "the anti-ban side is clearly grasping at straws to save their sinking ship of an argument and collectively have whores for mothers" every post.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think its 55-45 in favor of Diddy or at worst even.

So, MK has even matchups against Diddy and Snake? I can live with that.

55-45 is in no way a soft counter though, it can still go either way. However, if a Brawl 55-45 is a melee 65-35, then it might be a soft counter.

EDIT: Anything else even or counter MK? I heard a lot of interesting things about Olimar, almost all of them were from M2K though.

 

[BentoBox]

Are you going to act so stupid as to band wagon when I clearly did NOT state such a thing?
I really hate it when people just go off the accusations made by others.

I asked if it was possible for a player to be good enough so that they skew things and if it would be the result of player skill overcoming character capability, primarily due to the many different factors that cannot be taken into account on paper.
Such as mindgames.

I already clarified on what I had meant earlier on the last page and this page as well.
Don't act stupid.

Az said made the assertion of Diddy being a soft counter.
He stated it on the last page and I quote him saying it on this page.


@AZ: I mean besides Ninja Link and Lethein? I thought there were a few more pro Diddy users.

What bandwagon?

It was brought up earlier that Azen placed considerably worst using bad characters even by being one of the elites of the country. Even the best player in the world could not pick Jiggly and hope to do well. So really, I don't get the point of what you're asking. Of course, the character you play can affect the outcome of your match. But in this case, people are pushing for a neutral matchup, implying that one player does not need to be significantly more skilled than his opponent (M2K is a better player than NL afaik), both characters simply have the tools available to them to deal with each other reliably.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Atomsk made a topic in the Olimar character board.

What bandwagon?

It was brought up earlier that Azen placed considerably worst using bad characters even by being one of the elites of the country.

I was the one that requested that information from AZ.
You accused me of "you're saying high level play doesn't matter" which is extremely untrue and was clarified on the last page and the one before it.
You either read that one post (which I also edited) so I cannot see as to why you would go along with such a stupid accusation.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I think it may become stronger for Diddy than MK in the future, but at current I think its 55-45.

 

[Rain(ame)]

Also, can we please stop making sweeping generalizations? I'm getting tired of seeing "the pro-ban side consistently ignores unfavorable arguments so as to save face and as a whole smells terrible" and "the anti-ban side is clearly grasping at straws to save their sinking ship of an argument and collectively have whores for mothers" every post.

Thank you, I'm for it. It's possible to have a debate without being rude about it. Anyway, I've also seen a Diddy take on MK. It wasn't completely in Diddy's favor, I think the 55-45 might be right for the matchup.

 

[Hype]

Everyone should go check out the thread about this in tournament discussion.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=206925

 

[da K.I.D.]

And yea, that is how I got the idea.

I just see pro-ban as grasping for straws, at least when it comes to Diddy. At first it was inexperience, then it was one loss to one MK despite having consistently won against MK's of both similar and higher skill. Then it was not enough Diddys. Now its that Diddy isn't winning tournaments even if he is beating MK, or that the Diddy who is winning claims the match up to not be in Diddy's favor (while similar claims, like M2K about Snake, are discredited because of evidence, this claim is accepted despite the evidence).

More evidence is mounting in favor of Diddy, something I've always claimed to happen, and I believe Diddy still has substantially further to improve as a character overall then the likes of MK.



Lethein
-1st out of 40 @ 10/11 Prince Bistro Tournament #1, Flower Mound, TX; $80
-2nd out of 32 @ 11/2 Funhouse SSBB/Soul Calibur 4 #3 Monthly, Tulsa, OK; $60
-3rd out of 112 @ 11/22 OH SNAP! v4.0, Norman, OK; $110

now you know what it feels like to play sonic...

 

[The Real Inferno]

I think it may become stronger for Diddy than MK in the future, but at current I think its 55-45.

I find the Diddy Kong Matchup at this time to still be largely stage dependant, when it's my personal belief that before declaring the actual matchup data we should look to see how stage picking affects it. I see some stages tend to swing the matchup to MK's favor pretty solidly at this point and until Diddy Kongs start playing better on all the counterpick stages it should stay no better than an even matchup. Diddy's meta has been focusing alot on his matchups on Neutrals while some important issues with counterpicks get ignored. I feel like that is the direction Diddy Mains need to be working in now to ensure they can form a larger advantage over Meta Knights.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Well the main reason CP is ignored is because they are intended to give an advantage to the other character. Its usually assumed to be a neutral stage where neither character derives any true benefit.

 

[DraKmoN001]

The problem with assuming the highest level of play dictates matchup advantages/disadvantages is that there are very few players at that level right now. If the highest level Captain Falcon player has no trouble against Metaknights but all of the others do, you can't tell if it's because Falcon has an advantage over Metaknight at the highest level or if it's just that player who knows how to beat Metaknights.

But has that been happening at all? Captain Falcon being able to compete well against MK is thus far hypothetical, but there are results showing that Diddy can and do beat MKs. It is true that these occurrences are currently concentrated around select individuals, but what is hardest to achieve: adopting a mind set, reapplying an action (or actions) for a particular circumstance (or circumstances), or overcoming characteristics set in the game?

 

[BentoBox]

Atomsk made a topic in the Olimar character board.


I was the one that requested that information from AZ.
You accused me of "you're saying high level play doesn't matter" which is extremely untrue and was clarified on the last page and the one before it.
You either read that one post (which I also edited) so I cannot see as to why you would go along with such a stupid accusation.

Where exactly did I say that? I simply questioned the relevancy of your remarks. To ask whether skill can sometimes overshadow a character's inherent weaknesses is well... obvious. But not at top levels, unless a character can effectively deal with another. Why more cases aren't showing up around the states? Probably the same reason as to why Yoshi mainers aren't taking the country by storm.

 

[da K.I.D.]

after the SBR decision and that one thread about who to main and whether people should have a secondary...

i think im gonna start going MK/D3

 

[Turbo Ether]

MK/D3 is arguably the best combo.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I think it should be obvious to anyone that MK/Snake or MK/Dedede are the two most effective Character combinations in the game for a strict Main/Secondary player. Game & Watch/Diddy and D3/Snake are also insanely good combos IMO.

 

[Jim Morrison]

KID you ****ing betrayer

 

[ShadowLink84]

Where exactly did I say that? I simply questioned the relevancy of your remarks.

So first we take away the character boards credibility and now you argue that someone playing a character at its fullest potential isn't credible proof enough as the data on paper does not reflect such results.
Tell me shadow, do you really believe that on paper analysis is the end all be all of matchup discussions? And are you really going to dismiss every aberrant piece of data?

Questioning? I doubt it. I made it clear that I was making the question on the basis that NL and lethein are the only Diddy' s that have placed well and beat out MK's at their tournaments?
how did you question mean when you argue that I deemed someone playing a character at their full potential as not credible proof? When I never said anything close to it.

Let alone that you accuse me of dismissing aberrant data which I have not done.
Each time someone goes "oh hey we have a counter to MK" they always bring up one r two people doing well with that character.
iIn this case its lethein and NL.
NL who doesn't even main Diddy and uses a variety of characters.

its like the time people said Lucari counters MK whent he only person beating out MK's with Lucario was Azen.

its not that I am dismissing it, far from it, I am questioning it.
Citing a few instances doesn't help if those results cannot be replicated.

To ask whether skill can sometimes overshadow a character's inherent weaknesses is well... obvious. But not at top levels, unless a character can effectively deal with another. Why more cases aren't showing up around the states? Probably the same reason as to why Yoshi mainers aren't taking the country by storm.

You have to fix that first and second sentence.
you're saying at lower levels skill overshadows weaknesses but at top level it doesn't?
To my understanding, at top levels lessens the impact of those weaknesses. Look at Aniki's Link vs Ken's marth.

The way it sounds, at higher levels, the matchup ratios become even more relevant which we have seen isn't true.

As for the yshi mainers. you basically agreed with what I said. A few isntances doesn't prove anything if those results aren't really being duplicated. And i am sure there are more than just 2 good Diddy users.

 

[BrawlLover]

hey hey, watch the language and your tone man, but as for comboing, mk is definitely like up there or atleast the hit and run and hit again deal

 

[Plairnkk]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

 

[ShadowLink84]

something something something no-names.something something something refute. something something something

That is all I could understand from your elitist based argument.
Wanna know something that completely destroys it?

Sports announcers!

 

[bobson]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

As opposed to a collection of elite-names who think their opinions matter? You don't have to be intelligent to be good at a game.

But has that been happening at all? Captain Falcon being able to compete well against MK is thus far hypothetical, but there are results showing that Diddy can and do beat MKs. It is true that these occurrences are currently concentrated around select individuals, but what is hardest to achieve: adopting a mind set, reapplying an action (or actions) for a particular circumstance (or circumstances), or overcoming characteristics set in the game?

But the results are still yet confined primarily to NL, who's stated before that he's just good against MK. We can't come to a consensus on the matchup until the results are more varied.

 

[XienZo]

Hey, guys, I think we're arguing too much about each other instead of about MK.


Also, placing well in tournaments is not strictly the same as having an advantage/neutral matchup on MK.

Yoshi mainers wouldn't swarm the tourneys even if he had an advantage over MK; he just has too bad of disadvantages against other top-tiers like G&W.

 

[DraKmoN001]

That is all I could understand from your elitist based argument.
Wanna know something that completely destroys it?

Sports announcers!

How are sports announcers involved in this? Could you please explain in further detail?

As opposed to a collection of elite-names who think their opinions matter? You don't have to be intelligent to be good at a game.

u mad serial?

...

Well I suppose that could depend on the scale/population you are using to measure skill at a game. However if you do so you also distort what it means to be intelligent at said game.

But the results are still yet confined primarily to NL, who's stated before that he's just good against MK. We can't come to a consensus on the matchup until the results are more varied.

That I suppose I can agree to. Like many others have stated the game has not even been around for a year, there can be plenty to discuss and find, and players can continue to get better.

 

[brinboy789]

How are sports announcers involved in this? Could you please explain in further detail?.

im not sure, but i think he means that sports announcers know all about the game, but thye might not be good at them. this can be countered with that its thier job, but w/e

 

[BrawlLover]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

yeah seriously buddy, who do you think you are!

 

[ShadowLink84]

How are sports announcers involved in this? Could you please explain in further detail?

Sports casters rather or whatever the heck their called.
Anyways most of them are not pro football players but no the game inside and out. they know what strategies should have been used where the error was made, how it could have been corrected etc etc.
They are extremely knowledgeable but most of them do not play professionally.

So its terrible logic to believe that in order to have knowledge about the game you must be a pro. Its just an excuse to act elitist.

 

[Plairnkk]

As opposed to a collection of elite-names who think their opinions matter? You don't have to be intelligent to be good at a game.

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well. Whether 49th place reads "bobson" or "shadowlink" nobody gives a ****, you newbies are completely interchangeable.

"Elitist" I love that word. It's like a cop-out for all newbies across the country.

"My opinions do matter!! Who cares if I have never placed well in a tournament or if I have no experience in truly high level play? I know just as much as those who place well, so I should be listened to and respected! Why are all those high level players so ELITIST??"

Do you know why I am "elitist"? Because I am allowed to be. Because I've earned it. Because i've gone to hundreds of tournaments and put enough effort in smash games to be able to reach pro status. (Granted some of you have probably gone to hundreds of tournaments and are still horrible, I have no idea how you guys manage that.. probably your overwhelmingly scrubby attitude or something)

Sorry to break it to you, but "elitism" is the truth. You newbies can go ahead and argue in circles, but in the end it's going to be the opinion of the pros which determine the results of this ongoing argument. Do you know why? Because your arguments are all absolutely stupid and biased, since you have no real experience against good players.

MK is just like Sheik in melee. Sheik was by FAR the best at low levels. She ***** everyone else until you got to a much higher level, and all the newbies cried about it. And here you newbies are - not learning from the mistakes already made in melee - and crying about Metaknight. Metaknight completely dominates at low levels and is definitely easy to pick up, but rather than getting better and you know, leaving low level play, you just cry about metaknight and scream "BAN! BAN!"

But hey, how would you guys know about Sheik in melee since you've all played competitive smash for what, 3 months? I think before people post in this topic they should put links to tournaments where there were good players that they placed well at. That would be a lot less stupidity to sift through.

 

[BrawlLover]

i shall troll plank no more, worthy in my book

 

[Plairnkk]

So its terrible logic to believe that in order to have knowledge about the game you must be a pro. Its just an excuse to act elitist.

Wow are you really using this argument? Like, really? Sports are completely physical. It doesn't matter how much you know about the game or how much strategy you have learned, if you do not have the physical prowess, you will not play on the team. Smash is a mental game, sure there are a few sort-of technical things in brawl, but these do not hold back the people in this thread from doing well. It's the KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, and MINDSET of the newbies in this thread that limit them, not the physical button pressing.

Also, have you realized that a LOT of MLB/NFL commentators are FORMER pros, and that they will get the job before anyone else will? Do you know why? Because they HAVE EXPERIENCE actually playing the game at a competitive level.

WOW, you basically made an argument that made mine for me. Thank you, you really are smart.

 

[XienZo]

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well. Whether 49th place reads "bobson" or "shadowlink" nobody gives a ****, you newbies are completely interchangeable.

"Elitist" I love that word. It's like a cop-out for all newbies across the country.

"My opinions do matter!! Who cares if I have never placed well in a tournament or if I have no experience in truly high level play? I know just as much as those who place well, so I should be listened to and respected! Why are all those high level players so ELITIST??"

Do you know why I am "elitist"? Because I am allowed to be. Because I've earned it. Because i've gone to hundreds of tournaments and put enough effort in smash games to be able to reach pro status. (Granted some of you have probably gone to hundreds of tournaments and are still horrible, I have no idea how you guys manage that.. probably your overwhelmingly scrubby attitude or something)

Sorry to break it to you, but "elitism" is the truth. You newbies can go ahead and argue in circles, but in the end it's going to be the opinion of the pros which determine the results of this ongoing argument. Do you know why? Because your arguments are all absolutely stupid and biased, since you have no real experience against good players.

You're kidding, right?

Your facts=Our facts>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your opinion>>>>Our Opinion>>>>Sakurai

Opinions shouldn't matter at all in the first place.

While I do believe pro's opinions are likely better than ours, neither should have any influence on banning a character.

MK is just like Sheik in melee. Sheik was by FAR the best at low levels. She ***** everyone else until you got to a much higher level, and all the newbies cried about it. And here you newbies are - not learning from the mistakes already made in melee - and crying about Metaknight. Metaknight completely dominates at low levels and is definitely easy to pick up, but rather than getting better and you know, leaving low level play, you just cry about metaknight and scream "BAN! BAN!"

But hey, how would you guys know about Sheik in melee since you've all played competitive smash for what, 3 months? I think before people post in this topic they should put links to tournaments where there were good players that they placed well at. That would be a lot less stupidity to sift through.

Ah, but you just know a shiek metagame is "good". We know that a MK metagame is "good".
You don't know if a shiek-less metagame would be bad. You just know that with Shiek, its "good", and you're just content with that.


But why settle with a "good" metagame when we can have "better" ones?

 

[DraKmoN001]

Sports casters rather or whatever the heck their called.
Anyways most of them are not pro football players but no the game inside and out. they know what strategies should have been used where the error was made, how it could have been corrected etc etc.
They are extremely knowledgeable but most of them do not play professionally.

So its terrible logic to believe that in order to have knowledge about the game you must be a pro. Its just an excuse to act elitist.

Well there's that saying "hindsight is 20/20". However what allowed sports casters to be extremely knowledgeable without being professional players to begin with? Why is it that they know what strategies should be used and where/how the errors were made, if they have never implemented said strategies or never personally dealt with said errors?

 

[ssbbFICTION]

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well. Whether 49th place reads "bobson" or "shadowlink" nobody gives a ****, you newbies are completely interchangeable.

"Elitist" I love that word. It's like a cop-out for all newbies across the country.

"My opinions do matter!! Who cares if I have never placed well in a tournament or if I have no experience in truly high level play? I know just as much as those who place well, so I should be listened to and respected! Why are all those high level players so ELITIST??"

Do you know why I am "elitist"? Because I am allowed to be. Because I've earned it. Because i've gone to hundreds of tournaments and put enough effort in smash games to be able to reach pro status. (Granted some of you have probably gone to hundreds of tournaments and are still horrible, I have no idea how you guys manage that.. probably your overwhelmingly scrubby attitude or something)

Sorry to break it to you, but "elitism" is the truth. You newbies can go ahead and argue in circles, but in the end it's going to be the opinion of the pros which determine the results of this ongoing argument. Do you know why? Because your arguments are all absolutely stupid and biased, since you have no real experience against good players.

MK is just like Sheik in melee. Sheik was by FAR the best at low levels. She ***** everyone else until you got to a much higher level, and all the newbies cried about it. And here you newbies are - not learning from the mistakes already made in melee - and crying about Metaknight. Metaknight completely dominates at low levels and is definitely easy to pick up, but rather than getting better and you know, leaving low level play, you just cry about metaknight and scream "BAN! BAN!"

But hey, how would you guys know about Sheik in melee since you've all played competitive smash for what, 3 months? I think before people post in this topic they should put links to tournaments where there were good players that they placed well at. That would be a lot less stupidity to sift through.

Ban foxes shine plox

 

[BrawlBro]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

This is why I am going to stop posting in this thread. If I could reach through my computer screen and punch you in the face I would.

 

[Rain(ame)]

This thread is nothing but a collection of no-names who think their opinions matter (az excluded, since he's only trying to refute the stupidity of the no-names who think their opinions matter).

With all due respect, that statement is utter nonsense. This is the kind of thing that turns people away from playing Smash in the first place. so they aren't country-wide known, who cares if they bring up a valid point. Dismissing because you don't know the person is just rude. I respect you as a player, man, but to say something like that...not cool.

Back on subject:
The CP option should be taken into consideration with the Diddy-MK match-up. CP is definitely part of a player's game, and can turn the tide of any matchup. If Diddy has an advantage other than Neutrals that he can get MK on, then let it be so. This is where it gets tricky and comes down to who has a true advantage over who. After that, it comes down to the players themselves. So yes, I think CP should be included in the match-up. It boils it right down as to how much of an advantage each character TRULY has.

 

[BentoBox]

Questioning? I doubt it. I made it clear that I was making the question on the basis that NL and lethein are the only Diddy' s that have placed well and beat out MK's at their tournaments?
how did you question mean when you argue that I deemed someone playing a character at their full potential as not credible proof? When I never said anything close to it.

Let alone that you accuse me of dismissing aberrant data which I have not done.
Each time someone goes "oh hey we have a counter to MK" they always bring up one r two people doing well with that character.
iIn this case its lethein and NL.
NL who doesn't even main Diddy and uses a variety of characters.

its like the time people said Lucari counters MK whent he only person beating out MK's with Lucario was Azen.

its not that I am dismissing it, far from it, I am questioning it.
Citing a few instances doesn't help if those results cannot be replicated.

If you follow such a line of thought, where else would it lead?
-so what if diddy is bad and nj only won because he's nj?
-y u gotta hate and dismiss ze aberrantz detaz. it was argued long ago that diddy could give mk a run for his money and now thats its happening... no, it cant be...
-NO U

You have to fix that first and second sentence.
you're saying at lower levels skill overshadows weaknesses but at top level it doesn't?
To my understanding, at top levels lessens the impact of those weaknesses. Look at Aniki's Link vs Ken's marth.

The way it sounds, at higher levels, the matchup ratios become even more relevant which we have seen isn't true.

Matchup ratios do not determine the outcome of a match. They determine which character has an advantage and which side is going to be facing an uphill battle. Examples like that one aniki vs ken game (as aniki lost the set 2-1), there are tons of them. Does this mean Link counters Marth? No. Could it be that Link does have the tools to deal with him? Very much yes, since it happened deep into the game's lifespan. But it only happened in one game. So no, in this case you cannot push for a neutral.

Diddy's case vs MK is different in the sense that the character still isn't fully fleshed out. Diddy wins aren't as sparse and there are much more results to cling onto. And on paper too, Diddy does not get ***** by any means, so I stand by what I said. I never said anything about skill overshadowing weaknesses ONLY in low levels, I simply stated that at high levels of play you cannot expect steady results if you put yourself at a constant disadvantage. Now YOU need to argue whether these advantages MK possesses really do shift the ratio towards him.

As for the yshi mainers. you basically agreed with what I said. A few isntances doesn't prove anything if those results aren't really being duplicated. And i am sure there are more than just 2 good Diddy users.

Thing about Yoshis is that the character itself isn't as self-sufficient in the sense that he has many more matchups to worry about that might even be worse than MK. Yoshi struggles to get far in tournaments while MK does not to the same extent. So of course, data proving that Yoshi goes neutral will be hard to find. And the same thing applies for Diddy mainers. Did NL really go all Diddy in that tourney or did he just pick him against M2K knowing he'd pick MK? And if he did go all diddy, were all of his opponents as skilled as he was and if so, in which instance was he set at a noticable disadvantage and still won? Other Diddys might not be placing as high because they're either not skilled enough or don't have solid secondaries to fall back on. You said it yourself, NL doesn't even main Diddy.

 

[NeoCrono]

Wow are you really using this argument? Like, really? Sports are completely physical. It doesn't matter how much you know about the game or how much strategy you have learned, if you do not have the physical prowess, you will not play on the team. Smash is a mental game, sure there are a few sort-of technical things in brawl, but these do not hold back the people in this thread from doing well. It's the KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, and MINDSET of the newbies in this thread that limit them, not the physical button pressing.

.

As someone who plays sports on the college level, I would have to disagree. I wish I could remember how many times I have played in a football game or basketball game where I'm physically outmatched. But my knowledge has helped me to overcome my weaknesses (my main weakness is I'm short) Knowledge is a powerful thing, most people say that football is 40% physical, 60% mental, and anyone who has played football would agree with me. So to say that sports are completely physical is an incorrect statement lol

Have you ever played a sport before? Cause a lot of people who have never played a sport say this all the time....... But anyways, example
My high school football team my senior year had the biggest offensive line in the state of new jersey, we had the biggest and fastest defense in new jersey. But that being said, we were not the smartest team in new jersey, we ended losing to a team in the playoffs that we're physically better then them. But they we're a smarter team then us. So in sports, how smart you are can be the outcome of a game.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I shall translate for people.

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well. Whether 49th place reads "bobson" or "shadowlink" nobody gives a ****, you newbies are completely interchangeable.

We are the pro players. it is due to our ahrd work that much of your argument is based upon. you newbies dont mean anything since you don't play professionally. Clearly you cannot learn anything about the game from our behavior. We are just too awesome.
Unless you play the game professionally, you're just a newbie, you don't know anything!

"Elitist" I love that word. It's like a cop-out for all newbies across the country.

**** those newbies! Surely us acting like jers and acting as if our opinions were fact is far from being wrong. they call us elitist just because they don't like it that we are better than them.
We are totally not arrogant and rude and have a superiority complex.

"My opinions do matter!! Who cares if I have never placed well in a tournament or if I have no experience in truly high level play? I know just as much as those who place well, so I should be listened to and respected! Why are all those high level players so ELITIST??"

yeah, lets mock the newbies. They totally have NEVER shown tht they know anything about the game.
You know what? If a newbe says Sonic is bottom tier it isn't true! Its only true when we say it!

Same for e=mc^2
Only when einstein says it can it be considered fact.
he totally made no argument to prove it.

Do you know why I am "elitist"? Because I am allowed to be. Because I've earned it. Because i've gone to hundreds of tournaments and put enough effort in smash games to be able to reach pro status. (Granted some of you have probably gone to hundreds of tournaments and are still horrible, I have no idea how you guys manage that.. probably your overwhelmingly scrubby attitude or something)

yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry dude but no one gives a **** about your accomplishments.
You make your opinion, get ready to be criticized.
its great t be proud that you are really good at the game.
Are you allowed to act as if it is something to allow you to deem someone's argument is crap?
No.
Elitist behavior is basically s you display. You are s good but anyone lesser than you does not have any reason to disagree with you because you are better than them in the game.
It does not matter how logic, how knowledgeable they may be because at the end of the day, skill is what makes an argument.

Sorry to break it to you, but "elitism" is the truth.

Funny. I thought actually proving your argument was considering "truth".
Screw it then, the Bible>arguments criticizing it. its been around much longer.

You newbies can go ahead and argue in circles, but in the end it's going to be the opinion of the pros which determine the results of this ongoing argument. Do you know why? Because your arguments are all absolutely stupid and biased, since you have no real experience against good players.

Proof please?
Really, show where all this bias is, show where all the stupidity is in those arguments.
Show that what has been said is false.
Prove it.

N wait you don't need to because you are good at the game. That automatically means your argument is right.
Its totally not a self defeating argument.
When two people are equally skiled, they are BOTH right. N wait they are both wrong.

MK is just like Sheik in melee. Sheik was by FAR the best at low levels. She ***** everyone else until you got to a much higher level, and all the newbies cried about it. And here you newbies are - not learning from the mistakes already made in melee - and crying about Metaknight. Metaknight completely dominates at low levels and is definitely easy to pick up, but rather than getting better and you know, leaving low level play, you just cry about metaknight and scream "BAN! BAN!"

yeah this argument has not totally been debunked already. It has totally been used by the likes of adumbrodeus to further the pro ban argument.

this may have been true originally when you had n00bs going. "He's too good." but this surely is not true now.
Again I ask you, prove that the arguments made by others have been completely biased. I want you to go through all of adumbrodeus' argument, and pint out where he has been stupid or biased when he made any argument.

But hey, how would you guys know about Sheik in melee since you've all played competitive smash for what, 3 months? I think before people post in this topic they should put links to tournaments where there were good players that they placed well at. That would be a lot less stupidity to sift through.

yeah. Everyone here has no clue about melee history. Inf act, they don't know anything about competitive gaming at all.
someone who is good at the game can NEVER be wrong.
Scientists who are better than other scientists are always right when they are criticized by those with less experience.
Kohlberg's study about morality surely should not have been criticized for being sexist.
Freud's argument about the Oedipus complex shouldn't have been criticized.
Oh and his argument about women being less developed morally is true!

The Earth is flat because I can't see past the horizon.
The sky rains because it is sad.
The water is blue because it reflects the sky.
The Sun is as big as the moon.
Wh? i observed it, I experienced it, you have not so what I said must be true!

Wow are you really using this argument? Like, really? Sports are completely physical. It doesn't matter how much you know about the game or how much strategy you have learned, if you do not have the physical prowess, you will not play on the team. Smash is a mental game, sure there are a few sort-of technical things in brawl, but these do not hold back the people in this thread from doing well. It's the KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, and MINDSET of the newbies in this thread that limit them, not the physical button pressing.

What? you're saying if you have all the knowledge and strategy you can't play if you don't have prowess? What does that have to do with the argument at hand when we are discussing knowledge and opinions?
Ah but wait! If they don't have prowess, that means they don't have experience and skill which you said is what separates everyone.
lets follow that logic.

Sports announcers don't have the physical prowess.
Oh, wait lets not forget, neither do the coaches!
kick the coaches out.
Ah but wait, the referees don't have the physical prowess either! Kick them out!
Only the players can dictate what to do. They have physical prowess to enact that knowledge and strategy

If they have knowledge and mindset but no skill and experience, does that mean what they say is true but they cannot enact it? Does that mean that their argument was correct when proven logically but they just couldn't do it themselves?
So this would mean if you say A then B, and I say A then B, then what I say is just as valid as yours!

 

[Plairnkk]

You're kidding, right?

Your facts=Our facts>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your opinion>>>>Our Opinion>>>>Sakurai

Opinions shouldn't matter at all in the first place.

While I do believe pro's opinions are likely better than ours, neither should have any influence on banning a character.

Yes, facts are indeed facts. But the interpretation of the facts (tournament results are the only thing that can indeed be "fact" in this situation) are completely opinion, and that is what I'm saying is going to only be relevant to what the pros think. Although I do believe there are a few intelligent people in here with opinions that could be respected, there are far too many people like ShadowLink and D.A KID who's stupidity just overshadows everything and forces players like myself to just dismiss anything anyone has to say by default. One human can only handle so much idiocy in one place before they generalize.

 

[Plairnkk]

I shall translate for people.



We are the pro players. it is due to our ahrd work that much of your argument is based upon. you newbies dont mean anything since you don't play professionally. Clearly you cannot learn anything about the game from our behavior. We are just too awesome.
Unless you play the game professionally, you're just a newbie, you don't know anything!



**** those newbies! Surely us acting like jers and acting as if our opinions were fact is far from being wrong. they call us elitist just because they don't like it that we are better than them.
We are totally not arrogant and rude and have a superiority complex.


yeah, lets mock the newbies. They totally have NEVER shown tht they know anything about the game.
You know what? If a newbe says Sonic is bottom tier it isn't true! Its only true when we say it!

Same for e=mc^2
Only when einstein says it can it be considered fact.
he totally made no argument to prove it.


yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry dude but no one gives a **** about your accomplishments.
You make your opinion, get ready to be criticized.
its great t be proud that you are really good at the game.
Are you allowed to act as if it is something to allow you to deem someone's argument is crap?
No.
Elitist behavior is basically s you display. You are s good but anyone lesser than you does not have any reason to disagree with you because you are better than them in the game.
It does not matter how logic, how knowledgeable they may be because at the end of the day, skill is what makes an argument.


Funny. I thought actually proving your argument was considering "truth".
Screw it then, the Bible>arguments criticizing it. its been around much longer.

Proof please?
Really, show where all this bias is, show where all the stupidity is in those arguments.
Show that what has been said is false.
Prove it.

N wait you don't need to because you are good at the game. That automatically means your argument is right.
Its totally not a self defeating argument.
When two people are equally skiled, they are BOTH right. N wait they are both wrong.

yeah this argument has not totally been debunked already. It has totally been used by the likes of adumbrodeus to further the pro ban argument.

this may have been true originally when you had n00bs going. "He's too good." but this surely is not true now.
Again I ask you, prove that the arguments made by others have been completely biased. I want you to go through all of adumbrodeus' argument, and pint out where he has been stupid or biased when he made any argument.



yeah. Everyone here has no clue about melee histry. Inf act, they don't know anything about competitive gaming at all.
someone who is good at the game can NEVER be wrong.
Scientists who are better than other scientists are always right when they are criticized by those with less experience.
Kohlberg's study about morality surely should not have been criticized for being sexist.
Freud's argument about the oedipus complex shouldn't have been criticized.
Oh and his argument about women being less developed morally is true!

The Earth is flat because I can't see past the horizon.
The sky rains because it is sad.
The waer is blue because it reflects the sky.
The Sun is as big as the moon.

Awww, are you in psych 101 right now? That's cute. I'm a psych major actually, it's pretty interesting isn't it?

Also, sorry i've not read through 300 pages of these threads, it's just too much to handle. I'd like to know how the Sheik argument was debunked though, seeing as it is literally the exact same situation as it was in melee.

 

[bobson]

Well I suppose that could depend on the scale/population you are using to measure skill at a game. However if you do so you also distort what it means to be intelligent at said game.

It's not too hard to find someone who's great at a game and is also an obnoxious uneducated ****head. Brawl's less of an offender due to the emphasis on mindgames and thinking, but skill alone still doesn't mean you can form educated opinions.

Our opinions do matter, because we are the competitive scene of the game. We are the elite players who have proven ourselves time and time again by placing well.

Nope. Back them up with facts, and then they'll matter. Your name alone proves as much as mine does. This thread has the most centralized stupidity I've seen on Smashboards, but you should be dismissing people's opinions because they're uneducated rather than because the person didn't place at Hobo.