What definition are you using in which you aren't neglecting it?
By saying that it doesn't exist. That would be neglecting it.
So me saying that weaknesses cannot be exploited because a good player prevents it so, is not neglecting it. I am well aware that a weakness is there, thats why I adjust to my strategy to keep it from being exploited. I am clearly acknowledging the weakness by trying to keep it from being abused.
That's not neglecting it, but you're saying it is. I can't bring up a word for it, but if I could, "neglect" would not be on the list.
So how does that make Captain Falcon have equakl potential to everyone else? He has tools that players can use superior skill to win with, but everyone else has those same one plus additional (and better) ones.
Thus, CF < everyone else.
I never said that he had equal potential, point out where I said that please.
I said that these simple things can increase any character's potential, not it balances them out.
Lets use numbers as an example.
Captial Falcon: Potential--13
Sonic: Potential--20
Meta Knight: Potential--70
Now then, lets put in the fundamentals, which would increase all character's potential by, I don't know, 10 or something.
Captial Falcon: Potential--13+10=23
Sonic: Potential--20+10=30
Meta Knight: Potential--70+10=80
This is what I was saying, not;
Captial Falcon: Potential--13+x=(13+x)
Sonic: Potential--20+x=(20+x)
Meta Knight: Potential--70+x=(70+x)
That would put them in a unknown amount of potential, essentially equal, I'm not saying that.
Now then, after all this you still rely on character traits to determine outcomes.
Yes, CF < everyone else.
How about Good Player who just happens to use CF >(or equal to) everyone else.
*Sigh* We're talking about players of equal skill. That means as much as you make the hypothetical Ike player improve at covering his weaknesses (for example, using spacing to get around his slow speed) the Ike's opponent will get equally more skilled at abusing those weaknesses. A good Ike can minimize his slow speed disadvantage with good spacing. A good opponent will be able to bring that speed weakness back through equally good spacing and timing.
No, a better opponent would.
Now I noticed you are acknowledging spacing here.
Spacing is a more descriptive version of Circumstance, PI and Reaction.
Here, strengths and weaknesses don't matter as much as they normally would, because the general outcome is determined by the player's skill.
Now what you're saying is that a (much) better player can take down a pro Meta Knight if he was Ike. Does this mean that if the better player chose Meta Knight, even after never touching him at all, he can own the other player, who have dedicated all his training into Meta Knight?
I'm not saying skill is everything, because you have to learn the character first, before learning to player properly, but after you learn the character, it's all chalked up to skill from there.
So skill is most of it, like 75 percent of it. It doens't take long to grasp a character.
You don't even have to predict the QD, you can just react to it. Fall at the same level as him and air dodge when you see the QD released. If you drop to the level of the edge, I know for sure you're going to grab the edge and can just edgehog you.
That takes prediction. You have to know when he'll release it to react to it, or else your timing may be wrong, plus Ike moves to an almost straight line when releasing a good charged Quick Dash, falling at the same rate won't fix the problem, because Ike will stop falling and move horizontally, right over your head, while you waste a moment to counter air dodging. And again, timing, if not prediction, is essential if that plan is to work.
Also, keep in mind, even if I get hit by QD off the stage, you still fall to your death and die.
True, but you will launch upwards to the stars and die, your goal (should be) is to stay alive and take your opponent down. Even if we both had one stock left, depending on how high up I am when I release it, you may die before I do.
I never said equally skilled players can't predict eachother. Let's have two equally skilled MKs play eachother. Both will attempt to predict the other and will successfully do so part of the time.
Now, let's make one play CF, who telegraphs his move much more than MK does (and doesn't have the same potential for mindgames (like baiting airdodges without risk)). Won't the MK who is equally skilled with the CF be able to predict the CF much more? CF will occasionally predict the MK and land a dsmash. However, the MK will outspace/dodge/shield the dsmash far more often and land a fair or dsmash of his own. It's a lot easier to see CF's smashes coming than it is to see MK's dsmash coming.
This is half true, again we are talking about equally skilled players.
Meta Knight is very predictable, I should know, I fight him alot against better players than I.
And Captian Falcon may be predictable as well, but in that, he can space, dodge, shield, moves as well, plus he can launch his own. You don't need smash attacks to win, so the CF player can adjust his game to make use of his other moves and launch a smash when it's a sure thing.
Again, predictable does not always mean avoidable.
And avoiding it is all up to the SKILL OF THE PLAYER.
The tornado and SL, as a whole, are still amazing moves. Thus, neither move can be considered a disadvantage for MK.
What if they were to miss? And Meta Knight enters hapless mode until he hits the ground?
I'm not directly talking about the move itself, but the effect the move produces on the character using it.
Take Ike's Quick Dash, like you mentioned above, if one was to air dodge in fron of it, Ike will be forced to plummet to his doom, thus preventing from be a good recovery.
Thats a disadvantage.
If Meta Knight were to do Mach Tornado and miss, he will fall, unable to do anything and gets the up smash of a lifetime.
Thats a disadvantage.
Ah, you must have forgotten what you said in your last post. Allow me to remind you.
You said this,
That's not how it's decided. It's more of a result than the defining measure of the strength of the character. For example, I've seen a whole lot more Sonics than ICs. That doesn't mean Sonic is better. People play MK and not CF becuase they are top and bottom tier. They aren't top and bottom because people play MK and not CF.
M3D said the exact opposite.
2. Instead of measuring match outcomes, tiers are more a measurement of potential of characters against the rest of the cast in a competitive, 1v1 tournament environment. It shows general strength of a character's abilities in a specific tournament environment.
You say, its not character measure, its result.
M3D say, its not result, its character measure.
Thats what I said.
What do you think the tier list is, then?
It's not just an outright ranking of match-ups. DDD wouldn't be where he was if that was the case.
Need I quote again?
It shows general strength of a character's abilities in a specific tournament environment.
That sounds like it's based on outsomes to me.
Instead, it's a ranking of characters potential in tournament environments. That doesn't mean that MK is at the top because the most people play him. It means a combination of MK being the current best and having the tournament results to back that up.
I said that most people play him helps him make top tier.
But in order to know the potential, you must play the character, right?
So it is a ranking of outcomes.
Alas, you still ignore my main point.
The Tier list show potential of the charcater, not the potential of the player.
I'm focusing on the potential of the player, because a good enough player can win regardless of the character chosen.
My point, in a way, supports the tier list, why can't you see this.
I'm not saying it's bs, and if I am? So what, it's my opinion!
My whole spin on the list is that I DON'T CARE FOR IT, because it ignores the "learn to player" half of the battle. It, like you, focuses on character traits to determine general out comes at equal play level.
I focus on player skill that determines general outcomes period. If two equal players went at it, then it's anyones game, thats what I'm saying.
In the process of learning to player (or "learning to be a better player" for your grammar obsessed sake{no offense}) you automatically learn to cover or minimize a weakness, it doesn't take any more effort to do that than to muster up a kill.
I've taken a look at CF. I play him as an alt for fun (he's too manly to ignore). He's bad.
Say that to a guy who plays him seriously.
There aren't nearly enough hours in the day to ever achieve that, especially when I've got college apps to take care of. >_<
Sucks for you.
I'm in college, but I still find enough time to train in smash.
