LogFAQs > #912584553

Lopen posted...

creativename posted...

2K4 Mario does not get 59.79% in 2K4 Samus, it just doesnt happen. He was too weak. Not a good year for him.

You can't be certain of that though. You are making a lot of assumptions.

- Samus could not have boosted in 2005 as well
- SFF ability is inherently tied to contest strength

There is evidence to support both of these things are wrong.

creativename posted...

Thats not an irrelevant hypothetical - that is literally your claim. Just worded in a more pragmatic manner, to show how totally out there your claim is.

You're the one claiming Samus vs Mario in 2004 is "quite fuzzy." What does that mean exactly? I said they probably go like 54-46 or 55-45 and you didn't accept it, so to me that implies "quite fuzzy" is code for "I don't want to admit I was wrong about the matchup and am going to claim Samus squeaks out a win in 2004 and the Mario boost is why it wasn't competitive in 2005"

So I mean to humor that, that requires a bigger shift in 2005 between the parts than the idea that 2005 Mario gets like 65% on 2004 Samus. You realize that right?

There is evidence to support both of these things are wrong.

Which is...? I already stated exactly why I think the notion that increasing your strength relative to another character in one year wouldnt increase your SFF ability is just flat our silly.

I also think the notion 2K5 Mario doubles 2K4 Samus is absurd. Which again is exactly what your Samus boosted like Mario claim is - all boosted claims are implicitly saying that this entrant would do better in a time travel hypothetical against previous opponents. Whether its a boost across rounds, or years, or just time of day. The time travel hypothetical is implied with the boosting hypothesis.

You call these assumptions, I call these obvious safe bets.

You're the one claiming Samus vs Mario in 2004 is "quite fuzzy." What does that mean exactly? I said they probably go like 54-46 or 55-45 and you didn't accept it, so to me that implies "quite fuzzy" is code for "I don't want to admit I was wrong about the matchup and am going to claim Samus squeaks out a win in 2004 and the Mario boost is why it wasn't competitive in 2005"

Fascinating psycho-analysis :) Or maybe I just dont find your claims credible.

Fuzzy means fuzzy. I didnt reject he might have got 54% on her in 2K4, I rejected that he wouldve got 59.79% on her. I could see him losing cleanly in 2K4, or getting 54%. I would not try to ascribe probabilities.

So I mean to humor that, that requires a bigger shift in 2005 between the parts than the idea that 2005 Mario gets like 65% on 2004 Samus. You realize that right?

What...?