Forum:Metaknight's hidden flaw (very well hidden indeed)

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Forums: Index → Brawl Talk → Metaknight's hidden flaw (very well hidden indeed)

I just realized metaknight has one very well hidden flaw. His sheild roll is really good. So is his ledge roll and his wake up roll (when your down kissing the floor, roll to get up). BUT his Eukemi (anti faceplant, floor tech) roll is USELESS. The tech is good but the follow up roll is PATHETIC. However, that isn't much of a problem. Since only a tech chase+ spike combo takes advantage of this *cough*zeroSuitsamus*cough, excuse me,*cough*IceClimbers*COUGH*. Humor aside, ZZS dominatrix Stun Combo and (especially) the ice climber avalanche combo devastate MK's pathetic Eukemi. This is because his floor tech roll (Eukemi) is slow, long duration, moves a short distance, a bit of ending lag, and almost unoticable invinciblity frames at the moment of activation. Making it SUPER easy to tech chase (no guessing required). If you need me to spell it out, MK is super vulnerable to combos that involve tech chasing. You see if you don't eukemi and you faceplant you can't roll away immidiatly and your vulnerable until you roll to get up. That's the point of an Eukemi, to tech roll before that happens. As much as I love MK, his eukemi does not do its job... but then again people don't eukemi that often so I guess sakurai distributed his lag in the right places...or did he :3?!?TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you keep making discoveries like this, our heads shall explode from pwnsomeness. - GalaxiaD Talk 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice discovery Cree318 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest for a moment. Is this really going to make a big enough difference to swing a game against Meta Knight? I think not. Semicolon (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Nope, but its probably the first flaw I have seen that actually matter in competitive play. - Hatake91 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Okay. This is why it won't matter: It's a tech chase spike combo. How often (a) is there going to be an opportunity to cause Meta Knight to tech? (b) how often is there going to be an opportunity to tech chase Meta Knight? (c) how often is someone playing going to be playing characters able to take advantage of this? (aka ZSS sucks, and the Ice Climbers are hardly viable) (d) how often is it actually going to be in a good position (near the ledge) (e) how often is this going to actually be pulled off? (f) even if this works, and becomes significant, zomg all Meta Knight players have to do is not tech, and instead do the, as OP said, awesome wake up roll.

No, it won't make a difference. Semicolon (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh you guys obviously didn't read a couple of my other threads, my ice climber avalanche combo grabs with the primary, down/foward throw, then immidiatly after spiked by secondary climber. The Primary ice climber is ready to tech chase even while the secondary is spiking (especially after down throw) the sad fact is that if you don't tech, there is a small window of vulnerability BEFORE you can wake up roll. The primary ice climber can just use the first hit of his standard combo, and the secondary can grab you during the stun after landing chain grab back, rinse lather repeat, OR instead start a desynced ice shot tumble combo. The problem is that MK's tech roll is more like air dodge to cancel landing lag followed by a forced walk because it's THAT pathetic. The previously mentioned follow ups would still work during his tech roll with none of the usual guesswork involved tech chasing. These couple of facts can shut down MK and some others legally.204.69.115.54 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice points. - GalaxiaD Talk 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone find major flaws for Lucas?@@@ Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, they're not nice points. Given a short period of vulnerability, there's a choice that has to be made. Either the IC's have to choose to tech chase, or take advantage of a MK not teching because of the precise timing required to execute your ridiculous combo. It's a fifty/fifty. Then consider that additionally, a direction must be selected due to complicated factors involving damage/terrain etc. Then consider that this is also only viable when Nana is alive. Then consider that the IC's suck. Then consider that I don't buy your combo being effective due to nasty start up lag on that fair. Then consider that you also have to have the IC's desynced (if MK allows that to even happen), which means Nana will be doing a grab animation herself, slowing her already laggy fair down to even get this to happen. It's far too conditional to have any bearing on any game whatsoever. Fail. Semicolon (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Now those are some nice points. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You obviously have no idea how the ICs can cg with Dthrow>Fair. IC desynching is childs play for an IC player, its really not that hard. ICs dont suck, they have the best grab game out of the whole cast. At the beginning of the match, MK will almost always approach with a fair, Shuttle Loop etc. If the ICs get a grab when the game starts due to ICs shieldgrabbing, Dthrow>Fair becomes a valid followup. No MK player would not tech that, knowing its coming up. IC Dash grabs arent slow, and if they were, try dash canceling to a grab. Those were really biased points. JtM =^] (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The bias is irrelevant. You have a bias too, it's just in a different direction. I admit I don't have a perfect conception of this silly little combo, but I will tell you this, beyond a doubt: his little 'flaw' is way too insignificant to make a dent on a good MK player, much less an entire matchup, and that's the God's honest truth. Semicolon (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JtM. The IC's don't suck; they're high tier for a reason. Their CG's are deadly and near impossible to escape. You know, all this talk about the IC's advantages over MK make me believe that MK's found another neutral match-up. - GalaxiaD Talk 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides some slow moves and a short-ranged tether, not really. - GalaxiaD Talk 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
¬_¬ Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys, just remember that the IC's aren't the only ones who can tech chase. ZSS was already mentioned (though MK kills her recovery), and even a decent G&W should be able to tech chase after a D-throw. Plus, G&W's D-Throw is straight down, therefore getting rid of the damage and terrain variables. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Forgot to login last time (time was short) btw he is not only vulnerable after getting knocked down to the ground, but during that vulnerability he is non responsive (stun) and cannot wake up roll for that period, enough for a desynced alternating ice shot tumble to start (I mentioned that), or rinse lather and repeat by have IC 1 executing the first hit of his neutral combo and IC 2 performing ice shot/ other weak attack to cause stun (and a forced wake up) then grab with IC 1, This will happen if MK doesn't tech roll after the Dthrow>Fair spike (which if not interfered beforehand from an outside source, is garunteed an easy unavoidable spike directly in front of IC 1 who is ready to do what I said). The BIG issue is that his Tech is so slow, so long duration, so short distance traveled and only a tinnnyyyy window of invincibility during the first couple of frames, that just about anyone can grab him after or slightly charge a smash attack, and still hit during or after during the lag of the tech, and if you can't do this YOU NEED GLASSES, becauses it's that hard to mess up. Btw I'm not out to screw MK I MAIN MK, how do you think I found this out... I look at the small details that do nothing by themselves, then exploit them in combinations to create combos that shut down opponents and rack up damage. Oh what I mentioned above is legal, because it's not that annoying IC ChainGrab, it's a grab>spike>attack+grab/tech chase+repeat. I post these things for a reason, they have GREAT potential over a match when exploited as a surprise, if you guys didn't notice what these things can do, do you think your foe will? With that said using most of my techniques at the right time as a surprise can change the out come because these things helped me and my friends get better and I'm sure it'll help you all. Truth is I only put small fraction of what I know here on smash wiki I just don't have enough time to do it all, so if want a combo you probably have never seen before (that works, and some do more than do damage they can set your opponent up for follow ups or into REALLY dangerous situations *cough*spike*cough*) just ask.TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy that said that you can control Smash Bros with your mind? I'm not buying a word you say. I will say it again: this thing that you say is so huge in affect MK is in fact, incredibly small because, even given your assumptions about the efficacy of this technique/combo/whatever, MK's pros far outweigh anything the IC's can throw out there! That's the truth. You've failed to address any of my legitimate criticisms to this point, and the ones you have addressed are few, leaving the rest standing nice and tall. I don't need to restate all of my arguments. I have far better things to do. Adieu. Semicolon (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by all of this. First, I've yet to see how this will become a huge deal in the competitive scene. It would at best allow a player to take a single stock of an unsuspecting player before they catch on and stop this nonsense. Second, these claims of bias are completely unfounded. Yes, both parties are trying to support their arguments, but ad hominum circumstancal is a logical fallacy. Look it up. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(to Clarinet Hawk) Better things to do like realize I'm not against that MK pros outweigh his cons. I didn't state this because I'm targeting him, and further more what I said is true, terrible eukemi = weakness. No argument can state that (Terrible Eukemi = weakness) = false. Btw I said "Ness+Lucas Final smash has a random number generator to select the X coordinate for the fireballs which IN THEORY should be affected by ones own PK (if your own is strong enough)" when I found someone who seemed to have it he managed to affect the spawn coordinates so that the fireball's x = enemy x roughly 70% higher than the usual. Which leads me to believe that Ness+Lucas who have an exaggerated PK ability have their final smashes that can be influenced by someone who has above average PK ability. I find that to obvious to be coincidence, and that the programmers of ness and lucas made a final smash that in theory could be controlled by one's own PK. NOW THAT is an likely and interesting possibility (aka fun fact if deemed true).

Okay, now this is an interesting proposition. I'm going to deal with your 'Eukemi' point, and then the fun will begin. Okay, yes, if Meta Knight has a bad 'eukemi' then it is not in his favor. That does not, however, make it a weakness. A weakness would be him not possessing a 'eukemi' at all. Comparably, MK's 'eukemi' may not in fact be good, but it is a detail. Now, I'll force-feed you an analogy. If I'm dueling some guy who has an AK-47, and I have a .38 Special, we have the same weakness--bullets. However, I am disadvantaged, it is clear. Same can be said for MK. He has a eukemi, but it's a bad eukemi. Okay. So? It will have almost no bearing, because unlike what gun I'm wielding, it isn't a big deal. There are dozens of things I can think of that are more important to a character, and dozens of ways MK can overcome it, and dozens of characters (yes, literally dozens) that he doesn't even have to worry about it from.
Now for your controlling Smash with your 'own PK' as you say. I'm glad I got a second chance to destroy your opinion on this; I never should have let it go in the first place. Let's throw away that silly label first. One's 'own PK' means controlling Smash Brothers with your mind, because 'PK' means 'Psychokinesis' which parses to psych meaning 'mind' (o is a stem-extender) and kinesis meaning 'move' or 'motion'. Thus, we have PK meaning moving something with one's mind. What you are proposing is using some faculty of the brain to, in fact, move something with your mind. In this case, you are proposing to move Ness and Lucas' Final Smash lightening bolts. How many languages must I say 'NO. YOU CAN'T. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.' in? First off, let's assume 'PK' is some form of ESP, because they're basically two names for the same thing. Then I can say that ESP has been thoroughly debunked by every scientist who has ever had the displeasure of having to entertain such preposterous notions. So basically, ESP doesn't exist, and so if ESP=PK, then PK doesn't either. Was that so hard? Now I'll take a hammer to the other side of the equation--Smash Bros. Let me give you a sample of what Smash Bros actually looks like, in the real world: 001100011011010101001100101100101011011011. Get the picture? Binary. There is NOTHING that the ESP-less brain can do to change ANYTHING about that. Did you ever, for a moment, entertain chance as how your sorry butt was getting kicked by Ness/Lucas' final smash? Did you ever entertain the proposition that perhaps the FS covers the whole damn screen and thus people are bound to get destroyed by it? Now, you say something silly about a random number generation being affected by one's own PK. That's garbage. How do you know it's a random generator? How do you know it isn't the game pulling on a dozen or so prepared patterns? It seems clear that the game separates the stage because you never have all of the bolts hitting one side and leaving the other unmolested. So no, it isn't strictly a random number generator. It would be impressive if this individual managed to get all the lightning bolts to hit on even one side of the stage. Problem is, it won't happen without hacking, unless this PK can now flip the game coding too. That would making it something impressive indeed! Turns out that there are 3 or 4 different ways the game developers could have decided to set the lightning bolts. How do you know they didn't program a disposition into them to try and hit the opponents as it stands? Who's to say the base-line for being hit is 50%? I would say it's a good deal higher, considering factors like size of character, stage, size of the bolts etc. 70% could be completely unremarkable! You haven't done research to determine what the baseline for being hit it is. Therefore, any conclusion you draw is completely invalid! For that matter, how did you manage to measure the '70%' over someone else's? Does this person have an 'ESP' measurement that it could be juxtaposed against? Didn't think so. Fail. Fail. Double Fail. Triple Fail. Sextouple Fail. Semicolon (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahen* now that I got that straitened out from now on (because of clarinethawk's numerous complaints to me) I will NOT be making anymore threads on small details. I will put a list of the small discoveries on my user talk and save breakthrough discoveries for the forum. I will also be answering questions and posting combos to those who ask in my user talk. I only have 30 minutes or less a day to post, so this would be more convenient for Smash wiki, its members, and me to do this. Times up...TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Smart Semicolon is smaaaaart... Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 21:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But he also needs to calm down. - GalaxiaD (Happy Holidays!) 03:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
O.o Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I WOULD feel burned, if semi-colin knew what he is talking about (most of what he says is true pr might be true), sadly his point about Esp and PK is not true. Parapsychology (a REAL feild) states that events relating to PSI can be categorized into PK, ESP, or both. PK does not necessarily mean physical events. Random events can be used to test if someone has marginal evidence for PK, which is why they are the easiest. Second if it was a pattern and not random x coordinate, then it would not SEEM like it's being influenced by PK (it's a 2-way proof), if there is a list of pattern that is randomly selected it would still be influenced by PK. You don't need to know how the game works to influence it with PK or acquire said information through ESP. Parapsychology, states that PSI indeed exists and science supports that, however how it works and why some people have more control over it than others is still a mystery. What we do know is that PK can affect random number generators as if it were child's play, random events (not random number generators) is not excluded. We also know that of one uses enough PK and they desire something to happen, they don't need to know HOW they want it to happen, it just will if it works (since this part of the brain is supposed to be restricted to only subconscious, its hard to study PSI because the subconscious does not always comply to controlled laboratory settings which would account for it's slow progress of study and no FINAL theory). So it doesn't matter how hard or how unlikely it is for an event that is even SLIGHTLY determined by chance to be influenced by PK, why because it is not have all the characteristics of a force so it is not always physical, which is why it is in a category all its own. What I have stated about what we do know about PK and not the theories. Fact = events determined even slightly by chance are indeed influenced by PK. If it were not a random event it would not be affected by PK, and STRONGLY seems it is. Now some people say "how do you prove something like this exists if chance is what it affects, coincidence?". DAMN OUT OF TIME (tommorrow I finish I slow typer).TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, just no. I want to see references to nuemerous studies before I give any consideration to the thought that people can control things with their mind. Then, I want further proof that this can be used to control non-physical things. Then, I want proof that PK Starstorm uses a random number generator (you never refueted SC's argument that it doesn't). Give me all of this, and I might highten my judgement of this argument from potinless to wrong. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not half of a Colin. My name isn't even Colin. Second, SmashWiki can be a freak show sometimes. Dear lord. I'm going to dissect you thusly:
  • Parapsychology is not nicht non nullus a real field; it is pseudo-science. The US National Academy of Scientists said this about parapsychology:"no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Now, see, I'm willing to bet the NAS is smarter than you are, and smarter than any kook who believes in parapsychology.
  • If they believe that ESP and PK are not the same thing, then they're dumber than I thought.
  • Okay, I'll follow your line of reasoning for a moment: random events are used to test for PK...why? How? What are they looking for? How are all other factors controlled for (the answer is they're not, but humor me)?
  • Okay, so if there is a pattern, a favorable one is selected because of PK...if it's random, people are hit because of PK...your test is non-disprovable. There is no grounds on which I can refute you because all of your outcomes are predetermined...there are two circumstances, random or no, both of which you claim supports your result. I'm sorry, real science doesn't allow that reasoning.
  • Okay...if random events can be influenced by PK, make the Ultimate Chimera appear in the same spot 12 times in a row. Your PK 'theory' says it can influence random events? Influence it without a shadow of a doubt. Bring some extraordinary (of the sort you claim exists!) evidence to the table. Right now, you have nothing. Dribble. Pittance. Conjecture, and misguided opinion. Doesn't count. Fail.
  • Okay, I just got to the part about subconscious not wanting to be controlled in a laboratory setting. Imagine this next word as big as the Sears Tower: LOLZ. How can you make a claim if you don't have a controlled setting? Once again, see above about what evidence you do have. I have more names to call your retarded and intellectually lazy claims, but I think I'll need them for later on in your post so I best hold on to them, oke-doke?
  • Dude, I really hope you realize that you're peddling bullshit. Your claims are non-disprovable, without evidence, and even sparse argument and conjecture with flawed and specious reasoning. Take a science class. Sheesh. Semicolon (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it starts off as a simple weakness discussion, and we're talking about psychology. Que triste. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 06:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
OOOOO! Cheezperson came outta nowhere again!</snitch> Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 10:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Back, oh cheeseperson... NO ES TRISTE XD. AANNYWAYS Lets say the odds against a random action from from happening is 1:2000000 (2 million unfavoravle 1 favorible) and someone who is psychokenitc gets a result of 999999 favorible outcomes in a row and finally 1 unfavorible outcome, and acheives this result multiple times in a row, then the chances of that person getting this result by luck alone is VERY SLIM. All who are psychokenetic, some better than others, defy the odds. I am no expert but I can refer you to someone who is, the only know parapsycologist in the nation with a Ph.D in Parapsycology (twas what I meant by feild). Just google PK trainer. Should be his official website first on the list. So don't ask me ask him. Before you say such things that ESP and PK not the same, it is connected but PK=physical event (mind of matter) and ESP=mental event (acqiring information by means other than the senses) . SOOO finally that should clear things up... And if you reject the only way the eveidence can be presented and studied then that means you're closed minded, or biased. Either that or I REALLY suck at explaining things. I reccomend you read the glossery when you find the website as it helps. Oh and I do agree with cheeseperson, this is not a PK thread, I only wanted to point out that maybe the creators of Ness+lucas believe in PK themselves and made a final smash that could be controlled with PK, whether you beleive in PSI or not, it's not hard to speculate that the creators themleves might beleive in PSI, and as an easter egg or attempt to prove true, made final smashes based on what we "think" we know for sure about this science. it was just a thought not a statement.TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we're getting to the meat of the issue!
  • Yes, if such a hypothetical thing occurs, what with favorable and unfavorable outcomes, by definition, it is not chance, because chance gives the outcome of 1:2000000 (imagine that!). So yes, if that's what's happening, something is fishy, but the first explanation should not be ZOMGPSYCHOKINESIS. It should be studied and evaluated with a fair mind. If such a thing does seem to occur, the logical explanation is that someone rigged the game, or something isn't working properly. Here's the kicker, though. That kind of stuff doesn't happen. Never. Not in the history of human kind. Why? Because there's no such thing as PK, ESP or Parapsychology in the relevant scientific literature. If it was there, it would be observable, testable, and falsifiable. It's not. Perhaps you should question the cause before assuming that it's supernatural. I don't think you're doing that...at all.
  • One person with a Ph.D is not a field. One person with a Ph.D is a nut got it from University of BullShit Pheonix onINTERWEBS.
  • The distinction between 'PK' and 'ESP' is ultimately irrelevant. They're both wrong.
  • Then you're calling all of science closed minded, because, you see, in science, we have this thing called the scientific method. The scientific method says that you have a hypothesis, you test it in an envirnoment whereby results can be directly and exclusively traced to a set of possible causes, therefore you can know for sure what affects what, in what way. It's not closed minded. It's the only way we can for sure know things. Pure fantasy and conjecture is nonsense. If you can't test it, you can't prove it. If you can't disprove it, it's not valid. If you believe it, you can't prove it, and it can't be disproven, that's faith or ignorance, or both.
  • Okay, okay, okay--wait, wait WAIT. You're saying that IF the programmers were dumb enough to believe in PK, for which there is, and I will say it again no credible scientific evidence of its existence and that they somehow knew more than you do about it and were able to convince the developer to waste resources, time, and invest money in research to be able to program an easter egg into the game regarding something nobody believes in except kooks and nuts with a single facet of the game then your whack-a-doodle speculation could be true about affecting final smashes with your mind. NO FURTHER WITNESSES YOUR HONOR, I REST MY CASE. Semicolon (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool it, SapphireKirby. These two are having a reasonable dispute, and you need to stay out of their business. You're not their mother, so stop trying to act like you are. As for Semicolon and the other guy, calm teh language. Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Who's being the mommy now, man? It would be expressing it more mildly if it wasn't so darned ridiculous. Semicolon (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Blue Ninjakoopa, Semicolon, and Cheezperson...I could'nt control myself. I apologize for the post. I deleted it. SapphireKirby777 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No, you see, this guy is claiming not that in the fictional world (where it actually might be possible) Ness and Lucas are using PK. He's claiming that real people are using PK to control the ones and zeros of the smash coding to make things happen. The first claim might be true, but it's really not important. The second claim is dumb. You see, there is no scientific proof of any of this. One person with a Ph.D. does not constitute anything, especially when virtually every other person with a Ph.D in like fields contradicts him/her. As for being "closed minded" I'm going to quote some Harry Potter here: "I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist?...I mean, you could claim anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exists!" (JKR, DH 411). OK, let's get this straight. This crap doesn't exists. You can believe whatever you want, but don't come into to a discussion with intelligent people and expect them not to dissect it. When you make a preposterous claim, the onus is on you to provide the scientific methodology and results that lead to this being a legitimate contention. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting sadder and sadder by the minute.

  • To TheLegendTamer: PK isn't a real thing. The fact that it was in a videogame like Earthbound speaks for itself. Guys with PhD's don't go around and do that for real. It's the internet, people can do and say what they want. Heck, there are quite a few people on the internet claiming to be Jesus, and... well... I think you get it. Go back to finding odd/random/interesting things in the game, you're good at it : )
  • To SLAPAHO (Clarinet Hawk and Semicolon): I think you guys made your point a little too well. I hate to sound motherly/rude, but I wouldn't have gone into detail on why TLT is wrong. It just confused him (it confused me, and I'm good with words). And drop the "intelligent people" thing, it's part of the reason why some people dislike the administration here (not saying I don't).
  • To SapphireKirby777: I didn't write the snitch thing on BNK's post. Check the "History" tab at the top of the page to make sure next time. Don't worry, I forgive you, I guess.
I think I've said this before, but this site is about a VIDEOGAME, not about whether or not PK/PSI is real. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 07:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • To Cheezeperson: Don't tell me not to be intelligent. That is the most insulting thing you could possibly say to me, and I mean it. We clearly didn't make out point well enough, since he still believes in that nonsense. I have a stake in preserving the integrity of science, as I am going to be a scientist later in my life, so this is something of a personal issue as well. You speak of this 'intelligent people' thing as though that's not who we are. It is. I always have typed like this, and I occasionally speak like this. If it offends people, too f-ing bad. If you're offended that I'm smart, get over yourself. If you're offended that I'm disparaging your views, defend yourself! That's what it's all about. And don't ever tell me what you just told me, again. Semicolon (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Also to Cheezperson. I know this site is about a video game, but boy genius above is claiming that you can control this game with your mind. You can't. He's failed to respond to any point that we've made except by saying that "if event X happened, Y must be true." That's a useless argument when the contention is not only that Y is false, but also that X could not happen. He has absolutely no evidence to back up his claims. Also, like semicolon said, don't tell us not to be intelligent. We are, too bad if you don't like it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't saying you weren't (you guys are in college. You're probably smarter than most everyone here), I'm just saying that flaunting around intelligence to the average user here (grade school kids) can be taken the wrong way. I, personally, don't mind it as much (I'm probably a little older than the average), but you have to watch what you say to these guys. And I'm not saying don't be intelligent! WE NEED that intelligence! I was saying that you shouldn't say "Well I'm smarter than you, and therefore I am right and you are wrong." That might not be what you meant, but that's how I took it. As to the real "issue," forget it. Again, I hate to sound mean, but you have to spot a hopeless cause when you see one. TLT obviously isn't going to accept the truth, so just take what has happened as good practice for a real issue. Again, I'm sorry if you two felt insulted, but I think you misunderstood a little bit. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
See, that's why I said that that's the way we are...it's not flauting, it's our default state. I speak this way to most everyone, and in this manner, with this level of intellectual engagement if the circumstance permits. I mean no one any offense, unless explicitly stated, which it often is. I've never claimed my intelligence as an argument, but my arguments are sprung from that intelligence. See, the intelligence and arguments are highly related. I have never, not once, claimed my intelligence as an argument for my position (because that's not something that intelligent people do, because it's a bad argument). For the way it's received, it's not my fault if it is perceived as intimidating. That's their problem. If you look at the words, they're, at the outset at least, not insulting or degradating personally, though they often are to the argument. That's not a personal attack, it's an attack at an argument. Learn to separate your emotions from your arguments, and everything goes a lot smoother. For TLT, he's not going to say anything more here anyway, I figure, so that's moot. Semicolon (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking to CH about the flaunting of intelligence. I re-read what he said, and I'm figuring that he didn't mean it like that. Still, we should all be careful what we say around the average user. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am speaking for both of us.Semicolon (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I kinda figured that. It seems that TLT has gone quiet, so the last thing I will say here is that I am sorry if you guys were offended by what I said (I was responding to CH's last post, towards the bottom of what he said). Just watch what you say. I believe we have a policy here that says that all users are equal, no matter how obtuse they may be (not saying TLT is). Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I only get 30 min or less a day to do what I want with internet yesterday I looked up cheats for street fighter alpha 2 XD. So i may pull off a Houdini now and then. You guys are right about this site being a video game wikia and this thread is not specifically for PSI anyways, I still need to post my huge list of tricks and tips and I can't do that arguing about something irrelevant. Real or not it's not the subject. maybe later.TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

@ TLT: You see, you made it the subject when you tried to defend it. Don't walk into an internet forum and claim some ridiculous position unless you plan to defend it from being torn to pieces. Saying that you don't have time to defend it is not a legitimate argument. Either spend time arguing or concede that you're wrong.
@ Cheez: No, the policy says that all users are valuable. Equality is a completely different thing. Also, even if we did have that policy, it would say that every user has equality of opportunity, not outcome. Someone in this discussion is right, someone is wrong. There is no way we can be equal. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I only get internet at school during lunch O.O. Why is it it's either clarinethawk or semicolon to try to tear my statements to pieces? I wonder... have we met somewhere else? XDDDD well anyways all my small discoveries/combos will be posted in My Talk. So if your looking for my posts look there not here (unless it's big discoveries). TheLegendTamer (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Forum:Metaknight%27s_hidden_flaw_(very_well_hidden_indeed)&oldid=291916"