Evo Brawl Rules Discussion

[Daemonk]

You see consistent winners if the sample size is large. If you are playing just 1 game in a tournament, you can get really unlucky. If winner is determined by 3 rounds of 4 stock, then that will weed out any kind of randomness. I honestly have no idea what statistics will be with items on or off. But I would think items-on tournaments should have more rounds to determine winner.

[IceTrap]

After last night I am going to have to say Items should be off for tourney play. The example this is based on, I forget who I was fighting but I was playing lucario on my last stock 160%. I manged to bring him down to one stock and then damaged him up to 70%, we were on the stage with the cars that drive by (cant remember the name) and as a car came by it just so happen to hit a crate that had 3 soccer balls in it. All three balls came flying at me and ko'd me while i was on my comeback.

[Corner-Trap]

Can we put up a poll and see whose pro-item, or anti-item? I want to see how big the spread out it on this forum.

[Ivootjes]

Didn't understand what? That a random Smash Ball does not make for a random outcome? Both players can get the ball, either player can get get free stocked, either player can like or dislike the gameplay. Make some bloody sense or come up with a better analogy. 1 free stock isn't going to hurt anybody: Fox/Falco/IC/etc jank that more or less equaled a free stock with just as much thought put into proper placement and usage and it didn't get banned. You're making anti-item proponents look bad, stop posting.

I'm not kidding. Stop. Fucking. Posting.


I have the right to post whatever i want and if you don't like it just skip it, idiot.

1 free stock does hurt me though, and with me any competive smash player.

They'll get turned off anyway so i won't post again :looney:

[Parkreiner]

Final Smashes are easily dodged; if you lose a life because of them, it is your fault. Whether the FS is going to hit or not is not a random factor, it just shows that you aren't skilled enough to handle it if you consider losing one stock because of not being able to dodge a FS such a big deal.

[Pimp Willy]

I see the 3 stock claim a lot, although I've been experimenting with 2 stocks and found that it's not too bad. A 2 stock match can be under 3 minutes and having a 2 stock Best of 3 matches kinda removes any qualms about matches too short to allow for mistakes. I think a lot of Smash players don't want to have too few lives because they're used to having 4; they're used to a game where you can be taken 0 to death as well as possible "messup stocks". Maybe 2 stocks makes people nervous, but most other fighting games have 2 of 3 round matches by default. Plus do you really need that extra third stock? How different is the match from 2 to 3 stocks other than being shorter?


I've found, online at least, that 2 stock 3 minute matches aren't too bad, and they allow for replays to be saved, which is a nice bonus.

[UltraDavid]

I have to say, I really like how final smashes change the gameplay. It's like when you get a super in ST, the opponent has to start playing more cautiously and characters either get their strengths accentuated or get a little assistance in areas where they need some help. It's too bad that the smashes appear randomly, but I think that effect is too valuable to get rid of.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

After last night I am going to have to say Items should be off for tourney play. The example this is based on, I forget who I was fighting but I was playing lucario on my last stock 160%. I manged to bring him down to one stock and then damaged him up to 70%, we were on the stage with the cars that drive by (cant remember the name) and as a car came by it just so happen to hit a crate that had 3 soccer balls in it. All three balls came flying at me and ko'd me while i was on my comeback.

So then... turn off the containers. No need to turn off the entirety of items for this reason alone. Containers were the big problem in Melee, for multiple reasons, and now they can be removed from play. I'm sure even in the early life of this game, some items will be removed because of how obviously unbalanced they are. Just removing the whole gamut is not reasonable, though.

As far as match setup, I'm starting to like the sound of the 2 stock/3 minute rules, though I think a little more than 3 minutes just 'cause of how much higher people can live up to. Though, in that case, I think it'd have to be best of 5, rather than 3.

[lamewadd]

Can we put up a poll and see whose pro-item, or anti-item? I want to see how big the spread out it on this forum.

That'd only result in another idiotic thread on Smashboards calling for a flood of idiots to come here just to bitch.

I have the right to post whatever i want and if you don't like it just skip it, idiot.And everyone else has the right to say you're a dumbass who should stop posting.

They'll get turned off anyway so i won't post again :looney:

Good.

As far as match setup, I'm starting to like the sound of the 2 stock/3 minute rules, though I think a little more than 3 minutes just 'cause of how much higher people can live up to. Though, in that case, I think it'd have to be best of 5, rather than 3.

That, IMO, is way too short. 4 stock is the way to...block. The stupidity...from Smashboarders.

[Ceirnian]

I was looking at my item options, and I didn't see capsules / party balls on there. Am I blind?

[Jacksor]

Favorite quote:

"but I feel that the Parry in 3s is far more random than items in brawl."

Heehee... anyway...

I was under the impression that the random nature of items was reason enough to have them nixed... a random item spawns in a random location on the stage... =/

Seems to me like the only items worth turning on low in brawl have so little real impact on the outcome of the match that they're unnecessary (what the hell is the purpose of a random banana or a beam sword? Utilize your character!). And if one of those seemingly insignificant items does turn the tide of the match, the player who comes out on top has the random spawn and the random item to thank... sure, he had to successfully utilize the item, but what does that really add to the game competitively? shouldn't that player be utilizing his character and not banking on random item spawns to give him the edge? doesn't seem to fit well into a competitive environment...

I'd be a little surprised that this is even up for debate, but given the current state of the smash community, I'm not.

Smash balls? they appear to be wildly unbalanced and again spawn randomly in both frequency and location. If there was a set time and location that the ball would spawn then one could successfully argue the whole map control thing, but that simply isn't the case.

My preference: I like my games to be between my character and my opponent's. Nothing's left up to chance, nobody to blame a loss on but yourself. No problem.

Tourney setup:

3/4 stock
9 min > Match time > 5 min
best 2 outta 3
Neutral and counter pick stages need to be determined. Simply do random neutral then loser pick, then first winner pick.

8D

[Tam]

For time's sake and to give others another chance:

2 out of 3.
- 2 stock
- 3 minutes

:)

[Ivootjes]

That, IMO, is way too short. 4 stock is the way to...block. The stupidity...from Smashboarders.

At least the smashboarders care about accurate results, something you can't really say from the average srk member

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

I was looking at my item options, and I didn't see capsules / party balls on there. Am I blind?

Capsules, crates, Party Balls, etc. They all fall under "Containers".

[Corner-Trap]

I see the 3 stock claim a lot, although I've been experimenting with 2 stocks and found that it's not too bad. A 2 stock match can be under 3 minutes and having a 2 stock Best of 3 matches kinda removes any qualms about matches too short to allow for mistakes. I think a lot of Smash players don't want to have too few lives because they're used to having 4; they're used to a game where you can be taken 0 to death as well as possible "messup stocks". Maybe 2 stocks makes people nervous, but most other fighting games have 2 of 3 round matches by default. Plus do you really need that extra third stock? How different is the match from 2 to 3 stocks other than being shorter?

Most tournaments have put all fighting games to three rounds. So if you want to go by that logic then we should have three stocks.

[The Game II]

Final Smashes are easily dodged; if you lose a life because of them, it is your fault.

You can't block Olimar's FS, and he's a highly used character.

Ice Climber's FS isn't really a final smash, but on a place like Shadow Moses Island, they can camp in one of the bottom corners and eat up the final minute of a match without the threat of losing a stock (which I've seen happen twice already).

That's just two examples.

= = =

I wanted to share my thoughts on the wireless controllers. If you haven't made a decision, please allow them. Synching takes less than 30 seconds, and anyone who says otherwise, I'd like to know what problems they're having. It is very simple to set up.

They should be allowed because we're talking about probably 2 percent of the competitors using it, if it's even that amount of people. Every dissenter I've heard so far has given this reason: "It's not a gamecube controller." And it's easy to catch those that interfere with their own wireless controller.

I'd like to see everyone compete on their choice of unmodified controller. Those who have gone the non-GC route have said they can't go back because they're so used to it, whether its the wiimote, combo or classic.

I do say, however, that if the wireless controllers are allowed, there should be no mercy if, say the battery dies midway through a match. The match should be allowed to continue, as it is the fault of the competitor for not coming prepared. Have a set of spares ready.

--GCII

[Parkreiner]

You can't block Olimar's FS, and he's a highly used character.

If you are high enough in the air when it begins, you can avoid the Bulbs altogether or just receive a small amount of damage, and the shuttle crash is extremely easy to dodge if you know it's coming.

[IceTrap]

I do say, however, that if the wireless controllers are allowed, there should be no mercy if, say the battery dies midway through a match. The match should be allowed to continue, as it is the fault of the competitor for not coming prepared. Have a set of spares ready.

--GCII

I can see it now, Final match and guy has just tied up the score! Oh no my batteries are dead, ejects the back of his wiimote and his buddy throws him a freshly charged battery pack. Locks and loads and wins the tourney, now i know that is never going to happen but if it did (and since this topic loves what ifs) now that would be HYPE!

[Daemonk]

I can see it now, Final match and guy has just tied up the score! Oh no my batteries are dead, ejects the back of his wiimote and his buddy throws him a freshly charged battery pack. Locks and loads and wins the tourney, now i know that is never going to happen but if it did (and since this topic loves what ifs) now that would be HYPE!

dude that would be awesome. everyone would be like oh shiiiiiit, he came prepared and shit.

[alphazealot]

I do say, however, that if the wireless controllers are allowed, there should be no mercy if, say the battery dies midway through a match. The match should be allowed to continue, as it is the fault of the competitor for not coming prepared. Have a set of spares ready.

Yeap, I'm all for allowing any kind of controller so long as we have a clause that reads "In the event a wireless controller malfunctions (interference, batteries) the current match shall not be paused nor replayed".

Should be enough to create a soft ban feel to them and keep the number of people who use wireless controllers to a small enough number that there won't be any big problems.

[Ceirnian]

My preference: I like my games to be between my character and my opponent's. Nothing's left up to chance, nobody to blame a loss on but yourself. No problem.


I found this quote pretty funny when so many other fighting games exist.

[Corner-Trap]

I'm still against wireless controllers, I think tournaments should be held with Gamecubes only. Wireless controllers just present too many problems like interfering signals, random desynching, and dieing batteries.

[COUM]

Most tournaments have put all fighting games to three rounds. So if you want to go by that logic then we should have three stocks.

You fail at math :confused:

[Hayateno Sakon]

Okay, I went ahead and read through all 21 pages of this thread(I know, I have no life) and then debated for a while whether or not I should post in here. It was quite obvious that people had an opinion and they were going to stick to it. But I finally decided that I might as well point out a few things.

Final Smashes are nothing but glorified items, or an even better comparison, specialized character pokeballs. They are nothing more than this. But since you won't heed to that logic more than likely, I'll make a few examples.

I really love the fact that people are calling for smash balls but can agree on things like healing items being turned off...lolz hey there Peach. A final smash that puts all players on the field to sleep and spawns a bunch of HEALING ITEMS on the field. That would pretty much nullify the whole point of banning said items if a character can MAKE THEM.

I'm sure we can also all agree that starmen would be stupid to place into TOURNAMENTS. They give the player a few moments of invincibility and any competent smasher/pro player would be able to utililize this in devestating ways..but what do numerous final smashes do? Not only do they make a lot of characters invincible for varied amounts of time, but give them powerful attacks to boot. Hiya Wario, Sonic, and Pikachu.

I'm seriously wondering why you people seem to think items on does anything, much less smash balls on, to make the game more tournament conducive. Tournaments are about finding out who is the most skilled. Much like real-life tournaments. Oh sure it's fair...just like if in a real fight a gun spawned closer to a faster fighter, and the slower one was much further away, we know that would be fair. The slow one obviously isn't being fucked!

Extreme analogy, but it works. Now a lot of other people are calling to say "Try them out! They may work! This isn't Melee. This is a NEW game." lolz. Okay...It's a new game. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But while Brawl is a different game, which I can easily concede to, do you REALLY think it is SO different from Melee that items will magically work this time around? And why WOULD they work?

It's about fighting, 1v1, to see who is the better player. It should NOT be about fighting, 1v1, to see who can get the smash balls. That COMPLETELY dumbs down any depth you can find in this game. It puts more focus on character's who can get items/smash balls quicker, and less focus on developing a character's unique playstyle. You want people to play as much as the game's content as possible? Don't force them to choose character's that only work well with FS.

I really don't see how hard of a concept it is to grasp. Melee and Brawl are two different games, yes. But they are not SO different where it magically happens that items on will work. That's not a tournament. It's not about characters fighting characters. And that completely kills the point of the whole thing.

[Corner-Trap]

You fail at math :confused:

3 rounds = 1 match
3 stocks = 1 match

I think my math is decent.

EDIT:

snip.

You've just invited hell upon yourself.

[Keits]

When you lose in items-off smash, you have no one to blame but yourself.

When you lose in items-on smash, you STILL have no one to blame but yourself.

Either way, YOU failed to outplay your opponent *at the game in front of you.*

Champions are bread through fire (and bob'oms)

Tournaments are for finding the best player on that day. The best player of ssbb may well be the best at getting smashballs. That is how this game is played.

You keep saying you dont like the way smash balls and items change the game, but its turning them OFF that changes the game. The origional game has these things. They are part of the design.

Corner trap- bad math. each round is like a stock, but only three TOTAL can be lost before its over. 2 out of 3. thats a 2 stock match homie.

Again, my rules would be::

2 minute point match OR 2 stock 3 minute, 2 of 3 games.
all items,, yes ALL, on MED spawn
first stage is random from ALL stages excluding custom stages
loser may change character and chose stage OR loser may choose between either changing his character with another random stage, or keeping his character and choosing the stage.
excuses are banned

[BaSiK_TeKniK]

When you lose in items-off smash, you have no one to blame but yourself.

When you lose in items-on smash, you STILL have no one to blame but yourself.

Either way, YOU failed to outplay your opponent *at the game in front of you.*

Champions are bread through fire (and bob'oms)

there ya go.

[Corner-Trap]

When you lose in items-off smash, you have no one to blame but yourself.

When you lose in items-on smash, you STILL have no one to blame but yourself.

Either way, YOU failed to outplay your opponent *at the game in front of you.*

Champions are bread through fire (and bob'oms)

Bombomb spawns right in front of me mid attack, I proceed to hit it and die which consequently makes me lose the match. It wasn't my fault, there was literally no way I could have predicted it was going to spawn there. It wasn't my opponents doing either since he didn't intentionally make the bombomb spawn there. So since I can't blame myself or my opponent I guess I'll just blame the game(or god).

[Hayateno Sakon]

When you lose in items-off smash, you have no one to blame but yourself.

When you lose in items-on smash, you STILL have no one to blame but yourself.

Either way, YOU failed to outplay your opponent *at the game in front of you.*

Champions are bread through fire (and bob'oms)

Or you can blame the game. Neither player decides when and where items/final smashes spawn. Neither player predicts. So when you fly off the edge and a final smash appears near the center of the stage and the opponent can get it long before you..it's not because you suck or because he knew that he could knock you off right then and it would appear, it's because the game is RANDOM.

I am not saying you can make any game completely balanced, or that you can completely remove randomness. But why should you invite MORE of it? You should always attempt to make the most fair match possible, with the more reasonable settings . How do items add into that?

Edit:Tournaments are for finding the best player on that day. The best player of ssbb may well be the best at getting smashballs. That is how this game is played.

You keep saying you dont like the way smash balls and items change the game, but its turning them OFF that changes the game. The origional game has these things. They are part of the design.

lol. This is such a bs and cop-out argument. You know that little switch that can turn items off? Guess what, it's part of the design. Do you know WHY items are there? Not to make it a unique fighter, but because what Brawl and all Smash Brother games originally are is party games.

The settings proposed and used now are to make it more conducive for FIGHTING and TOURNAMENTS. Most people who play Brawl will do it for fun, but the people who play Brawl competitively do it for fun and to see who is the most skilled.

So saying "that guy is best at getting the smash ball" is killing the depth of a game and really makes the whole point of tourneys pointless.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

Well after playing and witnessing my first "big" Brawl tourney (62 entrants), I can say that if items are allowed, they any of them that are overpowered need to be banned.

The games were 2-stock, all items on and all stages on.

For example, I was watching the finals 1v1 at this point (the earlier rounds were 4-for-all) and it was Kirby vs Snake on Final Destination. Low and behold, a hammer spawns right next to Kirby who proceeds to get it and come after Snake on the other side of the screen. Snake trying to keep away decides to fly over him with his up-B, but sure enough, Kirby catches him, hits him twice and Snake immediately loses a stock. Now Snake has to catch up because he's behind a stock and Kirby has taken no damage (and yes, Kirby won).

Another example was in the 3rd-4th placing match between Metaknight and Falco on Final Destination. Each have 1 stock left and both are at around 140%. Falco has been knocked off the stage and is hanging on the ledge while Metaknight is waiting near that edge to see what Falco does as he comes back on. Falco jumps up from hanging towards the stage and goes to use his kick-shine to keep Metaknight from rushing in and to give him some space. When he does the shine, a FUCKING FLAMING CRATE spawns right where Falco is landing and his shine hits it on the way back, explodes, and KOing Falco instantly. The match could've gone either way as both players were equally skilled, but a random crate decided both players fate instead.

And I'm not even going to include the examples with the Smashballs.

I'm personally all for trying items, but certain ones needs to be flat out banned due to the influence they cause (like hammers, exploding crates, bob-ombs, etc.).

[rogueyoshi]

Okay, I went ahead and read through all 21 pages of this thread(I know, I have no life) and then debated for a while whether or not I should post in here. It was quite obvious that people had an opinion and they were going to stick to it. But I finally decided that I might as well point out a few things.

Final Smashes are nothing but glorified items, or an even better comparison, specialized character pokeballs. They are nothing more than this. But since you won't heed to that logic more than likely, I'll make a few examples.

I really love the fact that people are calling for smash balls but can agree on things like healing items being turned off...lolz hey there Peach. A final smash that puts all players on the field to sleep and spawns a bunch of HEALING ITEMS on the field. That would pretty much nullify the whole point of banning said items if a character can MAKE THEM.

I'm sure we can also all agree that starmen would be stupid to place into TOURNAMENTS. They give the player a few moments of invincibility and any competent smasher/pro player would be able to utililize this in devestating ways..but what do numerous final smashes do? Not only do they make a lot of characters invincible for varied amounts of time, but give them powerful attacks to boot. Hiya Wario, Sonic, and Pikachu.

I'm seriously wondering why you people seem to think items on does anything, much less smash balls on, to make the game more tournament conducive. Tournaments are about finding out who is the most skilled. Much like real-life tournaments. Oh sure it's fair...just like if in a real fight a gun spawned closer to a faster fighter, and the slower one was much further away, we know that would be fair. The slow one obviously isn't being fucked!

Extreme analogy, but it works. Now a lot of other people are calling to say "Try them out! They may work! This isn't Melee. This is a NEW game." lolz. Okay...It's a new game. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But while Brawl is a different game, which I can easily concede to, do you REALLY think it is SO different from Melee that items will magically work this time around? And why WOULD they work?

It's about fighting, 1v1, to see who is the better player. It should NOT be about fighting, 1v1, to see who can get the smash balls. That COMPLETELY dumbs down any depth you can find in this game. It puts more focus on character's who can get items/smash balls quicker, and less focus on developing a character's unique playstyle. You want people to play as much as the game's content as possible? Don't force them to choose character's that only work well with FS.

I really don't see how hard of a concept it is to grasp. Melee and Brawl are two different games, yes. But they are not SO different where it magically happens that items on will work. That's not a tournament. It's not about characters fighting characters. And that completely kills the point of the whole thing.

i hope this post puts people in perspective.

[Daemonk]

I don't think Brawl having items-on as default when you turn on the game means the game is meant to be played with items.

Brawl is a game that appeals to many different crowds. You can play it as a single player platformer, a cool party game, a competetive fighting game...etc. The developrs made bunch of different options so people can customize the game to their purposes.

[Daemonk]

Okay, I went ahead and read through all 21 pages of this thread(I know, I have no life) and then debated for a while whether or not I should post in here. It was quite obvious that people had an opinion and they were going to stick to it. But I finally decided that I might as well point out a few things.

Final Smashes are nothing but glorified items, or an even better comparison, specialized character pokeballs. They are nothing more than this. But since you won't heed to that logic more than likely, I'll make a few examples.

I really love the fact that people are calling for smash balls but can agree on things like healing items being turned off...lolz hey there Peach. A final smash that puts all players on the field to sleep and spawns a bunch of HEALING ITEMS on the field. That would pretty much nullify the whole point of banning said items if a character can MAKE THEM.

I'm sure we can also all agree that starmen would be stupid to place into TOURNAMENTS. They give the player a few moments of invincibility and any competent smasher/pro player would be able to utililize this in devestating ways..but what do numerous final smashes do? Not only do they make a lot of characters invincible for varied amounts of time, but give them powerful attacks to boot. Hiya Wario, Sonic, and Pikachu.

I'm seriously wondering why you people seem to think items on does anything, much less smash balls on, to make the game more tournament conducive. Tournaments are about finding out who is the most skilled. Much like real-life tournaments. Oh sure it's fair...just like if in a real fight a gun spawned closer to a faster fighter, and the slower one was much further away, we know that would be fair. The slow one obviously isn't being fucked!

Extreme analogy, but it works. Now a lot of other people are calling to say "Try them out! They may work! This isn't Melee. This is a NEW game." lolz. Okay...It's a new game. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But while Brawl is a different game, which I can easily concede to, do you REALLY think it is SO different from Melee that items will magically work this time around? And why WOULD they work?

It's about fighting, 1v1, to see who is the better player. It should NOT be about fighting, 1v1, to see who can get the smash balls. That COMPLETELY dumbs down any depth you can find in this game. It puts more focus on character's who can get items/smash balls quicker, and less focus on developing a character's unique playstyle. You want people to play as much as the game's content as possible? Don't force them to choose character's that only work well with FS.

I really don't see how hard of a concept it is to grasp. Melee and Brawl are two different games, yes. But they are not SO different where it magically happens that items on will work. That's not a tournament. It's not about characters fighting characters. And that completely kills the point of the whole thing.

I agree with this post. I personally don't want the game to become mainly about picking up items and using it. If items were turned on, I really think it will take away from the character fighting aspect of the game.

[subt-L]

Bombomb spawns right in front of me mid attack, I proceed to hit it and die which consequently makes me lose the match. It wasn't my fault, there was literally no way I could have predicted it was going to spawn there. It wasn't my opponents doing either since he didn't intentionally make the bombomb spawn there. So since I can't blame myself or my opponent I guess I'll just blame the game(or god).

how often is this going to happen with items set to low? often enough to make a good player lose to someone absolutely shitty?

random shit happens. it happens in other ways in every other fighting game... a move hits thats not supposed to hit, someone pulls out a random launch, an assist gets trapped by a random super... granted its not the other user screwing you over in ssb, but i don't think i've ever been in the heat of battle, seen a bomb spawn anywhere near me and didn't have enough time to stop my attack.

i'm down with getting rid of containers, cuz the items are the main thing.

i honestly think some characters are much better with items than they are without. i think over time, the game is going to have characters that can't compete with out them, like in ssbm. i would have loved to see donkey kong raping bitches in ssbm if he had a screw attack and a charge up super punch. i'd go crazy to see bowsers offense with bunny ears. i enjoy the drama involving the hammer, and the calculated risk people take when picking one up. characters who have flaws can cover them with a decent item. and theres alot of characters who are better off without items.

even if your case is "just because items are default doesn't mean the game is supposed to be played with them on", it really doesn't hold water well. i'm sure when masahiro sakurai saw how people were playing competive smash and called it disgusting that THAT isn't the way he meant the game to be played when he made the series.

ssbm tourneys really only use about 20% of the game, if that. the game has alot to offer, why cut off all the limbs when there is definate potential with alot of these aspects?

all anyone is saying is that there's no reason to fix anything that isn't broken. by doing so, you're only dumbing down the game in the long run. random is only a blanket statement. it doesn't solve any problem, and doesn't make a good case.

[Henaki]

I think one of the worst parts of smash balls is they destroy game momentum. When Snake picks up a Smash ball, you're not playing smash anymore, you're playing "blindly guess where a grenade will be". When Lucas gets one, you're dodging meteors. When Zelda gets one, she basically gets a AHVB that 1HKOs. When Yoshi, Wario, Sonic get one, while it often becomes a one sided fight, it's literally just a game of evasion.

Smash balls don't add anything to Smash, they are often incredibly arbitrary ways of getting a free KO, or just a free KO flat out. Some of them aren't even super moves, they are minigames.
how often is this going to happen with items set to low? often enough to make a good player lose to someone absolutely shitty?

random shit happens. it happens in other ways in every other fighting game... a move hits thats not supposed to hit, someone pulls out a random launch, an assist gets trapped by a random super... granted its not the other user screwing you over in ssb, but i don't think i've ever been in the heat of battle, seen a bomb spawn anywhere near me and didn't have enough time to stop my attack.

except those things aren't random at all, someone guessed wrong, it was completely 100% player controlled if a random assist hit etc.

and a good player won't lose to someone shitty, but it will offset the results of a close match where someone superior (although by a small margin) lost because of luck. in fact, the melee ruleset lended itself to randomness much more because losing a single stock hurt a lot less.

[Daemonk]

even if your case is "just because items are default doesn't mean the game is supposed to be played with them on", it really doesn't hold water well. i'm sure when masahiro sakurai saw how people were playing competive smash and called it disgusting that THAT isn't the way he meant the game to be played when he made the series.


I don't think there is only one way that Sakurai thought the game should be played. He made it versatile so people can enjoy it in different ways. But I gues who knows what he thinks really. I am not saying items-on is not competetive. But I am saying there are plenty of people who enjoy the game with items on and plenty of people who enjoy the game with items-off even if items-on is found to be completely fair.

There are situations and strategies in items-off games that probably won't happen in items-on games. Vice versa. I like the strategies and situations involved in items-off games. I don't like picking up items, and I don't like dodging them. Its not because I don't think its fair or unfair or random. I rather dodge link's projectiles or lucas' PK fire. Personally, I feel its more fun.

I am not trying to enforce my opinions on you guys but at the end it falls to personal preference. I think two tournament formats will be needed.

[subt-L]

I think one of the worst parts of smash balls is they destroy game momentum. When Snake picks up a Smash ball, you're not playing smash anymore, you're playing "blindly guess where a grenade will be". When Lucas gets one, you're dodging meteors. When Zelda gets one, she basically gets a AHVB that 1HKOs. When Yoshi, Wario, Sonic get one, while it often becomes a one sided fight, it's literally just a game of evasion.

Smash balls don't add anything to Smash, they are often incredibly arbitrary ways of getting a free KO, or just a free KO flat out. Some of them aren't even super moves, they are minigames.

but they aren't broken, right? and its really only been a week... how do we really know whats avoidable and what's not? i've survived a zelda FS on a medium sized stage... probably because i caught it from the edge and it shot me over the level and gave me time to recover... maybe there is a solid strategy to reducing risk and limiting certain specials effectiveness...

but if items are banned, then how will anyone ever find those out? one way is going to be the de facto standard, and the way smashboards conducts itself, its probably going to go the no items route without even trying as a community to figure out ways around... its much easier to sweep things under a run and claim "random".

even in the game itself... half the characters have moves with randomness inbedded in them. peach fsmash has random ranges and hit angle properties... when i get the wrong smash should i complain "oh, i would have won if only i got the golf club instead of the frying pan" or if i'm olimar and i get stuck with a bad set of pikmin? or G&W not getting any magical hammers when i need them? i might be a better player with a streak of bad luck in the clutch,.. the game itself oozes with random, you just control what you can.

in alot of games you can be doing everything right and some shit just happens and screws you over... its happened to the best of us... i've lost a loser's final game because a free attack on a downed oppoent went right through an opponent head instead of killing them... it happens... i've been screwed by what i couldn't control, and if i had that situation back, i would've done the same thing and 99% of the time won. that's the risk you take when playing any fighting game... anything can happen at the worst possible time.

I don't think there is only one way that Sakurai thought the game should be played. He made it versatile so people can enjoy it in different ways. But I gues who knows what he thinks really. I am not saying items-on is not competetive. But I am saying there are plenty of people who enjoy the game with items on and plenty of people who enjoy the game with items-off even if items-on is found to be completely fair.

There are situations and strategies in items-off games that probably won't happen in items-on games. Vice versa. I like the strategies and situations involved in items-off games. I don't like picking up items, and I don't like dodging them. Its not because I don't think its fair or unfair or random. I rather dodge link's projectiles or lucas' PK fire. Personally, I feel its more fun.

I am not trying to enforce my opinions on you guys but at the end it falls to personal preference. I think two tournament formats will be needed.

let me just say i'm not against banning items, but only if needed. the smash community has been banning anything that is strong since its inception. its a ban happy community. it never gives anti-tactics enough time to be developed before crying and condemning it. look at the whole iceclimbers bullshit at the evo qualifiers last year...

right now, in 4 months when evo happens, there's one thing that an item tourney can bring to the table, and thats having alot of people test weapons possiblities and potential brokenness and depth for an extended period of time.... by flat out banning them, you've killed any potential that items may or may not bring to the game, and setting a new game on the path of failure as a fighting game.

i'm not against banning items, but a case needs to be made why. i believe over time there will be some characters need items to fill in the holes in thier game, while some characters are better without them... why cater to the characters who are better without items? why ruin someones potential because a community isn't willing to compromise and learn the game and its possibilities? one way will eventually become the de facto standard, and it would be the shame it if everything was banned on the biggest stage the game is played on before given a chance.

[MiLky]

Just a question out of curiosity. Do Dedede and Peach throw items with items turned off? Becuase if they don't, doesn't that neuter those characters?

Was just wondering.

Goes back to playing Samurai Showdown and hopes that I don't get a bomb thrown at me, the other player ALWAYS gets the turkey, it's not fucking fair.

[Ceirnian]

Why didn't the snake use his plethora of explosives (the mines for example) to set up the person who got the hammer? Also, snake can detonate himself with a mine while in his up-b, which gives him another up-b.

Can't you shield the hammer and grab someone, or am I wrong about that? It sounds like a shitty situation that can be countered, but hasn't been given enough time to develop yet.

[COUM]

3 rounds = 1 match
3 stocks = 1 match

3 rounds = first to 2
3 stocks = first to 3

Am I missing something? :confused:

[Ivootjes]

Why do you guys keep talking about banning items?

We don't want to ban anything, only turn them off. There's a big difference between in game options and actually banning something.

You all want to sound as sirlin but sirlin has never said something about in game options...

[Parkreiner]

Just a question out of curiosity. Do Dedede and Peach throw items with items turned off? Becuase if they don't, doesn't that neuter those characters?

I know that Peach can still randomly pluck items out of the ground, even with items off. Not sure about DeDeDe.

[BaSiK_TeKniK]

Just a question out of curiosity. Do Dedede and Peach throw items with items turned off? Becuase if they don't, doesn't that neuter those characters?



yep :wgrin:

[UltraDavid]

So are most SRKers cool with leaving items on and using all stages until/unless our own experience shows that we should do the opposite? Seems like it.

[lamewadd]

The best player of ssbb may well be the best at getting smashballs. That is how this game is played.

Everyone needs to think on these two sentences.

Why do you guys keep talking about banning items?

We don't want to ban anything, only turn them off. There's a big difference between in game options and actually banning something.

You all want to sound as sirlin but sirlin has never said something about in game options...

Sirlin never said anything about Smash. But since you bring it up, let's see what Sirlin has to say. He says a ban needs to be warranted. And, quite simply, you can't prove that this is the case. In fact, there's evidence that flies in the face of this, as all of the single-elimination, items-on tournies were won by people who owned the game ahead of time, and in most cases, were Melee tourney players. So until you can actually prove something, you should get off this forum and not come back.

So are most SRKers cool with leaving items on and using all stages until/unless our own experience shows that we should do the opposite? Seems like it.

Yeah, but you can generalize this further. Smart people want items on. Idiots don't.

[SkyeElemental]

You guys remember back in Smash64 where you had to UNLOCK the option of turning items off?

This thread is a reason why the should have kept it that way, or better yet, not have it at all <_<

[alphazealot]

how often is this going to happen with items set to low? often enough to make a good player lose to someone absolutely shitty?

random shit happens. it happens in other ways in every other fighting game... a move hits thats not supposed to hit, someone pulls out a random launch, an assist gets trapped by a random super... granted its not the other user screwing you over in ssb, but i don't think i've ever been in the heat of battle, seen a bomb spawn anywhere near me and didn't have enough time to stop my attack.

Often enough that when it does happen it will cause outrage, oh wait, just a few posts from you we have...

in alot of games you can be doing everything right and some shit just happens and screws you over... its happened to the best of us... i've lost a loser's final game because a free attack on a downed oppoent went right through an opponent head instead of killing them... it happens... i've been screwed by what i couldn't control, and if i had that situation back, i would've done the same thing and 99% of the time won. that's the risk you take when playing any fighting game... anything can happen at the worst possible time.

and...

Well after playing and witnessing my first "big" Brawl tourney (62 entrants), I can say that if items are allowed, they any of them that are overpowered need to be banned.

The games were 2-stock, all items on and all stages on.

For example, I was watching the finals 1v1 at this point (the earlier rounds were 4-for-all) and it was Kirby vs Snake on Final Destination. Low and behold, a hammer spawns right next to Kirby who proceeds to get it and come after Snake on the other side of the screen. Snake trying to keep away decides to fly over him with his up-B, but sure enough, Kirby catches him, hits him twice and Snake immediately loses a stock. Now Snake has to catch up because he's behind a stock and Kirby has taken no damage (and yes, Kirby won).

Another example was in the 3rd-4th placing match between Metaknight and Falco on Final Destination. Each have 1 stock left and both are at around 140%. Falco has been knocked off the stage and is hanging on the ledge while Metaknight is waiting near that edge to see what Falco does as he comes back on. Falco jumps up from hanging towards the stage and goes to use his kick-shine to keep Metaknight from rushing in and to give him some space. When he does the shine, a FUCKING FLAMING CRATE spawns right where Falco is landing and his shine hits it on the way back, explodes, and KOing Falco instantly. The match could've gone either way as both players were equally skilled, but a random crate decided both players fate instead.

And I'm not even going to include the examples with the Smashballs.

The real question is why would you want to submit yourself to random chance when you DON'T HAVE TO. I'm tired of hearing people on SRK talk about how their OTHER fighting games have random chance in them and you've learned to deal. See, those other fighters, you can't remove that random chance unless you want to start banning characters (in some cases), and you know what, I bet every one of you would remove the random chance in the other fighting games if you had an option to. In Smash, we do have the option, and instead of being like Keits and blindly following some weird hypothetical creators intent logic, most Smash players prefer to go with what works and what produces the most accurate results at tournaments.

I'm not convinced Smashballs are broken, but unlike what Sirlin says, something being broken isn't the only reason for banning something, there is also such a thing as promoting better, more competitive play styles over one dimensional play styles (time to practice dodging Sonics FS). Take professional Halo 3, where the default settings have been changed and things like speed have been increased. Was speed broken? No, obviously. But the game functions better (a subjective term but I think somewhat understood) with a slight boost over the default starting speed. The game of Smash may function and be more competitive without Smashballs than with them, and its for this reason Smashballs may ultimately be banned, not because they break gameplay (though, this may also be the case if the only characters we start seeing win tournaments with FS's are Marth or Sonic).
-------
On a different note, the other day I got to play with ChuDat and Azen for awhile. I'm also tired of seeing Melee vet's talk about how there are no combo's in this game or kill moves. Not only did most of our matches last roughly about the time as Melees (slightly longer) but shit, Azen did combo's just like in Melee where he literally carried my character from off the stage to the side of the level for the KO (with ROB, among other characters). Granted, bad DI on my part. I had also been messing with banana combo's over the last week. Anyone who says there are no safe approaches in Brawl is dead wrong. I didn't think it would work when I actually played someone good, but, low and behond, double banana to dash attack (picks up banana) banana throw (using IASA frames) into whatever the fuck you want makes it almost impossible to stop Diddy Kong's approaches, even if you want to roll/tech you can't escape because of the beauty of double bananas and tripping. And this isn't even touching on the shit ChuDat was pulling with Ness. If some washed up Melee vet like me can combo Azen using Diddy from 0-70% then I'm sure as hell that much better players than I can do much more with this game.

/END MESSAGE TO MELEE VETS

[Hayateno Sakon]

Despite the fact that most of my posts have been ignored by the pro-itemers...I'll try once again to respond to people. We'll start with this.

right now, in 4 months when evo happens, there's one thing that an item tourney can bring to the table, and thats having alot of people test weapons possiblities and potential brokenness and depth for an extended period of time.... by flat out banning them, you've killed any potential that items may or may not bring to the game, and setting a new game on the path of failure as a fighting game.

I wanted to underline the last part...LOL. "Oh shit, if you don't try out items, you're going to make this game FAIL as a FIGHTING game. Since items are an integral part of all fighting games, and were definitely not put into Smash to make it more party-orientated...

i'm not against banning items, but a case needs to be made why. i believe over time there will be some characters need items to fill in the holes in thier game, while some characters are better without them... why cater to the characters who are better without items? why ruin someones potential because a community isn't willing to compromise and learn the game and its possibilities? one way will eventually become the de facto standard, and it would be the shame it if everything was banned on the biggest stage the game is played on before given a chance.

What? LOL. "Oh shit, all fighting games have items so when a character's strategy has holes in it, we can just throw those in." All characters have ups and downs, learning how to use them or counter them is the key to any fighting game. Not "*throw in items and hope it helps.*"

You obviously don't see how YOU'RE ruining potential by basing a game around items and smash balls and not around the character's themselves, to which you lean OBVIOUS advantages.

You call anyone stating the random thing that they're using it as "a blanket", while your argument makes no sense. I've already addressed your "random things happen." argument earlier.

Getting rid of items is not just because of the randomness they bring to it, but it brings the characters to a fair ground. You people are trying to apply your rules of other fighting games but they are SO vastly different from Smash because Smash is not inherently a straight-up fighter.

What the "no items" thing does is bring it more to a fighting level and less of a party game level. Can someone point out the problem in trying to make the game has fighting-orientated as possible?

Just a question out of curiosity. Do Dedede and Peach throw items with items turned off? Becuase if they don't, doesn't that neuter those characters?

A totally irrelevant argument as they are part of the character's movesets themselves. "Shouldn't Link be neutered because his gameplay is based around the items he uses? lulz."

The best player of ssbb may well be the best at getting smashballs. That is how this game is played.

Everyone needs to think on these two sentences.

No they don't/ You WANT everyone to think on those two sentences. Smash is a completely versatile game as already stated. Smashballs and items weren't placed into the game to make it some kind of unique or super-deep fighter, they're in there because of it's party-game qualities.

Is this getting through to you yet? The best player at SSB:B should be the player who has put the most time into his character's development and skills, NOT the person who is the best at getting the smash balls. Why would you WANT the game like that?

Also the argument about if people who are shitty can't beat people who are good is also irrelevant. It's hardly about that, it's about making matches as fair as possible and limiting the amount of situations that throw off the balance.

It's about "why should we allow situations that can disrupt the flow of the battle happen?".

Yeah, but you can generalize this further. Smart people want items on. Idiots don't.

Translation: They don't agree with me so they're obviously idiots.

You're not elitist in the least. ^.^

[subt-L]

i'm not going to start a quotefest but i want to thank you for bringing this up...
I wanted to underline the last part...LOL. "Oh shit, if you don't try out items, you're going to make this game FAIL as a FIGHTING game. Since items are an integral part of all fighting games, and were definitely not put into Smash to make it more party-orientated...

let me explain what i mean... by immediately starting banning stuff while the game is in its infancy without proper testing and experimentation, you're already setting up the ban train and game inconsistancies that melee had.

what really would be next? banning stages that move too much? banning characters who have a strong tactic? levels with walls because of potential infinites?

instead of finding ways around things, you're playing into ban happy community that will dictate the how the game is played for years. 4 months of items gameplay isn't going to ruin 4-5 years of gameplay... but banning something right off the bat without even trying countermeasures is going to make brawl a joke.

and let me put something into perspective... picking up weapons can also be part of depth as well... maybe its hard to see in fighting games, but take a shooting game like halo/quake where you pick up weapons...

with a weapon a player becomes automatically stronger... if someone with skill had a sniper rifle in halo, they could dominate the level. is he a wacker player because he ran to a super strong weapon before anyone else?

no. in fact he's the smarter player, and the better one.

but a sniper rifle or rocket in anyones hands isn't going to maike them an automatic juggernaut, and that's what people arguing against items need to understand. its still going to take skill to use some weapons, and some have alot of risk attached to picking them up. i don't think anyone would be arguing to keep a certain item if it was and unavoidable automatic killing machine...

but there aren't many in brawl, if any. testing for 4 months will bring out which weapons are too strong, and which ones are acceptable. maybe dragoon is too strong. disable it. that doesn't mean a home run bat should be banned right? maybe exploding crates and bomombs are taking thier toll in close matches... fine its worth disabling... that doesn't mean a fan is on the same level.

now you can disable containers and exploding boxes, so those can possibly be taken out to avoid the random self kos. but does that mean EVERY item should go with it? you couldn't take those on in melee, so i understand then, but reiterating... THIS ISN'T MELEE, and that problem has been addressed and should be looked into.

the community needs to look into fine tuning the game, not getting rid of all the items like super scope, screw attack, metal boxes that may actually help characters who need it and expand an offensive game that may almost require it.

as i said before... banning something only ruins potential, it doesn't not promote it.

[Mr.D]

Could not have agreed more with Hayateno.

Some characters in brawl are slow in maneuverability and will be hurt drastically by the addition of items. For example, a heavyweight character excels in getting a few hits in and expects a knockout. These few hits are hard to get in against long range pokes and projectiles. By adding long range (beam sword) and projectiles (virtually all items), these characters will be nerfed on a gameplay standpoint.

I by no means am making this statement to compare to melee, but take into consideration (assuming you played melee) the disadvantage that is prevalent in picking a large character such as donkey kong or bowser in free for alls/1v1's with items. Most people would limit their character selection based on the different rules set for obvious reasons.

By taking the side of pro-items, you limit the utility of all characters shining bright in future matches.

[Hayateno Sakon]

What? LOL. Did you just seriously compare picking up weapons in Halo with items in Smash? Seriously?

There are quite a few key differences..the first being these are two completely different genres and games and Halos is/has to be based around the idea of shooting people(or cutting them with the elite sword if you prefer). Also, the weapons in Halo do not randomly appear at random intervals over a match. They have preordained spots where they appear.

FPS games are half-memorizing the maps you play on anyways. That entire argument is null and void.

Am I all for playing with items and testing them out? Sure. Do I see a point? No. If you want Smash to be a competitive fighting game then it's easy to see why items should be out. Melee and Brawl are different, but quite frankly I never took out items because of exploding crates and capsules, though those are good points.

I took them out because I wanted to be about 1 character vs. 1 character. Who can play their character better? That was it. And that's how any fighting game should be. Putting items on is nuetering it's potential as fighting game and turning it into something else.

[maximuspita]

Your thought of how a game is supposed to be competitive is retarded. I dont see Halo players banning every gun except X or Y gun just because they feel thats how the game is supposed to be played.

I can see it now.
NO SHOTGUNS
NO ROCKET LAUNCHERS
HAND GUNS ONLY

Yeah I can totally see how straight up competitive and deep that shit it. Ban anything that makes me uncomfortable and it'll be a good tournament game.

@alphazealot.

How are you so sure that with items in only Marth and Sonic will be the victors? Where is the data? Let me remind you that with Wobbling, everyone thought that the winners of the melee tournaments from then on would be Ice Climbers, yet this did not come true. Discard the broken stuff once it becomes broken, dont carry over melee rules because that is how it's been done since you all can remember.

[Ceirnian]

I took them out because I wanted to be about 1 character vs. 1 character. Who can play their character better? That was it. And that's how any fighting game should be. Putting items on is nuetering it's potential as fighting game and turning it into something else.

I think it's time for you to accept that this game is not a traditional fighting game. YOU want it to be about 1 character vs 1 character. That is the only valid reason I can hear about items all being turned off, and it is the most honest. Everything you've said up till this point was a really unimpressive argument giving equally unimpressive reasons why items should be off.

This game is NOT Street Fighter.

You think it's stupid to be comparing a FPS items to this game? Well I think it's stupid that you are pretty much trying to force Brawl into being a traditional fighter that it isn't.

[subt-L]

What? LOL. Did you just seriously compare picking up weapons in Halo with items in Smash? Seriously?

There are quite a few key differences..the first being these are two completely different genres and games and Halos is/has to be based around the idea of shooting people(or cutting them with the elite sword if you prefer). Also, the weapons in Halo do not randomly appear at random intervals over a match. They have preordained spots where they appear.

FPS games are half-memorizing the maps you play on anyways. That entire argument is null and void.
thats a fine point, but the point i was getting across is that a weapon isn't going to win you a match automatically. it may make you stronger, but its not going to make you a juggernaut. the concept is not much different from what appears in brawl. you may get to an item before someone, but a good counter measure can be imposed that nueters or limits that ability. maybe the game turns into sectioning off part of the stage to get first crack at items... what's game breaking, strategy numbing, or inconsistant about that? hell, some characters only get impeded by having certain weapons. if weapons are experiemented with, you can weed out which ones are indeed gamebreaking and which ones aren't.

right now, i'm messing with the fan to setup luigi's uppercut... god knows the only real way to set it up is off of a downa and hope that the 33% chance that it knocks down happens... i'm messing with the screw ball to get a free uppercut. hell, maybe even super scope would help me out. even if i find a 100% way to get that uppercut, i'm still going to need a full gameplan incase that item doesn't spawn... and there are going to be counter measure to prevent me from getting it. all an item can do is expand my offensive options from jumping in dodging blindly and doing on of the riskiest moves in the game to actually setting that shit up and making it a threat.
quick edit: if there's a real great uppercut setup please let me know... heh.

Am I all for playing with items and testing them out? Sure. Do I see a point? No. If you want Smash to be a competitive fighting game then it's easy to see why items should be out. Melee and Brawl are different, but quite frankly I never took out items because of exploding crates and capsules, though those are good points.

I took them out because I wanted to be about 1 character vs. 1 character. Who can play their character better? That was it. And that's how any fighting game should be. Putting items on is nuetering it's potential as fighting game and turning it into something else.
i typed up a long section about this and deleted it because i was repeating myself. an item isn't a auto win, and evading these setups and having countermeasures is no different that having counter measures for assists in marvel. not having an counter measure for item specific moves in t6. hell, its no different than not being able to deal with a rushdown in any game. just because you haven't seen a tactic or something gets you by suprise isn't exactly different than someone pulilng out a really sick setup you weren't expecting.

not being able to deal with an item is much like not being able to deal with any strong tactic. just because someone may get lucky to have an item, doesn't make it any less 1v1. if anything, it only expands options.

but people are still going to need their a-game all around to compete when that item isn't there. the competitive nature is still there; it only gets more heated when a weapon they need shows up.

losing to an item just means you were underprepared... if you want to argue otherwise, i'd say show me in practice which items are too strong, and then everyone can try to solve the problem. until then, the only arguement i hear is that items aren't good because they're random, and that isn't going to fly with anyone here.

[alphazealot]

The game of Smash may function and be more competitive without Smashballs than with them, and its for this reason Smashballs may ultimately be banned, not because they break gameplay (though, this may also be the case if the only characters we start seeing win tournaments with FS's are Marth or Sonic).

Does not read:

Marth and Sonics FS are broken and they are the best

It was an example of what would warrant banning them. Reread what I posted because there is currently no data to support a ban on FS's based on brokenness. Thats why, if they get banned early on, it'll have to be for a different reason, at least at first.

This sentence that I wrote: if the only characters we start seeing win tournaments

Means: We have to wait for data.

In other words, exactly what you said.
---
You may want to research competitive Halo, they use BR starts, for starters, and you'll see just about every spawn and default setting being changed, including, in Halo 3, the properties of the weapons/master chief.

Sure, they didn't ban using the scorpion tank, it just isn't on in any of their gametypes.

[maximuspita]

The halo example was just an analogy on how blanket banning might work. By your words what they did in Halo 3 compares more to tweaking which items drop and their drop rate rather than just removing everything and anything.

[Corner-Trap]

Most of the talk in this thread has revolved around items, which I still think should be banned because they're simply random. Now I would like to bring up another topic which hasn't been discussed thoroughly, stages. Assuming that we're still going by the neutral/counter pick method which has proven very useful here's my stage list:

Neutral Stages:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island
Smashville
Lylat Cruise

Counter Pick Stages:

Delfino Plaza
Bridge of Eldin
Rumble Falls
Skyworld
Castle Seige
Pokemon Stadium 2
Halberd
Shadow Moses Island
New Pork City
Hyrule Temple
Mario Circuit
Frigate Orpheon
Yoshi's Island (melee)
Corneria
Onett
Brinstar
Rainbow Cruise
Distant Planet
Mushroomy Kingdom
Port Town Aero Dive
Mario Bros.
Green Hill Zone
Luigi's Mansion
75m
Jungle Japes
Green Greens
Pokemon Stadium

Banned Stages:

WarioWare Inc.
PictoChat
Summit
Norfair
Spear Pillar
Flat Zone 2
Big Blue

Neutral stages are generally fair for all characters. Counter pick stages offer notable advantages to certain characters, although I do feel that some of the stages I put on counter pick could be placed in neutral. All of the banned stages are banned because their movement/hazards are too random.

[EmblemLord]

Get New Pork City and Hyrule Temple off the counter picks and into banned plz.

[subt-L]

i really like the idea of creating a really balanced custom stage to be the fall back in case a level can't be decided on, or as a 3rd match sort of thing.

like each player gets a pick in stage before each match, and the 3rd being either a nuetral stage or a the custom map.

i'm sure with the level builder system it'd be easy to create something that benefits all playstyles, and even counters certain super strong fs.

[Daemonk]

Get New Pork City and Hyrule Temple off the counter picks and into banned plz.

I agree. Not necessarily because its random or whatever. Its just too damn big, my games last like 7-9 minutes average at those stages.

[Pimp Willy]

I still argue that island stages aren't neutral to everyone, with the tether recovery characters able to be edge guarded so much easier. I don't much buy into the whole neutral/counter pick format anyway, but it seems like it's worked for the smash community so far, so maybe it's not all so bad. I would love to see all stages on random for the first match, then loser gets to pick the next stage from any of the non banned stages.

Besides, stage discussion neutrality really ties into the items discussion at least a bit. For instance, Final Destination really favors landmaster super over other stages. But it is a good idea to talk about all different aspects of the game at the same time, as there is no way to keep them completely isolated... there is, however, another thread dedicated to just stage discussion.

[Corner-Trap]

Get New Pork City and Hyrule Temple off the counter picks and into banned plz.

I agree. Not necessarily because its random or whatever. Its just too damn big, my games last like 7-9 minutes average at those stages.

I do realize that most people have a problem with New Pork City and Hyrule Temples large size, but since it doesn't fall into my criteria of banning(random movement/hazards) I'd be willing to allow them. Most players just generally try to steal the first KO and run away for the rest of the game, and I can see how this would be annoying, but I view it as just another strategy. Something along the lines of runaway type characters in older fighting games. And considering that tournament matches will be played with a time limit there really isn't a worry about matches dragging on for too long.

I still argue that island stages aren't neutral to everyone, with the tether recovery characters able to be edge guarded so much easier. I don't much buy into the whole neutral/counter pick format anyway, but it seems like it's worked for the smash community so far, so maybe it's not all so bad. I would love to see all stages on random for the first match, then loser gets to pick the next stage from any of the non banned stages.

Besides, stage discussion neutrality really ties into the items discussion at least a bit. For instance, Final Destination really favors landmaster super over other stages. But it is a good idea to talk about all different aspects of the game at the same time, as there is no way to keep them completely isolated... there is, however, another thread dedicated to just stage discussion.

The problem with putting all unbanned stages on random select is that you may end up with a match up like Pit versus Bowser on New Pork City or Jigglypuff versus Olimar on Skyworld which are both terribly one sided. This is why we try to keep the first stage neutral to make things even then allow the more unbalanced stages to be counter picks.

[EmblemLord]

You don't get it.

I could pick Marth and get a stock lead and you would never catch me on either one of those stages.

EVER.

I know.

Because people have done this to me and I have done it to them.

It's not fun or fair.

It's complete bullshit.

And you bet your ass I would gay you out hard and do this to you if money is on the line.

So just avoid the bullshit and ban the fucking stages.

[Corner-Trap]

You don't get it.

I could pick Marth and get a stock lead and you would never catch me on either one of those stages.

EVER.

I know.

Because people have done this to me and I have done it to them.

It's not fun or fair.

It's complete bullshit.

And you bet your ass I would gay you out hard and do this to you if money is on the line.

So just avoid the bullshit and ban the fucking stages.

As I said before I already know all of that shit, so stop telling me. My rules are very strict and I directly adhere to them. I only ban stages in which the movement/hazards are completely random and unpredictable. If it doesn't fall in line with that criteria then I allow it. If you don't agree then make your own list. As I said many times before, the imbalances that items and stages create don't bother me at the slightest, my only problem is with the random factor.

[alphazealot]

I usually feel the best explanation of neutral/counter/banned for Smash is this:
Neutral: A stage where most characters can play without the battle being swayed to heavily in favor of either character.
Counter: A stage that favors some characters over others to a moderate degree.
Banned: A stage that grossly favors only a few characters or contains random elements that will unfairly and unpredictably sway a match to a moderate degree (a small degree would be the ships on corneria in Melee, a moderate degree would be Icicle Mountain in Melee, and an extreme degree would be like, warioware or pictochat).

The banned criteria is important. While this doesn't mention anything about brokenness, the general play of certain characters on some stages can be so dominant that really, only 1 or 2 other characters can compete. Was the run away laser strategy completely broken in Melee on Hyrule Temple? No, Falcon could still catch Fox. But, if your opponent counter picks Hyrule temple, you are forced to choose between only a few characters. Counters limit you somewhat between the characters you should choose, but not to the extreme degree that banned stages do. In other words, if its your slob pick, by choosing Hyrule you've also chosen the opponents character, and there is an obvious problem in this.

[Corner-Trap]

I usually feel the best explanation of neutral/counter/banned for Smash is this:
Neutral: A stage where most characters can play without the battle being swayed to heavily in favor of either character.
Counter: A stage that favors some characters over others to a moderate degree.
Banned: A stage that grossly favors only a few characters.

The banned criteria is important. While this doesn't mention anything about brokenness, the general play of certain characters on some stages can be so dominant that really, only 1 or 2 other characters can compete. Was the run away laser strategy completely broken in Melee on Hyrule Temple? No, Falcon could still catch Fox. But, if your opponent counter picks Hyrule temple, you are forced to choose between only a few characters. Counters limit you somewhat between the characters you should choose, but not to the extreme degree that banned stages do. In other words, if its your slob pick, by choosing Hyrule you've also chosen the opponents character, and there is an obvious problem in this.

You do realize that you have to choose a character before even knowing what the stage is? So the stage your opponent picks doesn't dictate what characters you pick because you will have already chosen your character before being able to see the stage. Also in most tournaments the winner can't change their character.

[alphazealot]

No.
Advanced slob picks goes like this:
Loser announces Stage
Winner picks character
Loser picks character
---
So, I think you need to go to tournament cornertrap.
This is how EVO ran last year (minus independent stage bans) and MLG ran in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And every major Smash tournament for the last 4 years or so. The last time I've heard of a tournament that didn't allow you to switch characters was DCSS in the summer of 2003 (this doesn't count gamestop tournaments etc.)

The first match is the only match where you may not know the stage or who your opponents character is. Matches 2 (and 3, 4, 5, etc) all operate using advanced slob picks. Why did you think everyone keeps mentioning counter stages anyways?

[Corner-Trap]

No.
Advanced slob picks goes like this:
Loser announces Stage
Winner picks character
Loser picks character
---
So, I think you need to go to tournament cornertrap.
This is how EVO ran last year (minus independent stage bans) and MLG ran in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And every major Smash tournament for the last 4 years or so. The last time I've heard of a tournament that didn't allow you to switch characters was DCSS in the summer of 2003 (this doesn't count gamestop tournaments etc.)

The first match is the only match where you may not know the stage or who your opponents character is. Matches 2 (and 3, 4, 5, etc) all operate using advanced slob picks. Why did you think everyone keeps mentioning counter stages anyways?

Oh, didn't know that, thanks for the info.

[alphazealot]

Just so everyone is on the same page, here is the SBR Recommended Rulelist for Melee, the structure of a match will probably remain the same from Melee to Brawl while the stages/strat bans/etc will probably be different (obviously). This is just for reference.

SBR Recommended Rule List
Super Smash Brothers: Melee (singles and doubles)
The following list was created by members of the Smash Back Room (SBR). Each rule was debated and voted upon in separate topics. While it is always up to the Tournament Organizers (TO) to determine the rules that best fit their tournaments, we recommend these rules be used as a base guideline to new and experienced TO's alike.
General Rules

Items are set to off
The stock is set to 4 *
The time limit is set to a minimum of 90 seconds per stock **
All sets are best of 3 matches
In the event of a dispute, controller ports will be selected by Rock-Paper-Scissors
No player may choose the stage they last won on
Ties will be broken by lives, then percentage. In the event of a percentage tie, one stock sudden death will be played
Wobbling is allowed except when used to excessively stall a match
The Ice Climber Freeze Glitch is banned
Jigglypuff's rising pound stall is banned
Peach's bomber stall beneath levels where she is unreachable is banned (example: FoD)
*In the event of time constraints 3 stocks may be used
**120 seconds per stock should be considered high priority

Set Format (in order of procedure)
1. Opponents choose their characters for the first match *
2. Each player may announce one stage to be banned for the entirety of the set
3. The first stage will be played at random from the Random Stage List **
4. The loser of the previous match announces the next match's stage from either the Random Stage List or the Counter Stage List
5. The winner of the previous match chooses their character
6. The loser of the previous match chooses their character
7. Repeat steps 4-7 for all proceeding matches
*Double blind character selection may be called for this match
**Opponents may instead agree upon a random stage

Random Stage List
Dream Land: Fountain of Dreams
Kanto: Pokemon Stadium
Mushroom Kingdom: Rainbow Cruise *
Past Stages: Dream Land
Past Stages: Kongo Jungle
Special Stages: Final Destination
Special Stages: Battlefield
Yoshi's Island: Yoshi's Story

Counter Stage List
Dream Land: Green Greens *
DK Island: Jungle Japes
F-Zero Grand Prix: Mute City
Kanto Skies: Poke Floats
Lylat System: Corneria
Mushroom Kingdom: Princess Peach's Castle *
Mushroom Kingdom II *
Planet Zebes: Brinstar
*These stages were very close votes and could be on either the Counter or Banned Lists

Banned Stage List
DK Island: Kongo Jungle
Eagleland: Onett
Eagleland: Fourside
F-Zero Grand Prix: Big Blue
Hyrule Temple
Infinite Glacier: Icicle Mountain
Lylat System: Venom
Mushroom Kingdom I
Yoshi's Island: Yoshi's Island
Past Stages: Yoshi's Island
Superflat World: Flat Zone
Termina: Great Bay

Additional Rules for Double's Play

Life Stealing is allowed
Set team attack to ON
Add Termina: Great Bay to the Counter Stage List
Add F-Zero Grand Prix: Mute City to the Banned Stage List
Add Dream Land: Fountain of Dreams to the Banned Stage List


Notes

This list is not meant to be copied and pasted, but instead copied and adjusted to fit each tournaments situation (time limits, regional philosophies, etc.).
Some of these stages (Peach's Castle, Mushroom Kingdom) have been traditionally banned. Many of these stages had very fierce debate, the stages position on each list is only indicative of the end result of each debate. Some of these results have been quite surprising. Never before has the community, in part or in whole, taken such an in depth look at the rules. This project took over 5 months to complete. Given this, the first version of a Brawl Recommended RuleList will probably not be finished for at least a year.
The SBR debated heavily over rule enforcement but decided such decisions are currently to broad to be stated within this recommended rule list. It is recommended a system be in place to deal with disqualifications for players who are late or absent from matches (the Mages DQ rule is a good starting point) and for those who violate the rules.
Players are responsible for knowing the rules. No more than the previous match should be replayed in the event of a rule violation and it is recommended that any disputes be brought promptly and quickly to the TO's attention.
For larger tournaments pool play should precede double elimination bracket play.
The semi-final and championship sets should be in at least best of 5 format.
Wireless controllers should be discouraged or banned because of interference, unreliability (battery life), and time hindrance.
Drugs and Alcohol should be prohibited.
Any rule-list that closely follows this guideline may include a note in its opening post (suggested beneath the tournaments title in smaller font) that reads "SBR Certified". Soon there will be an icon that can also be included for quick reference while browsing the tournament room.

[Daemonk]

oh man..you posted something from the SBR. Anything backroom related attracts flame like crazy here.::puts on flame retardant armor::

[subt-L]

oh man. ::puts on flame retardant armor::
why? for him posting up melee tourney standards?

the no drugs or alcohol rule is funny as shit.

[Henaki]

Oh, didn't know that, thanks for the info.

And this seems to be the overall theme that's wrong with this thread.

[Ivootjes]

Why not play bunnyhood matches, or metal matches, or what about low gravity matches? I mean, it's part of the game, i don't think we should ban it immediately without some tournaments to test it. You can't ban anything that isn't proven broken.

I vote for bunnyhood metal matches, that seems to be exciting.

[Septimus Prime]

:u: Try it out.

[subt-L]

Why not play bunnyhood matches, or metal matches, or what about low gravity matches? I mean, it's part of the game, i don't think we should ban it immediately without some tournaments to test it. You can't ban anything that isn't proven broken.

I vote for bunnyhood metal matches, that seems to be exciting.

clever reverse psychology.

who knows, maybe you're onto something. everyone complains about the speed of the game and the floatyness... maybe that is the way to go.

try it out and let everyone know how that went.

[Corner-Trap]

Now that I think about it, I would like to do away with the whole neutral/counter pick stage selection method. After some thought I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a completely neutral stage. Even the most simple stages yield good advantages to certain characters. Characters like Falco can completely dominate someone like Ganondorf on a stage like Final Destination with short hopped double lasers, and his laser lock, making it absurdly hard for Ganondorf to approach. One of Marth's best stages is Battlefield because his sword moves through the upper platforms and he can dominate the main bottom platform keeping his opponent up top. So for right now, I'm not sure how we're going to go about stage selection. I still think that the loser should pick the next stage but I'm not sure how the first stage will be chosen.

[alphazealot]

That is the reason the community came up with the one stage ban rule per person, to eliminate even more the inequalities stages can cause. It leaves it to the user to figure out which stage is the worst against different kinds of opponents. For example, as a Peach player in Melee, you do not want to face a proficient Fox on PS. So, even though PS is a neutral, if I know I'm facing a good Fox player (and you usually do), then I'll Ban PS and most of my neutral problems are solved. If your a ganon about to face a Falco you'll probably want to ban FD, but maybe not, a big part of Ganon's game is dthrowing and predicting techs, which is much easier/efficient on FD than other stages.

We've been discussing in the SBR about changing the first stage rule as well. It seems like the best solution is simple, use the random stage to pick a stage, restart the match and each person can choose their character ala double blind character selection. That way you don't get an awful match like Mew2King did against Mango at EVO World, where he went with Sheik for fear of a bad random, and low and behold he got Dreamland against Mango's Jiggly (good stage for Jiggs). The stage played a big role in this loss, though it would probably have happened regardless in this case considering Mew2King lost to Mango a month or two later using Marth on the same stage.

Basically, randomly choose first starting stage and reset the match. Then have people choose characters, should alleviate most of the big problems.

People have also suggested that, for tournaments that are big enough, a neutral stage be designated for each round of the tournament. I find this idea interesting, but it could also highly influence results. If it was a Melee tournament with this set up I would hate to have to fight on PS against Fox using Peach just because it was a preset stage, at least with random I have a chance of my opponent not getting a great stage from the get go.
---
Some people have suggest high gravity mode to try and get the combos that were in Melee back. Its a bad idea I think.

[Shade]

Why not play bunnyhood matches, or metal matches, or what about low gravity matches? I mean, it's part of the game, i don't think we should ban it immediately without some tournaments to test it. You can't ban anything that isn't proven broken.

I vote for bunnyhood metal matches, that seems to be exciting.

Those are specifically put under " Special Brawl", as in, not fucking normal. Good try, though.

[SlasherMan]

You should be able to choose your own stage. Say someone doesn't want Shadow Moses. I don't think it's fair to have a strict selection a of stages. It get boring after a while.

[Corner-Trap]

That is the reason the community came up with the one stage ban rule per person, to eliminate even more the inequalities stages can cause. It leaves it to the user to figure out which stage is the worst against different kinds of opponents. For example, as a Peach player in Melee, you do not want to face a proficient Fox on PS. So, even though PS is a neutral, if I know I'm facing a good Fox player (and you usually do), then I'll Ban PS and most of my neutral problems are solved. If your a ganon about to face a Falco you'll probably want to ban FD, but maybe not, a big part of Ganon's game is dthrowing and predicting techs, which is much easier/efficient on FD than other stages.

We've been discussing in the SBR about changing the first stage rule as well. It seems like the best solution is simple, use the random stage to pick a stage, restart the match and each person can choose their character ala double blind character selection. That way you don't get an awful match like Mew2King did against Mango at EVO World, where he went with Sheik for fear of a bad random, and low and behold he got Dreamland against Mango's Jiggly (good stage for Jiggs). The stage played a big role in this loss, though it would probably have happened regardless in this case considering Mew2King lost to Mango a month or two later using Marth on the same stage.

Basically, randomly choose first starting stage and reset the match. Then have people choose characters, should alleviate most of the big problems.

People have also suggested that, for tournaments that are big enough, a neutral stage be designated for each round of the tournament. I find this idea interesting, but it could also highly influence results. If it was a Melee tournament with this set up I would hate to have to fight on PS against Fox using Peach just because it was a preset stage, at least with random I have a chance of my opponent not getting a great stage from the get go.
---
Some people have suggest high gravity mode to try and get the combos that were in Melee back. Its a bad idea I think.

I like the idea of preselecting the first stage then allowing players to pick their characters. The only problem I see with this is time consumption. Having to randomly select a stage then exit back out to the character select screen may take too long if it has to be done for every match played.

[alphazealot]

Yea, pretty much what we determined in the backroom to, but if we move to 3 stock 6 minute matches instead of 4 stock 8 that should be a help.

Aside from that, is there a auto cancel feature like Melee had? In Melee you could press L+R and start and exit the stage loading screen, so you could see the random level before it actually loads, made quitting out tons easier.

[Corner-Trap]

Yea, pretty much what we determined in the backroom to, but if we move to 3 stock 6 minute matches instead of 4 stock 8 that should be a help.

Aside from that, is there a auto cancel feature like Melee had? In Melee you could press L+R and start and exit the stage loading screen, so you could see the random level before it actually loads, made quitting out tons easier.

Not sure if theres an auto stage cancel, but on a more interesting note I found this page about you.

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/AlphaZealot

I knew your name sounded familiar, and when you started talking about the SBR it reminded me of something a read a while ago.

[COUM]

Those are specifically put under " Special Brawl", as in, not fucking normal. Good try, though.

There's no reason to take the game's default settings as gospel simply because they're default, or, conversely, to dismiss settings simply because they're under "Special Brawl". To do so has no justification except an appeal to designer intent, which has proven time and time again to be an irrelevant factor when dealing with competitive games. For our purposes, the default settings are just as arbitrary as any other given combination.

[UltraDavid]

Yea, pretty much what we determined in the backroom.
This makes me want to do the exact opposite. The backroom is not a persuasive authority for me, and I'd sooner purposely ignore its suggestions than follow them. You seem like a nice guy and I'm sure you're better at Smash than I am, but I don't want this community to be in any way involved with the elitist nonsense that goes on over at Smashboards. To the extent that our two communities use the same ruleset, I want our ruleset to be arrived at only because the community as a whole agreed on it, not because some secret cadre proclaimed it.

I agree with Coum that the default settings shouldn't be taken as gospel and we shouldn't get into talking about what the developers intended. That said, I do think we should try to balance the game in a way that involves as much of the stuff provided by the game as possible while creating the most strategic play possible.

[kmasera]

the backroom is silly

i'm pretty much for items now

[ezekial45]

Whoops, wrong thread.

[subt-L]

This makes me want to do the exact opposite. The backroom is not a persuasive authority for me, and I'd sooner purposely ignore its suggestions than follow them. You seem like a nice guy and I'm sure you're better at Smash than I am, but I don't want this community to be in any way involved with the elitist nonsense that goes on over at Smashboards. To the extent that our two communities use the same ruleset, I want our ruleset to be arrived at only because the community as a whole agreed on it, not because some secret cadre proclaimed it.

I agree with Coum that the default settings shouldn't be taken as gospel and we shouldn't get into talking about what the developers intended. That said, I do think we should try to balance the game in a way that involves as much of the stuff provided by the game as possible while creating the most strategic play possible.
agreed on all points.

[Ceirnian]

Why not play bunnyhood matches, or metal matches, or what about low gravity matches? I mean, it's part of the game, i don't think we should ban it immediately without some tournaments to test it. You can't ban anything that isn't proven broken.

I vote for bunnyhood metal matches, that seems to be exciting.

The point is to change the game the least amount, you fail.

[Henaki]

I agree with Coum that the default settings shouldn't be taken as gospel and we shouldn't get into talking about what the developers intended. That said, I do think we should try to balance the game in a way that involves as much of the stuff provided by the game as possible while creating the most strategic play possible.

The irony of the situation is that they are pretty much inversely related.

[UltraDavid]

And I don't deny that entirely, although I do think that some items (like smash balls) add to the strategy and I think some stages that emphasize a particular character's strengths are fine. I just want to find a balance between using as much of the game as possible and making the game as strategic possible, only cutting down items/stages if they're a serious burden on strategy but with the preference going to strategy in case of a tie. If we find that using all items and stages detracts too much from strategy, then we should cut down item usage; if we find that using any items other than smash balls detracts too much from strategy, then we should restrict items to smash balls only, and if we find that using particular stages make matchups retarded, then we should take those stages out; and if we find that even smash balls detract too much from strategy or that using any other than a few stages makes too many matchups too stupid, then fine, we'll use no items at all and only a few stages. This is the kind of thing that will and should take a long time to figure out.

[subt-L]

The irony of the situation is that they are pretty much inversely related.

is that something that has been found through practice or by biased assumptions?

[Aleister Crowley]

The whole railing on SWF just because there exists a back room is mindboggling to me. We created a room to discuss things so that Roymaster9/Falcopro69/etc doesn't come into threads demanding to know why Hyrule is generally banned at tournaments, and so we can get all the intelligent posters (not necessarily good players. Skill is only important to get in to the SBR inasfar as it is intertwined with being a smart and respectful person) to post in one in one place. How can that possibly be a bad thing? You act like SBR members are some secret cabal that hand down directives to local tourney organizers (who are of course firmly within our unflinching grasp). It just looks like you're cherry picking on something to hate about SWF. Kneejerk disagreeing with someone just because of who they are is the exact same logic as blindly agreeing with someone because of who they are. I am glad that some SRK members are independent thinkers who submit to evidence only, but some are taking it to the extreme and using the logic I just described. I don't know if this is some kind of attempt to display independence or power as far as Evo's involvement with Brawl or whatever but it's definitely not constructive.

I, and indeed the SBR as a whole, definitely sympathize with the argument that tourneys should be respectful of the wishes of the community tourneygoing scene at large, and not just what we happen to like to play. But at some point it becomes the "emperor's nose problem." If nobody is allowed to see the emperor's nose, but you ask everyone in the empire how long they think his nose is, and then average it out, somehow you're expecting to get a good guess, and that would be "accurate" because you asked so many people.

Yes I know this sounds like an argument for elitism, but I also apply that same analogy to the naive and myopic 'ban-happy' mentality that some people have. That is to say, I don't think that "balance" can be used as an argument to ban ANYTHING at the current state of the metagame (because we are all ignorant of the metagame as we are the length of the emperor's nose. Sure, we probably won't be THAT far off, just like it's hard to be THAT far off in guessing the size of a nose, but have we really improved our situation at all?). Not Smashballs, not items, not stages. So why else besides balance do we ban things? Everything I can think of falls into one of 4 categories. I will apply them to the case of Smashballs. First let's state some facts about SBs:

-Some characters' FSs are better than others.
-Some characters have inherent (dis)advantages in getting SBs when they appear.
-SBs appear randomly, or at least with a pattern that is obfuscated enough to make it practically random
-It is easy to prove mathematically that it is more likely than not that there will be an uneven number of SBs acquired by each opponent in a match.

Now the ban criteria. Please notice that with the possible exception of the third, all have subjective language in their definition:

1 - Balance: If a certain technique or circumstance favors a very small set of characters over others, we ban it, because the game would degenerate into who could play those characters best in those circumstances.

2 - Randomness: Randomness bans have little to do with balance, and more to do with the fact that randomness causes deviations in from the expected outcome. So we have to determine how much randomness exists, and how big a swing in the game each random event potentially can cause. If we perceive these deviations to be too big, we ban whatever is causing the randomness. Of course regardless of the amount of randomness we still expect the better player to win, I'm just stressing that it's random deviations from the mean that are undesirable and not the randomness itself. There is a finer point about randomness that I will address later, which is the argument that randomness is necessary for some games (i.e. most board games would be pointless if there were no random dice element).

3 - Stalling, or making the game otherwise unplayable: E.g. M2 soul stunner, IC freeze, etc.

4 - And lastly, because it changes the game too much. Ultimately all the above criteria can be resolved to this one in some sense, and I think it is a very important thing to realize. An example of this (not acutally possible in real life) is that even if Hyrule were perfectly balanced and uncampable, it still essentially ceases to be Smash and become the game of the Cave of Life. It would be something that fits only under the 'changes the game' criterion and not the others. But yeah, I can't stress enough that at the end of the day, ALL of this boils down to simply what kind of game we want to play.

So how does this pertain to Smash Balls? As for balance, I feel it's too early to tell if some FS's (or the characters' abilities to actually get SBs) severely imbalance some characters in the metagame. I think it is likely that it will but I can't say we have enough evidence. I've just come to accept our fate that imbalances are inherent in any game and I don't really even worry about this point too much. The first two facts about SBs can just be taken care of by saying "that's part of the game." Obviously SBs have nothing to do with criterion 3. Now as for randomness, we have to ask how big of a spread does a one Smash Ball difference make? From what I've seen, if you get fewer SBs than the other player, you're at a HUGE disadvantage (on average, just averaging over how effective each character's FS is).

At this point we could salvage SBs if we are willing to accept that actually acquiring SBs is a skill in and of itself, because it is unlikely that a SB will simply be a free taking for either player. Indeed this is probably the strongest argument of those who would have SBs remain. BUT, that in turn begs the money question: is that the game we want to play? Do we want to play a game where a MAJOR component of what we call "skill" is fighting over Smash Balls? Do we want to play a game where balance is determined in a LARGE PART by how good a character's FS is, or how easily he can get and use a SB?

If we allow SBs, "skill" becomes largely definied by your ability to get and use them, and "balance" becomes largely defined by a character's ability to get SBs, and the strength of their FS. It is a legitimate game, sure. But I think the point that anti-SB people are grasping at words for (or simply just trying to inject some kind of objectivity into arguments to hide the fact that this whole argument is all ULTIMATELY SUBJECTIVE), is that the acquisition and use of SBs is not a very interesting skill to test or interesting aspect of game balance, and does not complement the other skills that Smash tests. I mean, what defines a game but what skills are tested? That's what MAKES a game what it IS. If we wanted to we could make people have to juggle or something every time they took off a stock. Does that require more skill? Obviously. Is it an interesting skill to test in this context? No, it has nothing to do with Smash at all. This is clearly an extreme example, but I think Smash Balls are the same principle just a different point on that spectrum.

Ultimately one's opinion on Smash Balls is nothing but the degree to which you agree with that sentence or not.

Some others have raised the argument that the appearance of SBs are no different from any other kind of "critical point" that exists in almost any other sport or competitive game, and that skill is tested in how people handle those "critical points." The key difference is that in those other sports/games, the "critical points" of the game naturally manifest themselves in the mechanics of the game. This is not so with Smash Balls. I and others of my opinion see them as a contrived way to force critical moments into the game at arbitrary times. "Critical points" in other sports/games are, at the end of the day, tests of one's reasoning skills and FUNDAMENTAL skills of the game. Smash balls are tests of neither. In this they are set apart; they are an attempt to force a redefinition of "fundamental" just by hand and by fiat.

I do really want to say that I think some items should be on. But not recovery/hammer/starmen/stuff like that. Items have nothing against them in terms of balance, since we don't know how balance is yet, and the randomness I think is acceptable (if we turn off really strong items) since we have no exploding capsules. Items on could potentially make the game FASTER and give MORE EDGEGUARDING opportunities, which are 2 things that seem to be lacking in many people's minds. Who knows maybe we will see something like this in Brawl if we let ourselves run with items:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ggN9xBvAI

I also hope people realize that "what the devs/Sakurai intended" is 100% irrelevant to what ruleset we use.

In closing I want to say that I know not everyone agrees with me, and I think it could be worthwhile to have one major tourney with liberal rules just to get it out of our system. Oh boo hoo a couple tourneys had some janky rules! I lost $20 because of it! People will get over it. It would be nice if that tourney were something besides Evo though.

[Dark Stalkers]

Is that stage list AZ posted missing a few stages?

[kmasera]

hey sbr guy i read your whole post and i agree on pretty much every point except for the fact that i can't so much as read your secret forum so in turn i disagree with basically everything

[UltraDavid]

Yes I know this sounds like an argument for elitismThere's no "sounds like" about it, dude.

It's fine if not liking the idea of a backroom is mindboggling to you, because my mind is just as boggled about the idea of liking it. I think it's a disgusting display of elitism and it's not something I'm willing to be associated with. I don't care whether you've had problems with annoying posters, we have the same thing on SRK, and we get by just fine without retreating to some secret lair high up in the mountains. And that the discussions you fence off are actually the most intelligent, influential, and interesting ones is even worse than if backroom membership was limited to people with green eyes instead of talent at Smash; restricting other people from good and useful conversation is way worse than an arbitrary restriction like eye color or whatever. I'm not interested in showing independence from you guys for the sake of Evo, but what I am very interested in is just being as independent from you as I can be. It's cool if our two communities come to the same rulesets, that'd be great for getting more and better competition and taking gameplay to a higher level, but I'd like to make sure that our ruleset development goes nothing at all like yours.



It's wrong to talk about whether something we're considering banning changes the game too much, that's backwards. We should consider all items and all stages to be in the game already, and then we should talk about whether banning certain of them would change the game in a good way, that is, if doing so would result in a serious increase in the level of strategy. Don't look at the cave in Hyrule as some extra thing that would artificially create long rounds. Look at that as Smash, and then think about whether Smash would be better off if we got rid of that part of it.

Even if we don't yet know whether any final smashes are too overpowered, it's pretty obvious that they aren't completely balanced, and obviously some characters will be better at getting smash balls or preventing their opponents from reaching smash balls in the first place. None of that is new, there are always tiers. And of course there's a big difference in outcome between getting a smash ball and not getting a smash ball, and but... so?

This is one of the cool things about smash balls in my opinion, that they're so important. Their importance means that they change the game's strategy significantly, so that instead of being ultimately about increasing your opponent's percentage and decreasing his stocks, it becomes all about getting the smash ball and not letting your opponent get the smash ball. But this change in ultimate strategy doesn't really change the type of strategy, which is still all about controlling space and your opponent's options within that space. With a smash ball floating around, space control just shifts from controlling the space around your opponent to controlling the space around both your opponent and a neutral third object. Personally, I think that's super interesting. This kind of strategy isn't relegated to smash balls, other items can also be important enough to affect strategy, especially for characters whose final smashes don't end up being very good.

And again, this kind of stuff has everything to do with Smash, this is what Smash is. If you really don't like it, you can change what Smash is to something else, but don't start out supposing that Smash doesn't include smash balls and the strategies that surround them.

I'm also totally for having tournaments with different rules. Some friends and I are trying to get a side tourney with items etc going at the big tourney near us next weekend to see whether and how the gameplay and results will be different. I think we should experiment as much as possible in the next few months before Evo. As for the ruleset we use there, who knows, hopefully the community will have figured that out by then.

[Jimiisama]

:u: I'm not sure if you've ever taken a look at SWF, but I think if you did, you would understand why there's a Back Room. I'm not even part of this Back Room, and I am not against it.

[Jacksor]

I found this quote pretty funny when so many other fighting games exist.

You Fail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen plenty of logical and well constructed arguments shot down, their main points utterly ignored. There isn't much that I can say.

I'm not about to take on the mountain of a task that is trying to sway someone who actually wants to introduce more random elements into a game and then play that game for money.

[Henaki]

And I don't deny that entirely, although I do think that some items (like smash balls) add to the strategy and I think some stages that emphasize a particular character's strengths are fine. I just want to find a balance between using as much of the game as possible and making the game as strategic possible, only cutting down items/stages if they're a serious burden on strategy but with the preference going to strategy in case of a tie. If we find that using all items and stages detracts too much from strategy, then we should cut down item usage; if we find that using any items other than smash balls detracts too much from strategy, then we should restrict items to smash balls only, and if we find that using particular stages make matchups retarded, then we should take those stages out; and if we find that even smash balls detract too much from strategy or that using any other than a few stages makes too many matchups too stupid, then fine, we'll use no items at all and only a few stages. This is the kind of thing that will and should take a long time to figure out.

Do you think Snake's final smash adds strategy to the game?

Legitimate question.

For anyone.

[MrWizard]

My head hurts.

When we first decided to add Melee last year, our hand was kinda of forced because the Evo directors knew very little about the game. The community had already had a rule