RolStoppable said:
TheKoreanGuy said:
Your analogy falls apart if we are dealing with four cowards. In other words, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
|
If you are dealing with four cowards, then the coward strategy (waiting on the side, trying to kill weakened opponents) doesn't work in the first place.
Three cowards doesn't work either, because two cowards will have fled to the same side, basically forcing each other to fight. If they don't, then they shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
Two cowards will result in the remaining two players forming the gentlemen agreement and each one going after one coward (or they pick one coward to team up on while the other coward won't interfere, because he is a coward). Once one coward is eliminated, the remaining coward will be taken out by two players.
Like I said, it's foolproof.
|
But you said cowards can only win if they are good players and that he wouldn't need to play cowardly if this was the case to begin with. And if they are good players, then they fight fairly. Here, you make the distinction between a good player and a cowardly player. This is where you defined what it means to be a coward. A coward absolutely cannot fight fairly nor win. If they don't fit this definition, then according to you, they are not even cowards to begin with.
Using this strict definition, four cowards would sit idly by, waiting for someone to make the first move. After all, cowards can't win. But this never happens, and that's why your analogy oversimplifies things. Once you started considering the different situations that cowards might find themselves in, you strayed from your own definition.
Going by your definition again, cowards only know how to play cowardly, so with four cowards they won't resort to fighting fairly. Instead they would focus on keeping damage away from themselves if anyone tries coming at them. Since all four cowards will do this, no one will actually get into a fight because they aren't confident they can win without playing cowardly. But someone has to win, right? That isn't the point though. For the purposes of seeing why your analogy is really pointless and that real SSB matches don't have these simplified outcomes as you portray them, we are considering four REAL cowards here, strictly speaking. Thus, in this theoretical sense, no one will fight and that is rather pointless, isn't it?
If there are three cowards and one fair player, a coward will do his best to avoid the other cowards and knock away the fair player to the other cowards in order to try and win. The same concepts apply for two cowards and one coward. They will do whatever they can in an effort to win as a means to make up for their lack of skill.
You can't say cowards never win but change your mind once the situation changes. The reason you are even arguing this is because you want to say that cowards will never win in SSB, making the system foolproof. My point is that fighting fairly doesn't mean you will always win over those who don't because of the way SSB is set up. The number of skillful kills you have doesn't always matter in the end. Whoever is the last one standing wins and nothing says that a coward can't be the victor.
One other thing is that there is no rule that states that fair players must form a gentlemen agreement. You might for your matches but since there is no such established rule within the game itself, you can't use that to reason that all matches must follow some preordained pattern.
Fact: Cowards can win games in SSB. It has happened with me a number of times and there is no way to argue your way around this. Why does this happen? Because SSB gameplay mechanics allow it to.
Currently Online 
