stuff[/quote[]
No one cares if 90% of the world is idiotic. What matters is the 10% who are providing you a detailed argument. address the argument, there is no need to remind us that the majority of people in a tournament suck, or that the majority of people on a forum, are lacking in knowledge.
Not really, no.
A) Most smashers are scrubs. Yes, including smashers who go to tournaments.
Scrubs are people who limit themselves such as SOnic users refusing to use MK because he is top tier. You have extremely good scrubs.
Otherwise, you mean newbs.
B) There are tons of options, so no, it doesn't actually say anything. G&W isn't played as much as other really good characters because there are other options (MK, Snake, ect.). The cast is so large and there are a huge number of quite good characters, so a couple of them being greatly underplayed doesn't represent anything other than "people don't like that character", not "that character isn't good."
So what?
In spite of not being liked G&W is still up there.
Sonic isn't liked and he is up there.
Why does Bowser's few placings mean more than Sonic's placings?
There is absolutely no good reason to completely ignore tournament results because those tournament results, are amethod by which we can collect data on how a character does a thigh level play. It isn't perfect, things get skewed, but it does provide some means of how a character will do and aids in proving a character's capability.
So tell me, if Bowser is doing poorly, and hasn''t truly proven his capability, making much of his capability theory, why is it better than a character who does much better, and shows that capability to be more than just theory?
This adds to my argument earlier concerning the issue of sonic's potential.
On paper, he is lesser than Bowser currently. In play thuogh, that isn't how it works out, because his potential is geared towards immeasurable factors so much that it really cannot be ignored as it is now.
THe tournament results add thos this argument it isn't the basis of it.
mmk, you still see those decks doing tons better in sppite of being disliked.
People who play Sonic are more likely to main Sonic than people who play Bowser are to main Bowser.
Based on what?
Given that an actual, competent Sonic has said the primary advantage Sonic has is that people haven't ever played against competent sonics...
1 competent SOnic user is not the epitome of what goes on with Sonic tournament wise.
I played in a weeklie or two and two tournaments last year and all my opponents knew how to face Sonic.
Does this mean by what I saw this is true? no.
A lot of people know how to play Bowser because he's dumb and funny. How many people didn't clown around with him in Melee? Seriously, now, folks, you can raise those hands
*raises hand*
I never used Bowser in brawl or in melee.
When I faced one of the few competent Bowse rusers, I got rather surprised because I never saw his abilities put into play.
Did I lose?
No, I beat him in the set. I lost the initial match then won the other two.
My inexperience with the character did fctor in somewhat, but it doesn't mean I will lose. I can adapt, I can look at my opponent's behavior and adjust accordingly.
WHat are you basing this on?
They are at least aware of how he works. They may not know how a good Bowser plays, but more likely than not they understand what his moveset does.
Now, Sonic. How many people even know how to play Sonic even remotely competently?
A good number considering how often Sonic has been placing. It is IMPOSSIBLE for people to be so ignorant about a character that is slightly more popular than Bowser who is also doing better against notable players as well.
Your argument is flawed.
You have two characters whose popularity is not very different.
You have one character who is also placing higher, more often than the other.
Logically, people should ahve experience with the latter because he is doing better and more people encounter him as he goes up.
What makes a character good is -actually being good-. Its not about "how often a character is being played"; that's the metagame.
Wouldn't matte because in the long run, that character still does NOT do well in comparison to higher tiered characters.
Azen has placed higher, more consistently with high tier characters than low ones. So in time it does add up but it takes time.
Just a side note.
Not really, no. I mean, you should look at them and understand why characters are doing as well as they're doing, but only an idiot constructs their tier list from tournament results.
No one has. The tournament results are some of the evidence which is much bette than everyone going SOnic is bad.
Yeah good argument.
I am still awaiting the reasoning considering all of what you said can be applied for Bowser.
Note that this is the only way to do it.
Wrong. Tierlists have been constructed based on matchups (3s) or tournament results.
They never voted.
What makes you think they don't? Maybe Sonic would be below CF if he didn't have the results he does.
Characters metagame and capability, etc etc.
And at least one Sonic player has said this is why he does as well as he does, and that he's actually a sucky character but people don't know how to play against him because they never play against good ones. And given he's one of the better ones, well, I'm going to value his opinion over people who are whining about the tier list.
Basically you are saying that you value the opinion of someone who supports your statement but are not going to listen to anyone who opposes it in spite of the arguments provided?
I have yet to see you debate my argument let alone the fact that several Sonic users including myself provided reasoning for why Sonic is doing better than is dictated.
Do the other 12 people suck as well though?
This is assuming the other 12 people do not suck.
Because lots of people play him as a fun character rather than a competitive character.
I know this is a difficult concept for people to understand.
It is a difficult concept because you are basing it on something that is SUBJECTIVE.
I can make the exact claim for several other characters and I would still have absolutely no method of proving it.
I consider Bowser boring. I find Ganondorf the most entertaining.
my friend green ace finds Sonic fun though he mains Yoshi and finds WOlf to be boring.
OPther people think MK is the most fun out there.
AGain what basis do you have to support it?
Except that isn't my argument at all. I can see where you get lost because i mention it often but the tournament results are evidence for my arugment it is NOT the basis of my argument. I've mentioned this repeatedly in my response to you and you STILL manage to make the same error.
Why?
Okay, seriously? No. Obviously you didn't read the list.
Look at MK. He's a 15. Look at Snake. He's a 13.9.
Look at Falco. He's a 13.03.
So you're looking at a 0.87 point gap between Snake and Falco, and a 1.1 gap between MK and Snake.
Between B and C is a 0.6 gap, smaller than either of those gaps.
So yes, its perfectly justified for those characters to have their own tiers, as they're regarded as considerably better than the rest of the cast.
No it isn't, don't kid yourself.
Tier gaps represent where characters are clearly better than those below them.
Wolf is clearly better than Sonic, hence you have a tier gap.
You do not create a tier gap just because the score people gave MK and Snake are clearly different.
Tierlists are based on potential, not votes. The votes should be considered for numerical placing but should not be used as a method for creating tier gaps because it is flawed.
This is reflected tournament wise, matchup wise, gameplayy wise, etc etc.
not score wise.
killerSOS said:
Sonic is horrible. Everyone needs to get over him.
When they show how accurately how horrible he is, or at least do it in a manner that isn't inconsistent, then I think people will not mind.
Thats why this tier list is good for S-C but then fails the rest of the way, which is why the many tier gaps also fail.
There is no reason for MK and Snake to be separated by a tier gap. MK must show he is that much better than Snake to warrant such a thing.
