Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
This is as pointless as the Gardevoir thread, I'm assuming you're one of those that thinks she still has a chance too?
Yep, I just posted the same argument in regards to guardevoir, not that I really care all that much about guardevoir either char, though gardevoir is pretty cool.
How is appearing in the game NOT as playable a NON absolute deconfirmation?
Erm, because there is no official statement that says that it is an absolute deconfirmation.
Sometimes things don't need an official deconfirmation, Sakurai doesn't expect people to be that stupid to have to put a big sign on the home page of the Dojo saying Nook and Gardevoir deconfirmed lol!
Erm, yeah he does to make it an absolute (or release the final character list/the game of course).
Deducting Mathmatics is not like deducting a person's mental state, there are so many factors that come into play that no deduction is 100% in regards to another person's mind.
I really should be asking you that question, because obviously you cannot grasp the rhetorical difference between a very low probability and impossible.
Obviously you're never taken a rhetoric class or you'd realize that both cases are of low probability.
The same way, Falco appearing as a arwing fighter in melees story mode not deconfirming him. However I must say he is highly unprobable.
Yep, it's possible, highly unlikely, but possible none the less, I'm glad we understand each other, though I think the issue is more that he never said that it was restricted to characters, even though the overwhelming majority of playable characters are characters.
This may b over the top, but I love this quote. I agree nothing is impossible until the end but using mathematic probability laws? Lol
He's right Shuma
Eh, I felt the need to fully explain it, hey, it got the point across, no?
OMG, dude, common sense.
Pokeballs also have that distinction.
W...T...F...? Do you HONESTLY believe Gardevoir has a chance? You are beyond hope...
OMG, are you seriously serious?? You are just being highly technical, which there is no point in, come Feb. 10, you'll only be disappointed.
And I think there's a huge chance you're wrong while there is little chance I am. Your point? You're doing the same thing I am, only in a very illogical matter.
very improbable ~=~ impossible.
Slippy and Peppy?
How many are present at the stage at the same time, either way? Cuz I don't remember.
And highly unlikely is exactly what I am arguing, so why are we disagreeing?
A non-zero chance, (a very tiny one at that), but still.
I'm not personally invested in either character so how can I be disapointed.
Erm.... you're saying pretty much the exact same thing I said, but instead of saying "there's a low chance that Tom Nook will appear and a high chance he won't" (which is exactly what I'm arging), you're saying, "there's a low chance you're wrong and a high chance I'm right".
I don't think that this proper for the usage of similar, but I understand what you mean, and yes, it is similar in terms of net effect, most of the time, but with enough tests, even an extremely small non-zero chance can be important.
Erm, I was not saying that we know enough of his mental state to say it's a non-zero chance, I said the opposite, that we do not know enough of his mental state to make it a zero chance.
do you see fox flying one while you fight him? no.
Yes... Tom Nook is highly, highly unlikely. So?
No. Not even a non-zero chance. Yes, Tom Nook is unlikely, but Gardevoir has been Pokeball-ified. Gardy has a ZERO chance. ZERO.
Alright then...
I actually agree with you... somewhat. But I'm strongly betting he won't. IF a character will be playable, WHY put him in the backround?
Your point?
Ok then...
Fine enough, but we won't have enough tests. We will only have *1* game, not 100 different tests...
Mental state.... *sigh*
With Tom Nook, yeah, I'll admit he has a window of opportunity, but, if he were to be in the game, he would have a brawl equivalent model, but he doesn't. It's comparable to the rest of the AC crowd. Why create 2 Nook models to put one in the backround, and another one as a PC? but Gardy does have the zero chance. Pokeballs ARE like AT. Pokemons can't be ATs, so they have to be Pokeball-ified. And look at their models... they were most likely ported directly with little upgrades from the GC game.
One tough cookie is putting it nicely ¬¬
You know, I don't like to flame...
Just pointing out that there is no contention, our opinions are totally in line. He has a non-zero chance, just a very small one.
As I pointed out beforehand, we have no proof that the smash team considers pokeballs in the same category as assist characters, so it goes in the same category as a character being in the background, an educated logical guess is that it's the same net effect, but there's still a non-zero chance that it's not.
I agree, why would they? That's why I say the chance is very low, but very low is still non-zero. And there is precedent for characters having multiple roles ), pokefloats had characters like chansy and venusaur that were also pokeball pokemon. It is not illogical to guess that, being far larger, the pokefloats versions had more fine details so they looked good when zoomed really far in.
That we agreed and that you didn't recognize it at the time.
Excuse me, the point was more that multiple tests reveal the real probability, and one test is more likely to make a statistical outlier seem normal, and something that is very likely seem unlikely.
Again, stating lack of knowledge in reguards to it, not making assumptions about it.
Hmmm, actually, it is rather easy to create a high-quality model, and then scale it down in quality, give me two minutes with photo-shop and a high quality text and I could definately scale it down for uses in the background so it takes less processor power.
Lol, come to terms with what? I've already stated that I don't really like Nook, anyway realize that as far as Nook is concerned, PrettyGoodYear already admitted my point, that there is an extremely low non-zero chance that he could be included. Ok, admitted is the wrong word, "realized that we always agreed" is the better way of putting it.
Well, I'm persistent, especially when I know I'm correct, especially when I realize that the other guy agrees with me but doesn't realize it cause he/she/it/potato thinks I'm arguing for some other point.
Are you talking to me?
