ADHD
Smash Hero
In 2011 KB is fired from his job, picks up metaknight, and begins to watch mew2king's videos.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 So now that we know MLG hosts ridiculous smash tournaments...
- Thread starter ADHD
- Start date
- Status
Crow!
Smash Lord
Then KB organizes additional tourneys so that he can play more often and win more money, and in the process grows the community and enables a lot of players to have fun.
Seeing an obviously unfilled hole in the present market, he begins hosting MK-Banned tourneys.
At first KB's tourneys are filled mainly with intermediate level players who decide they'd rather play there than at the existing TOs' events. But, with attendance dwindling at the MK-Plagued events, the good players realize there are a lot of intermediate players they can beat at KB's events and have a good shot at making money, so they start coming, too.
Even better, KB finds that, with MK not around, he can have a lot more fun than he used to as MK and yet still win consistently with a mid-tier character by simply pouring all his unemployment-born free time into Peach.
Seeing an obviously unfilled hole in the present market, he begins hosting MK-Banned tourneys.
At first KB's tourneys are filled mainly with intermediate level players who decide they'd rather play there than at the existing TOs' events. But, with attendance dwindling at the MK-Plagued events, the good players realize there are a lot of intermediate players they can beat at KB's events and have a good shot at making money, so they start coming, too.
Even better, KB finds that, with MK not around, he can have a lot more fun than he used to as MK and yet still win consistently with a mid-tier character by simply pouring all his unemployment-born free time into Peach.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
More like I'll be working as an electrician. Already halfway through trade school for it.
Edit: rofl, <3 Crow. xD
nope
AllyKnight
Banned via Administration
we'll see at apex accurate results with mks
ADHD
Smash Hero
what a lurker.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Damage Points
Smash Ace
First off no one gets an extra 2000 bucks every weekend. That's only for mlg. Maybe 200-300 dpenedinf on state and that's getting 1st every time. OS I hae no problem with you so don't take stuff so personally. When you grow a little older you'll see **** a little different. Use your degree my friend it will come in handy. Yes I am lucky I work for an eye doctor but I busted my *** for what I have.
Messatsu!
Smash Journeyman
bow down. close thread.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I'm 24. I won't be seeing things any different. Do what you love, do everything well, and don't half *** anything. Money doesn't factor into the equation.
AllyKnight
Banned via Administration
what a poster.
MLG Orlando was my worst placing @_@
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
Psh, your just an Ike. Why would ADHD listen to you?
GeneralWoodman
Smash Lord
wyatts just mad because his puff got last in a low tier tourney a while back losing to players who use their actual names o.O
Damage Points
Smash Ace
I respect that. I'm 27 myself and still game for fun and go to tourneys for competition. Hopefully well meet up and chill sometime. Nice to see older gamers in the scene.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
rapetastic!
Dark 3nergy
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 6,389
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
- NNID
- Gambit.7
- 3DS FC
- 4313-0369-9934
- Switch FC
- SW-5498-4166-5599
^^^^ surely that is the reason why he calls himself woodman
Kingdom Come
Smash Lord
My reaction to MLG making you butthurt
ADHD
Smash Hero
King DUMB *** YOMy reaction to MLG making you butthurt
Damage Points
Smash Ace
Haha. Don't know why everyones hating on ADHD. I'm entertained by his comments.
RESET Vao
Smash Journeyman
I facking love Watermelonz.
ADHD
Smash Hero
It's because I called them all bad, lol. Some of them are, though.
T-block
B2B TST
I got bored at work... going back to the starter stage list issue:
Let's consider the hypothetical situation in which all forty-one stages have nothing banworthy about them, and all of them are legal. Now, take any one matchup. This matchup will have a "spectrum" of stages associated with it. At one end, we have the stage character A wants to play on: the best stage for this matchup for character A, likely to be his CP, and be banned by character B. As we move towards the other end of this spectrum, the stages gradually get worse for character A, and better for character B, until we reach the favourite counterpick for character B on the other side. Keep in mind that we do not care about where the stage that would make the matchup 50-50 lies, if it even exists. We only care about this spectrum, and the order of stages within it. Now, the question that needs to be answered is this: where should the first match be played? The stage in the middle of this matchup-specific spectrum is the most obvious choice if we want to play the first match on the fairest (in the matchup-specific sense of the word) stage. We were given a list of stages by Brawl's developers, so why not pick the middle of the road for a given matchup? Having fewer than forty-one legal stages will change the spectrum, but the concept remains the same.
This is the idea behind including more stages in the stage striking system. We wish to come as close to this median as possible in as many matchups as possible. Note that the stage striking procedure emulates this spectrum-median idea perfectly. However, we cannot strike from all legal stages due to time constraints, so we must choose a subset of them. This is a non-trivial task, but it should be clear that allowing more stages makes it easier, and increases the number of matchups we can cover, due to the nature of the stage striking system.
Now, here's the major point of contention with this stance. Because we are only looking to choose the median of the spectrum, we give no regard to where the stage that would make the matchup 50-50 lies, if it exists. It is very possible that the median stage is actually good for one character and bad for the other; but we don't care if this happens. How can a system that could yield results like this possibly be fair? This is what some people have an issue with. With this, characters that do well on many stages are more likely to arrive at a stage that is considered good for them. We are rewarding a character's ability to play well on many stages when we adopt this goal for the stage striking procedure. In other words, we are considering flexibility and adaptability to stages when evaluating a character's worth. This is why some people say Ice Climbers are artificially buffed by the 5-starter system - we do not consider their inability to deal with dynamic stages in the first game.
Again, whether you agree with what we did in the last paragraph comes down to a difference in ideals. I think that factoring stage flexibility into the evaluation of a character is reasonable, as stages are an integral part of Smash gameplay, and one of the aspects that sets it apart from other fighters. Furthermore, I think the median stage approach is the best way to do things because it seems the least arbitrary. Picking the middle ground is certainly headed towards fairness, whereas picking static stages is harder to justify if terms of fairness, even if it has been the norm for the Smash community.
This probably won't convince anyone, but hopefully you can at least see where we're coming from.
Let's consider the hypothetical situation in which all forty-one stages have nothing banworthy about them, and all of them are legal. Now, take any one matchup. This matchup will have a "spectrum" of stages associated with it. At one end, we have the stage character A wants to play on: the best stage for this matchup for character A, likely to be his CP, and be banned by character B. As we move towards the other end of this spectrum, the stages gradually get worse for character A, and better for character B, until we reach the favourite counterpick for character B on the other side. Keep in mind that we do not care about where the stage that would make the matchup 50-50 lies, if it even exists. We only care about this spectrum, and the order of stages within it. Now, the question that needs to be answered is this: where should the first match be played? The stage in the middle of this matchup-specific spectrum is the most obvious choice if we want to play the first match on the fairest (in the matchup-specific sense of the word) stage. We were given a list of stages by Brawl's developers, so why not pick the middle of the road for a given matchup? Having fewer than forty-one legal stages will change the spectrum, but the concept remains the same.
This is the idea behind including more stages in the stage striking system. We wish to come as close to this median as possible in as many matchups as possible. Note that the stage striking procedure emulates this spectrum-median idea perfectly. However, we cannot strike from all legal stages due to time constraints, so we must choose a subset of them. This is a non-trivial task, but it should be clear that allowing more stages makes it easier, and increases the number of matchups we can cover, due to the nature of the stage striking system.
Now, here's the major point of contention with this stance. Because we are only looking to choose the median of the spectrum, we give no regard to where the stage that would make the matchup 50-50 lies, if it exists. It is very possible that the median stage is actually good for one character and bad for the other; but we don't care if this happens. How can a system that could yield results like this possibly be fair? This is what some people have an issue with. With this, characters that do well on many stages are more likely to arrive at a stage that is considered good for them. We are rewarding a character's ability to play well on many stages when we adopt this goal for the stage striking procedure. In other words, we are considering flexibility and adaptability to stages when evaluating a character's worth. This is why some people say Ice Climbers are artificially buffed by the 5-starter system - we do not consider their inability to deal with dynamic stages in the first game.
Again, whether you agree with what we did in the last paragraph comes down to a difference in ideals. I think that factoring stage flexibility into the evaluation of a character is reasonable, as stages are an integral part of Smash gameplay, and one of the aspects that sets it apart from other fighters. Furthermore, I think the median stage approach is the best way to do things because it seems the least arbitrary. Picking the middle ground is certainly headed towards fairness, whereas picking static stages is harder to justify if terms of fairness, even if it has been the norm for the Smash community.
This probably won't convince anyone, but hopefully you can at least see where we're coming from.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
@T-block: This is a good post, but characters are already affected by the stage list in ways that are bad or good. By allowing more stages, we inflate and deflate characters less because are accounting for more possibilities.
Someone explain to me how using a huge list of starter stages doesn't make MK ridiculous. All of the main chars that can stand up to MK (Snake, Diddy, Falco, ICs) are dependent on neutral stages. So with non-neutral stages being used in the first round and with more liberal CPs, MK has the stage advantage against all of the characters which can reasonably beat him, and he can wipe the floor with the rest of the cast anyway no matter what stages there are.
Pretty sure those who want a large variety of starter stages just want it so that MK will dominate ridiculously as a result, which will result in a ban. Either that or they just want to use stupid gimmicks to win instead of actually outsmarting their opponent.
Pretty sure those who want a large variety of starter stages just want it so that MK will dominate ridiculously as a result, which will result in a ban. Either that or they just want to use stupid gimmicks to win instead of actually outsmarting their opponent.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
I thought it was already said that we shouldn't keep MK in mind as the sole determining factor when it came to stages? He is an outlier so it wouldn't do much good to ignore the rest of the cast's stage-based capabilities (and by the rest I mean all characters who are either tournament viable or close enough to still pose a legitimate threat).
AlMoStLeGeNdArY
Smash Hero
you have to understand the liberal mindset that doesn't matter. It's just the fact that Diddy , Falco and IC get a supposed boost. Once you realize their stance you'll realize that these liberal stage advocators are full of ****.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
There are characters that do well against MK that aren't the top 5 on stages that aren't neutrals.
Uh, yay?
Uh, yay?
Eddie G
Smash Hero
My thoughts exactly. Some examples include, but are not limited to: DDD on Green Greens (still has yet to be explored more), Peach on Green Greens (same case), Peach/DDD on PS1 (higher survivability and safer stage control), Pikachu on Norfair, etc. There are a few more but they've slipped my mind for the moment. xD
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Sweet, another ADHD.
AlMoStLeGeNdArY
Smash Hero
sweet another BBR ****
DDD never legitimately beats MK on anything ever, especially on Greens Greens. Ask Co18, Seibrik, or any other top DDD (well, I guess Atomsk is the only other one). MK can play ridiculously gay on Green Greens. Peach never beats MK ever. If you ask ESAM, I'm pretty sure he'll agree that (despite his win in a single match) MK should beat Pikachu on Norfair. Do you go to tournaments?
Eddie G
Smash Hero
Thank you for having an open mind. Fair discussion with you will definitely be attainable and not a mountainous task to climb I see.
It makes sense in this case because this is the only fighter out there where stage layout is also considered in matchup discussions, not just the characters themselves. That being said; in a case such as this where we're discussing character capabilities on stages, and the majority of the cast (all but one) have at least one unfavorable/weakening stage, it makes no sense to include the only character in the game who is an absolute outlier to that fact. He is universally flexible on all stages. His matchups may slightly vary due to how the other characters can utilize the stages, but his own core game remains unscathed.
Also, no one is certain if said characters' advantages are only limited to one of the newly allowed stages. Or can you absolutely be certain that they are limited enough for the MK to safely eliminate all possible "gimmicky" (this whole game is a gimmick btw xD) threats?
Edit: Yes I go to tournaments. Very frequently since brawl first began, and for Melee as well.
T-block
B2B TST
I agree, and I'm not sure which part of my post you're referring to. I brought up the other side and one of its arguments to show that the apparent lack of fairness can be explained.
MLG seems to say otherwise. 9 starters and no "ridiculous domination"? I'm not saying the starters are keeping MK down, but the correlation you're claiming is clearly not there.
I don't care about what happens to Diddy, Falco, and IC. I'm not supporting more starters because I want to nerf them. I'm supporting more starters because I believe it's more fair - those characters being nerfed is just a consequence.
gonna agree with adhd and say MLG is not an accurate representation because of the tv lag. also MLG is the very first series of national tournaments to use this ruleset, so obviously we can expect changes in results from how they are now if this ruleset continues to be used as players become used to it/learn how to abuse it
AlMoStLeGeNdArY
Smash Hero
I don't think it's the fact of whether he goes to tournies or not I just think he's a product of his region. So that means he has to be a tool and a douche and argue for bad stages and more starters.
T-block
B2B TST
Don't you think if the dominance was going to be ridiculous it would have shown despite the lag? It's not like MK is the only character affected by TV lag either.
What's your definition of dominant? Pound4 was very MK-heavy, and it used 5-starter and only 6 CPs.
What's your definition of dominant? Pound4 was very MK-heavy, and it used 5-starter and only 6 CPs.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Someone put piss instead of apple juice in your bottle today?
I would feel pity for you if it wasn't so **** funny.
You remind me of those bitter old republicans. "**** those liberals, they're going to run this
Frankly, the majority of your arguments appear to be, "MK!"
Newsflash, MK does well on EVERY stage.
It does not matter if you have a 5 starter stage list, MK will do well on it.
7 starter stagelist?
9?
11?
15?
Doesn't matter, MK does well irregardless of what stages are on the starter.
"Its fine to boost 3 characters because of MK."
Okay, then why not just make an arbitrary rule that keeps MK on his worst stage?
At least then you would be catering to 30+ other characters rather than IC/Falco/Diddy.
ADHD also said it himself.
"On these stages Diddy can get a 5-5 matchup against MK, which is neutral, which makes it a neutral stage"
This is very very faulty.
A "neutral" stage does not benefit either character.
It does not boost the matchup to be neutral.
It does nothing but come as close as possible to neutral as possible.
Even if this means playing on Frigate Orpheon first match.
"A 9 stage starter favors aerial characters!"
This is a result of aerial characters being more flexible, not an intent to favor aerial characters.
Ground characters like Diddy and IC's just aren't flexible, so of course anything outside the typical 5 starter stage list will hurt them. I would be hurt too if I couldn't start off on a stage that benefited me either.
At the same time, the whole point of stage striking is to play on a stage that neither you, or your opponent are satisfied on.
So of course you aren't going to be on a stage on which your character would do well on!
"but the MLG stagelist"
Don't care.
The SBR did not back the MLG stage list.
No more mentioning of it.
tl;dr: Stop fooling people into thinking a 5 starter stage list does anything about MK. It doesn't do anything except favor those grounded characters who are so inflexible they would typically be screwed, and defeat the stage striking system.
How are those stages bad?
How is more starters a bad thing?
It defeats the purpose of stage striking with a 5 starter stage list.
Completely, and utterly defeats it.
Let alone if you're going to start calling people tool's and douche's, you might as well take a moment to see what you wrote.
Can't blame others for being nasty if you're going to be just the same.
AlMoStLeGeNdArY
Smash Hero
it's funny that you'd bring up politics because this country is being ruined. read a book watch glenn beck and get a clue.
- Status