User talk:MaskedMarth/archive1

This is a discussion archive of my talk page from 2006. I mainly wanted to put it here because I was tired of seeing gigantic paragraphs whenever I clicked on "my talk" >_<. Now my talk page is cleaner (feel free to continue conversations here - in particular, a pertinent SmashBoards topic talks for a while about mindgames).

Mindgaming

I don't see how you can say someone is using the term 'mind-game' out of context. Could you show me one example where it is? Mind-gaming is a technique that is more or less important, but it's a technique nonetheless. You can't just remove it because it's less useful then people claim it to be. If people think mind-gaming is essential in their strategy, so be it. Wiki sites are for information, not oppinion.

A Mewtwo con: "Requires a lot of mindgames in order to effectively play Mewtwo and a deep understanding in the opponent's character and Mewtwo's moveset." What does this say? That Mewtwo has to outguess his opponent to win? Duh, that's what you have to do with every character! A Fox that is always outguessed by his opponent loses just as much as a Mewtwo. In that case, I removed the point because it uses mindgames as an excuse - Mewtwo just sucks, is all, mindgames or none.

Mindgames from wave-dashing. While Tobias' example of mindgames is correct, the thrust of his paragraph is that mindgames are a totally abstract thing that cannot be taught. No they aren't, and if we continue to treat them as such we will never learn. I prefer to use the term "guessing game" which carries the same solid meaning as mindgames without the added element of mystery. Therein lies another problem in the term mindgames.

There is no doubt that "mindgaming" (it's a verb now!?) is an essential aspect of players' repertoires, but we also have an obligation to use language that isn't confusing or loaded with other meanings. Mindgames, as they should be defined (unless you're one of a smallish group of people that uses mindgames to mean the psychological aspect of Smash; these multiple definitions provide another problem to the term), mean a very specific thing - the guessing games in which one player's options are influenced by the potential costs and benefits of another player's options. Sirlin explains this concept better than I do in his articles about Yomi layers. When this clear idea becomes murky, then we need to recycle the dirty term and start with one that is fresh and clear.

"Guessing games" is my suggestion, and I think that by its very name it is a more useful term than mindgames. "Mindgames" contains the word "mind," which carries connotations of mystery and magic, whereas it is clear what "guessing" means - it's a down-to-earth concept that can be discussed frankly. You say that the wiki sites are for information, and I agree. And I also think the best way to disseminate information is by explaining it in exact terminology. That is precisely why I have, here and elsewhere, constantly undermined the use of such terms as "priority" and "mindgames" that have become useless through misuse. --MaskedMarth 01:01, September 14, 2006 (GMT)

I do understand that some of the context is sketchy in Smash Wiki, and that is exactly why people, such as you and I, come to edit them. Poorly worded though it may be, the Mewtwo con is attempting to tell us that in order to play Mewtwo to his fullest extent, you need to be unpredictable (fooling your opponent)and have a complete understanding of your opponents moveset and probabilities. Example: An advanced Captain Falcon player will often use his Forward Air as it is a very powerful attack. If you are aware of that, you will know to stay out of the way of Captain Falcon's knee, right? That's understanding your opponent('s character). Understanding Mewtwo's moveset should be basic knowledge to any player who uses Mewtwo, so perhaps that is a seperate article of fact by itself. Again: that is why you and I edit these things.

I've always thought of mindgaming (Yes, it is a verb, just like online-gaming, or (trading) card-gaming.) as a technique in which you outwit your opponent by doing things that are erratic and unexpected to fool your opponent into a point of being off-guard or the such. The flaw being, of course, not all players will allow them selves to be caught off-guard, or at least not on purpose (example: If I was dashing to you full speed with Marth, a natural reaction might be for you to smash A at me, to which I would respond ((because I had the idea in my head before applying)) wavedash back to miss the attack, then wavedash forward to get back in range, you suffering from a limited amount of lag; that would be your moment of being off-guard.). Another mindgame technique might be to stay on the ground after being knocked, waiting for an opponent to approach, then attack in their state of (self-brought) being off-guard. The problem therein lies with the fact of the lack of things you can do to mindgame. I mean, this game was made to be an all out smash fest, not a game of chess, right? The programmers didn't (to the best of my knowledge) place the very limited techniques you can do on purpose, other wise there would be more. So wavedashing back and forth, staying dead, short-hopping on a ledge, whatever it may be, has all been done before, and there is very little, if any, techniques to apply whilst mindgaming. Even dashdancing, which I consider to be a form of mindgaming, has been done to the point of getting it's own name. You call it the "guessing game" I call it mindgaming, someone else calls it outwitting, another outfoxing. It's all synonymous. No matter which way you put it, mindgaming is mind gaming.

I do agree, hopefully explained in the above paragraph, of your discription of mindgaming, but like I said: mindgaming has many different forms and techniques. It is just given one general name because it is a general concept, not a firm action like wavedashing. Dashdancing (which, if you recall, I consider a technique of mindgaming) is a firm action, but is under the category of mindgaming. So your mindgaming isn't a "down-to-earth concept that we can discuss frankly" idea is really correct. It is just a general term for all of the different forms and shapes of mindgaming. So maybe instead of just trying to obliterate the concept of mindgaming, we should polish the sections of it, and be more specific in the forms of mindgaming. You know, expand the realm of Super Smash Brothers Melee that is mindgaming. How's all that sound?

Well I essentially agree with your final point. I'm not trying to obliterate the concept of mindgames, just the term that has lost clarity. We need to take mindgames seriously, because it is indeed a really big part of Smash. I think where we disagree is on how to take mindgames seriously. I argue that the best way is to avoid the term until it is used more specifically, and you argue that we should strive to make the term more specifically while using it.

So I'm not going to defend to death why I think mindgames should be taken out of usage, because we agree on the same major point. In fact, when it comes to the SmashWiki, perhaps the best solution is to create an article on mindgames (and mindgaming >_>) that serves as a definitive explanation. In the meantime, you've convinced me to not be so militant about the use of the term "mindgames" - I won't just delete the word on sight, but I will try to find better, clearer alternatives when I can (for instance, when the idea of "mindgames" can be explained in greater depth with another idea, like "dashdancing to counter enemy attack" or something of that sort).

So your mindgaming isn't a "down-to-earth concept that we can discuss frankly..." I agree that mindgaming is not down-to-earth in the sense that it's a direct aspect of the game, like wavedashing or l-cancelling. I do think that the concept of mindgaming (not the term) is very clear, which is what I meant by "down-to-earth." In retrospect, probably not the best expression for me to use.

In any case, examples of mindgames get murky when we look at the approach, but they are quite clear when we look at comboing/DI options and edge-guarding. Consider Captain Falcon's recovery. He has essentially two options - sweet spot or go over the edge. Let's suppose the enemy isn't very good at edge-guarding and has two options - attack on the ground (which trumps Falcon's over-edge recovery, but loses if Falcon sweet spots) and edge-hog (which works if Falcon sweet spots but loses if he comes over the edge). There is all the material for a mindgame we need. Falcon needs to outpredict his opponent - understand his opponent's mind, really - to make it safely on-stage. If Falcon, for the previous several recovery attempts, tried to sweet spot the edge, the enemy will be more likely to edge-hog, and will be caught off-guard if Falcon switches it up by going over the edge.

These types of situations happen all the time in the game of Smash, which is very much a fast-paced game of chess. Falcon's recovery and his opponent's edge-guarding combine to form mindgames. A Fox's teching patterns and CFalcon's tech chasing patterns combine to form mindgames. Generally, the guessing games involved in combos and edge-guarding are easy to understand. They are much more difficult in the approach because there are so many options when it comes to movement! I could wave-dash, I could wave-dash slightly shorter or longer than usual, I could dashdance so far this way and so far that way, and you can't reduce the depth of the approach into a simple mindgame. The approach-based examples of mindgames - like the one you cite, with wave-dashing back or choosing to not tech - are simple threads in a complicated fabric, and upon seeing the complicated fabric many Smashers become afraid and attribute "mindgames" to anything weird or unadvanced a player does.

When Aniki uses ground attacks and simple projectile setups and beats Ken, and the GERM uses flashy bomb tricks and all his advanced techniques and isn't even considered good, we blame mindgames. "Aniki isn't as good a Link as the GERM, but he has mad mindgames." That is too simplistic an explanation. More likely, the GERM is simply using advanced techniques in a situation for which simple techniques would be better, the same way a medium-level Fox is better off learning the simple up throw to up aerial combo, instead of complicated shime combos that are above his head. We don't need to use mindgames to explain that, and mindgames indeed have nothing to do with it. Mindgames should not be a catch-all to label confusing phenomena like why Aniki is better than GERM, and that's why I fight against the use of such a confusing term.

Or, rather, I fight for making the terminology clear and specific, just like you are. --MaskedMarth 15:09, September 14, 2006 (GMT)

So how do you propose we define this? Break mindgaming down into different sections? My suggestion is that we place all of the different aspects of mindgaming into the single page unless the specific mindgame technique is linked to a respective page (i.e. Dashdancing, Wavedashing, ect.). The page layout would look simaler to a characters page in the sense that it would have the main defination and then the breakdown of it in the subsections below it. One object I do believe we should point out is this disscussion here and state the fact that mindgames is a general abstract term whereas the subsections are the physical techniques that can be accomplished. As you said earlier; the term and usage of mindgaming itself is quite often used incorrectly. It should go without saying that information should on the page. On a side-note, I do believe that "mindgaming", the verb, is a word and should be used as such. I can defend that word, should you disagree.

All and all, I'm glad someone like yourself is on Smashwiki and I have another to converse with about thoughts and aspects of the game that have never really been looked into with depth. Keep in touch, Mask. My e-mail is on my userpage. Oddeven2002 21:35, September 15, 2006 (GMT)

I'm perfectly fine with mindgaming as a verb - I was just surprised that it had become a word. Smash termonology changes so quickly it catches me by surprise.

I'm equally pleased to have somebody on Smashwiki that thinks deeply about these issues. I'll definitely keep in touch (I can be reached at MaskedFalcon@gmail.com).

You're a four-armed monster? I know exactly what you are - you're Machamp! --MaskedMarth 17:04, September 16, 2006 (GMT)

For some reason this page shows it has a broken redirect, to tier wars. Any idea why, and how can this be fixed? -- Bean 23:43, November 5, 2006 (GMT)

I redirect to User:MaskedMarth/bored, but I kept the text of my userpage as well, which included a broken link (an article I was planning on getting around to). For some reason, the software thinks User:MaskedMarth redirects to Tier Wars, for this reason (probably because it's a link that appears after the redirect tag). I can fix that by removing the tier wars link, or removing the redirect. --MaskedMarth 19:39, November 7, 2006 (GMT)

sup

I never edit people's userpages, except where I am an admin. The Swedish sentence could be "Min användarsida på svenska Wikipedia" or "Min svenska Wikipedia-användarsida/Wikipediaanvändarsida". Also I'm glad somebody more than me speak Swedish. – Smiddle / talk 22:07, December 1, 2006 (GMT)

Game Controls

Shouldn't the aerial and grab pages just be condensed to two pages? I don't see there much use for having one for back/forward/all the aeirals/grabs, when there's already a grab page. Thoughts? --Pyoro T

Hmm...we could extend that to all the "types" of attacks, such that Smash attack is an article but forward smash is not. And it would make things a little easier to manage, I guess. However, I think the more specific pages can be used to discuss notable attacks (see forward aerial) and general trends of the attack (see neutral aerial, about sex kicks) that would be harder to put in a generalized topic. I don't know. --MaskedMarth 20:08, December 20, 2006 (GMT)

=/ I dunno. IMO it makes more sense to have all aerial info in a page, then the indepth on certain moves in subheaders. Makes for much easier browsing --Pyoro T

I guess we could do it either way. You may change it, if you want. --MaskedMarth 02:13, December 24, 2006 (GMT)