TGM said:
CPU did win. considering the ruleset(stupid items) he won fair and square. However, ive met CPU(we met in cali) and hes not good. Do you even know who ken is? Ken is the 3 time MLG world champion for melee. He just started to pick up brawl(he may have droped it since then cause brawl is horrible). And your right, Ken cant use items worth crap(cause items are not accepted in REAL tournaments) and ken goes to REAL tournaments. BTW, do you know what a tourneyfag is? Its a term created by casual players on gamefaqs(in other words, people who dont understand the competitive scene of smash). Its a term used to describe people who go to tournaments, compete to win, do not use items and take the game seriously. I have been around before the term was made and before the brawl noobs came along. |
I bolded all your statments on why you would be wrong.
What you are doing is making Value Judgements. I can say that competative play is wrong becuase X. What I am actually saying is this: CPU is only seen as bad becuase he does not play in the "traditional" way. The tourneyfags (and they will be called this until they can improve) say it's lame becuase Ken lost. Ken lost becuase he was worse then CPU. Tourneyfags will deny this in saying items were on.
There is a gapping hole in this logic that has a bright neon sign pointing to it. If CPU won only becuase of items, then perhaps there is something too it beyond "Items are stupid". CPU won becuase he could use the items. Tourneyfags do not beleive that items can be used, but are 100% luck and any monkey can won with them. This is a lie. As someone who uses items, I can tell you people lose with items becuase they do not understand them. All the items (save the healing ones) have a wayu around them. CPU won becuase he knew the items and used them.
You say CPU sucks, but put items on and see what happens. By you logic, you two will win just as much. No, CPU will win. He will win becuase he used the items to a greater extent. He will win becuase you can not use the items. I always hated how people say they are so good at the game when all they did was remove all the items, ~50-75% of the stages and halfed the player count to 2 from 4. You are playing qwith 25% of the content. You are playing a basterized game. How can you say you are better if you play on different terms. "Ok, we are going to play basketball. But you can punch people and can not jump." If you do that, then your not really playing Basketball. How can you say if you win that you are better at Basketball? That is what is going on here. You are playing on different rules. Tourneyfags only see EVO are "stupid" becuase Ken did not win. Rather then understand it, they complain.
How to test if items are truely luck
In statistics, the more you do something will be closer to it'stheoretical probability. If you flip a coin 3 times, then you'll have a 1:2 split. Do it four times and you can still have a 1:3 split. Do it 100 times and you might get 54:46 split. The more you do it, the closer you will get. So first, you must have two people (who do not play together) play a lot of matches and record the wins. If it is truely random, then it should be close to 50:50 (with a range of +/- 5). If it is not, then items are not "stupid" or the better player always wins.
The other thing is you need to use tournements to collect real statistics. I can not stress this enough. The problem with banning items in Brawl was there was no tournement results outside of EVO. In a controlled enviornment, you have bias (since there was a predetermined biased against items entering Brawl), and (most of all) the two players know each other in a controlled enviornment. If both play competativly, then they will know how the other plays. There is no way to tell how other people will play. Yoy are only testing by how you play. This does not show what is bad or not. You need to see what other people will do against strangers.
