There is no such thing as *auto win* in Brawl.

[fissionprime]

so the consensus is that if the ddd doesn't make mistakes its an almost guarenteed win.

i think that i can live with that.

 

[pure_awesome]

That's not the consensus at all.

This sentence should end the thread. It won't, but it should.

DDD vs DK is a guaranteed win at high levels of play, assuming a normal amount of mistakes are made on both sides.

 

[choknater]

what if the dk doesn't make mistakes :D

 

[Xiahou Dun]

what if the dk doesn't make mistakes :D

What if the DeDeDe predicted every single attack perfectly and powershileded everything not getting hit once, while the Donkey kong played perfectly making no mistakes careful to avoid leaving an opening large enough to grab for the entire match. Would they then play for infinity and endless match of perfection neither can win?

You're asking too much from a player, besides.

Playing Donkey Kong against a DeDeDe IS a mistake...

 

[Mith_]

Playing Donkey Kong against a DeDeDe IS a mistake...

word.
10

Spoiler

billion

dthrows.

 

[Braggins]

Why do you keep assuming there's any way the DK can win?

If DDD keeps playing with his ability to ping DK from range until he forces a grab (At which point he gets a free stock) DK may never, ever win at that level of play unless something like exhaustion/carelessness starts happening (Which isn't playing at the top level anymore).

It's not an auto win in that DDD will have to keep playing and being careful, but it may very well be auto win in that if DDD is careful he can not lose.

Because even at the highest level of play mistakes are still made. Even M2k, Azen, Ken, etc. generally make mistakes and leave themselves open during the course of any game. They misread things, misuse a move, etc. There is no perfect level of play where no one makes mistakes. Sometimes they may play a game almost perfectly, or even go through a tournament only making a few mistakes along the way, but if you seriously think that M2k or any other top pro never makes mistakes, messes something up, or leaves themselves open unless they are exhausted or bored then you are an idiot. When you combine that with the fact that the opponent is always trying to force mistakes and be deceiving, it is inevitable that eventually a game would happen where the DK player would get a spike, or the DDD player would SD, or the DK would land a few clutch neutral B's, or the DDD player would mess up some infinites, or any combination of those in addition to the normal game play. In which case the DK player would win. And yes, I mean this would happen even if neither of them were exhausted or bored or whatever. It would be extremely rare, but it would happen eventually.

 

[pure_awesome]

Of course high level players make mistakes. That's obvious.

But the situation you're describing would require the DDD player to make a massive amount more mistakes than the DK player. This doesn't happen. No elite DDD player is going to screw up that badly. Simple enough.

 

[Barge]

Looking at some of the tournament match DDD vs DK matches on youtube.
DDD won every single match out of like 5 that I saw.

 

[Braggins]

Of course high level players make mistakes. That's obvious.

But the situation you're describing would require the DDD player to make a massive amount more mistakes than the DK player. This doesn't happen. No elite DDD player is going to screw up that badly. Simple enough.

I agree that the DDD player would have to make a lot more mistakes. Do you think that after hundreds or thousands of games there wouldn't be a single game where this would happen? Do you think that it is impossible for a top level player to ever play a game where they make an uncharacteristic amount of mistakes?

 

[Natch]

Because even at the highest level of play mistakes are still made. Even M2k, Azen, Ken, etc. generally make mistakes and leave themselves open during the course of any game. They misread things, misuse a move, etc. There is no perfect level of play where no one makes mistakes. Sometimes they may play a game almost perfectly, or even go through a tournament only making a few mistakes along the way, but if you seriously think that M2k or any other top pro never makes mistakes, messes something up, or leaves themselves open unless they are exhausted or bored then you are an idiot. When you combine that with the fact that the opponent is always trying to force mistakes and be deceiving, it is inevitable that eventually a game would happen where the DK player would get a spike, or the DDD player would SD, or the DK would land a few clutch neutral B's, or the DDD player would mess up some infinites, or any combination of those in addition to the normal game play. In which case the DK player would win. And yes, I mean this would happen even if neither of them were exhausted or bored or whatever. It would be rare, but it would happen. I honestly don't even think it would take anywhere near 10,000 games.

NOTE: Any numbers are completly arbitrary and are only chosen for the purposes of my argument.

At high levels of play, we assume that both players will make a similar number of mistakes. A good player will make less mistakes than a bad player. It is possible for a good player to make a mistake that a bad player would make, but he will not make those mistakes as often.

Now, if two good players are playing each other, the chance of DK winning is actually less than if both are bad players. Bad players tend to make mistakes of greater magnitude, such as failing to recover when you could have, or running into the opponent's charging smash attack thinking you can beat it out. Since the magnitude of the mistakes the greater, the difference in number of mistakes is exaggerated. If the DDD makes 4 big mistakes that cost him 2 stocks, and the DK only makes 2 big mistakes, that difference of two mistakes is more than if they made small mistakes.

Since we have established that good players will be less likely to make a big mistake, this means they will be making smaller mistakes. Instead of having 2 big mistakes cost you a stock, it might take 6 small mistakes to cost you a stock. However, in the DDD-DK matchup, a small mistake for DDD is a huge mistakes for DK-don't get grabbed. It is reletively easy to grab people if they make a simple spacing error. We can expect that good players might make a spacing error during any given match, possibly multiple spacing errors. Since these are good players, they must know how to punish these errors.

In the DDD-DK matchup, a spacing error at low percents might cost DDD maybe...30% damage. If DK makes a spacing error, he will lose an entire stock unless the DDD does the infinite incorrectly-i.e. makes a mistake. At high percents, a spacing error made by DDD might cost him a stock. At high percents, a spacing error by DK might cost him a stock.

Supposing DDD messes up the infinite enough times/makes enough mistakes/etc doesn't disprove me. Because I've proven that the DK player would have make FAR less mistakes than his opponent in order to win. Which does not happen on high levels of play.

High levels of play only happens when both players make a similar number of mistakes. High levels of play can only be achieved by high level players. If one player is of significantly greater skill, it's not a high level of play. It is completly possible for one of these high level players to make enough mistakes to cost him the match, but then it wasn't a high level of play, because he made those big mistakes.

I'm not saying that DK will never beat DDD, ever. It's just that we assume both players are of equal skill, and playing at their best. If they are making big mistakes, they are not playing at their best.

Let's hope this one goes through this time.

 

[kr3wman]

I agree that the DDD player would have to make a lot more mistakes. Do you think that after hundreds or thousands of games there wouldn't be a single game where this would happen? Do you think that it is impossible for a top level player to ever play a game where they make an uncharacteristic amount of mistakes?

Normal matchup rates are based 'out of ten games if both players were at high skill levels and both were of equal skills' IE If both opponents knew the matchup perfectly, not played the ten games perfectly.

Since the smash community just throw out very loose matchup numbers, it's kinda hard to precisely decide what's the difference between a 10:0 or a 9:1.

10:0 is that, if you know what you're doing, you will win even if your opponent plays on the same level as you.

9:1 gives you the number that, out of ten games, your opponent will win once. The matchup is not impossible - your characters has one or two little flaws the other character can use to win- but those flaws are minuscule compared to what you can use against theirs.

 

[Braggins]

NOTE: Any numbers are completly arbitrary and are only chosen for the purposes of my argument.

At high levels of play, we assume that both players will make a similar number of mistakes. A good player will make less mistakes than a bad player. It is possible for a good player to make a mistake that a bad player would make, but he will not make those mistakes as often.

Now, if two good players are playing each other, the chance of DK winning is actually less than if both are bad players. Bad players tend to make mistakes of greater magnitude, such as failing to recover when you could have, or running into the opponent's charging smash attack thinking you can beat it out. Since the magnitude of the mistakes the greater, the difference in number of mistakes is exaggerated. If the DDD makes 4 big mistakes that cost him 2 stocks, and the DK only makes 2 big mistakes, that difference of two mistakes is more than if they made small mistakes.

Since we have established that good players will be less likely to make a big mistake, this means they will be making smaller mistakes. Instead of having 2 big mistakes cost you a stock, it might take 6 small mistakes to cost you a stock. However, in the DDD-DK matchup, a small mistake for DDD is a huge mistakes for DK-don't get grabbed. It is reletively easy to grab people if they make a simple spacing error. We can expect that good players might make a spacing error during any given match, possibly multiple spacing errors. Since these are good players, they must know how to punish these errors.

In the DDD-DK matchup, a spacing error at low percents might cost DDD maybe...30% damage. If DK makes a spacing error, he will lose an entire stock unless the DDD does the infinite incorrectly-i.e. makes a mistake. At high percents, a spacing error made by DDD might cost him a stock. At high percents, a spacing error by DK might cost him a stock.

Supposing DDD messes up the infinite enough times/makes enough mistakes/etc doesn't disprove me. Because I've proven that the DK player would have make FAR less mistakes than his opponent in order to win. Which does not happen on high levels of play.

High levels of play only happens when both players make a similar number of mistakes. High levels of play can only be achieved by high level players. If one player is of significantly greater skill, it's not a high level of play. It is completly possible for one of these high level players to make enough mistakes to cost him the match, but then it wasn't a high level of play, because he made those big mistakes.

I'm not saying that DK will never beat DDD, ever. It's just that we assume both players are of equal skill, and playing at their best. If they are making big mistakes, they are not playing at their best.

Let's hope this one goes through this time.

I agree with almost everything you said. All I ever said is that even between top level players a DK can eventually beat a DDD, although the frequency of that occurring would be extraordinarily low. If we agree on that(which I'm not saying we are) then you can't say the match-up is an auto-win since the DDD player doesn't automatically win or win 100% of the time. "High levels of play only happen when both player make a similar number of mistakes." This is the only thing you said that I had a problem with. You are just giving your own definition of "high level play" worded in a way that is convenient for your argument.

Normal matchup rates are based 'out of ten games if both players were at high skill levels and both were of equal skills' IE If both opponents knew the matchup perfectly, not played the ten games perfectly.

Since the smash community just throw out very loose matchup numbers, it's kinda hard to precisely decide what's the difference between a 10:0 or a 9:1.

10:0 is that, if you know what you're doing, you will win even if your opponent plays on the same level as you.

9:1 gives you the number that, out of ten games, your opponent will win once. The matchup is not impossible - your characters has one or two little flaws the other character can use to win- but those flaws are minuscule compared to what you can use against theirs.

Nothing I have said has anything to do with matchup rates or the process by which said rates are determined. Matchup rates are completely hypothetical. Everything I said was dealing with reality and how things would actually unfold. The term "auto-win" only deals with matchup rates if you are trying to make it apply. I'm not using in a way that has anything to do with matchup rates.

EDIT: How has no one mentioned counterpick stages. I'm pretty sure Rainbow Cruise is a legal stage. I don't see how this stage wouldn't significantly decrease the effectiveness of DDD's infinite. There may also be other stages that could have similar effects. I'm not sure though because I don't have the counterpick list memorized and I don't care enough to go look. Sorry if someone else has mentioned this and I just didn't see it.

 

[Yuna]

Still though, you can't say that the match-up is impossible for the DK player because the DDD will always win if both players plays every match perfectly.

I have never made this argument. You're not readng my posts properly and/or making stuff up. Don't make stuff up and refute it because I'll call you on it!

I ignored the rest of your post because of this.

Because even at the highest level of play mistakes are still made.

No one has argued the opposite.

DK's chances against D3 as so tiny that they might as well be nonexistent. He can only win if he does everything right while D3 does everything wrong. D3 has to screw up everything. From not getting grabs in, not Perfect Shielding into grabs, camping him (because D3 has a projectile and huge range while DK does not), not infinite him properly off of every single grab + not shielding or avoiding DK's moves and strings properly, getting hit constantly over and over again and running into DK's finishing moves.

This is a lot of screwing up. So much so that at the highest levels of play, the odds of it happening are pretty much 1 to 1 billion or something. In the eyes of Competitive gaming, it is an auto-win/auto-loss.

The only way for DK to win is for DK to make no mistakes whilst D3 makes huge blunders over and over and over and over again. It's like saying that if you and I were to compete in a rock throwing contest, where you had to hit a 5 inch-large target from 50 feet 10 times with a 20 pound rock and all I had to do is hit a 10-inch large target from 5 feet once with a 2 ounce rock, that's not an auto-win/auto-loss/unwinnable match.

Guess what, I'm perfectly capable of hitting that target once with only 1 try. Of course, we could just assume I'd keep screwing up that simple task time and again, but let's not.

 

[Vyse]

lol, D3 vs. DK may as well be auto-win for all of the reasons above. Of course, if it's an elite DK against a subpar D3, then it might be a different story inb4 set throws to c-stick.

Agree, or Yuna will stone you to death from 5 feet away with a 2 ounce rock.

 

[Braggins]

I have never made this argument. You're not readng my posts properly and/or making stuff up. Don't make stuff up and refute it because I'll call you on it!

I ignored the rest of your post because of this.


No one has argued the opposite.

DK's chances against D3 as so tiny that they might as well be nonexistent. He can only win if he does everything right while D3 does everything wrong. D3 has to screw up everything. From not getting grabs in, not Perfect Shielding into grabs, camping him (because D3 has a projectile and huge range while DK does not), not infinite him properly off of every single grab + not shielding or avoiding DK's moves and strings properly, getting hit constantly over and over again and running into DK's finishing moves.

This is a lot of screwing up. So much so that at the highest levels of play, the odds of it happening are pretty much 1 to 1 billion or something. In the eyes of Competitive gaming, it is an auto-win/auto-loss.

The only way for DK to win is for DK to make no mistakes whilst D3 makes huge blunders over and over and over and over again. It's like saying that if you and I were to compete in a rock throwing contest, where you had to hit a 5 inch-large target from 50 feet 10 times with a 20 pound rock and all I had to do is hit a 10-inch large target from 5 feet once with a 2 ounce rock, that's not an auto-win/auto-loss/unwinnable match.

Guess what, I'm perfectly capable of hitting that target once with only 1 try. Of course, we could just assume I'd keep screwing up that simple task time and again, but let's not.

I am not misreading your posts like you think. I wasn't sure if you meant that or not so I put it anyway in case that is what you meant. I couldn't think of any reason why you would quote my post since I never said anything about how specific games relate to how matchups are represented, so I thought that might be what your reason was. One faulty sentence out of that entire post seems like a good reason to ignore the rest of it. Good thing you called me on it!

I never said anyone was arguing against that. People keep talking about how we should assume the players won't make any mistakes when looking at the matchups. Which is correct if you are deciding who is at an advantage in a matchup. But it wasn't really what I was talking about, which is why I stated that. I was providing my opinion and giving reasoning. Is it not ok for me to do that unless someone has specifically argued against my reasons? I'm not really sure why you decided to pick those two sentences out of everything I said seeing as they are both very insignificant compared to everything else.

Anyways, back to your actual argument. I agree that the chances are extremely small, and I don't think that anyone should ever expect the DDD player lose any given game. Also, I am open to the possibility of you being right about the extent to which DDD would have to screw up in order for the DK to win. However, it seems that because of how well DK punishes mistakes, how easy it is for him to KO, and the possibility of counterpick stages that could potentially limit the infinite that it wouldn't be as hard as you are describing for the DK to win just once. I realize that the chances of him winning are still going to be extremely minuscule because of all of DDDs inherent advantages in the matchup, but it doesn't seem like that big of a stretch for the DK to eventually win a single game. I am getting tired of this discussion because it as well as my argument is pointless. I am basically just nitpicking about extreme examples that don't affect anything at all. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even say that I feel all that confident about my side of the argument. I do think that a top DK could eventually beat a top DDD in a single game if they played enough, but I'm not sure about it. I just like discussing things with intelligent people like yourself.

lol, D3 vs. DK may as well be auto-win for all of the reasons above. Of course, if it's an elite DK against a subpar D3, then it might be a different story inb4 set throws to c-stick.

Agree, or Yuna will stone you to death from 5 feet away with a 2 ounce rock.

Lol, Yuna does seem like the kind of fella that would be quick to cast the first stone. JK :-)

 

[Yuna]

I never said anyone was arguing against that. People keep talking about how we should assume the players won't make any mistakes when looking at the matchups.

No they don't! A few misguided and/or less intelligent people have made this argument. A very small number of people. Like two or some such.

The rest of us are saying we should assume that they do not make an inordnate amount of mistakes. Who the hell in their right mind could say we should assume they made no mistakes?! No one, that's who! We're assuming they're making an equal amount of mistakes that are on the same level (as in that one side doesn't make only minor mistakes while the other makes only major ones). We're assuming roughly equal skill level at the highest level of play.

Which means that major mistakes will not occur very often and even if they do, it will not be enough to lose a match-up such as D3 vs. DK.

You are still misreading people's arguments/making stuff up as you go. And I TL;DR:ed the rest of your post for it.

 

[Braggins]

No they don't! A few misguided and/or less intelligent people have made this argument. A very small number of people. Like two or some such.

The rest of us are saying we should assume that they do not make an inordnate amount of mistakes. Who the hell in their right mind could say we should assume they made no mistakes?! No one, that's who! We're assuming they're making an equal amount of mistakes that are on the same level (as in that one side doesn't make only minor mistakes while the other makes only major ones). We're assuming roughly equal skill level at the highest level of play.

Which means that major mistakes will not occur very often and even if they do, it will not be enough to lose a match-up such as D3 vs. DK.

You are still misreading people's arguments/making stuff up as you go. And I TL;DR:ed the rest of your post for it.

I am not making anything up. I am not misreading anyone's arguments. A couple people have said things like that(which you agreed on), but that isn't important at all because it isn't even the main reason why I made that statement in the first place. In my last post I explained why I included that statement but you ignored my explanation. I've never said you were arguing against that point and whether or not other people have argued against that has no relevance to my argument, so I don't see why you care so much. I like how you didn't read anything but the very beginning of my long post, and then claimed that I was making things up and misreading peoples arguments. If someone was coming to conclusions about someone's arguments without actually reading them, wouldn't that person be making things up?

Since you TL;DRed my post I guess you didn't see the next line where I said that statement was part of my reasoning behind my opinion. I can give a reason that helps explains why I came to a certain conclusion even if it isn't something that has been argued against. Discussions aren't entirely made up of counter arguments (Yes, I know that you never said that discussions are entirely made up of counter arguments).

A person would have to be delusional to think that I was misreading your argument or anybody's if they actually read my post. At no point did I misrepresent anyone's argument. The first part of the post was me explaining why I said that mistakes are made at high levels of play. In the last paragraph I clearly tried to address the reasons you gave for saying it was an auto-win, which were that the DDD player would have to screw up in extraordinary fashion in order to lose to a high level DK of roughly equal skill. I talked about how I tend to disagree on how bad the DDD would have to mess up to lose. That was the theme of the entire last paragraph. The paragraph that started with "back to your argument"(or something similar). If you want to say something to me please move past the fact that in a previous post I made the statement that "Mistakes are made even at the highest levels of play."(or whatever exactly it was that I said)

 

[Brinzy]

The point is that even at high levels of play the DDD player can make mistakes and lose. No one on the planet can play without eventually making mistakes. The infinite is not guaranteed. There isn't anyone who has a 100% success rate at "grab to deathing" a DK player with DDD. So, uh, yeah, whatever.

Are you ignorant or something?

Set C-stick to grab. Grab DK. Mash the C-stick. Voilà, perfect infinite.

I stopped watching that video after he tried to jab DK after the d-throw, either by a mistake in his button pressing or a mistake in his thought process. If he screws up the infinite twice like that, then he's probably not a high level player, meaning the outcome of his match is completely, utterly, absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. Try to figure out why I blew it off instead of trying to sound just like me.

Also, nice job making that contradiction:

At high levels of play if the infinite is legal a DDD payer will ALWAYS beat a DK player. I repeat, DDD will ALWAYS win. 100% of the time.

So at high levels of play, the DDD will ALWAYS win against the DK, but at high levels of play, the DDD can make mistakes and lose. So he will win, but he can make mistakes. This is a pointless statement to make because "will win" should be overriding anything the DDD "can" do to lose the match. Also, high level players do make mistakes, but not for something like infiniting DK. It just does not happen.

And? He screwed up the infinite a few times. Point is, DK won.
DK's not going to be able to do that all day, and he's assuredly doomed against better opponents, but if you're going to argue that it's a literal auto-win matchup for Dedede, this simply proves that you're wrong.

What part of "at the HIGHEST level of play" did you miss in the thousands of posts on this infinite? Do you need me to say it to you in French? Italian maybe?

That video featured a DDD who was clearly not at the highest level of play, considering how he screwed up the infinite twice in the beginning. I didn't even finish watching the video because it's clear to me that a DDD who grabs DK twice yet removes zero stocks is not worth discussing.

I have never once argued that it was a "literal" win for DDD (at least, not for every level of play). I do not plan on doing it because the lower levels of play do not concern me when it comes to this. You're just making up complete baloney about anything that was implied in my post and you're refuting something that did not exist in that post. Do not do this again.

A person would have to be delusional to think that I was misreading your argument or anybody's if they actually read my post. x30

This argument you're having with Yuna started with you failing to grasp why I blew that video off and then some other nonsensical stuff addressing the nonexistent. So much for what you're saying.

 

[Jman115]

Tell that to those very same high level of play, players saying that it isn't true. Brawl will never have an auto lose matchup ever.

Even at the highest levels of play to. The chance to win falters, but they're still a chance.

No there is not. The only "chance" to be had in certain match ups is royal f-ups by one of the players. And if they mess up that royally then they probably aren't high level.

If both people know how to play their characters and are of equal high level skill. Then there are auto wins given that no one royally messes up. And if you win because someone that usually ***** you happened to mess up this time. It is not the same as winning with the skills of the character.

 

[PKNintendo]

You know I changed my mind about that.

Probably should edit my posts.

 

[bobson]

What part of "at the HIGHEST level of play" did you miss in the thousands of posts on this infinite? Do you need me to say it to you in French? Italian maybe?

That video featured a DDD who was clearly not at the highest level of play, considering how he screwed up the infinite twice in the beginning. I didn't even finish watching the video because it's clear to me that a DDD who grabs DK twice yet removes zero stocks is not worth discussing.

I have never once argued that it was a "literal" win for DDD (at least, not for every level of play). I do not plan on doing it because the lower levels of play do not concern me when it comes to this. You're just making up complete baloney about anything that was implied in my post and you're refuting something that did not exist in that post. Do not do this again.

My original post was pointed at the guy who said "DK cannot avoid this, it's imminent with DK's big character and D3's grab range," and that's where my reply came from. I s'pose I should've used "he's" instead of "you're."

 

[Brinzy]

I see. I apologize then.

 

[fissionprime]

i think at this point this thread is an unneeded argument, obviously we all know that if a DDD faces a DK of roughly equal skill, the DDD is near ensured to win, do we really need to argue about what exactly the chances are that DK will win?

 

[Natch]

I agree with almost everything you said. All I ever said is that even between top level players a DK can eventually beat a DDD, although the frequency of that occurring would be extraordinarily low. If we agree on that(which I'm not saying we are) then you can't say the match-up is an auto-win since the DDD player doesn't automatically win or win 100% of the time. "High levels of play only happen when both player make a similar number of mistakes." This is the only thing you said that I had a problem with. You are just giving your own definition of "high level play" worded in a way that is convenient for your argument.

You provided no definition. This a debate, and in order for me a have an actualy argument, I need to define what a High Level of Play is. You have provided no alternative definition. Therefore mine is the default.

I shall make a series of "facts." If you disagree with any of these, tell me why.

-High Levels of Play can only occur between High Level Players.

-High Level Player can still Play at Normal or Bad Levels.

-The difference between High, Normal, and Bad Levels of Play are measured by how many mistakes are made and how bad the mistakes are.

In order for the DK to beat the DDD, the DK must play better than the DDD by a large margin. This margin is large enough to consitute the gap between High Levels of Play and Lower(Normal and Bad) Levels of Play. It is impossible that the DDD could be Playing a High Level and lose. The only way this would be possible is if the DK player is better than the DDD by a large margin-but there's nothing "Higher" than High Levels of Play. Therefore, we must assume the DDD is either a Lower Level Player, or is actually a High Level Player who is playing at Lower Levels of Play for whatever reasons.

 

[fissionprime]

In order for the DK to beat the DDD, the DK must play better than the DDD by a large margin. This margin is large enough to consitute the gap between High Levels of Play and Lower(Normal and Bad) Levels of Play. It is impossible that the DDD could be Playing a High Level and lose. The only way this would be possible is if the DK player is better than the DDD by a large margin-but there's nothing "Higher" than High Levels of Play. Therefore, we must assume the DDD is either a Lower Level Player, or is actually a High Level Player who is playing at Lower Levels of Play for whatever reasons.

this is a very convincing argument, but the only thing i would say that you left out is stating the fact that a"high level of play is the highest level of play", that might want to be included in the assumed facts.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

There is autowin in Brawl.
It's called Pink Ganondorf.

Anyways, some people really just have no chance if they're fighting someone competent, because they just get shut down.
Shut Down, as in almost anything you do is useless.

 

[Natch]

this is a very convincing argument, but the only thing i would say that you left out is stating the fact that a"high level of play is the highest level of play", that might want to be included in the assumed facts.

The thing is, the Highest Level of Play and Highest Levels of Play are.the.same.thing. If you had been paying attention to this topic, you would notice that the terms "Highest Levels of Play" and "High Levels of Play" were used interchangably. In a post I made earlier, I described it as "High Levels of Play." Braggins responded, but called the "Highest Levels of Play." These two phrases do differ-think about how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square. Despite this, neither I nor Braggins thought that difference mattered, and so it was not an issue.

And it is not an issue. A DK Playing at the Highest Level goes against against a DDD Playing at a High Level is going to lose just the same.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

I am not making anything up. I am not misreading anyone's arguments. A couple people have said things like that(which you agreed on), but that isn't important at all because it isn't even the main reason why I made that statement in the first place. In my last post I explained why I included that statement but you ignored my explanation. I've never said you were arguing against that point and whether or not other people have argued against that has no relevance to my argument, so I don't see why you care so much. I like how you didn't read anything but the very beginning of my long post, and then claimed that I was making things up and misreading peoples arguments. If someone was coming to conclusions about someone's arguments without actually reading them, wouldn't that person be making things up?

Since you TL;DRed my post I guess you didn't see the next line where I said that statement was part of my reasoning behind my opinion. I can give a reason that helps explains why I came to a certain conclusion even if it isn't something that has been argued against. Discussions aren't entirely made up of counter arguments (Yes, I know that you never said that discussions are entirely made up of counter arguments).

A person would have to be delusional to think that I was misreading your argument or anybody's if they actually read my post. At no point did I misrepresent anyone's argument. The first part of the post was me explaining why I said that mistakes are made at high levels of play. In the last paragraph I clearly tried to address the reasons you gave for saying it was an auto-win, which were that the DDD player would have to screw up in extraordinary fashion in order to lose to a high level DK of roughly equal skill. I talked about how I tend to disagree on how bad the DDD would have to mess up to lose. That was the theme of the entire last paragraph. The paragraph that started with "back to your argument"(or something similar). If you want to say something to me please move past the fact that in a previous post I made the statement that "Mistakes are made even at the highest levels of play."(or whatever exactly it was that I said)

I must point out the that DK player is also a human and just a prone to mistakes as the Dedede, so you can't really take into account the one specific instance where the DK plays well and the Dedede plays sloppily and decide the match-up based on that.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hence the "at high levels of play."

Brawl has auto-win matchups... at high levels of play.

I disagree, if you are a lot better than the other player then you will win, I beat my friend as Gannodorf when he was Sheik (his Main), I thrashed him. Now I may be wrong here but that was a fairly high level of play

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

I disagree, if you are a lot better than the other player then you will win, I beat my friend as Gannodorf when he was Sheik (his Main), I thrashed him. Now I may be wrong here but that was a fairly high level of play

We already know that. That's not what "auto-win" is referring to. It's just a figure of speech.

 

[Natch]

I disagree, if you are a lot better than the other player then you will win, I beat my friend as Gannodorf when he was Sheik (his Main), I thrashed him. Now I may be wrong here but that was a fairly high level of play

You're not a high level player. High level players are pros. Names like M2K, Azen, Chillin, DSF, ect come to mind.

You are not that class of player. Therefore your example does not invalidate the statement that "DDD will always beat DK at the highest levels of play."

 

[Kitamerby]

In order for the DK to beat the DDD, the DK must play better than the DDD by a large margin. This margin is large enough to consitute the gap between High Levels of Play and Lower(Normal and Bad) Levels of Play. It is impossible that the DDD could be Playing a High Level and lose. The only way this would be possible is if the DK player is better than the DDD by a large margin-but there's nothing "Higher" than High Levels of Play. Therefore, we must assume the DDD is either a Lower Level Player, or is actually a High Level Player who is playing at Lower Levels of Play for whatever reasons.

You're assuming that there's a limit to the amount of skill one can amass.

If a DK is really freaking good, and I mean unimaginably good, he can beat M2K's King Dedede via the skill gap.

The skill gap does not dissipate at high levels of play. You just have to be really freaking good to overcome it.


It's like sending Shaq to a ****** party.

 

[Braggins]

Also, nice job making that contradiction:

So at high levels of play, the DDD will ALWAYS win against the DK, but at high levels of play, the DDD can make mistakes and lose. So he will win, but he can make mistakes. This is a pointless statement to make because "will win" should be overriding anything the DDD "can" do to lose the match. Also, high level players do make mistakes, but not for something like infiniting DK. It just does not happen.

LOL, are you serious. That was clearly sarcasm. You see, I said that and then followed it up with a video of a DDD losing to a DK. Do you get it? That is right, I didn't actual mean what I said there... Sarcasm. It greatly amuses me that you said that. Its also cool how its ok for you to be condescending and write a line like "yeah, whatever", but when I am like that back you get all pissy. Anyways, I'll try real hard from now on to not use sarcasm so nothing goes over your head.

This argument you're having with Yuna started with you failing to grasp why I blew that video off and then some other nonsensical stuff addressing the nonexistent. So much for what you're saying.

I never failed to grasp anything. Please stop saying that. It is really frustrating being told you don't understand something by someone who can't even detect simple sarcasm. I've explained why I used the line that Yuna keeps bringing up multiple times, and you people apparently just keep ignoring that. Yuna was displeased with me for making a point because he said no one was arguing against it, and I clearly explained that I used that point to back up my argument, and not just because I thought people were arguing against it. I never failed to grasp that people generally agree that high level players make mistakes. I never failed to grasp why you think that it is an auto-win. I know that I've explained myself like five times already and have clearly showed that I understand your side of the argument, but I'm going to repeat myself once more so maybe it will finally register. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BLEW THAT VIDEO OFF BECAUSE THE DDD PLAYER WASN'T PLAYING AT A HIGH LEVEL(high level for the present). I UNDERSTAND WHY DDD CAN NEVER LOSE TO DK AT HIGH LEVELS. After this you and Yuna should probably make five more posts each quoting the same thing and saying that I don't understand you. That way you won't have to actually address any of the points Ive made and can just sit there saying "Wow, n00b dun understan us, thas y he no agree."

Anyways, It may make you two happy to hear that my opinion has changed. I admit that you are probably right about the topic and that I am probably wrong. I thought I was right at first, then I thought about it a little more and pretty quickly realized I very well may be wrong. I kept arguing my side because I have fun discussing things with people (I still think there is a possibility that counterpick stages may give the DK player a chance to eventually win a single game, but I don't really care so I'm dropping it all together). You shouldn't get arrogant though, because you played no part in my mind being changed. You never addressed any of the points I made as to why I thought the way I did. You just kept dwelling on insignificant details and kept trying to tell me that I didn't understand what you were saying(and accused me of making contradictions, lol).

I want to apologize to you Yuna if I said anything that was offensive or insulting.

 

[Braggins]

You provided no definition. This a debate, and in order for me a have an actualy argument, I need to define what a High Level of Play is. You have provided no alternative definition. Therefore mine is the default.

I shall make a series of "facts." If you disagree with any of these, tell me why.

-High Levels of Play can only occur between High Level Players.

-High Level Player can still Play at Normal or Bad Levels.

-The difference between High, Normal, and Bad Levels of Play are measured by how many mistakes are made and how bad the mistakes are.

In order for the DK to beat the DDD, the DK must play better than the DDD by a large margin. This margin is large enough to consitute the gap between High Levels of Play and Lower(Normal and Bad) Levels of Play. It is impossible that the DDD could be Playing a High Level and lose. The only way this would be possible is if the DK player is better than the DDD by a large margin-but there's nothing "Higher" than High Levels of Play. Therefore, we must assume the DDD is either a Lower Level Player, or is actually a High Level Player who is playing at Lower Levels of Play for whatever reasons.

I already said I agree.

I must point out the that DK player is also a human and just a prone to mistakes as the Dedede, so you can't really take into account the one specific instance where the DK plays well and the Dedede plays sloppily and decide the match-up based on that.

I never decided the matchup. That wasn't my point at all. I agree that the DK player is just as prone to mistakes as the DDD player. The reason I used such a large number of games in my example is because it would take lots of games for a game to occur where the DK player played virtually perfect and the DDD player made a significant number of mistakes.

 

[Yuna]

I am not making anything up. I am not misreading anyone's arguments. A couple people have said things like that(which you agreed on)

You are clearly misreading posts and/or making stuff up.

I have never agreed with an argument even resembling "Let's assume they make no mistakes".

Yes, I TL;DR:ed the rest of your post because you still insist on claiming I've agreed with this. I have not. very few people have made that argument. We said to not assume one side will make an inordinate amount of mistakes whilst the other will not!

 

[IDK]

so the consensus is that if the ddd doesn't make mistakes its an almost guarenteed win.

i think that i can live with that.

That's not the consensus at all.

This sentence should end the thread. It won't, but it should.

DDD vs DK is a guaranteed win at high levels of play, assuming a normal amount of mistakes are made on both sides.

lolrly guys?
you're both right? 2 different scenarios.

also, there were like about 60 posts after mine that all had DK mentioned somewhere in them, and i was scanning until i found my post so i could read from there, and i saw a bunch of insults and i got scared i was like lol *flameshield* but then when i started reading i didnt find any replies to mine and was kind of insulted. but then i realized how dumb this thread was, and how the argument has no purpose to this extent, and i came up with that same reply.

lolrly?

10lolrlys

 

[Braggins]

You are clearly misreading posts and/or making stuff up.

I have never agreed with an argument even resembling "Let's assume they make no mistakes".

Yes, I TL;DR:ed the rest of your post because you still insist on claiming I've agreed with this. I have not. very few people have made that argument. We said to not assume one side will make an inordinate amount of mistakes whilst the other will not!

OH MY GOD. What are you talking about. You agree that a couple people said that. You said that a couple misinformed/less intelligent people said that. I never said that you made that argument. NEVER. Not once have I said that you claimed that we assume that they make no mistakes. Where in the world are you getting that from. This is seriously getting ridiculous. I KNOW that you never said that and that you currently aren't saying that. I know that you said that we shouldn't assume one player will make an inordinate amount of mistakes while the other will not. So for the love of god, please stop saying that I am misreading posts.

 

[Yuna]

OH MY GOD. What are you talking about. You agree that a couple people said that. You said that a couple misinformed/less intelligent people said that. I never said that you made that argument. NEVER. Not once have I said that you claimed that we assume that they make no mistakes. Where in the world are you getting that from. This is seriously getting ridiculous. I KNOW that you never said that and that you currently aren't saying that. So for the love of god, please stop saying that I am misreading posts.

This was me misunderstanding your "which you agreed on". I apologize.

However, the number of people who have made the argument "No mistakes at all" are very few and nobody cares about them. I'm not making that argument. No one credible or intelligent is making that argument. In fact, I'd like a tally and quotes of how many people have actually made the argument of "no mistakes" as I'm sure they number the 2's, at most.

In other words, nobody cares.

 

[Natch]

You're assuming that there's a limit to the amount of skill one can amass.

If a DK is really freaking good, and I mean unimaginably good, he can beat M2K's King Dedede via the skill gap.

The skill gap does not dissipate at high levels of play. You just have to be really freaking good to overcome it.


It's like sending Shaq to a ****** party.

It is established that among the highest levels of play, the skill gap is not large enough in order to net DK the win. If such a skill gap exists between either of the two characters, one of them is not playing at the highest levels of play.

This new player will either define what the highest levels of play are, in which the players who were previously on the highest level can no longer be on the highest level. It is established that no such skill gap CANNOT exist at the highest levels of play. If such a skill gap exists, one player is not playing on the highest levels of play. The other situation is that this player becomes the exception. What was previously the highest levels of play remain the highest levels of play.

In either case, the statement that "DDD will always beat DK at the highest levels of play" is still correct.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

What about stamina flower mode with 1 HP? That's an auto win if i've ever seen one