Evo Brawl Rules Discussion

[EmblemLord]

Joe, seriously....what the fuck man?

[Master Chibi]

This game is quickly turning into Melee 1.5, and it's killing whatever enjoyment I had for it.

FRXI was all FD / Battlefield / Luigi's Mansion / Animal Crossing with no ANYTHING, and it was supremely boring. It was great seeing some matches (Justin beasting with ROB, that Kirby player raping the Marth player), but it still feels like a step backwards. If this continues I'm not even going to bother, because I'll have to go Smashboards to learn moronically titled techniques and still go 0 - 2.

:\

[Henaki]

I don't see what's wrong with banning stages if it's proven that D3 and the Space Animals (why does this sound like a 70s band) turn out to be way way better with walls than without if they are already way better than most of the cast.

If they turn out to unanimously suck, then I recommend turning them *on*.

To sum it up: Banning a few stages would increase character variety (or decrease it), depending on how good these characters are.

[EmblemLord]

Chibi cut the bitching please.

BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! !!!!

"I don't wanna play cuz I don't like smashboards fucking up the rules."

Make your own rules and host your own tourney. Plus Evo already said they gonna test shit out first anyway.

Come on son, I know you are more man then this.

^_^

[Master Chibi]

I still love the game, and those gf's were crazy awesome, but it feels like nothing's changed, and that's something that's not really sitting very well with me, sorry.

I imagine I'll get over it if I keep playing, but I got raped so hard by a Fox and Falco and it was like "What game I playing again?".

:P

[EmblemLord]

So rape people and make yourself feel better Chibi.

That's what I do when my friends rape me in videogames.

LOL.

[Master Chibi]

This is how I go through things really.

I have to vent shit out on SRK like it's my damn live journal, then I try my damn hardest to figure ways around it.

Just left a bad taste in my mouth really.

You free this week?

[Reno K]

By all means test it out. Where are you going to do that, though? You're going to have a hard time, I'm assuming, convincing the SWF TOs to try all this out.

[EmblemLord]

I'm free all week.

[AmbiguousCrosup]

I'm trying to organize a tournament together in order to test out keeping FS in. The last tournament(which had a turnout of a little bit over 64 players) we had up here was Melee using Smashboard Rules since I never actually played Melee seriously. This time around it's going to be: All stages on(loser picks), 4 Stock, 5 minute time limit(2 out of 3 with 5 out of 7 grand finals), Smash Balls (low), all other Items off. We're also gonna have 3rd Strike on PS2 and Marvel on DC. more info in the Pacific North matchmaking forum as things develop.

[Pimp Willy]

All items off, only smash balls, I expect to see a smash ball per stock : P

[AmbiguousCrosup]

Me too, but at least we'll have concrete results as to how badly FS affects tournament rankings. I have the old bracket on an old laptop I used to make the initial bracket(using ALJ's awesome Tournament Maker (http://www.adrianljones.com/software.htm) software), and if the results come out close to the same I'll let you guys know. Sounds fair right?

[Darcon_Renozyle]

Well, I finally wrote up a post on how I feel about banning things and here it is. I posted this at SWF too, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.
================================================== =
People really just need to have an open mind about items/stages especially on a new game in its infancy.

My personal stance on Smash? No Items, Neutral Stages only. Why? Well, it's the way I've always played Melee.

But, you have to take everything at face value. This is NOT Smash Melee. This is Smash Brawl and it is a NEW game with NO extensive BRAWL tournament data backing up any claims if items/stages are overpowered. Just because items were turned off in Melee doesn't give Brawl the same immediate neutering.

Bans should be warranted when the tactics create an environment in which that is the only valid tactic to use and it is considered completely broken.

First of all, read Sirlin's chapter in his book http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/what-should-be-banned/
and I quote this part
How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

Items in Brawl may be functionally similar, but are not exactly the same. The KO potential of throwing them has been lessened. Pokeballs are much easier to dodge and get away from. I've been able to hit my opponent whom has a hammer and knock them down. These changes to the game are different and should be tested first w/o just an immediate ban. Items weren't banned when Melee first came out, so why should it be the same for Brawl?

Also, a fighting game isn't just about fighting your opponent. It's also about space control. The better player will utilize the items to the best of their ability to create space and limit the opponent's ability by controlling that space. If you're on Final Destination and your opponent is hanging on the right ledge and you're waiting for them to come up off that ledge, you control most of the space and if an item pops up on the left side of the stage, you have the advantage because you're the one in control of the space and can get to the item quicker than your opponent. The better players will be the ones to control that space and utilize it to the best of the playing skill.

Also if your opponent plays a certain character which is especially good with an item and it spawns, there are options available. Do you camp it and wait for your opponent to come at you? Do you take it and use it against them? These are all new scenarios with items in.

Look back at past history when it comes to bans. When SSF2T came out, Akuma was a hidden character and it took a while, but everyone came to find he was too broken due to the way his air fireball created some blockstun traps that made characters unable to beat him. After this he was finally banned when he started winning every tournament. Soon after, SFA2 comes out and has Akuma as a playable character. Was he banned just because he was banned in SSF2T? No, he was not. He was allowed to be played to determine if he was to be banned and sure enough he didn't need to be. The same with SF3: Third Strike. He wasn't banned just because he was banned in SSF2T. Note that all these Street Fighter games are SIMILIAR, but NOT the same. This is the same context between Melee and Brawl. They are similar, but NOT the same.

This "ban" tactic can also be applied to other games. Take a look at Magic: The Gathering for instance. No cards are ever banned unless it is apparent that they create an unhealthy environment in which it is the only tactic or the card in question creates some degenerate effect. Even then, these bans come from actual tournament results, not because some people think it should be banned. Even cards with similar function are not banned until proven they are broken. The Timespiral card, while functionally similar to Timetwister wasn't initially banned until after tournament results and even then, because it created an unhealthy environment with many other cards. Other cards functionally similar to Timetwister, like Dimishing Returns were not.

For now, I'm having fun with Brawl with items on. There are random exploding crates which do affect the outcome of a tournament in which money is on the line (I've already seen it in a 60+ player Brawl tourney already), but until there's proof enough that the items in question are uncounterable, I'll be leaving mine on until a competitive rule set with tournament results to back it up becomes available.

Anyways, that's all I really have to say on the matter.
================================================== ======

So far with the items on, there are ways to get around the tactics that the items create in most cases. It just takes some time to figure out how to maneuver around that advantage or disadvantage by constant playing and play testing.

[Zelduck]

Please listen to pc chris.. listen to me.. listen to reason

fs is for FUN, not for tourneys.

Almost everyone supporting fs mention "how cool it would be if..."

How about "How cool would it be if... PLAYER SKILL was the determinant of a match instead of luck?"

Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by wifiwars
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by smashboards
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by the guys who actually show up to a tourney

[Master Chibi]

wifiwars thinks this is melee
smashboards thinks this is melee
guys who actually show up to a tourney think this is still melee

good for you

you fucks are sucking the fun out of this game so badly

:\

[Shade]

Please listen to pc chris.. listen to me.. listen to reason

fs is for FUN, not for tourneys.

Almost everyone supporting fs mention "how cool it would be if..."

How about "How cool would it be if... PLAYER SKILL was the determinant of a match instead of luck?"

Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by wifiwars
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by smashboards
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by the guys who actually show up to a tourney

Holy shit, stop posting. And negged.

[Daemonk]

Fun so subjective though. I think there are probably around the same amount of people who are on each side of this debate. Most of the items-off people just don't find items fun to play with even if its found to be fine.

Its cool that evo wants to play the game in a certain way. I am totaly fine with that. I am sure the tournament with items-in will do fine. But just for practical reasons, evo might be alienating a lot of players if they only stick to one ruleset.

[Master Chibi]

Its cool that evo wants to play the game in a certain way. I am totaly fine with that. I am sure the tournament with items-in will do fine. But just for practical reasons, evo might be alienating a lot of players if they only stick to one ruleset.

Well these wonderful smash players will have to deal with it because this is just how bloody difficult their game is to work with. What a fucking headache, seriously. Picking a counter stage because the other guy changed his character or changing your character thanks to someone picking a different stage?

Why hasn't anyone created a universal stage yet that can not be taken advantage of by any one character? Shouldn't that be the goal now?

Am I the only one who despises that shit? You don't want someone magically getting the advantage from a random item or a smash ball, but you're fine with outright COUNTERING your opponent by means of a stage or character?

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

[Pimp Willy]

Why hasn't anyone created a universal stage yet that can not be taken advantage of by any one character? Shouldn't that be the goal now?


Castle Siege. Nuff said.

[Master Chibi]

Castle Siege. Nuff said.

No, that stage has stupid statues that get in the way, like the pillars in Luigi's Mansion.

[Dima]

Fun is subjective.

I say test out items, the only items I'm completely against right now are exploding crates.

[Master Chibi]

Fun is subjective.

So is the nature of this game.

[GameBoyBob]

The reason for taking off items the first time around wasn’t because of capsules appearing in front smashers and killing them. It was because of the inherent randomtivity of items. Items are RANDOM. They appear in random places giving a player a random advantage. Things that are random have no place in tournaments. It is already bad enough that there is tripping in brawl; let’s not make it worse with items… Tournaments aren’t about randomness.

The argument for brawl being a new game doesn’t matter. The fact that items are random is the same in both melee and brawl. I know almost nothing about traditional fighting games, but I seriously don’t think you guys would turn on random placement items in a traditional fighter if they ever existed (for tournaments).

I know its fun to make a come back when your losing because you got a kick ass random item, but it is not fun for the other person to lose because of a random item. Imagine if there was 10,000 dollars on the line in a single match and you’re about to beat the other guy and guess what happens… an item appears out of no where and within a few seconds you’re dead. You've lost 10,000 dollars and it was of no fault of yours. WHOOPS sorry about that buddy but you got to understand items are fun…

[Septimus Prime]

I know almost nothing
Sounds about right.

[Onslaught2000]

IMO, Smashballs just need to be taken out, just like all the items in the game. It would seem that we are trying to make the game as balanced as possible, but if we were to turn on FS, it would seem that faster characters (that right now tend to have the good FS') would be the only ones really benefitting from it. Especially Space Animals. 2 stock kills in some situations is just horrible. But if we could close that gap just a bit, would'nt it be worth it? I don't know what's wrong with the game without items and FS. I did'nt see Melee as boring, and niether did the huge community that played it competively. Some people may call it boring because of either A) Space Animals/Marth B) Always playing on FD. But all we see in 3S are Ken,Yun,Chun, or the God 4 in Marvel2. And we bitch about that as well. There is no difference between the two. The simple fact is that it is played competevely. And I think random factors like Smash Balls just hurt the competive factor.

If you like items/Smash Balls, great, I personally just think that they don't belong in the competive scene. I still think Smash is fun without items and Smash Balls.

[Septimus Prime]

Why does no one consider that picking a fast character with a good FS and then going for the smash ball is a legitimate strategy? Don't you play Cable? Tell me playing keepaway until you have meter and then unloading AHVB on your opponent isn't the same exact thing.

[Dima]

^ I share your sentiments but from a smasher from smashboards I can say we really should try them out and go from there. We did it in melee we should do it again. Cause while I think items break the game and make it less competitive others don't so the best way to figure out and know for certain is to test them out.

[Onslaught2000]

Dima: I never played Melee that early, I just started getting into it about 2 years ago and have played it on and off, so I did'nt know that about the games history.

Sep: Of course that it would be a legitimate strategy, but I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that right now it seems really dominant. And there is also a good chance that it could continue to be that way for years to come. Taking away Smash Balls could probably help benefit the weaker characters and help out balance the game. Which is what I figured the discusion of the rules was about.

[Septimus Prime]

Well, yes, it seems dominant now, but, again, so did Cable back in the early MvC2 days. People found ways around it, though, and I'm confident people will find ways to outwit the FS strategy in time if we allow the game to run its course.

But if we immediately shut down the possibility by turning them off, then some strategies will never come to fruition.

[GameBoyBob]

Sounds about right.

Ah yes, insultingly misquote me and then ignore my post. Try giving a reasonable answer to my post. Oh what’s that you say? You cant because you know nothing about smash? Oh ok.

[Septimus Prime]

It has already been discussed. Perhaps you should look up the mathematical definition of random instead of making up words like "randomtivity."

[Henaki]

It has already been discussed. Perhaps you should look up the mathematical definition of random instead of making up words like "randomtivity."

Actually no one has objectively come up with a reason why Items are good.

Just subjectively.

[Septimus Prime]

Yeah, but the same can be said of those who argued that items are bad, which is why we should test them out first before deciding to just turn them off.

[Shade]

I can't comprehend why this thread is still going on. It's the same shit, every page. Random Smash Boarder Private Board Elite comes along, bitches at us for wanting to not ban anything prior to a single SRK tournament, and we state all kinds of legit, non scrub reasons why you just don't remove things from the game, before testing it out, then rinse, repeat.

If your scrub views on how the items are indeed, game breaking, etc, then why don't you all be quiet, and let it ride? If it's indeed truth, then it will shine through in time, as do all things that eventually get the ban hammer.

From the sounds of the 30+ pages of whining, and all around elitism from the random people who never post on SRK at all, until am EVO Brawl Thread surfaces, you guys don't truly believe what you are even saying. It's as if you're scared to even play the game any differently from the previous game [Melee].

But no, that can't be the case, right?

[GameBoyBob]

It has already been discussed. Perhaps you should look up the mathematical definition of random instead of making up words like "randomtivity."

Ah yes, ok nothing is random about items because it randomness comes from prime number random generators which are not theoretically random or some other bull? Is that your excuse? Do you really think items are not random?

I shouldn't have used the word randomtivity because it was a slang word well known on smashboard the first time this item debate came around. I just find it funny that people who don't play smash competitively will reject those that do and have been for years because for some reason they think it 'hasn't been tested'. The fact is the randomness of Items is easily tested at home playing by your self. It is a core mechanic!!

The real issue is if tournaments are suppose to be based off of random chance and luck + skill or if they should be based of just skill.

[Septimus Prime]

My argument is that anything that is random, by definition, cannot favor anyone. This holds true for items because they just show up, and you don't know when or where this will happen.

Also, consider that the accrual of items might actually be a viable strategy, as there are characters better suited to getting them than others. Picking such a character would be paramount to victory if you're a player whose game revolves around items, would it not?

Let's take a look at a look at a hypothetical match-up: Sonic versus Metaknight. What is Sonic going to do without items? He loses this match-up and doesn't really have a shot at winning, unless he's a much better player or can get his hands on a FS, which Metaknight will also be trying to get. Even still, with items on, who is going to win? You don't know because items don't influence outcomes that much—unless they actually do, but we don't know if they do or don't because we've not tested them.

[Scamp]

I can't comprehend why this thread is still going on.

It's pretty simple, really. One person posts up an opinion, and then several people from the other side have to shout that person down. If someone is posting up something that has been said before, you don't need to repeat the same counter arguments. Let them post their opinion.

It doesn't help that people aren't even close to civil. See Septimus Prime's response to GameBoyBob or Shade saying "Random Smash Boarder Private Board Elite". Things like this aren't helpful in the slightest, and only gets people reposting off topic.

Furthermore, all charges of elitism have often been countered by elitism. It's not hard to see why people aren't getting the good points across and keep rehashing arguments that just lead to pointless reposting.

[GameBoyBob]

My argument is that anything that is random, by definition, cannot favor anyone. This holds true for items because they just show up, and you don't know when or where this will happen.

Also, consider that the accrual of items might actually be a viable strategy, as there are characters better suited to getting them than others. Picking such a character would be paramount to victory if you're a player whose game revolves around items, would it not?

Let's take a look at a look at a hypothetical match-up: Sonic versus Metaknight. What is Sonic going to do without items? He loses this match-up and doesn't really have a shot at winning, unless he's a much better player or can get his hands on a FS, which Metaknight will also be trying to get. Even still, with items on, who is going to win? You don't know because items don't influence outcomes that much—unless they actually do, but we don't know if they do or don't because we've not tested them.

In response to your first part of the post: It would be true that randomness would benefit everyone equally if the people matched up could play something like 100 games. But the problem with this is that there isn't enough time to equalize out the randomness of items. The top competitors only play against each a handful of times in a tournament.

In response to the second part of your post: That is a valid argument, and I would have to agree with you that some characters benefit from items more than others. But I just think the potential for items screw high stakes tournaments matches outweigh this point. The lack of benefit of items does not break a character from being used, while items on the other hand can really screw accurate results.

[Shade]

There's absolutely nothing else to be said. It doesnt matter what someone has to say. The directive has been made quite clear, a million times. If people took the time to skim just a few pages, before saying "no items, "randomtivity (lol)", then they would see where we are at. And that's all there is to it.

[Henaki]

Yeah, but the same can be said of those who argued that items are bad, which is why we should test them out first before deciding to just turn them off.
No it can't.

The objective argument against items is that they add influence the outcome of a match outside of player skill and the character/stages they play on, and cannot be predetermined in any way shape or form.

There is no objective argument for them. Only subjective (Way the game is meant to be played, it's more fun, it adds excitement).

[Septimus Prime]

:u: As opposed to other subjective arguments (Not the way the game is meant to be played for tournament, it's less competitive, it removes banality).

[Aleister Crowley]

My argument is that anything that is random, by definition, cannot favor anyone.

This is not true. If you take a generic distribution and add to it a random distribution (forgive not giving mathematically rigorous definitions), the mean will not change, but the variance increases. Meaning that a match result selected at random is more likely to deviate more strongly from the mean, in both directions. This is a mathematical fact. We would see more instances of lesser skilled people beating more skilled people, and more instances of more skilled people absolutely trunching the fuck out of lesser skilled people. Winning by 4 stock counts as much as winning by 1 stock, so the more skilled players have not improved their situation, but the lesser skilled players now have a lower threshhold for victory.

I'm actually pro-items testing as it turns out. If we banned randomness at all costs, then why didn't we ban Peach, who can pull a few random game-changing items? Because it wasn't worth sacrificing the depth in the game that a high tier character added. I make the same argument for items, or at least that we should test to see how accurate that statement is.

[Septimus Prime]

Okay, I concede the increased variance, but since results deviate from the mean in both directions, I still wouldn't say it favors either player.

And, since you seem to agree with me in all other regards, I'll just say, "Cool. :tup:"

[Henaki]

Okay, I concede the increased variance, but since results deviate from the mean in both directions, I still wouldn't say it favors either player.

And, since you seem to agree with me in all other regards, I'll just say, "Cool. :tup:"

No but it arbitrarily favors one player, that is the entire problem.:u: As opposed to other subjective arguments (Not the way the game is meant to be played for tournament, it's less competitive, it removes banality).

This is completely irrelevant to my point entirely.

[Duckdee]

How much research has the fan gotten? I'm curious to know if it's infinite to everyone, or just Jigglypuff. Also, what are the best counters to a fan-wielder? (Ray gun?)

[Iapetus]

I don't own smash (only 64 version) and I am not entirely sure I will be getting Brawl, but I am a little confused.

Yes, there probably should be rules and regulations for this game at EVO. Yet, shouldn't those rules be dictated by previous tournaments that test the theories and conclusions being made? The best way to find out this junk is by playing in tournaments. As someone said earlier, Brawl is not Melee, so do not confuse the two. Play standard games with items - see what works and doesn't. Then take out items, etc... We can't be so opinionated about the regulations of a game barely anyone has played extensively on a tournament level.

Just my two cents though.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

Seriously, this whole pro-item/anti-item debate is getting a little long-winded already.

Everyone can sit here and talk, complain, and bitch about why pro or anti item is better than the other, but until both sides present some damned proof from ACTUAL tournament results and maybe some videos from them, there's no point in even arguing this sentiment.

Everyone needs to understand, that when it comes to a new fighting game, NOTHING IS BANNED UNTIL PROVEN IT SHOULD BE BANNED. The game will be played with the default settings until the game has a history and some maturity behind it. It's as simple as that. Melee =/= Brawl. They are similar, but not the same game. Items are DIFFERENT even though they are similar (both in control, knockback power, etc.). It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Nobody banned Akuma immediately in SFA & SF3:Third Strike simply because he was banned in SSF2T due to some grandfather clause. Why? Because after playing with him, people figured out ways to deal with him and he wasn't inherently broken like he was in SSF2T.

The same can be said about this game.

And for anyone who says items take no skill, some maybe, but I've been through the opposite. I was playing against someone and a Smashball appears. I knew my opponent would go after it, so I ended up trying to hit both him and the Smashball to not only rack up damage on him, but to also acquire it. My opponent ended up getting the Smashball, but as soon as he did, I knocked it out of him. I ended knocking it out of him 4 times and by then my opponent was frustrated and I took advantage of it the last time by going straight after the Smashball instead of protecting it and came back for the win with a final smash.

I won that match because I was the better player and controlled the space and predicted my opponents actions. This would have never happened if items were off.

[specs]

I went over to SmashBoards to find out more about their rules discussion only to find a private forum I wasn't allowed to look at.

On SRK, I can see the discussion, contribute to it, or just sit back and see it unfold.

I have no real desire to play Smash on the tournament level, but I am infinitely appreciative that SRK makes their process transparent. And I'm disgusted at the oligarchy SmashBoards prefers to use.

Please listen to pc chris.. listen to me.. listen to reason

fs is for FUN, not for tourneys.

Almost everyone supporting fs mention "how cool it would be if..."

How about "How cool would it be if... PLAYER SKILL was the determinant of a match instead of luck?"

Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by wifiwars
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by smashboards
Leaving smash ball in isn't supported by the guys who actually show up to a tourney

Please back up this assertion with concrete evidence from tourneys where skewed results are undeniably attributable to items/smash balls/etc.

Otherwise, this statement is trash.

The reason for taking off items the first time around wasn’t because of capsules appearing in front smashers and killing them. It was because of the inherent randomtivity of items. Items are RANDOM. They appear in random places giving a player a random advantage. Things that are random have no place in tournaments. It is already bad enough that there is tripping in brawl; let’s not make it worse with items… Tournaments aren’t about randomness.

Wrong.

Without items, Luigi's sideB has a 1/8 chance of misfiring, which can be either advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the situation.

Without items, King Dedede's sideB has a chance of tossing out superior Waddle Doos and even better Gordos, random events that are usually advantageous.

Without items, Peach's downB has a chance of pulling out vegetables that are better than the norm.

Without items, Game&Watch's sideB has a chance of hitting as hard as a homerun bat with only a fraction of the windup.

If you want to be consistent, then to eliminate all randomness, you have to ban these characters. In addition, whenever a trip occurs, the match has to restart fresh.

Oh, and Smash isn't the only competitive game with random elements. Dr. Faust, Zappa, and a couple of the KoFs that featured random "critical hits" would like a word with you. Not to mention poker, the coin flip that determines who is white/black in chess, collectible card games like Magic, VS., and WoW, the WoW game proper, and more.

[kmasera]

i agree with your whole post minus the wow part since that's closer to "1 in 10 times my hadoken fails"

[alphazealot]

This is not true. If you take a generic distribution and add to it a random distribution (forgive not giving mathematically rigorous definitions), the mean will not change, but the variance increases. Meaning that a match result selected at random is more likely to deviate more strongly from the mean, in both directions. This is a mathematical fact. We would see more instances of lesser skilled people beating more skilled people, and more instances of more skilled people absolutely trunching the fuck out of lesser skilled people. Winning by 4 stock counts as much as winning by 1 stock, so the more skilled players have not improved their situation, but the lesser skilled players now have a lower threshhold for victory.

Same point I've been arguing for years. People don't care though, for some reason its okay if the less skilled player sometimes wins (and they will argue to their graves that best of 5 matches make up for this randomness, and this is true in pool play and the early rounds of the tournament when the top players are fighting weaker opponents). The problem is that some people, say M2K and Chillin, are separated by so little skill (note: M2K is considered one of the best players, Chillin in the top 10 usually, but Chillin almost never places higher than 4th of 5th and constantly loses to M2K) that this slight random variation could really throw off the accuracy of the later rounds of the tournament, when the skill differential isn't enough to make up for the random chance.

I won that match because I was the better player and controlled the space and predicted my opponents actions. This would have never happened if items were off.

You would never predict your opponent or control space if items/smashballs were off? Yikes dude.

---

Items don't and won't break the game so everyone who keeps saying "lets see if they are game breaking" is completely missing the point. Its whether, with items included, the results become skewed and less accurate because items will be unfairly randomly distributed in a match regardless of skill (and we will not be playing enough matches or long enough matches to fairly offset random distribution, stop arguing this point as well), this is a fact, will some items be equally attainable for each person? Yes. Will all? Definitely not (and don't argue that once an item is grabbed its not an auto win button, this is just an extreme exaggeration of what is happening). What would it take for EVO to ban items if we know they aren't broken? Will we have to have an entire set of Mew2King versus Chillin in a finals where Chillin wins 3 games and its obvious items played a heavily unfair random advantage during crucial moments in their fight? For some reason, I think even if this evidence was provided, I think people would still say "ITEMS ARENT TEH BROKE DON BAN TILL BROKE LISTEN TO SIRLIN DONT BAN THINGS THAT ARENT TEH BROKE".

There are so many problems with all this "you must test everything before x". If you are for items, and you are for testing, then EVO will have to run with ALL items on, because guess what, no one is going to take the work to test 40+ items, in the months before EVO. I guess we'll need evidence before we ban the golden hammer or heart (I also don't understand why people who are for items frequently say that if items are on healing items should be banned). I'm not very good at math, but how many tournaments would we have to run to understand which items should be banned if items are on? Isn't it like the handshake question, if you have 5 people and each person shakes each other persons hand then how many handshakes take place? (5*4*3*2*1, so, for items, 40*39*38*37, because we have to understand its the combination of items that could also effect things, not just what items are on, maybe only 1 heart spawns in a match with 20 items on but 3 will spawn in a match with 5 items on). Assuming this is true, then guess what, we are going either admit now that we'll be banning things without fully testing them, or we will have to run with ALL items on.

---

The other problem here with the testing is who exactly is doing it. I don't know, maybe SRK players will start holding tournaments regularly. That said, we already know that Smashboards players hold about 5-8 tournaments a weekend all around the country, and most of these tournaments will be with items off/maybe smashballs off. Will EVO really want to run an untested ruleset? Yes, its bad to ban things that may not be needed to be banned. Its also bad to run a tournament without fully testing a ruleset. No items, no smashballs, is already being regurarly tested. So if no one steps up to test these things in large scale tournament play, will EVO just run with items on/smashballs on anyways? I hope whatever ruleset gets decided on is based on experiences and not just a first time run and gunning of a theorized "items on/FS on" ruleset.

[subt-L]

this thread was getting productive again until the argument of random came back.

[alphazealot]

How about you respond to some points instead of giving a one liner, mainly this:

Should EVO run a largely untested ruleset in its tournament?

[Pimp Willy]

If the smashboard community doesn't want to get involved and evolve the game like it should be, then yes I suppose it will be up to SRK solely.

You're so hung up on possible what ifs. You argue that items allow lesser skilled players to compete, we argue that items allow people to exhibit more skill and show more depth to the game.

And again, you've got it backwards, there is not any problems with the "you must test everything" mentality, it's the "we don't need to test anything" mentality that is terribly wrong. Item properties and randomness have been scaled back since Melee, so the arguments that led to items being turned off in melee don't hold water anymore. Your whole argument comes down to "we don't feel like we want to put in the time to learn a new game, we'd rather just continue to play it like it's melee and call it a day." And while that worked for MELEE, years down the line, it's certainly not been shown to be the case with Brawl.

Edit: And no ruleset has even been chosen for Evo yet! We are advocating FIGURING OUT THE GAME. There is no such thing as a tested ruleset right now! The game has been out for ONE WEEK here in the States. What we are advocating is only removing stuff from the game that is game breaking, which at this point in time hasn't been shown to be anything. Tonight's SRK online tourney invites people to play with all items on, and document proof of items taking the game out of the players hands and putting it into the items. I suspect there won't be much evidence of this.

[Reno K]

I can't comprehend why this thread is still going on. It's the same shit, every page. Random Smash Boarder Private Board Elite comes along, bitches at us for wanting to not ban anything prior to a single SRK tournament, and we state all kinds of legit, non scrub reasons why you just don't remove things from the game, before testing it out, then rinse, repeat.

If your scrub views on how the items are indeed, game breaking, etc, then why don't you all be quiet, and let it ride? If it's indeed truth, then it will shine through in time, as do all things that eventually get the ban hammer.

From the sounds of the 30+ pages of whining, and all around elitism from the random people who never post on SRK at all, until am EVO Brawl Thread surfaces, you guys don't truly believe what you are even saying. It's as if you're scared to even play the game any differently from the previous game [Melee].

But no, that can't be the case, right?

In one breath you both call us elitists, and say our views are "scrub views." Maybe if you didn't say things like "Random Smash Boarder Private Board Elite" your views would be taken more seriously.

And what do you expect us to do when an "Evo Brawl Rules Discussion" thread pops up? We wouldn't exactly consider holding a CvS2 tourney without consulting your ruleset or someone knowledgeable in the community; if we did, nobody would take it seriously. That's what we're worried about for the Brawl tourney.

[Pimp Willy]

CvS2 has been out for 7 years. Brawl has been out for one week. If CvS3 had just dropped, we'd welcome your input on our PUBLIC forums as to the future of the game, instead of discussing it privately and handing down our commandments from the top of a mountain. But it wouldn't matter anyways, because we wouldn't start by banning half the cast with the notion of "we will test further to see if we can add those characters back in as time goes on."

[subt-L]

The other problem here with the testing is who exactly is doing it. I don't know, maybe SRK players will start holding tournaments regularly. That said, we already know that Smashboards players hold about 5-8 tournaments a weekend all around the country, and most of these tournaments will be with items off/maybe smashballs off. Will EVO really want to run an untested ruleset? Yes, its bad to ban things that may not be needed to be banned. Its also bad to run a tournament without fully testing a ruleset. No items, no smashballs, is already being regurarly tested. So if no one steps up to test these things in large scale tournament play, will EVO just run with items on/smashballs on anyways?
heh.. you really don't think smash players WON'T play with items with 10,000 on the line?

god, i hate the smash community. cuz lets even say no smash boarder ever plays in a tourney with items, then no one from smashboards should ever complain about shit ever.

that's like entering a speed boat race and complaining its not a car.
that's like showing up to a shoot out with a knife and complaining about it.
that's like walking into a baseball game without a bat and glove and complaining about it.

that is by far the most idiotic response to anything said in this thread. forgive me for not listening to you ever.

edit: let me first explain, cuz i was actually pretty mad when i wrote this.

this post is mainly alot of anger towards your idea that you can FORCE you hand for no items. cuz lets face it thats your alterior motive.

i mean here's how the post plays out in my head:
- we won't play with items.
- evo will play with items.
- since we aren't playing with items, there should be no basis for evo to be played with items because WE aren't testing it.

first off, thats a big fuck you to the whole argument.

if you can't prove its broken, then obviously as in all games at evo, then it will be in. there has been broken shit at evo before. shit gets rectified for next year. no one wants to play a game that's broken, but no one wants to play a limited game because someone went crazy with a ban hammer.

secondly, the audacity you have with that logic is something detrimental to the whole argument. it doesn't make any progress in find the middle man of whats acceptable and whats not in this argument... its basically saying "well, we'll try and bully you out of your opinions because us smash boarders control how the games played" and unfortunately that's not the path anyone being constructive should be taking.

[specs]

Should EVO run a largely untested ruleset in its tournament?

Absolutely. If it is untested, it is unknown whether or not it works. After it has been tested over time, it can be refined, left as is, or dismissed.

The word "untested" is not derogatory.

[M3D]

alphazealot wins this thread. Of course random n00bs aren't likely to have luck fall in their favor over and over again to beat Ken or M2K or Chillin. However, when Chillin and M2K face off, every single match should be decided by the skill of the players, not the random spawns of items. Even if it changes the outcome of just one match in a set, that's enough that it shouldn't be allowed. Tournaments should be about measuring the skill of the players, not about "seeing who wins" when everything is turned on.

[MiLky]

Absolutely. If it is untested, it is unknown whether or not it works. After it has been tested over time, it can be refined, left as is, or dismissed.

The word "untested" is not derogatory.

Beat me to it, but yes untested is, ummm untested? Seems pretty obvious to test it. I could argue a million other points here, but the very basic fact, is that is still untested, so why bother?

If EVO is the only tourney with enough balls to test the untested, then I give them props, someone should fucking do it. This is a new game, as stated a billion times, random or not, shit should be explored a bit. It's not going anywhere for awhile.

I await tourney results and video's from both sides. This is interesting and I hope it doesn't split the game into more than one mindset, I hope all sides contibute to the overall outcome of Brawl rules. I sure hope it doesn't end up being SSBM 2.0, but if you guys all find out that's what needs to be done, than so be it. By you guys, I mean everyone that wants to get into the competitive scene. Brawl just broke records, there is a shitload of new players, and a handful of those will want to play seriously.
http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=14821

I just hate seeing people not want to at least test the fucking game, it's borderline ridiculous to me.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

---

Items don't and won't break the game so everyone who keeps saying "lets see if they are game breaking" is completely missing the point. Its whether, with items included, the results become skewed and less accurate because items will be unfairly randomly distributed in a match regardless of skill (and we will not be playing enough matches or long enough matches to fairly offset random distribution, stop arguing this point as well), this is a fact, will some items be equally attainable for each person? Yes. Will all? Definitely not (and don't argue that once an item is grabbed its not an auto win button, this is just an extreme exaggeration of what is happening). What would it take for EVO to ban items if we know they aren't broken? Will we have to have an entire set of Mew2King versus Chillin in a finals where Chillin wins 3 games and its obvious items played a heavily unfair random advantage during crucial moments in their fight? For some reason, I think even if this evidence was provided, I think people would still say "ITEMS ARENT TEH BROKE DON BAN TILL BROKE LISTEN TO SIRLIN DONT BAN THINGS THAT ARENT TEH BROKE".


So far, there is no proof that items change the game so dynamically that a lesser skilled player will win enough over the skilled player. This is all "theory" and that's what Evo wants to know is what is broken and what isn't. It shouldn't be difficult to record one session of a skilled player and lesser skilled player with items on and record 10 matches to see if items start playing more to luck than skill. I have more respect for Sirlin because he's been doing the competitive thing a lot longer than most people, especially dedicated Smash players and he covers ALL types of games, not just fighting games when he refers to examples.


There are so many problems with all this "you must test everything before x". If you are for items, and you are for testing, then EVO will have to run with ALL items on, because guess what, no one is going to take the work to test 40+ items, in the months before EVO. I guess we'll need evidence before we ban the golden hammer or heart (I also don't understand why people who are for items frequently say that if items are on healing items should be banned). I'm not very good at math, but how many tournaments would we have to run to understand which items should be banned if items are on? Isn't it like the handshake question, if you have 5 people and each person shakes each other persons hand then how many handshakes take place? (5*4*3*2*1, so, for items, 40*39*38*37, because we have to understand its the combination of items that could also effect things, not just what items are on, maybe only 1 heart spawns in a match with 20 items on but 3 will spawn in a match with 5 items on). Assuming this is true, then guess what, we are going either admit now that we'll be banning things without fully testing them, or we will have to run with ALL items on.


There is still no evidence to backup how random the item placement and spawning can be. If there is no tests actually done by the time Evo rolls around, then guess what, I'm sure it will run with the default settings with items and stages on, because no one was willing to put the time in to break the game and prove what's broken in a NEW game.


The other problem here with the testing is who exactly is doing it. I don't know, maybe SRK players will start holding tournaments regularly. That said, we already know that Smashboards players hold about 5-8 tournaments a weekend all around the country, and most of these tournaments will be with items off/maybe smashballs off. Will EVO really want to run an untested ruleset? Yes, its bad to ban things that may not be needed to be banned. Its also bad to run a tournament without fully testing a ruleset. No items, no smashballs, is already being regurarly tested. So if no one steps up to test these things in large scale tournament play, will EVO just run with items on/smashballs on anyways? I hope whatever ruleset gets decided on is based on experiences and not just a first time run and gunning of a theorized "items on/FS on" ruleset.

SRK it looks like has decided to take a pro-active stance on determining what is broken. They got a tournament tonight: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=152025
just to see what they can break and possibly start seeing for ban potentials.

Rulesets change over time as a game matures. Most 3D fighters started out with 2/3 rounds, but then was upped to 3/5 over time. That's how games evolve and mature. The same thing with Melee. Melee started with items for 2 years before they were finally removed. If the pro smashers want items out of Evo, theyr'e going to have to put some hard evidence behind it that show the game is more luck based instead of just sitting on various message boards saying they're bad.

As per Mr. Wizard earlier per Evo:


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 ruleset that they had all agreed to.

With Melee out of the picture, we have a sequel. Melee rules DO NOT roll over to the new game. They dont even come close to being adapted to this new game. There are new characters, new items, new final smashes, and new character controls.

In order for something to be banned from Evo's point of view, it has to be incredibly broken. Im not seeing anything broken as of yet, but who knows.

Here is the current challenge:

Evo wants to know how bad Final Smashes are. Where you are playing matches locally, or online, keep items and final smashes on.

Test to see if they are avoidable, or a way to make you take as little damage as possible. Please note that in high pressure situations it may be harder to avoid them, but see if it is possible to do this more than once in a match.

Also I would like to see the effects of someone going after the final smash ball while the other player banks on this fact and tries to kill someone going after the smash ball. This could be a worthwhile strategy in game play that needs to be explored further.

Lets really find out whats broken and what isnt.

Thanks.


That's from a guy who will be a part of Evo (and note the bolded/italic part). If the pro Smashers don't want to take a pro-active approach to proving evidence why items are so broken that they should be banned, then that's they're choice. This still won't stop people from attending the SSBB tourney whether there are items or not.

Smashboards is a big community. It shouldn't be difficult to rally them to provide videos of matches with items on to show how they can dominate a match by lesser skilled players. There should be more evidence on the Brawl side, not the grandfather clause from Melee.

[Bakuryusan]

i love this thread its all like items are so random that they might sway one match.

then they flip back to oh and the first stage will be picked at random.

like i have said before pure skill is being able to adept to any situation that gets thrown at you, not just going trough the motions every round and winning because toon link is better than sonic.

[Ivootjes]

Everyone needs to understand, that when it comes to a new fighting game, NOTHING IS BANNED UNTIL PROVEN IT SHOULD BE BANNED. The game will be played with the default settings until the game has a history and some maturity behind it. It's as simple as that. Melee =/= Brawl. They are similar, but not the same game. Items are DIFFERENT even though they are similar (both in control, knockback power, etc.). It's not a hard concept to grasp.


You do kow that default settings are 2 minute time matches right? And seeing this is a party game i think we should play 4 player free for all matches on default mode.

I don't think we should BAN time matches immediately, it hasn't proven broken en we should test it out first.

Edit: Darcon renozyle: you didn't read AZ's post did you? Did he say something about something being broken? (you're response is full of it.)

like i have said before pure skill is being able to adept to any situation that gets thrown at you, not just going trough the motions every round and winning because toon link is better than sonic.


Every fighter is like that...

[alphazealot]

Just out of curiosity, why won't EVO be FFA? What is the problem with FFA? So far, all evidence points to FFA being fine. A few of the gamestop tournaments ran with FFA and the Nintendo sponsored Crystal Wii tournament was won by KoreanDJ and that was FFA (or largely FFA, also, KoreanDJ placed 2nd at the 2006 Finals for MLG in case you didn't know, losing to PC Chris). I guess Smash pro's still own, even with items/FS (and I'm sure some of you will use this as evidence that these things can stay on and not effect results, though I would ask you talk to the tons of people who went to gamestop tournaments).

[Pimp Willy]

alphazealot wins this thread. Of course random n00bs aren't likely to have luck fall in their favor over and over again to beat Ken or M2K or Chillin. However, when Chillin and M2K face off, every single match should be decided by the skill of the players, not the random spawns of items. Even if it changes the outcome of just one match in a set, that's enough that it shouldn't be allowed. Tournaments should be about measuring the skill of the players, not about "seeing who wins" when everything is turned on.

Is it not possible the better player will use the items better? The better player will counter/avoid the items better than the other player? That one player might pull off an incredible FS dodge cementing his legendary status in the community? That the player who is able to command more of the stage will have access to more of the items?

No, I suppose it just comes down to rolling dice and handing cash out that way.

[Shotokan Symphony]

No items, please. My reason being that items kinda mirror parries in SFIII:3S in the sense that they warp the game play almost around them. The same goes with Smash balls.

Also, it's what the core community wants, so it's what Evo should strive for. And seriously, it's NOT THAT DIFFERENT A GAME.

My useless $0.02.

[WraithGadra]

You do kow that default settings are 2 minute time matches right? And seeing this is a party game i think we should play 4 player free for all matches on default mode.

I don't think we should BAN time matches immediately, it hasn't proven broken en we should test it out first.

Edit: Darcon renozyle: you didn't read AZ's post did you? Did he say something about something being broken? (you're response is full of it.)



Every fighter is like that...

Nice strawman there. Obviously, default is not gospel. However, it is usually a good place to start. Some people have even suggested using time matches in place of stock matches for brawl, so even that isn't set in stone. Choosing a method of victory (number of kills or survival) is not the same as removing an element of any match (items, stages, characters).

Darcon's point is that if X is not completely broken, than X will not be banned, no exceptions. Whether that mindset appeals to you or not, that's the way Evo is run. If you don't like it, you don't have to attend. There is nothing stopping you from holding your own tournaments.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

You do kow that default settings are 2 minute time matches right? And seeing this is a party game i think we should play 4 player free for all matches on default mode.

I don't think we should BAN time matches immediately, it hasn't proven broken en we should test it out first.

Edit: Darcon renozyle: you didn't read AZ's post did you? Did he say something about something being broken? (you're response is full of it.)



Every fighter is like that...

I'm down for 4 player matches if that's what it's going to be, even with a 2-minute setting. If that's what gets tested, then so be it, that's what I'll play because that's how the TO is going to set it up at Evo.

I did read AZ's post, but it's all words. Just like my posts are all words. There is no concrete evidence both tournament wise and video wise that items sway the game so much that it's based on random luck. Things get banned when they are inherently broken and degenerate, they don't get banned because they're good tactics.

There were many tactics in MvC2 that were thought unbeatable, but weren't banned, because after playing the game more and more, there were new counters to what was originally thought to be unbeatable.

I stand by that I feel competitive smash should be Neutral Stages/No Items. I feel that is the most fair and balanced way of determining players skill. That's how I play most of the time unless it's casuals with friends, then it's 4-for-all w/ items. But that doesn't mean I'm not unbiased to not test a new game with a different set of rules.

And you don't even have to listen to what I say. Just read Mr. Wizard's quote in my post. THAT'S what you should be aiming to do is prove how bad items are and that they should be removed from tournament play.

We can all argue back and forth over this for the next eternity, but so far there is no evidence that items are bad.

[Ivootjes]

Nice strawman there. Obviously, default is not gospel. However, it is usually a good place to start. Some people have even suggested using time matches in place of stock matches for brawl, so even that isn't set in stone. Choosing a method of victory (number of kills or survival) is not the same as removing an element of any match (items, stages, characters).


I don't see turning items off as removing an element of the match, i think turning them on is more like adding one. I mean, sakurai didn't gave us the option to turn them off for nothing right? Maybe he intended us to play serious matches without items and fun matches with items. Turning items off is as much part of the game as turning them on. Just a choice we've got to make.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

I don't see turning items off as removing an element of the match, i think turning them on is more like adding one. I mean, sakurai didn't gave us the option to turn them off for nothing right? Maybe he intended us to play serious matches without items and fun matches with items. Turning items off is as much part of the game as turning them on. Just a choice we've got to make.

Then that choice should be made by actual evidence that they should be turned off. The people in charge of Evo want to see why they should be turned off instead of this endless debate saying they should. These words can go on forever and ever, but if the pro or anti side is lazy about proof, then the other side will win in its argument.

Take a pro-active stance on banning items, not just saying they should be banned.

I wish BOTH communities would try to prove themselves in the anti/pro camps by showing why or why not a certain rule set should be used.

While we're at it, there is a replay function in the game with games under 3:00 min. Might be a good idea to save those replays and send them to other players so they can be analyzed and or sent to people who can encode them to Youtube or something. While 3:00 min. is probably not the best scenario, it's better than not having any replay data to look at, at all.

[4649]

i like how people keep quoting Sirlin here, so i'll paraphrase
remember what Sirlin said in the podcast about game balance he was on when questioned about Smash? he said the dynamic problem with Smash is nobody seems to know how the game should be played.
he said the game has already declared a ruleset for you, it's called "default".

however, i think the CLEAR example for Evo to steer clear of and avoid completely, has been the gigantic CLUSTERFUCK that was the Gamestop Brawl tournies. I've heard really bad horror stories about how those went....

i'm not sure if anyone has yet suggested that the influx of items might inspire a bit of turtling whenever they show up ( except for smash balls obviously ), but really, do you guys really want to see an entire top 8 comprised of LANDMASTAAAARRRS

my two cents

[Shotokan Symphony]

Adding items introduces the WRONG KIND of element in a match that favors faster characters with better jumps and range, and TOTALLY kills any sort of strategic positioning someone has.

Also, 3 stocks - 6 minutes FTW.

[LordLocke]

The whole thread basically is boiling down to this-

Camp 1: "Not turning off items until we know they're broken. From actual results."

Camp 2: "The very idea of items and most of these stages are broken by principal."

Camp 1: "Proof?"

Camp 2: "Melee."

Camp 1: "Melee is not Brawl."

Camp 2: "Same problems..."

Camp 1: "In a different game."

Camp 2: "Items are random."

Camp 1: "For both players."

Camp 2: "Heh, whatever. Now I suppose you're going to want to leave all the stages on, too."

Camp 1: "... er, yeah."

Camp 2: "What the hell? Game's broken- we know it, but it has ways to be fixed!"

Camp 1: "Deal for now, we'll see if it actively skew results in competitive play."

Camp 2: "No. We already know shit's broke from past experience. Why waste time?"

Camp 1: "Not turning off items until we know they're broken. From actual results."

Camp 2: "The very idea of items and most of these stages are broken by principal."

Camp 1: "Proof?"

THIS MERRY GO ROUND SHALL NEVER BREAK DOWN!

Seriously, at this point, the only thing either camp can do is get some experience. Take the default rulesets, test it over a number of tournaments, and check results. Find the problems, tweak, and try again.

Less is not more- stripping the game of it's elements without even making a token effort to keep them is never good for the competitive life of a game. It's not like we need to rush to figure out where competitive Brawl best lies in a matter of months- it's not Tekken, it isn't going to have a new version out in two years- odds are, Brawl is all we're going to see for the next five to seven year, if then.

That said, elements in Brawl's default mix are bound to be busted. It's not the average fighting game- With Anyone is a pretty good example that default settings are not the way to go with this game. But knee-jerk overreactions and the abolishment of anything that's deemed "random" shows a huge lack of understanding of competitive gaming as a whole. It's like saying most of Halo's non-symmetrical maps are broken because someone spawns closer to the sniper, or that most competitive card games are complete garbage because there's absolutely no control over what cards are going to be delt- or at least no control over when you're going to draw your ways of taking control, in a game like Magic.

If you're on the side of keeping stuff on, that's great. Play the game, and I'm sure problems are going to come inbound. Some of you might totally swing the other way because of random spawning Deku Nuts in your attack costing you two stock in a competitive match, but maybe just removing Deku Nuts might remedy your problem. Or maybe you'll just need to stop charging random Ike F+Bs to stall the game and giving Deku Nuts a chance to spawn in your attack path.

If you're on the side of turning it all off, and you're confident you're in the right, that's great. Then I'm sure that, as we play the game, if you're that right, then results will appear to support your viewpoint, and the game will eventually evolve into no items/neutral stages only with an abolishment on Dedede and Climber chain grabs. However, you're going to have to bear with the rest of us for a little while who are interested in seeing if there isn't more to this big, huge, multi-faceted game that is SSBB before we go and turn off an entire element of the game, not to mention 33 of 41 stages.

(And remember folks- there's item imbalance... then there's item stupidity. Sending us videos where some player puts no effort into grabbing or using items then getting killed by the Super Scope he runs past three times when the Climbers pick it up and use one Climber to grab 'em while the other to charge it up isn't going to prove anything. Except maybe that the Ice Climbers have an exceptionally deep item game, and it'd really suck for them to get nerfed before they even had a chance to explore that facet of their character.)

[Ivootjes]

Then that choice should be made by actual evidence that they should be turned off. The people in charge of Evo want to see why they should be turned off instead of this endless debate saying they should. These words can go on forever and ever, but if the pro or anti side is lazy about proof, then the other side will win in its argument.

Take a pro-active stance on banning items, not just saying they should be banned.

Banning? I don't want to ban anything yet. Having an option to turn something off and banning are two different things.

And i think that there are enough arguments why they should be turned off. Both objective and subjective.

[f_man]

MVC2 WITHOUT ASSISTS???

i like the marvel parallel no joke.

7 years ago our local arcade banned assists in tournaments. look how that turned out. that ban was of course uplifted.

chris schmidt won one of those assist-banned tournaments. then when assists were accepted, he switched over. the kids got an ability to adapt, considering he likes to use those two extra buttons to his advantage. the ability to adapt makes him a good player.

PARRYING MAKES 3S BROKEN AND UNFLUID???

i also like the point about warping gameplay around them. iirc, 3s racks in more players than cvs2. you make it sound like parries are broken and ruin the flow of gameplay. i think everyone can hands down agree that parries introduce another layer of gameplay of rock paper scissors. if you can predict someones action, you can counter appropriately. attack<parry<throw<attack.

ECONOMICS AND GAMEPLAY

items do not randomly shift gameplay one way or another instantaneously. now correct me if im wrong but, items do not drop on someones head and activate upon contact. think of time in an economical sense--and this applies to all fighting games-- you use time in exchange for a change in the battlefield. to take advantage of an item, the time you could otherwise be using for attacking and defending can be devoted to moving toward the item and activating it.


when you move toward an item, you introduce another layer of gameplay. you continuously sacrifice time in exchange for movement, and sacrifice time for picking up an item. a SHORTEST path exists from your current location to the item. the path is predictable and your opponent is aware of that. you can choose to stop halfway through the path while your opponent chases you, fake him out and attack him. your opponent can also choose to let you pick up the item.

and that introduces another mind game.

iirc, and correct me if im wrong, but if you could quantify the consequences of an item (advantages vs disadvantages), more times than not, it provides an advantage. therefore, during most of the gameplay, it is advantageous to pick up an item, except in situations where both players cannot tolerate the risk involved.

YES, PARRIES ARE COUNTERABLE. BUT ITEMS ARE NOT???

moving towards an item leaves you vulnerable. you are not invincible as you move towards an item, therefore you are making another sacrifice. think of it this way, at 299% would you want to predictably move toward an item in order to reap its consequences?

/game theory stats

in other words items carry +expected value. in the LONG RUN, a player who goes for items is at an advantage. there are SHORT RUN situations in which an item may carry -ev. in other words, it may be advantageous to create a winning mind game situation alternative to picking up the item in order to win. ie; player at a high%. in other words, in CERTAIN SHORT RUN situations, a player is better off not going straight for the item. he may be better off faking out his opponent and creating a situation in which he can dish out more damage by tricking his opponent.



SIRLIN, WHERE YOU AT???? BRING IN THE MIT GAME THEORY!

[alphazealot]

I just hope the infant SRK Smash community will eventually come to the same conclusion the Smash community did 4 years ago after 2-3 years of testing items in tournaments, that, I hope the conclusion is reached based on the results and not holding onto some principal of brokenness, because I'll repeat, items aren't broken, if you ban them, you ban them to cement accuracy in results, if you leave them, you agree that with them on the accuracy in results is the same. The principal of items hasn't changed much between Melee and Brawl (except Final Smashes, which I would argue as a different element and separate from items entirely) despite what Mr. Wizard says about it being a "new" game, the exploding crates/capsules are gone but this was only the final nail in the coffin for the item debate all those years ago, most of the meat of the argument still remains (random spawns, unequal distribution). Sure, lets get some proof, thats fine, but if proof does surface it shouldn't be scutinized with a bunch of "if x player had done this" statements. I posted a video showing a random element effecting the outcome of a match in Melee between Bum and Mew2King and just about everyone tried to say things like "well maybe Bum did this or maybe Mew2King did that or maybe if he had done this". Practically no one took the video for what it was, proof that a random element will unequally effect results (for those wondering, a clap trap killed Mew2King on Kongo Jungle in an almost completely tied match, each player had 2 stocks left, M2K lead by about 50% at the time. Bum was later hit to the same location afterwards (6 times) and spent more time than Mew2King in the same danger zone but received no ill effect because the Clap Trap is random).

So, if tournaments run with item/FS and clear example arise like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCVT9GNMgZ4
That prove random chance can negatively effect the outcome of a match, then I hope I won't see some of the same random "well, what if X happens". Go to 3 minutes into the video, Mew2King is hit off the stage and less than a second and a half after entering the danger zone he is killed. Bum gets in the same position, actually spends more time there (and luckily narrowly avoids the claptrap a few times), and is never killed. Its the exact same scenerio effecting two people completely differently because it was random. Is this the same as items? Not entirely, but when evidence arises (if evidence arises) then lets all at least agree to take it for what it is. There will be plenty of evidence showing items won't negatively effect matches, but that evidence is pointless, its the time it does negatively effect matches that we are worried about.

Is it not possible the better player will use the items better? The better player will counter/avoid the items better than the other player? That one player might pull off an incredible FS dodge cementing his legendary status in the community? That the player who is able to command more of the stage will have access to more of the items?


Is it not possible for Mew2King to know how to use items just as well as ChuDat is capable of avoiding them? OMG! Items have a much higher chance of hitting than of being dodged/grabbed because one force is reactionary/prediction while the other force is based on a decision and control. I pick up a bomb, I decide when to throw it, its up to you to react, but as the offensive player I'll have more control and a higher likelihood of my attack connecting than of you being able to dodge/catch my item.

items do not randomly shift gameplay one way or another instantaneously.
Yes they do. Unless you want to ban some items, but wouldn't you be doing so without proof? Same deal with FS's. The entire point of each is to shift gamplay.

now correct me if im wrong but, items do not drop on someones head and activate upon contact.
They use to (crates/capsules) and some items still do (bombs), but I think we should wait to see it happen in tournaments again before we ban bombs, right?

when you move toward an item, you introduce another layer of gameplay. you continuously sacrifice time in exchange for movement, and sacrifice time for picking up an item. a path exists from your current location to the item. the path is predictable and your opponent is aware of that. you can choose to stop halfway through the path while your opponent chases you, fake him out and attack him. your opponent can also choose to let you pick up the item.
Except this isn't at all true if heart spawns right next to my foot while your on the other side of the stage or just after I've hit you off and your respawning and its for this reason the argument exists, not for when an item appears in the ideal situation where both players have equal chances of grabbing it and using it and stopping the other from grabbing it and using it.

[4649]

Is it not possible for Mew2King to know how to use items just as well as ChuDat is capable of avoiding them? OMG! Items have a much higher chance of hitting than of being dodged/grabbed because one force is reactionary/prediction while the other force is based on a decision and control. I pick up a bomb, I decide when to throw it, its up to you to react, but as the offensive player I'll have more control and a higher likelihood of my attack connecting than of you being able to dodge/catch my item.
.

out of curiosity ( and this is not taking offense, i'm just curious ) how would you say this applies to Toon Link's bomb / arrow game, Peach's turnips, and D3's Waddledees?

[Shotokan Symphony]

i like the marvel parallel no joke.

7 years ago our local arcade banned assists in tournaments. look how that turned out. that ban was of course uplifted.

Except the PLAYER controls when an assist comes out. In Smash, the player has NO control over item generation WHATSOEVER.

Seriously, do people think when they post?

[Darcon_Renozyle]

Banning? I don't want to ban anything yet. Having an option to turn something off and banning are two different things.

And i think that there are enough arguments why they should be turned off. Both objective and subjective.

My correction then, I meant "turn off" items from competitive play.

While arguments may exist, there is no evidence that they sway the lesser skilled players to completely in Brawl against higher skilled player.

Yes, such and such item can be thrown to create an instant KO (like a pitfall) is a good argument on paper, but I haven't seen anything where it was a dominant force, which is what the Evo people are looking to see.

Hell, if I had it my way, everyone would play on Final Destination, HP Mode with 100 life and only Smash Balls on.

Of course then we'd just be playing Super Smash Bros. II Turbo. :rofl:

[4649]

Except the PLAYER controls when an assist comes out. In Smash, the player has NO control over item generation WHATSOEVER.

Seriously, do people think when they post?

funny that was the exact point of my last post ( item generation control ) :rofl:

[Shotokan Symphony]

funny that was the exact point of my last post ( item generation control ) :rofl:

If a character generates items, they're usually a specific set. You don't see Faust banned totally from GG.

[alphazealot]

out of curiosity ( and this is not taking offense, i'm just curious ) how would you say this applies to Toon Link's bomb / arrow game, Peach's turnips, and D3's Waddledees?

It applies the same, the difference is banning a character takes a lot more than banning an element of the game that can easily be removed and doesn't detract from the core mechanics of the game (the fighting, though I guess you can argue items are a core element additional to this fighting). Banning an character is an absolute last resort and unfortunately we've just had to deal with some characters having random properties. There were many matches decided in Melee because Peach would randomly pull several death turnips or several items in a match, it sucked, the match is usually written off as an anomaly and almost no one believes matches like this, when they happen, are at all indicative of accurate results.

[Dima]

edit: nevermind you're talking about brawls engine :x

[f_man]

no.

items do not shift the game instantaneously.

you sacrifice time and the state of being vulnerable in order to pick an item up.

[alphazealot]

Sorry, but that isn't the case every time (where opponents actually have to work to get an item, frequently they will spawn right next to you), and this point aside, read what you just posted: the minute an item spawns the gameplay shifts to focusing on the item.

[lamewadd]

It applies the same, the difference is banning a character takes a lot more than banning an element of the game that can easily be removed and doesn't detract from the core mechanics of the game (the fighting, though I guess you can argue items are a core element additional to this fighting). Banning an character is an absolute last resort and unfortunately we've just had to deal with some characters having random properties. There were many matches decided in Melee because Peach would randomly pull several death turnips or several items in a match, it sucked, the match is usually written off as an anomaly and almost no one believes matches like this, when they happen, are at all indicative of accurate results.

Congratulations. You're a scrub.

[f_man]

you didnt read and comprehend anything i wrote did you.

a player can stop halfway through getting the item and attack the chasing player can he not? whats wrong with having an additional decision node? player a moves toward item. player b moves toward item. either player can just stop, and attack the other right?

if it isnt the case every time, then show me a case that is an exception, where a player in the LONG RUN has abused the situation, and the situation in EVERY INSTANCE wins.

unblockables exist in 3s. but the situation does not arrive instantaneously and does not dramatically force urien to be impossible to beat.

the rom infinite exists in mvc2. but the situation does not arrive instantaneously and does not dramatically force magneto to be impossible to beat.

roll cancelling exists in cvs2. but the situation does not force grooves with rolling to be impossible to beat.



mr wizard, bear these things in mind as gameplay becomes more complex.

[lamewadd]

you didnt read and comprehend anything i wrote did you.

a player can stop halfway through getting the item and attack the chasing player can he not?

if it isnt the case every time, then show me a case that is an exception.

No, I didn't read anything you said. And didn't reply to your post. See how that works out?

The irony here is that while calling out me for not reading his post, he didn't even read the first four words of my post.

[alphazealot]

Congratulations. You're a scrub.
Aren't you the guy that believes in designers intent? I don't even bother reading your posts anymore, besides, your hatred for Smash is widely known, you do nothing but troll and provoke people.

you didnt read and comprehend anything i wrote did you.

a player can stop halfway through getting the item and attack the chasing player can he not?

if it isnt the case every time, then show me a case that is an exception.

I understand what your saying, but, the INSTANT an item spawns, both players will shift their focus from the current gameplay to the new element of gameplay (attaining the item). Whether they attain the item instantly is mute, the gameplay is no longer about focusing solely the opponent and defeating him but instead getting and preventing the opponent from reaching the item so that you can use that to defeat him or prevent that from defeating you. No matter how you look at it, any 1v1 battles will see a dramatic shift in gameplay the very instant an item spawns, I'm not talking about the use of the item, which I think is where you are confused in my idea of gameplay shift.

[f_man]

No, I didn't read anything you said. And didn't reply to your post. See how that works out?

The irony here is that while calling out me for not reading his post, he didn't even read the first four words of my post.

i wasnt talking to you.

as for gameplay shifts. i still dont see anything wrong with that. in marvel gameplay shifted HUGELY when people started using assists more and more.

gameplay shifted when roll cancelling was discovered in cvs2.

and in 3s. oh god 3s in america. i think everyone was reluctant to tap forward when they first played. that daigo parry video inspired a few people to shift some of their gameplay did it not?

you make it sound like gameplay shifts are horrible. im glad though you now understand what i mean by items do not instantaneously shift gameplay. if mind games are involved in grabbing items, whats wrong with that?

[lamewadd]

Aren't you the guy that believes in designers intent? I don't even bother reading your posts anymore, besides, your hatred for Smash is widely known, you do nothing but troll and provoke people.

Nope. And I don't hate Smash. I frequently ridicule Smashboarders. Big difference.

[WraithGadra]

Aren't you the guy that believes in designers intent? I don't even bother reading your posts anymore, besides, your hatred for Smash is widely known, you do nothing but troll and provoke people.



I understand what your saying, but, the INSTANT an item spawns, both players will shift their focus from the current gameplay to the new element of gameplay (attaining the item). Whether they attain the item instantly is mute, the gameplay is no longer about focusing solely the opponent and defeating him but instead getting and preventing the opponent from reaching the item so that you can use that to defeat him or prevent that from defeating you. No matter how you look at it, any 1v1 battles will see a dramatic shift in gameplay the very instant an item spawns, I'm not talking about the use of the item, which I think is where you are confused in my idea of gameplay shift.

So, what your saying is "Why should I have to worry about anything other than what my opponent is doing?"

Answer: Because you're playing Smash.

What you're advocating is more along the lines of Street Fighter or Guilty Gear with Nintendo characters, where all that matters is your opponent and their actions. This is not to say that SF and GG are bad games, on the contrary, both are exceptional examples of traditional fighting games. However, neither one is like Smash, which has other things to consider such as stage hazards and items. Of course, if you are truly dead-set on playing your way, nothing anyone here says will change your mind. There is no one stopping you from playing the game like that. If you wish for others to agree you, you'll need to provide evidence to support your position. Anything less is theory fighter, which while fun to play, usually does not result in convincing arguments.

[UltraDavid]

No matter how you look at it, any 1v1 battles will see a dramatic shift in gameplay the very instant an item spawns, I'm not talking about the use of the item, which I think is where you are confused in my idea of gameplay shift.
I've been saying this is a good thing since the start of this thread. The game is still about controlling space, but instead of only controlling the space around your opponent like usual, when an item spawns you have to shift to controlling space both around your opponent and around a neutral third object. I think that makes for really interesting play. Every fighting game is about controlling your opponent's space, but only this one can also be about controlling a neutral third object. And I think adding interesting stages in does much the same thing in that instead of only defending a 2D space around your opponent, you have to stake out and defend certain advantageous positions, and that's pretty unique in the fighting game world.

Maybe the reason SRK is so open to items relative to Smashboards is that we already get the 1v1-control-the-opponent's-space-and-options thing with all the other games we play, and we've been getting it for a really long time. Normally when a new game comes along there's a lot of new tactics to learn, but usually it's the same type of strategy. With Brawl, where you have to control the space around a neutral third object on stages where you have to defend advantageous positions, there actually is new strategy. I can understand why players whose first, only, or main fighting game is Melee or Brawl really want to keep the 1v1-control-your-opponent thing, because that kind of strategy is totally awesome. Just recognize that no items/few stages basically turns Smash into a modified regular fighting game and takes out a lot of very unique strategy, strategy that I think is pretty interesting.

[Shotokan Symphony]

If you play Smash with items, it's a party game, and DEFINITELY not a serious fighter, because 1) you are NOT in control of the item generation, and 2) it is impossible to control where items appear. If you allow items, you're no longer playing a fighting game. You're playing FETCH.

Let me put it this way:

You're playing CVS2, r2 blanka vs r2 bison. Both of you have a full CC bar. Both of you are working to create an opening, but it's still even.

SUDDENLY, LASER SIGHTS APPEAR ON BLANKA, AND A GIANT ASSFUCK DEATHBEAM GUARDCRUSHES HIM, ALLOWING BISON TO CC BLANKA TO VICTORY.
Keep in mind, the Bison player had NO idea when or where the laser sight was going to appear, and it could have been him.

OR:
Same situation, only a RAYGUN appears next to blanka, and he uses it to run away for the rest of the match. He, too, could not control how, where or when an item generated.

The point? IF PLAYERS CAN'T CONTROL SOMETHING, LEAVE IT THE FUCK OUT.

[Daemonk]

I guess the point that many people are making is that the game will revolve around getting items. Since items are so much more useful than performing your basic attacks/combos, most strategies will be formed around getting items. It potentially will take away from exploring the other aspect of the character.

[alphazealot]

Whoa, people misinterpreting stuff. I never said that the shift in battle is bad. I would easily be pro items if they spawned in one location on a timer. I was merely explaining that, yes, when an item spawns gameplay shifts. Whether this is good or bad depends almost completely on where the item spawns, which is pretty much why the debate exists because sometime an item will spawn and it will add to the battle because both players have a shot at it. Again, its the times only one player has a shot at the item that problems arise.
---
Also, lamewadd, I think you need to either 1)learn what scrub actually means or 2)stop trying to troll and provoke people.

[f_man]

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it?

The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics.

Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way.

It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first.

When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted.

It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

oh nm, i found sirlin so he doesnt need to speak.

[Darcon_Renozyle]

So, if tournaments run with item/FS and clear example arise like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCVT9GNMgZ4
That prove random chance can negatively effect the outcome of a match, then I hope I won't see some of the same random "well, what if X happens". Go to 3 minutes into the video, Mew2King is hit off the stage and less than a second and a half after entering the danger zone he is killed. Bum gets in the same position, actually spends more time there (and luckily narrowly avoids the claptrap a few times), and is never killed. Its the exact same scenerio effecting two people completely differently because it was random. Is this the same as items? Not entirely, but when evidence arises (if evidence arises) then lets all at least agree to take it for what it is. There will be plenty of evidence showing items won't negatively effect matches, but that evidence is pointless, its the time it does negatively effect matches that we are worried about.


See, this is the type of activity that will get somewhere, it just needs to be done with Brawl. While many people may scrutinize of "well he could've done this or that, etc.", they may not be the ones in charge or running the show. The ones in charge will be the ones that will want to see this type of stuff and how it can affect outcomes of entire matches as those will be the tournament organizers running it.

Tell me, was the example for Melee you just provided one of the reasons for banning that level? Also, what were the other reasons for banning the level?

Also, do you think the Smash pros would play side events at their tourneys with items on to have them recorded?

[lamewadd]

SUDDENLY, LASER SIGHTS APPEAR ON BLANKA, AND A GIANT ASSFUCK DEATHBEAM GUARDCRUSHES HIM, ALLOWING BISON TO CC BLANKA TO VICTORY.
Keep in mind, the Bison player had NO idea when or where the laser sight was going to appear, and it could have been him.When does this happen in Smash?

OR:
Same situation, only a RAYGUN appears next to blanka, and he uses it to run away for the rest of the match. He, too, could not control how, where or when an item generated.

The point? IF PLAYERS CAN'T CONTROL SOMETHING, LEAVE IT THE FUCK OUT.
How do you unlock the ray gun that lets you use it for any considerable length of time?

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

edit: already mentioned, wow laggy.

[maximuspita]

I dont even know why there is all this bitching about items and skewed results when the brawl engine will RANDOMLY make me FUCKING trip, when I definitely have the upper hand. I still cant understand how some of you will gladly accept such bullshit yet will argue that items will skew results and all sorts of booboos will happen if they spawn close or far away.

[Dima]

This is one of the reason I think brawl shouldn't be competitive but thats my own opinion.

[Shotokan Symphony]

When does this happen in Smash?
The HALBERD stage.
How do you unlock the ray gun that lets you use it for any considerable length of time?
IT'S A FUCKING RAY GUN THAT APPEARS RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEONE RANDOMLY.

Do you like arguing semantics, or are you deliberately ignoring my point?

[alphazealot]

See, this is the type of activity that will get somewhere, it just needs to be done with Brawl. While many people may scrutinize of "well he could've done this or that, etc.", they may not be the ones in charge or running the show. The ones in charge will be the ones that will want to see this type of stuff and how it can affect outcomes of entire matches as those will be the tournament organizers running it.

Tell me, was the example for Melee you just provided one of the reasons for banning that level? Also, what were the other reasons for banning the level?

Also, do you think the Smash pros would play side events at their tourneys with items on to have them recorded?

That level actually is not banned, people deem the random properties of the klaptrap to be too low, but obviously even low random properties, especially with something that is an instant kill, can be game changing. I disagree with this stage being left on, but since it is, I've always used it as my counterpick against Ganon players while using Peach, its almost an autowin.

I think they would. Really, they will likely attend no matter what the rules are, but the aftermath of the event and legitimacy of the results will almost always be called into question when a random variable is introduced, this is not unique to Smash. The best poker players in the world can lose hands to novices because of a bad draw and how many times have you seen on TV where a player gets outplayed, only to win a hand on the river by luck of the draw. This is an inherent part of poker that can't be removed, and really, most of poker is about reading the opponent and playing chances/odds smartly (I'm aware the same players frequently show up in final tables, but, rarely does the same player win one tournament from the next, and the reason for this is the random chance involved with playing cards), but we have the option to remove this in Smash, the question I think ultimately boils down to this:
1) Is the insertion of items in gameplay a positive addition to fighting.
2) If yes, are these positive effects enough to outweigh the negative effects caused by random chance.

Lets put it another way, if you ran a tournament would you allow pokeballs? By most of the pro-item arguments here, you should. Yet, pokeballs are a perfect exaggeration of problems caused by less powerful items. The content in a Pokeball is random (though, actually, in melee, the first pokemon to appear in versus mode will be equal to the last pokemon that appeared in training mode, cheating for the win!), so, in a match that only spawns two Pokeballs, I could get Entei (is he even still in Brawl?) while you could get Goldeen. Which player do you think received an advantage due to random chance? If items stay on, ALL items should stay on. Eliminating any gives credit to the arguments wielded by the anti-item side (props to the pro-item people smart enough already to say that ALL items should be on).

I dont even know why there is all this bitching about items and skewed results when the brawl engine will RANDOMLY make me FUCKING trip, when I definitely have the upper hand. I still cant understand how some of you will gladly accept such bullshit yet will argue that items will skew results and all sorts of booboos will happen if they spawn close or far away.

No one gladly accepts it. Its one of the worst additions to Smash I think. However, its there, we can't remove it, and if we COULD remove it, we would.
---
Don't bother arguing with Lamewadd, he doesn't address points and will almost always sum up his posts in less than 20 words.

[Shotokan Symphony]

I dont even know why there is all this bitching about items and skewed results when the brawl engine will RANDOMLY make me FUCKING trip, when I definitely have the upper hand.

Don't you trip if you only fuck up inputs? It happens to me when I fuck up dashing, but I KNOW I'm fucking up.

[maximuspita]

No Shotokan:
Random trips are in brawl. No such thing as fucking up inputs. Im talking about clean dashes into freaking trips.

Also the ray gun is not random. It appears at a controlled interval and you can see where it is aiming.

[HolyOrderChipp]

I've been saying this is a good thing since the start of this thread. The game is still about controlling space, but instead of only controlling the space around your opponent like usual, when an item spawns you have to shift to controlling space both around your opponent and around a neutral third object. I think that makes for really interesting play. Every fighting game is about controlling your opponent's space, but only this one can also be about controlling a neutral third object. And I think adding interesting stages in does much the same thing in that instead of only defending a 2D space around your opponent, you have to stake out and defend certain advantageous positions, and that's pretty unique in the fighting game world.

Maybe the reason SRK is so open to items relative to Smashboards is that we already get the 1v1-control-the-opponent's-space-and-options thing with all the other games we play, and we've been getting it for a really long time. Normally when a new game comes along there's a lot of new tactics to learn, but usually it's the same type of strategy. With Brawl, where you have to control the space around a neutral third object on stages where you have to defend advantageous positions, there actually is new strategy. I can understand why players whose first, only, or main fighting game is Melee or Brawl really want to keep the 1v1-control-your-opponent thing, because that kind of strategy is totally awesome. Just recognize that no items/few stages basically turns Smash into a modified regular fighting game and takes out a lot of very unique strategy, strategy that I think is pretty interesting.

That's an excellent point. Obviously, tournaments need to be run with various item settings to see which items and what appearance rate are ideal, but this kind of added depth is crucial in making sure Brawl doesn't become just defensive mind games. Besides, it's new and interesting, and that should be reason enough to entertain the idea, even if it adds a little randomness.

On another note, I don't like the whole argument that some stages are fair while others give "unfair" advantages to certain characters. First off, what is truly neutral? Fox vs. Mewtwo on Final Destination was hardly an even matchup, so was that "fair"? Rather than deciding on "neutral" stages, we must determine which stages have the closest stage-specific tier lists and use those. The fact of multiple stages, and now the stage editor, is a golden opportunity that I believe Smash players are overlooking. Namely, it is the opportunity to manually balance the game by choosing or creating stages that would be much more balanced than Final Destination. By tweaking stages and item settings, we could potentially come up with a game far more balanced than "Final Destination, no items".

In short, I believe that the Evo staff and Smash community must work to come up with an ideal rule set, in terms of stages and items. The fact that there is no arcade standard gives us tremendous freedom to improve the game how we see fit. For example, some say Third Strike would be better without parries. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, the arcade standard prevents us from holding tournaments that way, even if it could be shown that parries negatively affect gameplay. We must use all the options we are given, including perhaps even the damage scale and handicap settings, to make Smash as interesting and fun as possible.

[Shotokan Symphony]

No Shotokan:
Random trips are in brawl. No such thing as fucking up inputs. Im talking about clean dashes into freaking trips.
Proof, please? I've only seen it when I fuck up a dash dance.

Also the ray gun is not random. It appears at a controlled interval and you can see where it is aiming.
You see it coming, but you have to sacrifice sure footing to avoid it, or get guard broken.

[alphazealot]

You don't need proof. Just play the game for 1 minute and only use your control stick. Just mash back and forth or run or whatever you want, you'll trip eventually. I've seen posted that it is a 1/100 chance of happening anytime you initiate a direction on the control stick but I have yet to see proof of this.

EDIT: How can you mess up dashing? Rofl.

DOUBLE EDIT: Competitive Smash players love of FD is usually exaggerated. In tournament, just about every other person I play will ban FD for their one stage ban. That said, you are completely right with this post:
In short, I believe that the Evo staff and Smash community must work to come up with an ideal rule set, in terms of stages and items. The fact that there is no arcade standard gives us tremendous freedom to improve the game how we see fit. For example, some say Third Strike would be better without parries. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, the arcade standard prevents us from holding tournaments that way, even if it could be shown that parries negatively affect gameplay. We must use all the options we are given, including perhaps even the damage scale and handicap settings, to make Smash as interesting and fun as possible.

Its what MLG did with Halo 3 and it made the game more competitive. The only thing I would change is your use of the word fun/interesting. Those are important, but I think the most important aspect is that the better player wins and to sacrifice this sentiment in the interest of fun is wrong. Though, I don't you quite meant it like that, so yea.

[maximuspita]

Shotokan
I dont dash dance because tactically its worthless. Straight dashes WILL trip randomly. You trip more when you dash dance because you are dashing more, but the chance is still there to trip even if you arent dash dancing.

[Keits]

Proof, please? I've only seen it when I fuck up a dash dance.


You see it coming, but you have to sacrifice sure footing to avoid it, or get guard broken.

or air dodge to ledge cling...
or get beind a wall...
or move to another platform...


not too creative, are you?

we played laggy free for alls last night and final smashes were being dodged, and items being totally countered. ((i took only 20 percent from olimar fs, and avoided all but one hammer with ease, and on top of that avoided all but one dragoon aimed at me)). if we can do all this in lag.... you know what i think of you if you cant in person.

man up!

Single Counter Pick style tournament tonight online get hype!

[Shotokan Symphony]

Shotokan
I dont dash dance because tactically its worthless. Straight dashes WILL trip randomly. You trip more when you dash dance because you are dashing more, but the chance is still there to trip even if you arent dash dancing.

Dude, if you have proof that it happens on a regular basis, then we can come to an agreement. I've run so damn much, and I've yet to have it happen to me, honest to God.
or air dodge to ledge cling...
or get beind a wall...
or move to another platform...


not too creative, are you?

Not too good at reading, are you?
You see it coming, but you have to sacrifice sure footing to avoid it, or get guard broken.
The point is that an item is interchangeable with the laser situation: you have to sacrifice positioning to get it or avoid it. This happens in other games, too, but they're caused deliberately by the other player, NOT randomly like the CPU.

[HuStLeMaN17]

what about just allowing final smash item and the 3-piece suit??

[maximuspita]

Then you must have the coveted tripless brawl or you dont notice when you trip. Fact is everyone has tripped in brawl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koyMDCfAJ1M&feature=related
Look how the olimar player eats a smash because he trips. He wasnt dash dancing, just a clean forward dash which randomly made him trip and cost him a stock.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Dude, if you have proof that it happens on a regular basis, then we can come to an agreement. I've run so damn much, and I've yet to have it happen to me, honest to God.

Actually, it does. There's even vids on youtube of people tripping at the start of the match, before moving. It's a low chance, mind you, but it does happen without cause.

The point is that an item is interchangeable with the laser situation: you have to sacrifice positioning to get it or avoid it. This happens in other games, too, but they're caused deliberately by the other player, NOT randomly like the CPU.

If this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this causes a problem in tourneys, then yeah, it'll probably be yanked. It also might not make that big of an impact or could even possibly be influenced in some manner for advantages now made by the player again. Who knows without trying.

[Pimp Willy]

That olimar tripped, sat on the ground for like 20 minutes... enough for Ike to charge his slow ass smash. Does tripping suck? Yes, absolutely. I'm pretty sure it's intended to circumvent people who like to move too much un-necessarily, otherwise I don't see why it would have been included in the game. If you spend more time dashing back and forth, you trip more, thus I figure Sakurai was just upset at how broken dash dancing and stuff was in Melee.<