Theory Craft and Mix up game: Seeing where "on paper" meets "in match" ~Essay

[-Jumpman-]

Lol this is the problem right here. This is exactly what I was talking about.

Why didn't Seibrik shield? Ask Seibrik. Seibrik didn't shield because he didn't expect me to sidestep so quickly. This game is rock paper scissors. He had to guess what I was going to do. He couldn't go to dash grab but see the frames of my sidestep come out and wait. Nobody's brain works that fast.

Concerning the SHbair or w/e, of course I would've been punished, but I made that choice because I knew he wasn't going to. That's exactly what this entire thread is explaining. I didn't get lucky, I predicted correctly, and was rewarded for it. Dashing and SHing followed by bairing against MK is a terrible option in general. It would be too risky, because what if I DIDN'T do what I chose to do. He can't read my mind, he has to either guess or react, and MK is fast to the point where you have to predict to punish.

I definitely think a grab against DDD isn't worth the risk, I would've rolled away. Especially if DDD's grab is 16%.

I agree on the prediction thing though. It's a huge part of Brawl. Especially if both players know exactly what they're doing. That's what makes the game fun (unless you play campy chars :D )

 

[OverLade]

I definitely think a grab against DDD isn't worth the risk, I would've rolled away. Especially if DDD's grab is 16%.

I agree on the prediction thing though. It's a huge part of Brawl. Especially if both players know exactly what they're doing. That's what makes the game fun (unless you play campy chars :D )

You make judgements per situation. If I had done something differently last time he might have reacted differently, and might've won the mix up. Me and him hadn't played in 10 months, so the only way for him to figure out what I usually do it by taking a risk. Most Dedede players would've expected me to glide attack, which is why he dash shieldgrabbed. It makes perfect sense for me to glide attack, which is why I didn't do it.

Same thing with the dashgrab. I dashgrabbed him because I predicted that he would think to dash shield. It was spontaneous. Just like Seibrik took a risk the first time trying to grab me, I took a risk dashgrabbing him. The better you predict, the more aggressive you can play. And that kills how mundane this game can be.

 

[-Jumpman-]

You make judgements per situation. If I had done something differently last time he might have reacted differently, and might've won the mix up. Me and him hadn't played in 10 months, so the only way for him to figure out what I usually do it by taking a risk. Most Dedede players would've expected me to glide attack, which is why he dash shieldgrabbed. It makes perfect sense for me to glide attack, which is why I didn't do it.

Same thing with the dashgrab. I dashgrabbed him because I predicted that he would think to dash shield. It was spontaneous. Just like Seibrik took a risk the first time trying to grab me, I took a risk dashgrabbing him. The better you predict, the more aggressive you can play. And that kills how mundane this game can be.

If you predict wrong, you're screwed. Don't worry, I play the same way if my opponent allows me to.

 

[OverLade]

If you predict wrong, you're screwed. Don't worry, I play the same way if my opponent allows me to.

And that's where there are good players and bad players. Better prediction goes hand and hand with more skill. That's why some people beat other people in tournament consistently. I'm good because I make good reads, which is why I can take risks other people might not take.

This thread is about where on paper meets "in tourney" after all

 

[Xiahou Dun]

In a match, the amount of time you have to spontaneously think of these things is a very small window. Thinking of something in a split second isn't theory, though you could still call it that if you really want.

Haha. You've misinterpreted. When I say everything you think about is Theory. I certainly don't mean thinking "I'm going to Shield now" is Theory, but that anytime people have thought about the game outside of playing it and considered trying some tactic or mixup they are Theorycrafting.

Theorycraft is what this thread is about anyway, not "theory" as you're referring to it as.

Don't be stupid. Woodcraft is an action but a Door is still Wood. When I speak of a Theory I do not call it Theory Craft in the same way I do not call an Arrow "Fletching". A Theory is a Theory, coming up with it is Theorycraft. Although in the last sentence I probably should have said Theorycraft and not Theory all other uses were correct.

People may "theorize" these things, and some strategies were legitimately discovered from theory, but for the most part as this game developed, it's people who were actually playing the game realized them.

People who Theorise still play the game. They are just looking at it from the outside to try and improve how they play it on the inside.

Camping on a platform to avoid a grab wasn't discovered by theory. It was discovered by logical realization, which isn't theory. Standing on the platform makes perfect sense to anyone who plays this game and understands a grab can mean death. If nobody posted it on the boards, tons of people would still be doing it. It would pass by word of mouth in the tournament scene. But it's not theory.

There are two ways this could have played out and which it is would determine whether it is realisation or Theorycraft.

Situation 1.
I am on a Platform.
Because I am on this platform I cannot be Grabbed.

This is realisation. They have looked at the situation and seen what it means.

Situation 2.
I am being Grabbed too much in this matchup.
How can I avoid this?
Camp a Platform.

This is Theorycraft. They have looked at what's happening and deliberately thought of a way to stop it. This is Theory. Theory is merely a contemplation or speculation. If you think about something and come up with a proposed action to avoid it in future games you are Theorycrafting. No ifs no ands and no buts. There are good Theorys and bad ones. Bad ones get too much attention, good ones get no recognition.

You're still assuming that what Theory is has anything to do with the Boards btw.

 

[OverLade]

Stuff you said

Hows this? You're misinterpreting MY definition of theorycraft and using your own to prove your point. I already specifically explained that not all theorycraft is bad, and that it's a certain type of theorycraft that I'm speaking against. I simply said that the theorycraft I'm talking about is often seen in matchup discussion on these boards. People can test things and make demonstrational videos, but that can only be done with the right kind of theory craft. The wrong kind of theory craft can't be proven using videos.

I have no reason to argue with you because we're not even arguing about the same thing.

 

[Veril]

But now that I'm waiting for it, I get my opponent thinking (wait, what if I tried grabbing him, because I knew he was going to wait for my sidestep?). Suddenly it's a mixup, even though it's not logical.

What you should expect is based on conditioning and learning. You guess what your opponent is going to do based off of two things, what you've experienced in the matchup before, and what you've experienced from your opponent before.

Obviously the psychological dynamic of a match is fundamental to winning. I think you misunderstand me to an extend. Knowing data gives me a set of tools, that doesn't mean I'm basing strategy off comparative frame-rates.

Theory-crafting of the sort that we must often encounter implies developing a comprehensive strategy independent of the mental components of the game. This is NOT how to utilize data. What you can do are a series of useful pieces of information that help you conceptualize a character at their most basic form. As a good example, I can land a grab with any character in B+ and know all the possible followups... for everyone. Because I know the frame advantages for most throws when used on my main, I know down to the frame what the best option is when grabbed. Sometimes this doesn't matter, using Jiggs/MK I know that Captain Falcon can d-throw knee me on final D regardless of how I DI. Often however, it does: lets say I'm Lucas playing Glick's Jigglypuff. He's eventually going to land an up-air, which I've been told countless times is a death sentence. Depending on the spacing of the up-air and % I'm at there are a few options I have:

1. Use the SDI I've practiced to make it impossible for him to miss rest comboing by a very small number of frames.

2. He's going to land rest due to its invincibility frame if I use an aerial. He'll hold back because he's seen me airdodge out. My jump is wacky and parabolic cause its lucas. So... I zapjump if the stage is large enough that I can safely do so. Or DJ dair.

3. I suck and got up-tilt > up-air comboed at ~20%. I was grounded so I couldn't GDI out when the uptilt landed. A single tear runs down my face. I KNOW that he's gonna rest me because its not escapible at this point. I know that it is possible to live if I DI perfectly (and my DI is something I'm extremely proud of... Yes! knows ;p). Now I'm DIing on prediction and not reaction.

4. I'm at high enough % that I just DI away and the combo fails. Glick probably is aware of this, but I've played a lot of Jiggs mains who aren't. If I see them try to get close enough to rest... lol their stock is gone.


Generally though its just knowing combos, KO%, tricks, and the frame timing for doing just about anything optimally. You can learn this all by playing... and everyone must do this with their main obviously. I have to know all of this for every character, so interpreting data is a necessity.

not all theorycraft is bad, and that it's a certain type of theorycraft that I'm speaking against. I simply said that the theorycraft I'm talking about is often seen in matchup discussion on these boards.

Or we might actually just agree with eachother lol. When 6.1 comes out I'd like to work with you detailing the appropriate ways to use data.

 

[OverLade]

Stuff.

I agree with you completely, I just went off in a wild tangent example similarly to you going off on a tangent about brawl plus.

Frame data is relevant in brawl plus the same way it's relevant in Melee because you have frame traps. Brawl barely has many frame traps making it pure reads and options. Your opponent has enough time to do something before you can reach them. That means you have to guess what they're going to do and "double read" them. You might read a roll but not be fast enough to reach the ending frames so you have to guess twice. You might dash shield guessing that your opponent was going to sidestep assuming that you were going to dash grab. This is expecially true against Metaknight because how quickly he can eliminate lag.

 

[-Jumpman-]

And that's where there are good players and bad players. Better prediction goes hand and hand with more skill. That's why some people beat other people in tournament consistently. I'm good because I make good reads, which is why I can take risks other people might not take.

This thread is about where on paper meets "in tourney" after all

And then you get screwed because someone goes for the safest option. For example, if in the same situation as you described instead of shield approaching I would have done nothing but use walking as an approach. What would you have done? Every prediction is pretty much worthless then. If you really take as much risk as you do, you'll be baited easily.

 

[OverLade]

And then you get screwed because someone goes for the safest option. For example, if in the same situation as you described instead of shield approaching I would have done nothing but use walking as an approach. What would you have done? Every prediction is pretty much worthless then. If you really take as much risk as you do, you'll be baited easily.

You're doing exactly what I said not to do. You're looking at an isolated incedent, and saying "how could he have not predicted that?". Watching a video and playing a match are two different things. You're saying in theory what you could do, which isn't the same as what you were expecting me to do. People have limited reaction speed, and you can only expect a few options at once. If I do something my opponent isn't expecting, they won't be able to react to it in time. I explained this thoroughly in the main essay.

You could walk forward the entire match, but you would still have to predict what I was going to approach with because your reactions aren't fast enough to see me do something when I'm 1 space away from you and react. Think logically, that's not how you play this game. You would need the reaction speed of a level 9 CPU. Am I right?

 

[-Jumpman-]

You don't need reaction time to predict things, that's rubbish. It's knowledge that makes people predict.

Anyway, even though prediction can be very good, it's mostly unnecessary.

 

[OverLade]

Anyway, even though prediction can be very good, it's mostly unnecessary.

This arguement is over. No point in trying to convince someone like you.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Good read, and it was really necessary. I'm guilty of a lot of bad theory-crafting >_>.

At the same time, with limited in-person experience, I sometimes feel like it's all I can do. Good theorycrafting (which is usually coupled with actual match-up experience) can be really helpful in certain match-ups. One of the Diddy's who quit and is somewhat inactive now, Le_Thien, took match-up analysis to a new level and helped me tremendously with match-ups just by reading what he said.

 

[Zankoku]

And then you get screwed because someone goes for the safest option. For example, if in the same situation as you described instead of shield approaching I would have done nothing but use walking as an approach. What would you have done? Every prediction is pretty much worthless then. If you really take as much risk as you do, you'll be baited easily.

The game of prediction is a combination of experience and assumptions. When you go into a matchup knowing nothing about the opponent's tendencies, it's not a bad idea to assume the opponent will not allow himself any easy openings, and to simply take an action to test his response. Through this you can both learn your opponent's tendencies and possibly even condition them through repetition. Of course, realize that if both players take no risks, and make no mistakes, you've reached the dumbest point of theory fighter - the Perfect Game.

 

[-Jumpman-]

This arguement is over. No point in trying to convince someone like you.

Why would you want to convince me? Your "essay" was very informative even though I already knew what it is about. I just have a different opinion. Well maybe I wasn't very clear. I think META KNIGHT doesn't need to predict actions. Almost any other character can benefit immensely from doing this.

Maybe it's because you used examples with MK I didn't agree. I haven't really thought about it anyway, nothing new.

 

[Demp]

Great thread. It definitely changed the way I look at a lot of posts on these forums.

 

[hotgarbage]

This thread is good and you should feel good.
Halberd 4 SBR-B

 

[<π]

Why would you want to convince me? Your "essay" was very informative even though I already knew what it is about. I just have a different opinion. Well maybe I wasn't very clear. I think META KNIGHT doesn't need to predict actions. Almost any other character can benefit immensely from doing this.

Maybe it's because you used examples with MK I didn't agree. I haven't really thought about it anyway, nothing new.

Even MK has opening you can explit.
piviot grabs beating a lot of his stuff, dash in sheild to mess up spacing on his aerials, ect.

you may not agree with it but this is what happens all the time in high level play. Even ally and M2k don't know what you are going to do, they guess too. Imagine the huge advantage you'd get if you're opponent told you everything they'd do before they did it. "I'm gonna roll behind you now." thats the same advantage you get from makeing propper predictions and while yes you may predict incorrectly often times it is worth that risk, espeacially if you've noticed a lot of this same action happening.

its all about risk versus reward, thats all this game is.

 

[hippiedude92]

i approve of this thread redhalberd

can this stuff apply to melee too? like the predicting stuff?

now that l've read this, it seems like brawl isnt a simple game when you look at it deeper theres so much to learn not to mention since top players are constantly thinking, playing a full set must be really mentally stressing lol.

 

[OverLade]

i approve of this thread redhalberd

can this stuff apply to melee too? like the predicting stuff?

now that l've read this, it seems like brawl isnt a simple game when you look at it deeper theres so much to learn not to mention since top players are constantly thinking, playing a full set must be really mentally stressing lol.

Everything in this thread for the most part applies to melee but while I play Melee to a degree I don't understand how the mixups work at the highest level (like I do brawl anyway). Because of Wavedashing and L cancelling you can rely on spacing and you don't have to use shield/sidestep as much as mixups. Mentally both games take the same things, but the way the metagame has developed made the way you carry out a match a lot different. Every character has a ton of mix up options (for example to dodge an attack you can sidestep, or you can short hop, or you can wavedash backwards) so adapting to your opponent is probably a lot more complicated.

 

[Wumbologist]

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but great essay. When I watch videos I'll definitely be looking at them in a different way. It's also nice to get something like this from an experienced player.
I wish I had something to contribute, but unfortunately, I don't. My apologies.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Even MK has opening you can explit.
piviot grabs beating a lot of his stuff, dash in sheild to mess up spacing on his aerials, ect.

you may not agree with it but this is what happens all the time in high level play. Even ally and M2k don't know what you are going to do, they guess too. Imagine the huge advantage you'd get if you're opponent told you everything they'd do before they did it. "I'm gonna roll behind you now." thats the same advantage you get from makeing propper predictions and while yes you may predict incorrectly often times it is worth that risk, espeacially if you've noticed a lot of this same action happening.

its all about risk versus reward, thats all this game is.

Yep, I'm arguably a top 5 euro player, I don't know what high level play is.

 

[OverLade]

Yep, I'm arguably a top 5 euro player, I don't know what high level play is.

That doesn't mean you do either...

 

[DewDaDash]

Interesting read I must say

Most of the time I play on instinct really, only sometimes do I set up something to fake the opponent only to do something else.

Something I don't really understand too much though is that you say you do shuttle loop side step first so then you automatically think ok seibrik instantly picks up on this, next time I do this I'll do shuttle loop dash grab. How do you realize that he'd pick up on it so quickly so that you'd change the move next time? Is that just by guessing when to change it up or you know that he'd do so and so at that instant?

Because what your pretty much saying is that people at the highest playing level play the game on a read-read game more than instinctive moves. "In theory this doesn't work because of recognition but by doing this move at this instant it breaks the theory". So does this mindset of playing only work really against ppl who play at the highest lvl? Because putting that sort of mixup against an average good person might not work as intended after the first time or so since the person didn't really catch on after the first intended read.

Also against seibrik, when you did mixup those moves do you consciously think ok I must now mixup this move now or is it more instinctive when you mix up, that you don't really think much of it, but just know when to mix it up?

And a question unrelated to the topic but still important lol. By playing on wi-fi to tourney, did wi-fi hinder your tournament play style or not really or perhaps make it better? Cuz I've been considering playing wi-fi but I tend to think that it'll detract from tourney play style and I don't really want to pick up on wi-fi habits to tourney play.(I've never really tried Wi-fi much but am wondering if I should move tourney to wi-fi play.) For me there really is no smash at all in my area so I only go to a tourney about every 3 months. So what I'm wondering is by playing wi-fi, does it fill that gap of not playing for 3 months?

*Btw, we should get some matches in at vsa in feb. Never had the chance yet to play halzy

 

[OverLade]

Something I don't really understand too much though is that you say you do shuttle loop side step first so then you automatically think ok seibrik instantly picks up on this, next time I do this I'll do shuttle loop dash grab. How do you realize that he'd pick up on it so quickly so that you'd change the move next time? Is that just by guessing when to change it up or you know that he'd do so and so at that instant

Because what your pretty much saying is that people at the highest playing level play the game on a read-read game more than instinctive moves. "In theory this doesn't work because of recognition but by doing this move at this instant it breaks the theory". So does this mindset of playing only work really against ppl who play at the highest lvl? Because putting that sort of mixup against an average good person might not work as intended after the first time or so since the person didn't really catch on after the first intended read.

Excellent question. Keep in mind this was game 3. I 3 stocked his Dedede this match, but I didn't 3 stock him in the first 2 games. His patterns became more farmiliar and I became more conscious of what he would expect and how he would respond to it . First 2 matches I probably lost mixups from shuttle loop because I wasn't sure what to expect him to do next.

If I was playing for someone who falls for the same thing multiple times I would catch on to it and I would simply keep doing it. Or if I recongize you're willing to take options A and B, but never try C, I'll catch on to that as well.

*I'll put an example here later*

Also against seibrik, when you did mixup those moves do you consciously think ok I must now mixup this move now or is it more instinctive when you mix up, that you don't really think much of it, but just know when to mix it up?

It's instinctive for me. Sometimes I consciously remind myself of opponents patterns while I'm idol, but it's very difficult when actively engaging your opponent. I'd like to point out that reaction was an important factor. The decision to dashgrab him was spontaneous when I saw him dash towards me.

However consciously thinking often makes me second guess myself (I have a horrible habit of second guessing in real life and it translates to the game) and sometimes I end up being wrong instead of going with my gut feeling.

And a question unrelated to the topic but still important lol. By playing on wi-fi to tourney, did wi-fi hinder your tournament play style or not really or perhaps make it better? Cuz I've been considering playing wi-fi but I tend to think that it'll detract from tourney play style and I don't really want to pick up on wi-fi habits to tourney play.(I've never really tried Wi-fi much but am wondering if I should move tourney to wi-fi play.) For me there really is no smash at all in my area so I only go to a tourney about every 3 months. So what I'm wondering is by playing wi-fi, does it fill that gap of not playing for 3 months?

My internet connection is exceptionally horrible. Because of this going from Wifi to Online (back in January) was a little difficult. My offline game was always imprecise and wifi didn't help me much because it was too laggy to learn matchups.

If you have good internet and good people to play though, I recommend playing wifi. Wifi also relys a lot more on prediction and intuition, because the speed at which you have to react to things is shorter due to button delay.

*Btw, we should get some matches in at vsa in feb. Never had the chance yet to play halzy

Sounds good

 

[Pierce7d]

Good read.

I'd just like to point out to all the non-believers that almost ALL the top players I know (and I know most of them) use a lot of prediction and have good offense. They remain safe often, but do take many risks.

 

[-Jumpman-]

That doesn't mean you do either...

I think that applies to you more than it does to me.

 

[OverLade]

I think that applies to you more than it does to me.

Because I'm not a proven top player in a region with a legitimate metagame? Anyway believe what you want, its not me who's in the dark lol.

 

[Megavitamins]

I'll never look at youtube vid's the same way again.

 

[Pierce7d]

Because I'm not a proven top player in a region with a legitimate metagame? Anyway believe what you want, its not me who's in the dark lol.

You've had a very good run of logic and reasoning so far, in an impressive thread I approve of. Please don't ruin this by insulting European metagame, which is not as far behind as people think.

I will bite and say that our top level is expanding a little, but Europe's top level can still compete with our high level, as can most regions in the world. Don't discredit a continent because we have 10-20ish players in the whole country that happen to be so far above everyone else.

 

[OverLade]

You've had a very good run of logic and reasoning so far, in an impressive thread I approve of. Please don't ruin this by insulting European metagame, which is not as far behind as people think.

I will bite and say that our top level is expanding a little, but Europe's top level can still compete with our high level, as can most regions in the world. Don't discredit a continent because we have 10-20ish players in the whole country that happen to be so far above everyone else.

I wasn't discrediting all of Europe or anything, but fair enough, I'd rather just let it drop.

I dont doubt that Europe has high level players (in comparison to the US) but I believe the saturation difference would probably lead to slightly different perceptions of "high level play". For example it wasn't until recently that I thoroughly understood what it was that was making the difference at the highest level between players (and that's what caused me to write this). It's meant to be a guide for the misguided, but Jumpman to close this off I'll apologize for downtalking your region and we can leave it at that.

 

[Magus-Cie]

I gave a quick read to your article and I must admit that this is indeed one of the best reads I have had in a good while on these boards. After reading the other pages of posts I might be restating something in here but I still feel it is worth saying.

I believe that higher tier characters and the people who main them are inherently flawed, except at the highest levels of play. I believe that because higher tier characters have such better tools at their disposal, they begin to rely on the moves and superior moveset of the character. Taking the example from the initial post about MK having a 3 frame ftilt. MK's ftilt is indeed an amazing move. It has caused me a great deal of pain on the few times that I was (un)fortunate enough to play an MK main. Now, I will not say that a player with such a good move will always spam it (why would you with that ****able tornado?) but a player will tend to use it over other moves like MK's fsmash for the purposes of damaging or punishing. This same player has to work relatively less to land a move like MK's ftilt compared to a player trying to land D3's fsmash if you face an equally good MK vs a D3.

Now what does this have to do with anything?

Assuming in this example that the players are of equal skill, according to all the "on paper" people, MK will always win the matchup. Better tools at his disposal, better recovery, much faster, higher priority, etc. etc. According to the "in match" people, two people of equal skill in this matchup would lead to either a stalemate (timer ticks to 0) or a very close matchup because in reality games are all about baiting and punishing, not just spamming 'nado until the other player dies.

What I believe is that some people pingeonhole themselves by playing one character and one character only, especially when that character is high tier. I say this because the worse the character is, the more the user has to overcome obstacles to become good with that character. With myself as an example (I play GDorf). One night I meet a falcon main. We talk, it is obvious he knows falco's matchups pretty well. Has knowledge of what to do, what not to do. When we evetually play, it is no items and he picks FD because he knows projectile user + GDawg on flat stage = win. He eventually ragethrows his controller after I land a 9 link long choke chain and finish by fsmashing a predicted roll behind me.

We had comparable knowledge and comparable experience, so what was the deciding factor between us? Playing as a character with few tools at his disposal (gdorf) against a character who has a good number of tools at his disposal with a player who relied on them over mindgames.

I was better than him because of the fact that my character forced me to learn better.

This is where the purely "on paper" and "in match" people both suffer. On paper people will know the matchup perfectly, and will be slow and unresponsive while trying to pull off something they saw in a combo video. "In match" people usually have such a high learning curve because they will get murdered by everyone until they shape up. However, it is worth noting that once they get to higher levels of play, they do indeed have the advantage if their mindgames are comperable to their opponents'.

/wall of text

 

[Orion*]

You could walk forward the entire match, but you would still have to predict what I was going to approach with because your reactions aren't fast enough to see me do something when I'm 1 space away from you and react. Think logically, that's not how you play this game. You would need the reaction speed of a level 9 CPU. Am I right?

1st great read, i loved this thread.

but. i dont need to predict any approaches if im just running away. im mostly a reaction time based player, and in the past i used to make very few reads if any at all and i could beat good players by avoiding the said situation of approaching and doing the rest on reaction time alone if necessary.

(obviously this is limited, because when i played high level players that are aggressive, ie neo and m2k, i was forced to realize that i do need to change how i play in order to fight them.)

my mains mk/falco/ics (depending on the mu) can literally run away and unless you make your *double* reads then its very hard to deal with. as long as i mix up what im doing, i can get wins because brawl is based so far on thinking ahead.

i suppose my point is that unless your at Top (not even high) level play, if your willing to have a certain kind of patience, and your not an idiot you can beat a lot of players by just camping and mixing up what you do with characters that have a plethora of options.

 

[Orion*]

Yep, I'm arguably a top 5 euro player, I don't know what high level play is.

He was just curious who I am, don't worry. I'm a decent Dutch player.

^^ you think people dont read euro threads bro :laugh

<3

 

[Seagull Joe]

It's reasons like theorycrafting and no testing which got most people who played Wolf to quit solely because of the D3 matchup. Good read.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

^^ you think people dont read euro threads bro :laugh

<3

I lold.

GG jens

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

RedHalberd finally made a good post! Took him a few years...

But yeah, this is an amazing read. I knew these concepts but seeing them in words really cements the ideas together.

To even further help the example of Pika vs D3 me vs seibrik, when he started doing that dair and bair camping he was doing really well against me, winning more often that I was winning. However, after playing several sets constantly i started to adapt and started winning more matches again. The strategy i had to imply was waiting for his dair and then punishing him in the little lag he had/when he landed from the entire thing. This becomes a really tedious match-up for both characters, but the meta-game is expanding and for all we know something in the match-up will get D3 back on the ground and then the pika's CG will prosper heavily again. Who knows?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I think I need to respond to this more completely, but lazy and gotta get to a melee biweekly, so let me just say that I've touched on a lot of these points before, and I think that this thread is an interesting read for closing the exact gap that you're talking about.


I recognize that I or somebody that posts a lot like me probably prompted this (from my posts on the MK boards), however I've been working towards making theorycraft better.



So, yea, I sort of agree and I think I gave a more sophisticated understanding of the mix-up game on that thread which provides some useful context for using theorycraft.

 

[The Sex Puma]

RedHalberd
Brawl Backroom Member

 

[Jim Morrison]

I lold.

GG jens

Seconded.
I giggled.