Digital Watches

Huh. I honestly haven't seen them before. Definitely saw a few "Oh god he got away with that?" moments, but some funny combos and overall seems kind of tricky. Not amazing just yet but definitely good. I've gotta keep track of that dude.

You're from Eugene? Do you have a car? I know two people who play in Salem, one in... er... a bit west of Dundee now? And like 3 (well, including me) in Portland. Hit us up sometime.

Nah, I'd want it to be an FRC so he gets the meter gain penalty.

Yeah, doing it the 8-7 way actually makes it more like a 2F jump (Meaning you get 1F of the shitty state of being in jump startup, which is probably what you were trying to avoid by 1FJing in the first place), since the game has to recognize those inputs on separate frames. Granted, getting actual 1F timing is a little hard, but it's really a question of why are you even 1FJing in the first place?

Sidenote: 1FJIAD back gets me out of so much damage it's not even funny.

Gross. Safe DP = Broek. Spend some meter if you want that shit safe, guy. Also gross. I agree dizzy needs some buffs, but if you're going to give her a ground overhead, at least take away that absurd throw range.

No, I was... Nevermind.

Lol at "Hakumen can burst to get uncursed." Good luck droppin' dat soap.

That's not as much ironic as mistaken. What's ironic is...

Uh yeah, but you said 1F.

Axl: +5P becomes a 3-4F jab. Current 5P is changed to 4P. Same with 2P, with current 2P becoming 1P (These don't HAVE to be new moves. I'd be happy with them being lazy and giving him someone else's jab, complete with the sprite being temporarily that character). OR 623S becomes full-body invincible again.

Naw, I just thought the joke was scrubby, lol.

Says anyone good, lol.

Cool story bro.

Strained attempts at metaphor aside, mods aren't generally mindreaders, and a lot of threads get deleted, so specifics are helpful. As for that particular one, that's actually been brought up, and may be undeleted soon.

I love people who are too wrapped up in being a martyr to give specifics of what the problem is, preventing anything useful from coming from their own complaints. To put it another way: What thread?

I know, right?

Ew.

Protip for beating ABA slide: Play Axl, hit 2H.

Yeah, I kinda channel my inner oncologist while drunk. "Okay okay listen, you knowws what youu need? A PAP smear."

I dunno, he beat me so he must be okay.

Well, actually, the first Portland tourney you went to had the wacky "Everyone good on one side" bracket. But that was because the bracket was random. I guess SOME good came of it in that the guy who took third on bracketing became an active Portland player, but the results, aside from first and second (Since it was double-elim), could still have been said to be really random, and everyone on that half of the bracket got WRECKED in losers once they ran into someone from the other half.

I see the problem here. Your argument hinges on the concept of "fairness" and if you're going to say it's indisputable fact (Protip: You are begging the question) that seeding is "unfair," you'll have to define your terms. So please, give us a working, operational definition of the term "fair."

Quit being such a goddamn martyr. All of your rhetoric seems to imply that you think seeding is some kind of discrimination against weaker players that unfairly biases the tournament results or hurts people's feeling or eats babies or whatever. Cry more, seriously. You argue that top players can't be objectively chosen? Okay, then why does it matter? Let the people who foolishly think that there's such a thing as established good players have their little seeding game, and when you're right and some nobody comes up and beats the favorite to win in the second round, there will be a TON of hype because all those idiots who expected people who consistently performed well before to perform well now will have been wrong. I'm gonna pascal's wager this shit. If you're right and it's all arbitrary and the best players will place best no matter what, then seeding does nothing to affect the results and there's therefore no harm. However, if you're wrong and some shady bullshit DOES occasionally go down where some guy who'd lose horribly to 90% of the half of the bracket he's not in gets up to winner's finals, and 4 or five top players peace each other out right away, we get a tournament that's mostly boring matches, where only one of the many players with a lot of skill places, and your idea that "skill will win it regardless" only applies to first place, with the rest of the results being pretty much random. Sorry, I'm very sleep-deprived so my writing is going to be devoid of tact.