Tech_Chase wants YOU to assist in the BBR MU Chart project!

[Bobwithlobsters]

Can ddd pivot grab mk out of tornado? I know it is not easy to pull off against an mk that tornados half way intelligently but at least it is another option... Using utilt our best kill move to counter one of mk's most used moves sounds like a good way to not have a fresh kill option...

I really hate mk so much... And I used to main mk before the unity ban.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I guess he could, but then again, he's so slow that he can't get enough room to Pivot Grab it if MK performs it too close.
I think he could't grab he Tornado from too high? It's been a while since I tested stuff like that, I wish I still could...

 

[bubbaking]

I really hate mk so much... And I used to main mk before the unity ban.

Same here! I guess we both moved on to the next best thing (another awesome Dreamland char) after the URC banned MK. Even though he's been unbanned with the disbandment of the committee, I still feel more comfortable playing with DDD in all MUs.

I guess he could, but then again, he's so slow that he can't get enough room to Pivot Grab it if MK performs it too close.
I think he could't grab he Tornado from too high? It's been a while since I tested stuff like that, I wish I still could...

You don't need room to perform a pivot grab instead of a regular grab. You only need to dash backwards for a frame. If MK is too close, utilt probably shouldn't work either (the invincibility isn't frame 1 and you still have to factor in reaction time). Your most realistic choice in that situation I feel is to just shield the whole thing (angle it upwards to avoid pokes) and try to reset the situation. Also, yes, MK can and probably should tornado at your head, both to avoid jank like PS grabs and the like and to increase his chances of stabbing your shield.

If the pivot grab did/does work, it probably requires a good read, just like utilt.

 

[FredFuchs]

how are the discussions for falco, ics, tl, and peach going? any updates for those mus?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Not sure if we can talk about it, but Falco and Peach apparently will need more discussion. All of the others have been settled.
I'll ask the leaders if we can share that info.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Peach is one of those matches that I feel is rather easy. I feel that essentially bair is better than anything she can do out of float. So she jumps I keep the same vertical spacing as her and pressure with bair and the only move she can really hit with is a perfectly spaced fair. Which is not easy to space if you are pressuring correctly with bair.

On the other hand she is probably one of the hardest characters if turtle in your shield as her aerials are 100% safe on shield when spaced correctly.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I just got confirmation that we can tell the changes.
Falco and Peach will need more discussion.
ToonLink will go to +1, TLs really think we cover their options well. I still think their Zdrop is enough to prevent the chaingrab, thus being sent offstage, thus a lot of damage.... But they were very adamant about the MU. Plus two DDDs didn't vote.
ICs remained -3. Basically, DDDs could not demonstrate improvement in their gameplan, so the MU remained unchanged.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Yeah I really dont see why toon links seem to think ddd is that hard for them... I have always felt ddd struggles most with the really good camping characters ie falco and olimar. And mk because mk...

 

[FredFuchs]

and diddy and zss get moved down to -1 and snake goes to 0 right? also, any other changes/ discussions that are rather under the radar?

 

[bubbaking]

I just got confirmation that we can tell the changes.
Falco and Peach will need more discussion.
ToonLink will go to +1, TLs really think we cover their options well. I still think their Zdrop is enough to prevent the chaingrab, thus being sent offstage, thus a lot of damage.... But they were very adamant about the MU. Plus two DDDs didn't vote.
ICs remained -3. Basically, DDDs could not demonstrate improvement in their gameplan, so the MU remained unchanged.

Kyokoro, your vote was part of the reason that the DDD:TL MU is changing to +1. It was only one DDD (myself) who thought it was even and one TL who agreed with me. Two DDDs abstained due to inexperience, the rest of the TLs voted +1, and you agreed with them. Now you are making it sound like you were never convinced in the first place, which I find quite.....odd.

Edit: It wasn't really that "DDDs could not demonstrate improvement in their gameplan." It was majorly that there wasn't enough results evidence at all to prove such an argument. All we had from the past year was 4GOD beating ESAM in the only DDD vs ICs match that they ever played during their set and ESAM beating Vex in the only DDD vs ICs match that THEY ever played during their set.

Zekey beat a somewhat high-level ICs in his region. Disregarded. Coney bodied Vinnie in 2010. Disregarded. Coney beat DeLux somewhat recently. Disregarded. Everything was ignored for one reason or another until nearly nothing was left.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I voted +1 against TL for the same reason I voted -3 against ICs.
The characters haven't used their tools more efficiently to make an improvement.
Toon Links don't Zdrop, DDDs can't really get in against ICs and wreck them as they should.
I hope for a v4 where more DDDs develop technology to get in ICs' zoning, and TLs avoid getting grabbed better.

Anyway, something I told you several times in those threads, Results alone don't say a thing.
It's all about describing tools and weighing them.
This is why we're struggling with the Falco discussion, we all have described our tools, know how dangerous they are, but everyone are weighing them differently, so a number for them is hard to agree on.
This is why ICs have the +3, ICs are expected not to allow DDD to get in to separate them.
Results are important but results alone are explaining nothing.

 

[bubbaking]

I voted +1 against TL for the same reason I voted -3 against ICs.
The characters haven't used their tools more efficiently to make an improvement.
Toon Links don't Zdrop, DDDs can't really get in against ICs and wreck them as they should.
I hope for a v4 where more DDDs develop technology to get in ICs' zoning, and TLs avoid getting grabbed better.

Anyway, something I told you several times in those threads, Results alone don't say a thing.
It's all about describing tools and weighing them.
This is why we're struggling with the Falco discussion, we all have described our tools, know how dangerous they are, but everyone are weighing them differently, so a number for them is hard to agree on.
This is why ICs have the +3, ICs are expected not to allow DDD to get in to separate them.
Results are important but results alone are explaining nothing.

You're being horribly inconsistent with this post. You say results don't mean anything, but then you say that the DDD:TL MU is +1 because TLs don't Z-drop (which is derived from results). If "it's all about describing tools and weighing them," then you're pretty much agreeing that the MU should have been a 0, but you declined from voting for it because of what results have shown. Results mean a whole lot more than what you give them credit for. If the results don't back the 'theory', which is what you're referring to, then that means that the theory is very possibly incorrect in some way.

Btw, when have you EVER seen me just use results by themselves? I always list strengths and weaknesses we have in the MU along with strats and techs we can use, while giving video evidence to prove the practicality of what I am saying (which you tend to go too deep into by trying to see how 'legitimate' the two players are when all I'm trying to show is how practical a certain tech/strat is). I always explain my reasoning. After all that, I tend to use results from mostly high/top-level players of the characters in question to corroborate my arguments. In other words, I present theory, practicality, and relevant results evidence. For some reason, you tend to find some problem with this way of doing things, which is somewhat irksome. Results matter because they prove that your statement, "DDDs can't really get in against ICs and wreck them as they should," is just plain false. Now, one can disprove certain results by pointing out instances in a match where a player played the MU very incorrectly, leading to an unlikely outcome, but you never do this. You rarely try to counter my points directly. Instead, you flit around the issue and say that I am arguing incorrectly. If my results don't mean much, then why don't you prove it?

We're not "struggling" at all with the Falco discussion. The Falcos are just being really adamant about their position (which is understandable). Heck, one of the Falcos even agrees with us. Going by numbers, we should win if it's put to a vote. However, the discussion is being dragged out and if it takes any longer, then things may change simply because, well, the discussion is taking too long.