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!
Which accomplishes what, when?
Yes, that's what I meant, the numeric advantage in terms of the MU chart. I'd rather talk in terms of ratios, myself. I take a 45:55 to still equate to a 0 and I could see that ratio being given to DDD:Sheilda.
No problem. I'm aware that I'm fairly argumentative so I hope the same.
I never assumed my stance was right. As I pointed out in the quoted discussions, I simply said that there is no documented evidence that Sheilda:DDD is a +1 and the theorycraft I'd seen doesn't give her enough of an advantage to push her from a 0 into a +1. I never even gave you a stance to prove wrong. I'm simply asking someone, anyone really, to prove that Sheilda:DDD is actually notably in Sheilda's advantage. In fact, you're saying the same exact things that I've been saying repeatedly now. "Nobody is neither right or wrong until a couple players actually play the MU at high-level." That's exactly what I've been saying. Here's an instance of that:
I've said that multiple other times, too. The discussion (on the Tier List thread) started in the first place with me asking exactly why Sheilda is a -1 and Sheik is a 0. The reasons that were given weren't very conclusive, so my point is that a -1 is a bit 'decisive' of a conclusion for a MU that we can't claim to be concluding much about.
This is exactly the kind of concept that I was originally disagreeing with. You can't just say '+1 because it's harder than this certain 0'. This was why I actually favored ratios. There are such things as 'harder 0's' and I acknowledged this in the quoted posts. One shouldn't say '+1' just to "help other people understand that Sheilda =/= Sheik or Zelda" because it is misleading.
does NOT beat 
and I can't think of any occasion where a has ever beaten a good in either MM or tourney. 
And having them saying the same as Sheik is misleading, too.
This makes Zelda:DDD sound like it's not a -2...
Gonna say a bunch of random things here, 'cause they all just popped into my head..
wtf? how?
I interpreted this as "If you switch to Zelda to land the first KO but find yourself unable to switch back to Sheik, that's OK because you can just fight the remainder of the match as Zelda," hence my reply. If DDD:Zelda is a +2, then why would it be beneficial for Zelda to attempt to remove three stocks by herself, or rather, why would it be beneficial for Sheilda to attempt to remove three stocks as Zelda without switching back?
You're assuming there there isn't such a thing as a harder 0. 45:55 is harder than 50:50. It's still a 0 in my eyes. If you're gonna use a 5-tiered MU system (which you probably already know I don't like), then you need to use it right. CJ actually worded the issue perfectly in a couple statements:
From personal experience, I can actually believe the latter more than the former. I don't know how well-known Nuke's Diddy is, but I've played him several times and I can say that Waddles just transform that MU. That and active gimping make the MU not that bad.
That post was several months ago. More recently, he came into the Official MU Chart thread and agreed that Diddy is -1:
I believe Coney thinks it's a -2, though. Btw, both players think Falco is still a -2, so as I said, I think it's more believable that DDD:Diddy is -1 than DDD:Falco.
So why then you wander in a DDD matchup thread and think that you can be trusted with any of his matchups while having marth as a main?
Okay, I have a couple of things to say here. First of all, because DDD is so hard to kill and Sheik dies relatively early, the chances are pretty even of either character getting the stock lead first. Something minor that I just wanted to put out there.
plays perfectly into what I was saying during the earlier discussion on the topic. Sheik will be very hard-pressed to find an instance where she can actually knock DDD far enough away to actually pull off a safe, clean transformation, all without losing the stock tie/lead. DDD is heavy and Sheik is weak. Knocking him that far away will take a long time, and all the while Sheik is still risking losing a stock herself so that DDD has the lead. If DDD ever gets the lead, then the 'Sheilda strategy' should almost never come into effect until Sheik regains that lead because DDD will never be forced to approach, and a Zelda that HAS to approach is a Zelda in a lot of trouble.
vs. , when I see comments talking about the MU while having a banana in hand, I always wonder how they got that banana to begin with, seeing as can't safely grab a banana and if reads the banana grab, loses a large chunk of damage or his stock. 's keep away banana/flip mix-ups shut down with a heavily skewed risk-reward ratio, until can enter threat range. This has been the majority of 's metagame advancement vs. in the past year or so and mostly consists of mains in general learning banana control and in particular the tactical advantage(s) afforded by a waddle to limit what Big D called burst options. The problem with this is that afterward, is supposed to play still-quite-skewed footsies with within three horizontal zones: Within dash grab, within Ftilt but beyond dash grab, and within soft banana toss but beyond Ftilt. behind a waddle is that it's no longer useful if you use an attack (therefore no pokes) and the hit lag on waddles lowers his frame advantage and gives an easy infinite.
Jtails giving him the bananas for free doesn't make it less dangerous than it is. That no one uses the infinite doesn't mean that it doesn't break the MU for
; if and are essentially the same weight class... yeah.
My disciples <3.On the topic of
More importantly,
Also, the problem with walking up to
................'kay.Yes it does. If DDD could reliably pull off all the infinites he had, he'd be breaking a lot of MUs. Player consistency and how likely good players are to pull off the techs in question should always be a major part of any MU.That no one uses the infinite doesn't mean that it doesn't break the MU for
Not sure what this means.....if
You should re-read that.So Vex and Jtails are "low-level anecdotes"?
Yes it does. If DDD could reliably pull off all the infinites he had, he'd be breaking a lot of MUs. Player consistency and how likely good players are to pull off the techs in question should always be a major part of any MU.
Not sure what this means.....
's infinites with 's relevant infinites is like comparing 's jab lock options to 's.'s infinites that punish a character as difficult to punish as would obviously work on , and if properly executed cause him to require the same number of reads to take a stock.
Diddy can control the direction of the banana lock, making it both inescapable indefinite without a significant stage change (e.g. Frigate flipping).
to win a tournament set with two reads.
It's no longer rare for
players to infinite common characters (e.g. ). The reason that you don't see it affecting match-ups on a larger scale is because knowing the banana lock for is largely unnecessary; top players consistently beat their counterparts. If I recall correctly, this is without exception. To be clear, an example of what I mean by "counterpart" is Coney losing to Gnes. I know that Jtails is a notable threat in your region, but certainly not at national level. The same goes for P-1 and, historically, Vex. vs. ) nor do MU spreads necessarily reflect a true match-up at what the characters are capable of -- plausible (e.g. 0 - deaths) or implausible (e.g. flawless ).
I think you are confusing "unable to kill" with "unable to knock off".
The remainder of the match? it's just the remainder of the stock, and when she reappears she can change back safely during invincibility (assuming the load time in the Wii is correct).
That's an issue of perception.
Once, again, that's all about opinions and perceptions. Nobody is right or wrong, just think about it differently.
I didn't even read that because of the icons.On the topic of
More importantly,
Also, the problem with walking up to
This is a public forum, so I don't know why you wouldn't be allowed. Unfortunately for
, easily sets up the infinite on him (he can go into the infinite from a glide toss, other banana locks, etc. allowing him to punish things like Ftilt or a whiffed grab with the infinite) and has a considerably more difficult positional requirement (to my knowledge, he must be directly above ) -- I would argue impractically so. 's infinite shouldn't be compared with 's non-standing infinites: 's non-standing infinites aren't true infinites due to tripping while 's infinites are and also I don't think that you can compare a technique that hasn't been used in any notable tournament match with something that is consistently used by multiple players in multiple regions. players generally don't utilize any infinites on in the current metagame and so those who take a "current snapshot of the metagame" should indeed ignore it as a factor in the match-up. I personally do not subscribe to this logic, with a particular counter-example being that players typically mess up the chain grab vs. , yet the match-up still accounts for an infinite, tripless chain grab despite a relatively high risk for tripping when setting up and converting into the infinite (compared to 's).
Nitpicking, but couldn't the same be said if Sheik gets the stock lead (which was what I was referring to)? Then she just "outplayed" the DDD. Sheik:DDD is an even MU largely because Sheik dies early. I could honestly see either character being easily "outplayed" and losing that stock lead.
This is something I talked about as well. I'm not sure about 'different loading times' but as I've seen it on most Wiis, the transformation outlasts the invincibility, so it's a free punish for DDD. Granted, it's a punish that won't amount to a CG or lost stock, but an fsmash punish (or even just a dsmash, usmash, or bthrow punish) gives a lot of damage, and as early as she dies, damage is not something that Sheik wants to be conceding to DDD. Again, since the Sheik:DDD MU is even, I can honestly see either character getting a stock lead first (or second) so it would be pretty bad if Sheik got punished pretty hard once the stocks were tied up again. That's just my opinion on Zelda transforming back to Sheik after losing a stock.
I don't even understand how you came to that conclusion from what I said.So now we're nitpicking our evidence. .....Alright. No one one can really fight against manipulated data.It's no longer rare for
And that's why these panels are being created, to fix those things. Some of us don't think that Diddy:DDD is a +2, so we believe our MU spread is inaccurate in this regard. Same goes for DDD:Snake, and DDD:Fox, and DDD:Sheilda, and DDD:Falco. Some of us disagree with the chart. That's what we're talking about. The MU spreads should reflect what the characters are consistently and reliably capable of at a high level.You also have to keep in mind that any given MU spread is not necessarily accurate in general (e.g.
I'm not sure what this means. I'm pretty sure Hoejja and I were talking about DDD's pivot grab infinite which just requires a grab, not being above the opponent.
