Tier List Speculation

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I have no one to fight.

Me neither, you can still pick an avatar that maks you look like you have enough fighting spirit to shoot aura spheres though. That should work.

But anyway, before we go on the unhype train of philosophical discussions just to see why Fox pretty much bodies everyone, how about we break down characters looking at them as simple toolkits?

Ex: I think Bowser bodies the S*** out of Fox.
Someone else disagrees.

Ok, what are Bowser's good tools in this matchup?
(Note: I never played Bowser in my life, lol)
Uhh, Nair is fast enough to break combos, Down B breaks Fox shield and has enough priority to beat Fox's Uair.
Cool, what can Fox exploit in that matchup?
Fox stuffs Bowser with Nair and Shine Spikes murder Bowser at 0%. He's also grade S combo food.

We then analyze the said tools in context and try to see who gets an edge.

Tl;Dr. As long as we don't to get too subjective, or start saying S*** like "Fox wins because he's OP.", we should be fine despite most of us not being the top players in the world or stuff.

Also, new quoting system got weird, pls nerf.

 

[Saproling]

says the person who doesn't show up to any chicago weekly

Those start way to late for my schedule.

 

[jtm94]

By articulate I misstepped. I didn't mean knowledgeable with words/phrasing, but of the game. How something is phrased doesn't mean **** as long as the information is on point. You're right though anyone can be correct or mistaken despite how good or not good they are. There will always be deviation and someone that performs better likely does so for a reason such as understanding the game better.

That entire statistical rampage reminded me of Kaiji.

I like to think of projectiles as one of the best forms of control. Specifically ones that you can interact with unlike Fox laser. Yeah Link in terms of movement, moves, hitboxes could be shut down by Marth without being able to necessarily contest him outside of spacing tools like perhaps fair or zair, but even then. You throw in projectiles and that means that if always used well Link will force Marth to interact with Link on his own terms. Projectiles will almost always skew a character's MUs to be better vs other characters that don't have outs, but only slightly ease the MUs where the character does have the outs.

I still don't know how to feel about GnW vs Falco. I think it's bad for GnW currently and what we saw of the last stock Dakpo took off Weston is what it ~should~ look like in the future. Dakpo took him to FD and honestly didn't benefit once from FD much outside of that stock. When it comes down to it Lasers are just better utilized than bacon currently, but I think bacon is better vs slower characters because it controls space longer. Falco can laser GnW all day, but it won't convert or control much of anything, it's main duty is to agitate the GnW into acting on tilt. GnW can do that with bacon, but also use it to control space and follow it up with a conversion of sorts. At the end of the day GnW does have 0 deaths vs fastfallers and a single grab ~should~ mean a stock on FD. Vs fastfallers I think his best stages are probably FoD and then FD. GHZ could theoretically promote 0 deaths and maybe Smashville by etension of partial single plat, but the platform is actually fairly problematic because the CG takes long enough for it to come into play and if you bring up the throw mixup of fighting where they want to go by throwing them the opposite way then you're mind gaming on a crazy deep level that I don't see being utilized for quite some time.

 

[Bazkip]

KirbyKaze posted this in a FB discussion, seemed relevant. It's about Melee but still applies.

In this game my working theory is that viability of a character at a very broad, base level (before we get into the specifics of their more detailed interactions [i.e. their interactions on a vs. character basis]) is contingent on their ability to do three things:

1) bid for stage (this shouldn't be a surprise; if you can't bid for more stage in an effective manner you'll lose ground vs the characters who control it more reliably / constantly and then you'll lose because not having stage is how we die in this game).

2) maintain advantage -- either directly or implicitly; obviously the former is better but beggars can't be choosers. An example of the former would be someone chain grabbing someone or a random Falco going full Falco-master on someone. An example of the latter would be some of the traps HBox does with his air mobility and Fox in general.

3) how well they can navigate back to fair / advantageous positions (i.e. how bad is it when you're losing ground / above someone / offstage with <character>). This one is a bit wonky because some characters like Samus & Peach don't incur heavy punishments very routinely and therefore have numerous chances in weak / losing positions to return to fair / advantageous positions. Other characters like Fox & Sheik don't actually have many outs when they're in a losing position but can make use of the minor gaps in a combo or hit sequence pretty effectively, which gives them a specific thing to look for (or try to set up) when they're at disadvantage.

To his credit, Ganondorf can do 1/3; I actually think his punishment is passable. This makes him better than the characters who can do 0/3, like Roy and Zelda. That said, 1/3 is not a passing grade. In fact, at this point in the metagame I am not sure 2/3 is a passing grade either.

If you look at the characters that have gone up and stayed relatively stable (like Pikachu, Peach, and Yoshi, to cite more recent cases, and ICs for those who were around when Chu was first figuring out the character) these are all characters who can, in some way, bid for stage control (usually on the basis of speed but when Peach evolved further hers was more about stage control & using turnips better), have obviously strong methods of maintaining advantage (Pika's juggles [that can go offstage into gimps cuz of his recovery], ICs' extended grab links & juggles, Yoshi's uair spam & egg abuse, and Armada [like, in genera]), and are either flexible enough to avoid terrible positions (aMSa's platform style for example is a good way to avoid being CGed by the characters that beat Yoshi by CGing him) or don't lose badly enough in their losing positions for being put in that spot to invalidate the character completely (Pikachu's recovery for example lets him survive for a while even after he's been grab-comboed or Falco'd to 60%).

 

[Xcite]

On the topic of "ask top players / notable players their opinion on matchups," basically all Lucas players agree on the matchups expressed on a matchup chart / in the Lucas forums somewhere.

Wut

 

[DrinkingFood]

If a player has the capacity to understand the game on the deeper level required to accurately discuss high level balance, chances are they are already close to that level of play, or are going to be. But there's no way to really separate those with that current capacity from those who currently lack it but are good in speaking about ambiguities. Because every scenario in the game can't be discussed, nor can even every scenario move X could be used in be discussed, or spacing Z, or situations Y, etc etc, the only way to make any ground discussing the game is through generalities. It's easy for anybody to copy the understanding of a generality already discussed and regurgitate it into a new conversation, but that doesn't actually prove they have the ability to accurately judge and discuss new situations. As such, it's most suitable to discuss with those who are more likely to have the understanding of the game to analyze those new situations, which are more often good players.

Yes, there are good players who lack discussion skills or "play the game intuitively" such that the knowledge they play the game with never intersects with most conscious thought processes; and there are bad players who lack either the time or physical capability to ever improve beyond a certain level but can ascertain a certain level of understanding second hand. But I would posit that these players are much less common than bad players who don't understand how to discuss the game and good players who do. And I would also say that good players who don't know how to discuss still do it better than bad players who don't, and bad players who have game knowledge still don't provide the same quality input as those good players with experience and conscious gameplay discussion skills.

tl;dr better players still have better input no matter how you slice it.

I finally summoned the patience to input something on this matter. @DMG how do you do it without just calling people stupid. It's so hard.

 

[trash?]

counterpoint: you just tossed in a huge, unformatted block of text that isn't actually all that readable or comprehensible

good play only works well with discussion that attributes it on a similar scale, fail to accomplish that and you get a scenario like M2K giving out heavy misinformation

 

[Life]

KirbyKaze posted this in a FB discussion, seemed relevant. It's about Melee but still applies.

kk said there were three things and you copypasted two

something something joke about firefly and that list not finishing here

And while top players are generally going to both have better opinions than bad players, and be more able to back up those opinions than most players, it's not really a perfect 1:1 thing. I suspect everyone knows a handful of good players with... let's call them "out-there" opinions.

There's also the risk of bad players misinterpreting what should be good advice due to a gap in game knowledge, a language barrier, mistakes in English mechanics, or (in less general cases) the passage of time rendering things outdated.

In the end, it's not a black and white issue. You shouldn't take anything you read for granted, regardless of who it comes from. Including that sentence!

Still working on that definition of "control" btw. But I've been awake for 21 hours, trying to stay up until I can pick a reasonable time to sleep, y'know. Not likely to happen soon, but I'd like to revisit that when I'm a bit more... together.

 

[GabPR]

I believe this is a great example in terms of the neutral game vs punish game discussion in the DK vs Falco matchup

https://youtu.be/exQCW6RdSt0

Dp is able to maintain steady control of the neutral most of the time, but Thunderzreign had a much better punishgame and often straight out zero to death him to come out ahead.

Thoughts?

 

[TheoryofSmaug]

I only had a chance to watch game 1.

Falco should've able to destroy DK once he got a shine. DP's punishgame sucks.

That said, DP played neutral really well. Laser laser laser, and then he stuffed sloppy approaches. If Thunder shielded, DP got some pressure into a shine grab.

DP won.

 

[GabPR]

I only had a chance to watch game 1.

Falco should've able to destroy DK once he got a shine. DP's punishgame sucks.

That said, DP played neutral really well. Laser laser laser, and then he stuffed sloppy approaches. If Thunder shielded, DP got some pressure into a shine grab.

DP won.

Dp won set 1, thunder won set 2.

 

[D e l t a]

Wut

Sorry, here's the list I was referring to:

*'s in front mean I have little experience / lack full knowledge
(+3) 65/35 N/A
(+2) 60/40 * * (+3 -> +2 for now)
(+1) 55/45 (0 -> +1) * * *
(0) 50/50 (-1 -> 0)
(-1) 45/55
(-2) 40/60 (-3 -> -2)

(-3) 35/65 N/A
[/spoiler]

The Lucas boards all agree with this MU spread within +/-1

 

[Juushichi]

oh god i am posting here why am i doing this to myself

But, ahem.

On the topic of having opinions presented about the game and how valid one's opinion is based on how good they are:

While, I think it's on the whole safer to assume that a higher level player's opinion is more valid than someone else's. What I think it probably better is to understand the context of why they feel the way they do about a matchup. This applies to even lower level players. If they don't want to do that, then you have to take it at face value and move on.

The unfortunate part about this is that it's sometimes hard to articulate properly why a player feels the way they do and it's often not to the benefit of the person going out of their way to do so. Not even because opposing players/characters now "know" how to deal with the MU after this (lol, as you still have to gather that experience in game play unless you're flat better anyway). But you have this annoying thing to do only exacerbated because CharacterMaster69 is going to dispute why X move shouldn't hit, how ledgedash X changes the MU or something like that on the forums.

What I think is the most important thing a person can do when speaking about a MU is to try not speak about it in absolutes and also to describe why/how it is that you feel the way you do. If you end up wrong, take the L and start thinking. Then start applying it and keep learning and apply new thinking with the tool you've gained. If you're right and no one wants to believe you, hey that **** happens. Just keep it moving, idk.

I've been told that I know the MU better than any other player locally or many players overall (vs XYK, our Luigi) and I lose that MU like 90% of the time. I've been desputed on a MU that I think I am right on (Snake) and I haven't lost a set in that in a few months now, while stronger Sheik players than me have lost it. It happens, man.

 

[Frost | Odds]

It's much easier for a higher level player to be right, and it's much easier for a lower level player to be wrong; but that doesn't mean the latter can't necessarily contribute.

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like Yoshi might actually be a legitimate pick - he's just extremely, extremely unforgiving and requires a more consistently high level of tech to be effective than anyone else in the game. Double jump lands are the single most important unexplored tech in the game, by far. Still, messing up or ending up above an opponent for any reason usually = death, so he's a tough one to place.

 

[Player -0]

Just ask PlateProp to bestow his reaction times so you can convert your messup into snazzy platform jank

 

[Bazkip]

kk said there were three things and you copypasted two

something something joke about firefly and that list not finishing here

Uhhhh dude
Quotes cut off after a certain amount of text
You need to click on it to display the whole thing

 

[DrinkingFood]

counterpoint: you just tossed in a huge, unformatted block of text that isn't actually all that readable or comprehensible

good play only works well with discussion that attributes it on a similar scale, fail to accomplish that and you get a scenario like M2K giving out heavy misinformation

I covered that. And you'd know if you were open to dissenting input and actually attempted to understand something that doesn't coddle your lazy comprehension

Also wtf it's not even that huge lol. It's about a paragraph's size and I probably couldn't split it more than once.

 

[Farquaad]

Think the problem here is that bad players expect/want their opinion to be given the same weight as good players. Pretty much everyone thinks their opinion is right, so being told it isn't (backed by a "dam u suck fam") is going to happen. A lot.

It would all resolve itself if bad players just stopped whining about being told their opinion is bad because they're bad. If you know what you're talking about, there's a good shot someone good will agree, even if other good person who thinks you suck doesn't give a crap. And even so, who cares? Approval is empty, but everyone is obsessed with it. Focus on the conversations you start and ideas being shared instead of wanting everyone to agree with you.

Trust me, I'm a Squirtle, I know all about bad players

 

[trash?]

And you'd know if you were open to dissenting input and actually attempted to understand something that doesn't coddle your lazy comprehension

wow, this is really good discourse for people to learn from! I can't believe we'd let anyone lesser than you talk when we can just say "I'm better you're not" and shove cotton into our ears forever

 

[G13_Flux]

Think the problem here is that bad players expect/want their opinion to be given the same weight as good players. Pretty much everyone thinks their opinion is right, so being told it isn't (backed by a "dam u suck fam") is going to happen. A lot.

It would all resolve itself if bad players just stopped whining about being told their opinion is bad because they're bad. If you know what you're talking about, there's a good shot someone good will agree, even if other good person who thinks you suck doesn't give a crap. And even so, who cares? Approval is empty, but everyone is obsessed with it. Focus on the conversations you start and ideas being shared instead of wanting everyone to agree with you.

Trust me, I'm a Squirtle, I know all about bad players

from my perspective. it has nothing to do with whos opinion is right. it has to do with the mere act of discussing and thinking through a MU, since thats how people learn. obviously a bad players argument is going to weigh far less than a notable players, but that doesnt mean that the bad player should just stay silent and quit talking about the game.

this was all triggered by the link discussion. i for one, am not a bad player, but im certainly not notable, nor am i quite to the same level of skill as most of the top competing "notable" players. likewise, i would totally welcome the "notable" players to come in and share their experiences and discuss why they think any of us are wrong. I can speak from pretty good experience on at least a couple link MUs despite not actually playing link, and im not going to just not share my opinions because i dont have videos out there of me winning big tournaments. Thats really the perspective im going with. I think a lot of bad players get the fact that the really good players are gonna have a better say, but people want to talk about it anyways, and they SHOULD, so that they can learn to think a bit more critically about the game.

 

[DrinkingFood]

wow, this is really good discourse for people to learn from! I can't believe we'd let anyone lesser than you talk when we can just say "I'm better you're not" and shove cotton into our ears forever

What I actually said meant "you're not willing to be wrong, so it doesn't matter that you didn't put in the effort to understand my post" right after you said it wasn't readable. It's very readable, you just don't want to read it. Wow, this is like a Bleck-quality discussion. Somebody tries to make a point and you toss around absurd strawmen and don't actually address anything said. Why are you here in a thread for discussion if you aren't interested in the first step to discussion- reading the thing you are discussing?

 

[xquqx]

Most top level players aren't going to subject themselves to this thread, so we might as well not wait around for them.

Since we have a top tier that most people can reasonably agree with (fox, diddy, meta knight, wolf, ROB, etc), what characters do well against most of them that aren't top tier?

 

[trash?]

What I actually said meant "you're not willing to be wrong, so it doesn't matter that you didn't put in the effort to understand my post"

your argument was literally just "better players always have better opinions, no matter what", actively shutting down any real discussion at all because you just openly told the world that anyone else's is a lost cause

my one thing was telling you you had poor formatting (and that better formatting and clarity is good when you want discussion built to actually help others) and your first response was the world's least subtle passive aggressiveness dude, wtf were you expecting?

 

[DrinkingFood]

your argument was literally just "better players always have better opinions, no matter what", actively shutting down any real discussion at all because you just openly told the world that anyone else's is a lost cause

my one thing was telling you you had poor formatting (and that better formatting and clarity is good when you want discussion built to actually help others) and your first response was the world's least subtle passive aggressiveness dude, wtf were you expecting?

no, that's not what my argument was
you have shown me that you did not read because you already thought you disagreed
also I don't know if that counts as passive agressive or not but how I said it doesn't really matter; being insulted or bothered by tone or anything is a matter of your interpretation. Either way, if you already think you disagree/are too tied to your own position to be swayed, naturally you aren't going to invest extra effort into understanding the opposing viewpoint. That was the point of that "passive aggressiveness"- you are already too tied to the idea that skill has no bearing on input quality.

 

[trash?]

no, that's not what my argument was
you have shown me that you did not read because you already thought you disagreed

I have read that post about four times in a row now, and even my kindest interpretation still gives very similar vibes

at best, you're confusing my misinterpretation as "did not read", which is proving my point

e: "you are already too tied to the idea that skill has no bearing on input quality."

I have literally never said this, I agreed fully with DMG because he's good with discussion and voiced his points well, and by comparison you just made a messy (and possibly intentionally deceitful, if your intentionally wrong ending + gotcha attempt using it has anything to assume from) post and then made a hundred assumptions to hell and back

 

[Farquaad]

your argument was literally just "better players always have better opinions, no matter what", actively shutting down any real discussion at all because you just openly told the world that anyone else's is a lost cause

my one thing was telling you you had poor formatting (and that better formatting and clarity is good when you want discussion built to actually help others) and your first response was the world's least subtle passive aggressiveness dude, wtf were you expecting?

His argument was closer too "some bad players have better opinions than some good players, but it's way more common for a good player's opinion to be better than a bad player's." As a rule, good players will have better opinions. There's nothing wrong with this statement

Idk why I'm arguing on behalf of DF lol. It feels wrong. But this **** isn't complicated. DF is probably going to ignore the opinions of players he considers bad forever and ever and that's his prerogative because sorting through bad player opinions is way more irritating than sorting through good player opinions, and when most bad players are convinced of their own bad opinions, the good ones are hard to find

I like reading all the opinions because it feels like there's usually something to be gained, even if it's just funny, but if a couple people won't read your opinion because "ur bad" who gives a rat's, no doubt your opinion might hold value but 1) keep it up and keep expanding your thought process and 2) if you're that bad you probably aren't offering crazy meta shifting wisdom anyways

 

[FreeGamer]

every opinion should be taken with a grain of salt

except for the ones where people say fox is OP

 

[redbeanjelly]

also I don't know if that counts as passive agressive or not but how I said it doesn't really matter; being insulted or bothered by tone or anything is a matter of your interpretation.

This struck a chord with me; it's sounds as if you're saying that your tone shouldn't be criticized as long as what you're saying holds true. I don't think this is a fair dynamic: you're placing the burden of communication on the other person for interpreting it such that he/she found it offensive, rather than admitting that you may have just simply acted unjustifiably rude to someone.

 

[DrinkingFood]

I have read that post about four times in a row now, and even my kindest interpretation still gives very similar vibes

at best, you're confusing my misinterpretation as "did not read", which is proving my point

e: "you are already too tied to the idea that skill has no bearing on input quality."

I have literally never said this, I agreed fully with DMG because he's good with discussion and voiced his points well, and by comparison you just made a messy (and possibly intentionally deceitful, if your intentionally wrong ending + gotcha attempt using it has anything to assume from) post and then made a hundred assumptions to hell and back

at this point I am just completely lost on what you are trying to communicate to me
"possibly intentionally deceitful"
"intentionally wrong ending"
"gotcha attempt"
I really have no clue what you're referring to by these, either by not understanding the definition of the phrase or not understanding what you're referring to with the phrase or by the possibility that you think there is some hidden motive behind my posts that isn't there that lead to jumped conclusions that have only left me bewildered

are we still talking about my original post or no? I'm not interested in discussing the nuances of the discussion about the discussion about my original post. If you agree that skill has an approximate correlation with input quality/ability to discuss the game, what is your actual criticism?

My post isn't that hard to read. Here, lemme go space it out to two paragraphs or something. Besides that, the grammar and such is more-or-less correct. The words have the correct usage. What is so unreadable about it?

 

[trash?]

that

1) you had a poorly articulated set-up, made more confusing by a "tl;dr" that made interpretation more difficult overall
2) that you then kinda set us into this unfortunate scenario because of me questioning it a tad, and then assuming that I didn't read your post because of me running into point 1
3) and that, because of all this, the way you constantly argued seemed constantly questionable to me, which was then highlighted by a tl;dr which went against some of the nuance you made (which is just as likely another incorrect assumption on my part, in which case I apologize)

I'd rather not make a massive deal outta this, but yeah. the way something is interpreted is something that both sides can fix, IMO, and being able to smoothly explain why this is wrong and how is an important thing

...as is my reading into it. again, I feel like perhaps I missed that the end was a jokey bit, my apologies

 

[Deleted member]

What I actually said meant "you're not willing to be wrong, so it doesn't matter that you didn't put in the effort to understand my post" right after you said it wasn't readable. It's very readable, you just don't want to read it. Wow, this is like a Bleck-quality discussion. Somebody tries to make a point and you toss around absurd strawmen and don't actually address anything said. Why are you here in a thread for discussion if you aren't interested in the first step to discussion- reading the thing you are discussing?

yeah ive thought this about a few of the regulars in this thread for a while now. you cant even call them out for it because they just admit to sucking at the actual game before doubling back and calling you out for **** they have no idea what theyre talking about. its mad ****ing annoying, thats why most good players just dont go on smashboards anymore.

by the way, as good players, we generally talk **** on each other when we think other top players have stupid opinions. but thats also with the implication that we at least respect those people with stupid opinions as good players and they clearly understand the game better even when we disagree with each other.

im with DF on this one. even if he says the stupidest **** about the game, i'd still at least read what he has to say.

 

[DrinkingFood]

even if he says the stupidest **** about the game,

WOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU WHY WOULD YOU SAY THIS I DON'T LIKE YOUR TONE THIS STRIKES A CHORD WITH ME PLEASE DON'T SAY THIS IT BOTHERS ME etc etc

This struck a chord with me; it's sounds as if you're saying that your tone shouldn't be criticized as long as what you're saying holds true. I don't think this is a fair dynamic: you're placing the burden of communication on the other person for interpreting it such that he/she found it offensive, rather than admitting that you may have just simply acted unjustifiably rude to someone.

the burden of communication is only on his part as far as not becoming emotionally affected by the content. Becoming more affected by something than necessary erodes reasoning, and when there's multiple ways to interpret something, it's most prudent to interpret it in the way that doesn't necessarily make you the target of some perceived attack. People naturally tend to assume the worst when it comes to communication (specifically in debate/argument) due to the nature of the internal victim complex, which exists to draw sympathy from those that act based only on empathy. "Ugh, what you just said is insulting and it bothers me!" and other ways to exaggerate the way others perceive the opposing ends of conflict help to villianize one participant and draw supporters to the other. Part of intelligent, honest discussion should be avoiding doing this, as it doesn't make you anymore correct and only diminishes the quality of the discussion.

That's why I say interpretation is his job. I could have just called him a ****head, and removed all doubt from an attempt to insult him, if I actually wanted to insult him. I wouldn't try to hide it. I think the goal of an insult is normally for the other person to be bothered... so you want them to be sure. Why would I say something vaguely insulting? Is it not better to read it more dettachedly?

And if me saying that bothers you... that's exactly what I'm talking about.



****'s sake, I just remembered why I tried to stop coming here.

 

[trash?]

yeah ive thought this about a few of the regulars in this thread for a while now. you cant even call them out for it because they just admit to sucking at the actual game before doubling back and calling you out for **** they have no idea what theyre talking about. its mad ****ing annoying, thats why most good players just dont go on smashboards anymore.

by the way, as good players, we generally talk **** on each other when we think other top players have stupid opinions. but thats also with the implication that we at least respect those people with stupid opinions as good players and they clearly understand the game better even when we disagree with each other.

im with DF on this one. even if he says the stupidest **** about the game, i'd still at least read what he has to say.

but... why would you want to prefer sticking to your own tiny, unchanging group? I don't doubt that it's frustrating otherwise, but that's precisely what breeds an echo chamber, this is precisely what breeds ignorance to continue is if you just cut off all information from those who desperately need it

 

[Deleted member]

but... why would you want to prefer sticking to your own tiny, unchanging group? I don't doubt that it's frustrating otherwise, but that's precisely what breeds an echo chamber, this is precisely what breeds ignorance to continue is if you just cut off all information from those who desperately need it

1 its an echo chamber because we all know our **** already and dont need outside opinions until someone makes that clear in a bracket which almost never happens blindly

2 the people that desperately need that information generally differentiate themselves from a pack, and not in threads like "tier list speculation"

edit- daniel youre hilarious

 

[trash?]

so... now we just got back to "lower-end opinions are meaningless" with no extra nuance?

well, I tried to reason, I guess. idk, I just want you to realize that an ivory tower of elitists only work as well as if you can then help people up there, otherwise the well drying up is sort of inevitable

That's why I say interpretation is his job. I could have just called him a ****head, and removed all doubt from an attempt to insult him, if I actually wanted to insult him. I wouldn't try to hide it. I think the goal of an insult is normally for the other person to be bothered... so you want them to be sure. Why would I say something vaguely insulting? Is it not better to read it more dettachedly?

And if me saying that bothers you... that's exactly what I'm talking about.

apparently games opinions are just now discussions on purpose and intent, so:

you don't need to "intend" to be hostile for you to still be hostile, that's a silly thing to assume, you don't just methodically choose which emotion you feel at every moment

 

[Deleted member]

so... now we just got back to "lower-end opinions are meaningless" with no extra nuance?

well, I tried to reason, I guess. idk, I just want you to realize that an ivory tower of elitists only work as well as if you can then help people up there, otherwise the well drying up is sort of inevitable


apparently games opinions are just now discussions on purpose and intent, so:

you don't need to "intend" to be hostile for you to still be hostile, that's a silly thing to assume, you don't just methodically choose which emotion you feel at every moment

you have multiple top players telling you as nicely as possible that youre ****ing annoying and you want us to help you but we're too elitist? **** off. the only tips im giving you are in a swift 2-0 in a bracket you ****ing speedbump. suck your own righteous ego when you drown in pools.

 

[trash?]

you have multiple top players telling you as nicely as possible that youre ****ing annoying and you want us to help you but we're too elitist? **** off. the only tips im giving you are in a swift 2-0 in a bracket you ****ing speedbump. suck your own righteous ego when you drown in pools.

this is not what normal human beings call "nice", no

I don't care about myself, I'm caring about others in this scenario, of which you generalize very heavily to prove a point. get angry at me all you please, but you haven't actually addressed me calling your actions a detriment to the community

 

[FreeGamer]

if you want a safe space, tumblr is that way --->

 

[_Chrome]

For Fox's sake, it's no wonder no one notable posts here: they don't need help advancing their gamestate from people who can't offer useful advice, and they don't want to socialize with a bunch of people who only get up in flames about internet douchebaggery. My god, people. If you need to learn something be polite. If you want to improve but don't wanna deal with people not sugar coating reality checks in marshmallows and sprinkles (as well as DF's walls of text, jk) then watch videos online, study frame data, play the game and directly ask notable players if they can help you (whoever they may be). In my life experiences, I've found people are generally kind, and will feel flattered you asked for help.

My number one recommendation is to watch videos though (besides playing the game). It opens up your eyes to so many different MUs and styles of play. It expands your knowledge of the game and opens up your mind. Admit you're ****. Besides, watching games is entertaining. Do it while eating a bag of chips. Is it not faster and more enjoyable than arguing with randos on here?!? Besides, that way you can begin (I said begin; this takes a while) to formulate your own OBJECTIVE opinions.

If y'all wanna talk Smash, talk Smash. The last month or so has been pretty dumb in here. Yet this is all my opinion... And I'm no good player, I just think of myself as someone with a brain.

 

[Deleted member]

this is not what normal human beings call "nice", no

I don't care about myself, I'm caring about others in this scenario, of which you generalize very heavily to prove a point. get angry at me all you please, but you haven't actually addressed me calling your actions a detriment to the community

oh right, none of the elite players ever helped anyone, especially not with our big ****ing guides loaded with top quality information like oh say mine. if you want top players to help the community than don't be **** to the ones that try and maybe they'll come back occasionally.