-
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!
[VIC] Brawl Power Rankings (VERSION TEN) Updated LAST YEAR LOL
- Thread starter Splice
- Start date
- Status
Nicks
Smash Journeyman
im down with pr matches.
viva vs leish vs nicks vs dekar for 9th and 10th spot
viva vs leish vs nicks vs dekar for 9th and 10th spot
ViVa
Smash Ace
Bring it. All of you.
ViVa
Smash Ace
Beat me Dekar, then I'll care. >=D
you died to a charged dsmash from marth?
That's like, 500x the difference between 3-0ing someone and 3-2ing someone in terms of how good a player is.
Dekar should probably be no.2 because of that.
That's like, 500x the difference between 3-0ing someone and 3-2ing someone in terms of how good a player is.
Dekar should probably be no.2 because of that.
at the same time, nicks, you didn't make it out of pools at acl or tpoo...
i still think shaya and scoots points are completely ********.
Thankyou Meteor for being from NSW but being capable of making a valid point.
Counterpicks do affect the difference of 3-0 and 3-2.
Although Im pretty sure I won on the neutral... meh
Anyway Shaya and Scoot since your argument seems to depend on the tourney being well seeded...
Having the 1st and 2nd placing players on the same side of the bracket
and the person who came 3rd being unseeded
and the fact that you'd find a more serious and competitive atmosphere at a house meet...
lol
I could have just stayed the night at Afroponys again and It would have been the same as that tournament.
except then i wouldnt have played melee and pikmin 2
Thankyou Meteor for being from NSW but being capable of making a valid point.
Counterpicks do affect the difference of 3-0 and 3-2.
Although Im pretty sure I won on the neutral... meh
Anyway Shaya and Scoot since your argument seems to depend on the tourney being well seeded...
Having the 1st and 2nd placing players on the same side of the bracket
and the person who came 3rd being unseeded
and the fact that you'd find a more serious and competitive atmosphere at a house meet...
lol
I could have just stayed the night at Afroponys again and It would have been the same as that tournament.
except then i wouldnt have played melee and pikmin 2
swordsaint
Smash Master
three things, constantly resorting to insults makes it really hard to be bothered, well seeded wasn't exactly the only argument we made so stop ignoring parts of it, thirdly, there's a reason why the nsw pr is the least argued about PR in the country. Figure it out.
swordsaint
Smash Master
lol, dude we don't even have tournaments for the PR to change. not even arguing over your PR either as such, just the methods.
lol tru
which methods are we arguing over again exactly?
Trying to rank importance of matches strictly on their outcome and ignoring use of common sense in favour of trying to be objective?
Wrong, but objective.
Also would you consider attendance to affect the importance of a match scott?
which methods are we arguing over again exactly?
Trying to rank importance of matches strictly on their outcome and ignoring use of common sense in favour of trying to be objective?
Wrong, but objective.
Also would you consider attendance to affect the importance of a match scott?
swordsaint
Smash Master
Depends. You can't be objective over attendance unless there's an exact threshold, but there isn't. However I believe majors are weighted slightly more over regular locals.
Again though, you're being really fickle with the details, you're leaving them out when it suits you and including them when it suits you. You can't generalise what I am saying by saying 'ignoring common sense'. Common sense isn't valid here in the usual way because you're assuming YOUR method is common sense and then using the fact you believe you're right as evidence. You can't do that lol. It's not based strictly on the outcome, other factors could be involved, which is why people make the PR's, not statistics, but here I do not believe that how many 'games' you won is relevant if you lost the match. Considerable factors could be that they're not altogether there because of some sort of emotional situation. The thing is though, it's based off of consistent tournament results, so everybody has that leeway of not doing good once in a while, no matter what the reason.
The method we are talking about is whether to consider how many games you won in a set to be relevant, and maybe in some way it is, but not to PR. Rankings will be more accurate if you exclude those factors because there are even more reasons why games can be lost in a set, look at what Ricky said for example. How those players do (win/loss) against other players will provide them with an accurate placement regardless.
Though I also think that including games rather than sets adds for this much higher level of bias, especially when there could be reasons to dropping games to you, even though they are never losing the set. And not something as simple as "well it's because they're close in skill level" because if they are, other results vs other players will show that.
Again though, you're being really fickle with the details, you're leaving them out when it suits you and including them when it suits you. You can't generalise what I am saying by saying 'ignoring common sense'. Common sense isn't valid here in the usual way because you're assuming YOUR method is common sense and then using the fact you believe you're right as evidence. You can't do that lol. It's not based strictly on the outcome, other factors could be involved, which is why people make the PR's, not statistics, but here I do not believe that how many 'games' you won is relevant if you lost the match. Considerable factors could be that they're not altogether there because of some sort of emotional situation. The thing is though, it's based off of consistent tournament results, so everybody has that leeway of not doing good once in a while, no matter what the reason.
The method we are talking about is whether to consider how many games you won in a set to be relevant, and maybe in some way it is, but not to PR. Rankings will be more accurate if you exclude those factors because there are even more reasons why games can be lost in a set, look at what Ricky said for example. How those players do (win/loss) against other players will provide them with an accurate placement regardless.
Though I also think that including games rather than sets adds for this much higher level of bias, especially when there could be reasons to dropping games to you, even though they are never losing the set. And not something as simple as "well it's because they're close in skill level" because if they are, other results vs other players will show that.
edited to post for actual response-ness...
1. How was I being fickle exactly? I didnt even make any arguments in my last point to be fickle about
except players skill levels arent something you can rate objectively...
And what details have I left out? You arent even making sense
you are just assuming and making stuff up since you have no reason to be here and dont really know what you are talking about.
If its based off consistent tournament results, then i have consistently done better than aled
except i did bad last tourney do i get some leeway
kthx scott
1. How was I being fickle exactly? I didnt even make any arguments in my last point to be fickle about
except players skill levels arent something you can rate objectively...
And what details have I left out? You arent even making sense
you are just assuming and making stuff up since you have no reason to be here and dont really know what you are talking about.
If its based off consistent tournament results, then i have consistently done better than aled
except i did bad last tourney do i get some leeway
kthx scott
swordsaint
Smash Master
sigh, you really have no respect at all when you talk to people
you were fickle with the details, because I was being very specific over what I was talking about, then in your previous reply you were really general. In a way that was insulting implying we have no common sense over anything.
skill is something you can rate objectively, because you have results there to guide you.
everytime I make a point, or multiple points, you're picking one and ignoring the rest, then arguing one point. doing this is annoying to me, because whenever you respond, it's like you're not at all considering everything i've said, so it's easy to think you're not really even trying to understand what i'm saying. like you're not even considering everything, like you're not even really listening.
I never at all started arguing about you vs aled so w/e
you were fickle with the details, because I was being very specific over what I was talking about, then in your previous reply you were really general. In a way that was insulting implying we have no common sense over anything.
skill is something you can rate objectively, because you have results there to guide you.
everytime I make a point, or multiple points, you're picking one and ignoring the rest, then arguing one point. doing this is annoying to me, because whenever you respond, it's like you're not at all considering everything i've said, so it's easy to think you're not really even trying to understand what i'm saying. like you're not even considering everything, like you're not even really listening.
I never at all started arguing about you vs aled so w/e
I have no respect for this conversation because I don't really care about it, Scott.
I never really meant for any points I made initially to drag out this far
I dont understand the next sentence
Results are not directly proportionate to skill
they definitely do help guide you
but sometimes the results dont point out a clear better player
so its pretty subjective
Im not replying to every point because either
1. I agree
2. This has been clarified before and I either agreed with it before or responded to it before and I refuse to go around in circles. Well not too many circles at least.
I just think
3-2 proves that there is a situation within what we consider a legal ruleset for brawl, where the player who won two games, has the ability to win, and that this happening wouldnt be too uncommon.
3-0 does not prove that, but there is still a possibility they have the ability to win of course, but it doesnt actually prove that.
And I really agree with what Dekar said, my main point really is stop trying to be objective and using that as a means to be able to comment on anything despite the fact you didnt see the games. Problem is no-one saw the matches cept me and afro lol ;D
But srsly, you have to see the matches and really think about the two players, and if the games were very close, then you have to speculate over whether this win can turn around what was previously considered a very easy decision...
I never really meant for any points I made initially to drag out this far
I dont understand the next sentence
Results are not directly proportionate to skill
they definitely do help guide you
but sometimes the results dont point out a clear better player
so its pretty subjective
Im not replying to every point because either
1. I agree
2. This has been clarified before and I either agreed with it before or responded to it before and I refuse to go around in circles. Well not too many circles at least.
I just think
3-2 proves that there is a situation within what we consider a legal ruleset for brawl, where the player who won two games, has the ability to win, and that this happening wouldnt be too uncommon.
3-0 does not prove that, but there is still a possibility they have the ability to win of course, but it doesnt actually prove that.
And I really agree with what Dekar said, my main point really is stop trying to be objective and using that as a means to be able to comment on anything despite the fact you didnt see the games. Problem is no-one saw the matches cept me and afro lol ;D
But srsly, you have to see the matches and really think about the two players, and if the games were very close, then you have to speculate over whether this win can turn around what was previously considered a very easy decision...
C~Dog
Smash Champion
Hallo guys.im down with pr matches.
viva vs leish vs nicks vs dekar for 9th and 10th spot
TakFR
Smash Lord
Why is brawl always such a *****fest when it comes to the PR?
Jei Jei
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,271
- Location
- Kings Park, Melbourne
- NNID
- Jei_Soul
- 3DS FC
- 1564-4103-8935
Oh snap. Caw-naw gon come and whoop some a$s.
Go D3 go.
Shut up Tak or I'll quit melee
Go D3 go.
Shut up Tak or I'll quit melee
TakFR
Smash Lord
That's an empty threat and I know it =)
TakFR
Smash Lord
**** I don't have a comeback for that =(
Nicks
Smash Journeyman
haha sorry connor, i was told that you werent going to be attending tournaments regularly hence u shouldnt be on the PR.
But if you are going to be attending regularly now... bring it on *****
dekar vs leish vs viva vs nicks vs connor!!!
Timic83
Smash Ace
i should be #10 cos i still care about this game
C~Dog
Smash Champion
I beat 3/4 of those people last tourney, I just need to beat Leish now and get 9th.
Timic83
Smash Ace
i beat leish so i should be 9th
dean.
.
Jei beat Toshi so Jei should be 6th.
Dean beat Jei so Dean should be 6th.
Toshi beat Dean so Toshi should be 6th.
Wait...
Dean beat Jei so Dean should be 6th.
Toshi beat Dean so Toshi should be 6th.
Wait...
Nicks
Smash Journeyman
I beat Jei AND dean so i should be 6th
Timic83
Smash Ace
i can beat 3 level nines i should be 6th
- Status