Evo Brawl Rules Discussion

[Ceirnian]

Surprisingly I actually liked 2 stocks 3 minutes, 3/5 rounds a lot. I only had one sudden death and that was because I was sitting back and waiting too much,then messed up and died.

[f_man]

We do not have to submit ourselves to this in Smash, and if somehow the game of poker could be changed to remove the possibility of people benifitting because of luck and not skill, then I'd bet most poker players would be for this change.

JV, the Smash tournament organizer for MLG, is a professional Poker player. He is also against items (at least he was last time I talked to him).

really?

you dont understand poker do you? good poker players play purely because they can take that random unknown factor, luck, and manipulate it so in the long run, more times than not, they are making the correct decision.

this manipulation is done through decision making. the ability to make good decisions can be defined as a skill.

do you want to know how to "somehow" remove the luck part from poker? everyone shows their cards. there is no 4th and 5th street. all 5 board cards are shown at once. so everything is exposed. now that everyone can see each others cards, they bet.

[Aleister Crowley]

Here's something else to think about concerning randomness. You can argue about how much it applies to Brawl or not, but keep it in mind anyway. Randomness is not only good, but it is absolutely necessary in some games. Imagine if you moved in a fixed pattern in Monopoly. Or someone just handed you a fixed set of resources in Settlers of Catan. It would completely destroy the game entirely. Games are built around risk/reward valuation. The entire basis of the depth of the games depends on the risk/reward setup which is based on a random element. I've already introduced an aspect of Brawl that shares this in camping. You are less likely to get items, but you are safer and have a better defensive position. It's a risk/reward valuation. You will have to make quick decisions based on randomly occuring events: should I try to finish the edgeguard or grab the item, etc. The depth of it comes precisely from the fact that you don't know what is going to happen in advance. I think it could be an interesting new dimension to the game.

[Scamp]

You guys, Smash is not poker.

Seriously. There are much better arguments for having items on that talking about how poker has randomness too.

Notice how the WSOP main event champion does not get the respect you'd expect a champion to have. No one thinks the main event winner is the best player out there. I don't want this same attitude for an Evo tourney winner.

[Yeroc]

I dunno, isn't it true that the Smash community is the same to a degree? One tournament victory doesn't quite make a top Smasher either. Now I think he's an amazing player and an even cooler person just to be around, but look at Isai. He doesn't exactly spring to the lips of people rattling off the so-called "best" players anymore. He's up there still, but it's not like the days of Ken-Azen-Isai. My point is, it's far more important to have consistency, whether you come in 1st or 8th (of a national tourney of course).

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you that there are better comparisons to Smash than card games, but I must admit I think that there ARE at least some acceptable comparisons that can be made.

[Scamp]

Didn't you just prove my point for me? Isai got mad respect for placing so high, and continued to have this respect and be well known even after he dropped off from the peak. (He was still a top player, though.) WSOP champions are well known, but none of them get any respect unless they are able to repeat their performances.

I do think there are valid comparisons, but it was getting way out of hand. Let me sum up what I think.

Affecting randomness = acceptable argument.

Affecting randomness like they do in poker = not acceptable.

For example, you can do the "correct" play in poker and still lose due to bad cards on the turn and river. I don't think of smash like that. Once you make a play, there should be no randomness in the outcome. Perhaps the events leading up the event are affected by something random, but there aren't any river cards in Smash.


Furthermore, the reasons people play poker and smash are completely different. The poker community should not, in any way, shape what the smash community does. To repeat myself, I don't see why poker's popularity has anything to do with smash.

[Ivootjes]

Like I said, it's not me or the other SRKers that want the proof that the item/stage bans should be enforced, it's the people in charge of Evo. They've already come out and said that. It's not that hard to figure out when it was stated 15 pages ago by one of the main persons in charge. THEY are asking for proof on why things are banned, not just the legion of SRK forum-goers. The whole "banned items/stages" argument is not going to fly unless proof is given. Every argument the anti-item camp is going to bring up over here is just going to be shot down until proof is given, because the pro-item camp is going to win by default without it.

Not really, because the item switch is an ingame option. I don't think it's scrubby to use something that's build in the game. Actually, i think it's dumb to ignore the possible options that brawl has to offer us. Remember that brawl was intended as a party game but sakurai added more options so we could decide how to play the game ourselves.

What if items would be turned off by default? Would you be anti item then?

[MrWizard]

Just to be clear, none of the Evo rules for smash havent been decided yet. i dont want people taking my earlier comments thinking Evo is allowing everything.

Just waiting to see how things turn out in the next few weeks.

[Yeroc]

Didn't you just prove my point for me? Isai got mad respect for placing so high, and continued to have this respect and be well known even after he dropped off from the peak. (He was still a top player, though.) WSOP champions are well known, but none of them get any respect unless they are able to repeat their performances.I wasn't wholly disagreeing with you in the first place because I was trying (I guess very poorly) to extrapolate and point out likenesses to each party despite their otherwise fundamental differences. I guess I was trying to say that while an Evo or other Smash tourney winner might not get the same initial reaction from his community as the WSOP champ, in the long run based on their successive performance they might well receive much the same level of regard. Again, I think now it was a poor sort of point to try to add to what you had said since it didn't really address what you were saying while it looked like it was supposed to.

[WraithGadra]

Not really, because the item switch is an ingame option. I don't think it's scrubby to use something that's build in the game. Actually, i think it's dumb to ignore the possible options that brawl has to offer us. Remember that brawl was intended as a party game but sakurai added more options so we could decide how to play the game ourselves.

What if items would be turned off by default? Would you be anti item then?

Too bad they're not, it would save you from having to back up your argument. There are lots of in-game options, but any argument for disabling (or enabling) them needs evidence that not doing so is harmful to the game. If you want something gone, prove it needs to go.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Didn't you just prove my point for me? Isai got mad respect for placing so high, and continued to have this respect and be well known even after he dropped off from the peak. (He was still a top player, though.) WSOP champions are well known, but none of them get any respect unless they are able to repeat their performances.

I do think there are valid comparisons, but it was getting way out of hand. Let me sum up what I think.

Affecting randomness = acceptable argument.

Affecting randomness like they do in poker = not acceptable.

For example, you can do the "correct" play in poker and still lose due to bad cards on the turn and river. I don't think of smash like that. Once you make a play, there should be no randomness in the outcome. Perhaps the events leading up the event are affected by something random, but there aren't any river cards in Smash.


Furthermore, the reasons people play poker and smash are completely different. The poker community should not, in any way, shape what the smash community does. To repeat myself, I don't see why poker's popularity has anything to do with smash.

I do have to say one thing about the comparison of Poker to Smash. The competitive fanbase is FAR larger by comparison. Now, hear me out. Lets look at Smash. There's a good 2-300 people that are competitive enough to put out major travel to compete for the top spot. Out of those 2-300, we have about 15-20 that are constantly placing high (top 5 or so). Now lets look at poker, where there's easily several THOUSAND, as well as a lot of these people flowing in and out of tournaments because they have nothing else to defend aside from the money. Being negative on the amount, you could very easily see several hundred people potentially grabbing those same top 5 spots. It's not exactly surprising to see so many different names over the years considering both the in/out flow of players and the sheer volume of equal skilled players. I think it's a lot more complicated than that, but this is something I felt needed to be said.

Poker isn't exactly the best analogy, but I can't think of many games that are driven by random effects that gets such a fanbase like card games. Not only this, but in games like poker, the prizes are astronomically higher than anything you'll see in a measly video game tournament, so much so that one victory is all that people see necessary. It's not so much defending a title and more about the money. I look at Magic closer in that regard, mostly in the fact that people are there more to win, but it's a game that not only is random, but is CONSTANTLY changing, and with change comes new blood. I linked Gabriel Nassif because he's someone who's been around the game for YEARS, constantly showing up in the tops while never winning. He's made quite the living, but also keeps his shit up to date in spite of random factor. He's one of the few vets in a game that is as random as/far more random than games like Smash or poker could ever be, and is still proving that random isn't what matters.

[WraithGadra]

I do have to say one thing about the comparison of Poker to Smash. The competitive fanbase is FAR larger by comparison. Now, hear me out. Lets look at Smash. There's a good 2-300 people that are competitive enough to put out major travel to compete for the top spot. Out of those 2-300, we have about 15-20 that are constantly placing high (top 5 or so). Now lets look at poker, where there's easily several THOUSAND, as well as a lot of these people flowing in and out of tournaments because they have nothing else to defend aside from the money. Being negative on the amount, you could very easily see several hundred people potentially grabbing those same top 5 spots. It's not exactly surprising to see so many different names over the years considering both the in/out flow of players and the sheer volume of equal skilled players. I think it's a lot more complicated than that, but this is something I felt needed to be said.

Poker isn't exactly the best analogy, but I can't think of many games that are driven by random effects that gets such a fanbase like card games. Not only this, but in games like poker, the prizes are astronomically higher than anything you'll see in a measly video game tournament, so much so that one victory is all that people see necessary. It's not so much defending a title and more about the money. I look at Magic closer in that regard, mostly in the fact that people are there more to win, but it's a game that not only is random, but is CONSTANTLY changing, and with change comes new blood. I linked Gabriel Nassif because he's someone who's been around the game for YEARS, constantly showing up in the tops while never winning. He's made quite the living, but also keeps his shit up to date in spite of random factor. He's one of the few vets in a game that is as random as/far more random than games like Smash or poker could ever be, and is still proving that random isn't what matters.

QFT, man. QFT. This is what I like to see.

[Ivootjes]

Too bad they're not, it would save you from having to back up your argument. There are lots of in-game options, but any argument for disabling (or enabling) them needs evidence that not doing so is harmful to the game. If you want something gone, prove it needs to go.

What about timed matches? That's default and there's no evidence that it doesn't work (at least not for brawl) Still, everybody seems to agree that stock matches are going to be played.

And it's funny that you would be anti item if they would be turned off by default.

Edit: saying only 2-300 players compete seriously in smash bros isn't true. Smash is huge and has easily >2000 players who attend tourneys regulary.

[Ceirnian]

What about timed matches? That's default and there's no evidence that it doesn't work (at least not for brawl) Still, everybody seems to agree that stock matches are going to be played.

And it's funny that you would be anti item if they would be turned off by default.

Timed matches lead to more sudden death situations. You go by default 2 minutes and sudden death happens ALOT. This isn't me just pulling shit out of my ass, this is from personal experience along with what others have said. Stocks are more like 'rounds' and make it so that you have a definite stopping point of a match aside from time.

But I know you didn't really want an answer, you are just trying to be a smart ass.

If items were turned off by default then yes, I would be perfectly fine with a no item tournament (with side tournaments for items, if people were up for it). Same things goes with other games. If people want to throw a CVS2 custom groove side tournament, go for it! If people want to throw a GG ex character allowed side tournament, by all means.

[Ivootjes]

Now what's wrong with sudden death?

[Shotokan Symphony]

words

You are beyond retarded.

To the rest of you all arguing for items: If you guys can't grasp how bad TRULY RANDOM ITEM PLACEMENT, then you're hopeless. You have no control over placement in the options, at all. I've already explained that sacrificing your position for an item is a bad thing in serious 1v1 combat. It doesn't matter if the item is weakor strong: your attention will be focused on it enough to mess with your rhythm. It's a random factor that neither player has ANY CONTROL OVER, and both players have to take their attention away from the opponent briefly.

Items are banned in serious play for a reason.

As far as tripping is concerned, well... shit. There's always Melee.

[lamewadd]

You are beyond retarded.


And you're making shit up you dildo. I mean God, if you're going to be using idiotic scenarios that can't happen, at least make up something possible and exagerrate like the Smashboarders. But no, it takes a special kind of dipshit to say "LOL DAT HALBERD CANNON FIRES REALLY FAST AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT COMIN"!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!"

No, no, you need to leave this forum if you were stupid enough as to think that trying to call me out when you so clearly make shit up about something we're all totally familiar with was a good idea. Failure. Capital F.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Edit: saying only 2-300 players compete seriously in smash bros isn't true. Smash is huge and has easily >2000 players who attend tourneys regulary.

I'm talking on the more global combination scale. How many of those 2000+ people actually take their game to a national or even global level? It's regional at best, for most players, so these people may never prove anything to one another due to never playing each other. The players that win their small area's tourneys and never do anything beyond that, or those that consistently place in the top 3-5 on the largest tourneys frequently to not converge to a single location so readily. When I say several thousand in poker and MTG, we're looking at regional deciding tournaments that converge their results into one massive finale. Everyone involved down to the regional level made an impact.

I think one reason a lot of people that could theoretically do well on a national/global level don't participate is cost vs. prize. It's not exactly often a prize in a video game tournament outweighs the cost of attending. Meanwhile, these examples I give NEVER give out paltry sums to cross-country/continent travelers. The incentive to waste money is for more than just a title to them. I think most smashers especially, but a number of video game competitors as a whole, participate less due to the incentive involved in most tournaments having no chance on outweighing the cost of going. Of course, unlike poker, MTG, etc., the players tend to participate, not for the chance of victory, but more for the experience of being part of the community (like myself, who's best finish EVER was a 5th place in a 16 man biweekly, but still attended every TG). That's another topic of discussion altogether, though.

[4649]

god, this might end up being a total clusterfuck
how about everybody read this
http://www.gameriot.com/blogs/Get-Your-Tournament/A-radical-set-of-rules-that-could-work-for-the-Brawl-competition-at-EVO/

[Yeroc]

While I, too, think too many people will dismiss it out of hand as "not Smash" I too have been contemplating Stamina mode, under all other debated conditions. It's intriguing, but I honestly have no idea how it would stack up.

[Pimp Willy]

I'd be up for giving Stamina Mode a shot, but I agree that it takes away some of Smash's uniqueness in gameplay, and goes even a step closer to making it Smash Turbo

[Aleister Crowley]

I've already explained that sacrificing your position for an item is a bad thing in serious 1v1 combat. It doesn't matter if the item is weakor strong: your attention will be focused on it enough to mess with your rhythm.

Well gee that's not subjective at all! People have gone to great lengths to explain why they believe it could be a good thing, and your argument is basically outright naysaying them.

It's a random factor that neither player has ANY CONTROL OVER, and both players have to take their attention away from the opponent briefly.

So why again does this magically not apply to Peach's stitches? If anything they're worse because they just appear in her hand; there's not even a fight over it.

Items are banned in serious play for a reason.

Yeah, it was exploding capsules.

[GameBoyBob]

Yeah, it was exploding capsules.
No. go back and read the discussions. They were banned because of randomness not being conducive to tournament play. Exploding capsules was just the prime example of an advantage being given to a random player. It was never the whole argument.

With the arguments you all are using, there should be no reason to ban any stages or items period. If you compromise and ban specific items, then your agreeing with the anti-item argument. You can't just numb the randomness by turning down the more powerful items and still keep your arguments intact. That is one of the prime reasons the pro-item players gave up the first time. It was because they had specific items banned in their tournaments. The reason? It was because of the severe advantages that were given by the more powerful items. Otherwise why would they ban them?

You all talk about dealing with items when they are given to a random player, but not with the problem itself. The randomness.

[HolyOrderChipp]

I would like to comment on the card game analogy. The reason randomness is not a drawback, but in fact a boon in these games is because of secret information. This allows for bluffing. However, items do reward those who react more appropriately to unpredictable circumstances. They do create situations, like in Magic, where you modify your play style based on the chances of certain things happening, and the ability to set yourself up for unlikely wins, which I believe are quite interesting. However, I will not state that any or all items should necessarily be on or off. I do believe, though, that items add in certain ways to the gameplay, and that this should be weighed against the drawbacks.

P.S. Evo should look into custom stages and take full advantage of the ability to not only modify stage designs how we see fit, but to create no-hazard versions of many otherwise problematic stages.

[Henaki]

also there are failsafes against a bad hand in poker (bluffing your way to victory, folding). the fact that you get a tool with a bad hand is something poker has that random items dont. i have no idea why anyone thought it was a good analogy. when someone gets a free item in smash, theres no way to use a bad situation as a tool.

im really against stamina mode if only for the fact that it completely changes how the game is played.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

No. go back and read the discussions. They were banned because of randomness not being conducive to tournament play. Exploding capsules was just the prime example of an advantage being given to a random player. It was never the whole argument.

With the arguments you all are using, there should be no reason to ban any stages or items period. If you compromise and ban specific items, then your agreeing with the anti-item argument. You can't just numb the randomness by turning down the more powerful items and still keep your arguments intact. That is one of the prime reasons the pro-item players gave up the first time. It was because they had specific items banned in their tournaments. The reason? It was because of the severe advantages that were given by the more powerful items. Otherwise why would they ban them?

You all talk about dealing with items when they are given to a random player, but not with the problem itself. The randomness.

Items were never proven in Melee to be the problem. No argument ever settled over items in general. Only the argument that exploding capsules could not be turned off without turning off items could ever hold any merit to get the items off. Until then, it was a complete stalemate, where both types of tournaments were run. Until then, there was a limited item set, and aside from those exploding capsules, nothing showed to be overly abuseable to skew results. It just took a matter of understanding how items worked to know how to defend against them. This division only ended when the one thing that couldn't be turned off and defended against was decided too gamebreaking to leave in. We've been over this several times now.

[Septimus Prime]

There was one match I had with Keits last night (Keits has a replay), where it was sudden death. I held a grenade and walked into him, killing us both—except the game randomly decided that I would die a split second sooner and give him the match. There were no items involved here, by the way.

So what do you guys want to do? Should we ban all explosive moves because they launch players in different directions or what?

[Henaki]

There was one match I had with Keits last night (Keits has a replay), where it was sudden death. I held a grenade and walked into him, killing us both—except the game randomly decided that I would die a split second sooner and give him the match. There were no items involved here, by the way.

So what do you guys want to do? Should we ban all explosive moves because they launch players in different directions or what?

I think you should stop trolling when you realize you are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GameBoyBob]

Items were never proven in Melee to be the problem. No argument ever settled over items in general. Only the argument that exploding capsules could not be turned off without turning off items could ever hold any merit to get the items off. Until then, it was a complete stalemate, where both types of tournaments were run. Until then, there was a limited item set, and aside from those exploding capsules, nothing showed to be overly abuseable to skew results. It just took a matter of understanding how items worked to know how to defend against them. This division only ended when the one thing that couldn't be turned off and defended against was decided too gamebreaking to leave in. We've been over this several times now.
What is gamebreaking about a random capsule killing someone? Its just the randomness of the game... All you want to do is numb the items down enough so that it's not as noticeable/"gamebreaking" as a capsule screwing someone over. Again why was a capsule killing someone gamebreaking with the argument that random is fine.

[Reno K]

How do people feel about FF on vs off in teams?

Smashboards goes with FF on, because
1) a lot of projectile-spamming/disjointed hitbox camping and edge guarding tactics were broken,
2) FF on seemed to be the more fun mode for all involved, and
3) the meta-game seemed stronger with being able to hit your teammate (e.g. knock him back on the stage if he's too far off, spike him back down if he gets upsmashed, jab jiggly after a rest combo), how precise your attacks could be in the group, etc

I'm sure a meta-game could be developed with FF off, but I think the pros of FF being on outweigh the pros you'd get with FF off.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

What is gamebreaking about a random capsule killing someone? Its just the randomness of the game... All you want to do is numb the items down enough so that it's not as noticeable/"gamebreaking" as a capsule screwing someone over. Again why was a capsule killing someone gamebreaking with the argument that random is fine.

Actually, it wasn't so much the exploding capsule and more the fact that the engine has no discrimination for what spawns where when. That, and explosions in Melee could kill at obscenely low percentages. Not to mention capsules broke on a single hit, regardless. So far, I see that capsules can be removed, explosions aren't even a shadow of their former strength, and the engine seems a lot better at spawning an item right in your face mid-attack. It seems nowhere near as much of a problem.

Hell, I still debate whether exploding capsules in Melee were that bad of a problem. I look to LordLocke, who is far and away one of the players with the worst luck with regards to exploding capsules in path, off screen poison mushrooms, and other "wtf" moments, and yet, in spite of all this hate items have seemingly given him, he still wants items in because of the benefits they bring the game. Look several pages back if you feel like seeing exactly how he feels.

How do people feel about FF on vs off in teams?

Smashboards goes with FF on, because
1) a lot of projectile-spamming/disjointed hitbox camping and edge guarding tactics were broken,
2) FF on seemed to be the more fun mode for all involved, and
3) the meta-game seemed stronger with being able to hit your teammate (e.g. knock him back on the stage if he's too far off, spike him back down if he gets upsmashed, jab jiggly after a rest combo), how precise your attacks could be in the group, etc

I'm sure a meta-game could be developed with FF off, but I think the pros of FF being on outweigh the pros you'd get with FF off.

I think we should once again see how it works both ways, as you never know how it might have changed without trying it out. My guess is that team attack will end up on again, as the one reason it was really a problem in Melee was that once it came down to a 2v1, the 1 had zero chance of victory. They might as well just jump in the pit. With team attack on, it's still anyone's game. Any other case, it could be argued that not having to worry about your opponent in team attack off is that you could then setup really good alternating attacks to keep up a defensive pressure game, or you could run in and save your teammate without worrying about harming them in the process. Team attack off of course brought in a mechanic of having to watch your teammate as much as your opponents and made any teamups difficult without harming your teammate in the process. It goes both ways, and I think we'll have to give 'em both a try again to see if one way is more gamebreaking than the other.

[GameBoyBob]

There was one match I had with Keits last night (Keits has a replay), where it was sudden death. I held a grenade and walked into him, killing us both—except the game randomly decided that I would die a split second sooner and give him the match. There were no items involved here, by the way.

So what do you guys want to do? Should we ban all explosive moves because they launch players in different directions or what?

Dude… It was the physics of the game. You were probably at a slightly different spot than your opponent. It wasn’t a random number generator. Let's not start jumping at shadows and calling them the boogyman.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Dude… It was the physics of the game. You were probably at a slightly different spot than your opponent. It wasn’t a random number generator. Let's not start jumping at shadows and calling them the boogyman.

Alright, let's jump at one that smashboards finally had some sense to say "stfu and deal" about. Dying off the top.

Character A and character B both die, with character B disappearing off the top before character A disappears off the top. Character A, uncontrollably, bounces off the front of the screen while B goes into the background. Character A dies first. Game goes to B. Fair? No. Do we accept and move on? Yes. It's something that rarely happens, but it can and has happened, but the winner was decided by the game, it was accepted and people moved on.

[GameBoyBob]

Actually, it wasn't so much the exploding capsule and more the fact that the engine has no discrimination for what spawns where when.

Isn't that what the anti-item argument is? How is the engine in brawl different in the area of "no discrimination for what spawns where when"

As for the rest of yourpost that you have no problem with capsules. I guess thats your opinnon in weighing the benefits of items against the hazardus randomness.

If your aguement that randomness is just plain not that bad no matter the cost then I guess I can't argue with that. We will just have to disagree. I just don't want to see someone at the top due to randomness that shouldn't be there if it can be helped.

[kmasera]

i like ff off because you can totally dominate people in broken ways

it's seriously like the most fun thing ever

[GameBoyBob]

Alright, let's jump at one that smashboards finally had some sense to say "stfu and deal" about. Dying off the top.

Character A and character B both die, with character B disappearing off the top before character A disappears off the top. Character A, uncontrollably, bounces off the front of the screen while B goes into the background. Character A dies first. Game goes to B. Fair? No. Do we accept and move on? Yes. It's something that rarely happens, but it can and has happened, but the winner was decided by the game, it was accepted and people moved on.

Yes it was accepted because you cant turn that off. I remember there was talk of instant replays, refs or something like that. But you’re quite right. When it’s out of the control of the players then you've got to deal. If it were possible, would you turn off tripping in brawl?

[Yeroc]

The thing is (and this goes for more than just Bob), randomness has always been the argument of those who would see them turned off, for any number of preferential reasons. It has always indirectly opposed the viewpoint of those others, the idea that random isn't game breaking if players can make allowances for it, which in most basic cases dealing with items, they can. You can know the likely positions that items will appear in and plan your positioning accordingly. You can instantly see what item appears and begin to strategize how it could be used by you or against you and what you can do to maximize your chances of success. Under this reasoning, only those items that are too overpowered are the ones that should be turned off. The ONLY issue, in Melee, are containers like capsules, that can't be turned off without scratching items entirely, that have an innate tendency to explode. The reason that is problematic is simply that a capsule can spawn directly in front of a person after they've begun an attack, making them unable to react to this new event, and kill them arbitrarily. Yes, as Cynt points out, there's a fairly low probability for this to occur. It's a small frame window overlapping a fairly small spatial window. Yet no other item is capable of this sort of dynamic. They all require action on part of the benefiting player in some form or other, making those possibilities rooted in some form of skill-dependency. But capsules break the deal. They're the only concrete and inarguable factor that items players could not contend with, and so the argument that anything random was automatically unsuited for competitive play won out.

It's been explained in great detail here and by some on Smashboards how things have changed in Brawl, but you all seem not to even pay attention to it because you're so adhering to the concept that "random = bad (lol)" that you don't even seem to see it's not about stuff that's random so much as it's anything that affects the game and the degree to which players can interact with it. The Peach example should be enough to show you that. By your logic, if something that's based on a random chance is that detrimental to the competitive environment, anything that falls outside the realm of direct and unambiguous player input should not be permissible in tournaments. Since Peach possesses a move with random properties that neither player can control, and furthermore can only benefit Peach with no real drawback, it should be banned. And since you can't just turn off a move, you'd have to ban Peach. You say this is an unreasonable measure. But by your own argument there is no middle gound. Yet you don't seem to take any notice of this flaw in your reasoning. This reduces your argument to an opinion about what does or does not constitute acceptable game mechanics. It no longer is a factual argument, but a subjective one.

So really, if you honestly don't like items because their appearance is controlled by a RNG, that's fine, I'll be sure to try to remember that. But realize that your argument does not = fact, and that other people's opinions might just have merit even though they might not agree with your beliefs about the game. We've all already done that. Time for you to catch up.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Isn't that what the anti-item argument is? How is the engine in brawl different in the area of "no discrimination for what spawns where when"

As for the rest of yourpost that you have no problem with capsules. I guess thats your opinnon in weighing the benefits of items against the hazardus randomness.

If your aguement that randomness is just plain not that bad no matter the cost then I guess I can't argue with that. We will just have to disagree. I just don't want to see someone at the top due to randomness that shouldn't be there if it can be helped.

Why is it a big deal if random exists when the random can be manipulated into your favor via stage control? Forget the fact that no item is proven to be a magic win button upon touch. Even going after an item on a section of stage you control means sacrificing control in order to get to said item. Or you could ignore the item and bait your opponent to attempt to get it, punishing him for attempting to move into space you control.

Also, if you didn't stop after my first sentence, you would have noticed that from my current experience of Brawl, I have yet to see the same indiscriminate item placement that existed in Melee. Maybe it's just because I haven't played enough of the game yet to see it all over again, or maybe they designed the item generation procedure with this problem in mind. We won't know 'til we really dive into playing with 'em around.

[alphazealot]

Since Peach possesses a move with random properties that neither player can control, and furthermore can only benefit Peach with no real drawback, it should be banned. And since you can't just turn off a move, you'd have to ban Peach. You say this is an unreasonable measure. But by your own argument there is no middle gound. Yet you don't seem to take any notice of this flaw in your reasoning. This reduces your argument to an opinion about what does or does not constitute acceptable game mechanics. It no longer is a factual argument, but a subjective one.

Taking a character away is an entirely different scenario than taking items away. This aside, in all the tournaments I've been to I've never seen a Peach player win an entire set that they didn't already deserve to win because of pulling bombs/swords. Peach, though we don't know the exact level of randomness, has something between a 1/70 and 1/300 chance of pulling an item/death turnip (depending who you ask/whose tests you listen to). This is a considerably lower random chance of effecting a match than items that spawn in random locations every 30 seconds or less, depending on your frequency. In other words, we know Peach's random chance very, very rarely has adverse consequences on a set, as Peach players generally place consistently (Melee example: Cort generally places top 5 at national tournaments, Vidjo top 10 at national tournaments and top 3 midwest tournaments, they have been unable to break the barrier above them, meaning the random chance is not enough to bridge the gap between them and the players above them (Mew2King, Azen, Ken), and its for this reason the random chances the character posses is not a problem, we have proof that Peach's random chance is negligible). If items achieve the same feet of consistent results, then allow them.

Why is it a big deal if random exists when the random can be manipulated into your favor via stage control? Forget the fact that no item is proven to be a magic win button upon touch. Even going after an item on a section of stage you control means sacrificing control in order to get to said item. Or you could ignore the item and bait your opponent to attempt to get it, punishing him for attempting to move into space you control.

Would you like to explain this magical stage control that allows me to grab items more frequently than just playing normally? If the item spawns in space you occupy, then grab it. If it doesn't then you are either engaging the opponent, recovering, or your opponent gets the spawn. You cannot be in two places at once in Smash (obviously), so if I control one half of fd, and an item spawns on the other half, then I'm just SOL. The only way to ensure you get more items than the opponent isn't to control the stage but to control the opponent and make sure they never have a chance to land on the stage, meaning you need to keep a constant pressure so that when an item spawns, you will be the first to grab it (since you will have sent the opponent away). The thing is, this is just normal playing. You can't zone or camp and hope for a higher chance of getting an item because the space you control is just as likely to get an item as the space you DON'T control, and space you don't control is space your opponent controls. This aside, if you think you'll be able to bait better players with items your quite mistaken, especially Diddy players who will just cartwheel grab your item into your shield, throw it at you, (hitting you, or your shield, you have no chance to catch the item in this case, not putting the shield up means you will be hit by the cartwheel), and then proceed to A infinite your shield to nothing while whatever item it was lays there, by the Diddy players feet, out of your reach. Diddy has one of the safest approaches in the game (so far, at least), the only way to repel a Diddy who has an item is simply to retreat, shielding or dodge don't work, his approach is THAT good. Even not including Diddy, every character in the game can now grab items during their dash attack. You can't bait and switch against an attack as the item will be picked up and you'll be forced to deal with the incoming attack.

Furthermore, the reasons people play poker and smash are completely different. The poker community should not, in any way, shape what the smash community does. To repeat myself, I don't see why poker's popularity has anything to do with smash.

Because all anyone does on this site is regurgitate Sirlins guide, even if they do so out of context or where inappropriate. I really want to know how abilities of appraisal are important for Smash.

Since everyone is so keen on examples, lets talk about a much more accurate example. Random item spawns are almost identicle to the coin flip to determine who gets the kick off in a pro football game. The parallels between this and items is stagering. Its a random chance that starts a sequence of events. One team is rewarded an ability to score a killing blow right off the bat (a touchdown or field goal, this would an advantage to have, much like holding an item in your hands) while the other team is forced to play defense. In the item debate, this is where people jump in and say "once someone has an item, that isn't an auto win button, you can still catch the item, defend, etc.". Just like in football, the team receiving the ball and being on offense first does not receive an auto win, they still have to get through some defense.

The team winning the coin toss is the team that wins overtime 70% of the time.

I'm willing to predict the person benefiting the most from random distribution will also have a similar advantage, all other factors being equal (in other words, equal skill in all facets of game play including a 50% success rate with items that spawn within equal grabbing range (range determined by character speed)).

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Would you like to explain this magical stage control that allows me to grab items more frequently than just playing normally? If the item spawns in space you occupy, then grab it. If it doesn't then you are either engaging the opponent, recovering, or your opponent gets the spawn. You cannot be in two places at once in Smash (obviously), so if I control one half of fd, and an item spawns on the other half, then I'm just SOL. The only way to ensure you get more items than the opponent isn't to control the stage but to control the opponent and make sure they never have a chance to land on the stage, meaning you need to keep a constant pressure so that when an item spawns, you will be the first to grab it (since you will have sent the opponent away). The thing is, this is just normal playing. You can't zone or camp and hope for a higher chance of getting an item because the space you control is just as likely to get an item as the space you DON'T control, and space you don't control is space your opponent controls. This aside, if you think you'll be able to bait better players with items your quite mistaken, especially Diddy players who will just cartwheel grab your item into your shield, throw it at you, (hitting you, or your shield, you have no chance to catch the item in this case, not putting the shield up means you will be hit by the cartwheel), and then proceed to A infinite your shield to nothing while whatever item it was lays there, by the Diddy players feet, out of your reach. Diddy has one of the safest approaches in the game (so far, at least), the only way to repel a Diddy who has an item is simply to retreat, shielding or dodge don't work, his approach is THAT good. Even not including Diddy, every character in the game can now grab items during their dash attack. You can't bait and switch against an attack as the item will be picked up and you'll be forced to deal with the incoming attack.


Alright, I'll try to formulate an example of an instant in time of a specific match.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/Cyntalan/example.jpg

This is a point in time in how stage control dictates item opportunity. The blue circle represents a location that an item could spawn in favor of Pikachu, where Wario most likely has no chance of grabbing first, the red is where Wario is in the same. Note how much of the stage is in possession of Wario. For that moment in time, if an item spawned, Wario's massive stage control advantage gives him a manipulation of luck to obtain that item. He controls more places an item could spawn than Pikachu, and thus, has a greater chance of obtaining said item. Of course, these areas of control shift size and shape greatly depending on many factors between character abilities, speed, and position. These areas of control also take into account that even if these items are in that range of control, to pick up an item, one must now continue to shift their control in order to obtain an item that is in their control. Or they could leave it, in hopes that their opponent think that they can get the item and gain an advantage to obtain MORE stage control than they had before.

What you have provided is a doom prophecy. If Diddy has abilities to help him gain an item first, then all that does is expand what his theoretical stage control area is. It doesn't make him god among items. At least, we have no evidence to prove such a thing. If it turns out that any retard with Diddy can pick up an item from anyone else at any given time and makes the game wholy unplayble because of Diddy's ability to collect items? Something might be done about it. If it's just a really good strategy that still takes a skillful player to do and otherwise doesn't ruin the competitive play? Probably won't change.

[Ryzol]

I've read the first 26 pages of this thread and then skipped an read 40-42, I think it's pretty much been agreed on that SSBB with items is going to be given a fair trial. With that said, why has it been assumed that normal stock brawl is the way to go? Perhaps coin, time, stamina or other special smash options would result in deeper gameplay.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

I've read the first 26 pages of this thread and then skipped an read 40-42, I think it's pretty much been agreed on that SSBB with items is going to be given a fair trial. With that said, why has it been assumed that normal stock brawl is the way to go? Perhaps coin, time, stamina or other special smash options would result in deeper gameplay.

I'm not so sure about coin or time, but I know that stamina was contemplated and thrown out, not for reasons of it not being deep, but for reasons that it just makes it one more step closer to just being Street Fighter w/ Nintendo characters. There's probably a good amount of depth there, especially considering that because damage is finite, the game doesn't register knockback variance based on damage, so every attack does the exact same knockback every time throughout the match. DIing could shift the way you move, but overall, it would create a more combo friendly environment akin to an SF game. One could of course test it out and see if there's anything that makes any of these modes more shallow than stock and are welcome to give some results of these tests to show one way or the other.

[alphazealot]

This is a point in time in how stage control dictates item opportunity. The blue circle represents a location that an item could spawn in favor of Pikachu, where Wario most likely has no chance of grabbing first, the red is where Wario is in the same. Note how much of the stage is in possession of Wario. For that moment in time, if an item spawned, Wario's massive stage control advantage gives him a manipulation of luck to obtain that item. He controls more places an item could spawn than Pikachu, and thus, has a greater chance of obtaining said item. Of course, these areas of control shift size and shape greatly depending on many factors between character abilities, speed, and position. These areas of control also take into account that even if these items are in that range of control, to pick up an item, one must now continue to shift their control in order to obtain an item that is in their control. Or they could leave it, in hopes that their opponent think that they can get the item and gain an advantage to obtain MORE stage control than they had before..

Was that Keits match? And if so, Pikachu existed in that position (IIRC) not by result of choice by by result of Wario sending him there, which falls in the bounds of Wario controlling space simply through natural playing. You are right, at that moment, Wario controls more space than Pikachu, but this statement would also be true if Pikachu was just recovering to the stage, in which case Wario controls the entire stage, and Pikachu controls nothing. It seems the answer is simple, be better enough than the opponent that you hit them off the stage more often than they hit you, therefor your time in control of the stage is of larger quantity than theirs and you should get more items...but...wait...isn't this the same as normally playing except now we reward the player who is already at an advantage from a successful attack/combo?

Also, going back to the football analogy, pro football is often ridiculed for the advantage given to the winning coin team in overtime. College football runs with a different rule set, where the first defending team is allowed to respond if the offensive team scores (well, actually, regardless, you each get equal attempts at scoring). So, the football is an item. During the game, teams jostle for this item and attempt to score it (player jostle for items and attempt to score KO's with them). When you control a football, just as when you control an item, you will score a touchdown eventually, usually you will score many touchdowns (when you hold an item, you will KO the opponent with one eventually, usually you will score many KO's, just look at Keits video, every stock was practically decided by items for the KO move). Overtime random coin flip = random item spawn. Person controlling football = person controlling item. Controlling the football will often result in a touchdown = controlling the item will often result in a KO (note, not the item spawn, the actual item, once it has spawned). Summation? Win the coin flip, stand a higher chance of winning the game. Win the coin flip that is the item spawn, stand a higher chance of winning the game.

[subt-L]

but...wait...isn't this the same as normally playing except now we reward the player who is already at an advantage from a successful attack/combo?

but wait... isn't that how it is in EVERY fighting game? shouldn't you reward the player who's winning the offensive game?

every fight game has setups, tech catches, tech traps, reset combos, even guard breaks off of offensives breaks.

this isn't the smartest way to go about arguing things... if anything, you'll only fueling the debate for the pro items side.

you're the one claiming shits random, now when the offensive player is taking a proactive approach to gaining items, now its unfair... despite randomness.

lets think out our arguments a little bit more before we post feeling all threated by a good counterpoint.

[Aleister Crowley]

Taking a character away is an entirely different scenario than taking items away.

I'd say it's a lesser change to take away a character than take away items.

This is a considerably lower random chance of effecting a match than items that spawn in random locations every 30 seconds or less, depending on your frequency. In other words, we know Peach's random chance very, very rarely has adverse consequences on a set, as Peach players generally place consistently (Melee example: Cort generally places top 5 at national tournaments, Vidjo top 10 at national tournaments and top 3 midwest tournaments, they have been unable to break the barrier above them, meaning the random chance is not enough to bridge the gap between them and the players above them (Mew2King, Azen, Ken), and its for this reason the random chances the character posses is not a problem, we have proof that Peach's random chance is negligible). If items achieve the same feet of consistent results, then allow them.

So does that mean you see the value of testing items?

I really hope that people don't look at times when it's say last stock high % and one person happens to get an item advantage and win because of it, I hope people don't simply look at that one brief snapshot of the match when randomness was unfortunate but completely ignore the (perhaps) added depth of the rest of the whole match.

This aside, if you think you'll be able to bait better players with items your quite mistaken, especially Diddy players who will just cartwheel grab your item into your shield, throw it at you, (hitting you, or your shield, you have no chance to catch the item in this case, not putting the shield up means you will be hit by the cartwheel), and then proceed to A infinite your shield to nothing while whatever item it was lays there, by the Diddy players feet, out of your reach. Diddy has one of the safest approaches in the game (so far, at least), the only way to repel a Diddy who has an item is simply to retreat, shielding or dodge don't work, his approach is THAT good. Even not including Diddy, every character in the game can now grab items during their dash attack. You can't bait and switch against an attack as the item will be picked up and you'll be forced to deal with the incoming attack.

Balance arguments are irrelevant.


The team winning the coin toss is the team that wins overtime 70% of the time.

Acutally, it's between 52% and 55%, depending on your data set.
http://www.maddenhistoric.com/brookspage.html

I'm willing to predict the person benefiting the most from random distribution will also have a similar advantage, all other factors being equal (in other words, equal skill in all facets of game play including a 50% success rate with items that spawn within equal grabbing range (range determined by character speed)).

Nobody has ever claimed that randomness will not increase the variance of the results. All other things being equal, the "lesser skilled" player (if we could define such a thing), will gain a slight advantage compared to no items, and earlier I did admit that if you add a random distribution to another, the variance increases (although strictly speaking it's actually the "convolution" of the two).

The question is how large is this advantage, and is the depth increase of the game and other benefits from items enough to balance it out? Nobody can know for sure without testing. If I had to guess I would say it's more likely that they won't, but I'm not willing to reject testing based on a hunch.

[Murda Inc]

Wireless controllers should be allowed
orginal gamecube controllers are hard to find
Modded controllers for SBB shouldn't be allowed

[Ceirnian]

Yeah, everyone hear that? No more modded sticks at Evo while we're at it.

[quiche]

Why not allow modded controllers? Want to shield as fast as someone with a modded controller without modding your own? Put shield on the Y button like I do.

...seriously.

[WraithGadra]

What about timed matches? That's default and there's no evidence that it doesn't work (at least not for brawl) Still, everybody seems to agree that stock matches are going to be played.

And it's funny that you would be anti item if they would be turned off by default.

Edit: saying only 2-300 players compete seriously in smash bros isn't true. Smash is huge and has easily >2000 players who attend tourneys regulary.

We can talk hypothetically all day, the facts are that items are default on, and we will use them until it is proven that they should be removed.

No. go back and read the discussions. They were banned because of randomness not being conducive to tournament play. Exploding capsules was just the prime example of an advantage being given to a random player. It was never the whole argument.

With the arguments you all are using, there should be no reason to ban any stages or items period. If you compromise and ban specific items, then your agreeing with the anti-item argument. You can't just numb the randomness by turning down the more powerful items and still keep your arguments intact. That is one of the prime reasons the pro-item players gave up the first time. It was because they had specific items banned in their tournaments. The reason? It was because of the severe advantages that were given by the more powerful items. Otherwise why would they ban them?

You all talk about dealing with items when they are given to a random player, but not with the problem itself. The randomness.

How exactly does 'one or two' equal 'all'? If something is proven to be ridiculously broken, it is banned. That doesn't mean that everything like it is banned as well.

[Shotokan Symphony]

I would like to comment on the card game analogy. The reason randomness is not a drawback, but in fact a boon in these games is because of secret information. This allows for bluffing. However, items do reward those who react more appropriately to unpredictable circumstances. They do create situations, like in Magic, where you modify your play style based on the chances of certain things happening, and the ability to set yourself up for unlikely wins, which I believe are quite interesting. However, I will not state that any or all items should necessarily be on or off. I do believe, though, that items add in certain ways to the gameplay, and that this should be weighed against the drawbacks.

P.S. Evo should look into custom stages and take full advantage of the ability to not only modify stage designs how we see fit, but to create no-hazard versions of many otherwise problematic stages.

That is a horrible analogy, and here's why:
1) Magic players can build their decks.
2) Magic games can potentially go on for half-hours.

[alphazealot]

but wait... isn't that how it is in EVERY fighting game? shouldn't you reward the player who's winning the offensive game?

every fight game has setups, tech catches, tech traps, reset combos, even guard breaks off of offensives breaks.

this isn't the smartest way to go about arguing things... if anything, you'll only fueling the debate for the pro items side.

you're the one claiming shits random, now when the offensive player is taking a proactive approach to gaining items, now its unfair... despite randomness.

lets think out our arguments a little bit more before we post feeling all threated by a good counterpoint.

1) Why reward a person who is already winning? Its unnessasasry
2) The reward for successful offensive rushes (sending the opponent away) may not always be equal. In a match of two S level players, they will each send each other away roughly equal times, but item spawns will favor one of these players more than the other for no reason at all.

The offensive player doesn't need to take a proactive approach to gaining items, he just needs to play the game normally (and I suppose try to control the center of the stage for best chances of grabbing item spawns, but you should be attempting to do this on most stages anyways to decrease chances of knockouts) and hope he will be the one getting an item when the opponent is hit away and not vice versa. Otherwise, if an item spawns and each player has an equal chance of getting it, then I have little qualms with items.
---
Today I plan to go to ChuDats and run/record matches with both items on and items off. My items on setting will include every item and FS except explosive ones because those seem to be in disfavor both here and at Smashboards, though note, proximity mines will still be on, as will the starfox bomb likely (unless its capable of breaking by being hit like a bombomb, but I don't think it is). I will try items on Low, though after 5 or so matches I may switch to the item frequency to see what else happens.
---
Last season, of 11 overtime games, the team winning the coin toss won seven, or 64 percent. In five games -- 45 percent -- the coin-toss champ won on its first possession.
Sorry, I was thinking of just the most recent NFL season (taken from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nfls_inferior_overtime.html)
The more overtime games that occur the more the numbers seem to even out, but the coin toss team still holds a 52%+ advantage to 44%. The less games that take place, the less the stats even out (obviously), which is more the case we will be looking at during tournaments. If a similar 52-48 advantage exists in Smash then I would strike items, 51-49, maybe (like the women to men ratio, its about even and technically should be 50%, but women hold a slight but almost negligible advantage). That said, after testing, I don't think it will be much closer to 60% or higher for the person receiving the most uncontested spawns also winning the match.

We can talk hypothetically all day, the facts are that items are default on, and we will use them until it is proven that they should be removed.

Lets run our tournaments through tournament mode, since its in the game. Lets keep items on medium as well (I think thats the default setting), lets also make the tournament FFA, since I see no reason why we should be limiting the game to only two people when up to 4 people are allowed to play, and since we are following designers intent (the default settings), and its obvious this is a party game, then yea, 4 person FFA, time set to 2 minutes, all items on, all FS on, lets random every stage with no counter pick system, and lets random every character because we don't know if it was meant for us to choose or meant for us to use the random button, since both are in the game and we don't know which is default (I guess we should run a tournament to test this). Man, default settings really seem like they are going to produce results indicative of skill don't they? I can't way to play like this.

[lamewadd]

That is a horrible analogy, and here's why:
1) Magic players can build their decks.
2) Magic games can potentially go on for half-hours.

I already know this to be true...but your recent actions are making me question whether or not you made this shit up.

[Shotokan Symphony]

I already know this to be true...but your recent actions are making me question whether or not you made this shit up.

Please read my previous post about you.
If any of you are actually believing this guy:

The required minimum time limit for any match is 40 minutes.
Taken from here. (http://www.usc.uwo.ca/clubs/wmga/062006Rules.doc)

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Was that Keits match? And if so, Pikachu existed in that position (IIRC) not by result of choice by by result of Wario sending him there, which falls in the bounds of Wario controlling space simply through natural playing. You are right, at that moment, Wario controls more space than Pikachu, but this statement would also be true if Pikachu was just recovering to the stage, in which case Wario controls the entire stage, and Pikachu controls nothing. It seems the answer is simple, be better enough than the opponent that you hit them off the stage more often than they hit you, therefor your time in control of the stage is of larger quantity than theirs and you should get more items...but...wait...isn't this the same as normally playing except now we reward the player who is already at an advantage from a successful attack/combo?

Alright, fine. Another example, same fight.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/Cyntalan/example2.jpg

Here we have Wario, who has just run over Pikachu. He's currently in flail, and Wario's on his bike. The red circles represent where Wario currently has control of item spawns while manning his bike, the yellow if he ditched the bike at this point in time. Note the capsule that has just spawned. While Wario is at the immediate stage control advantage due to the fact that Pikachu is in hitstun, he now has the choice of continuing his assault with the bike, breaking the capsule, then finding what's inside, risking an explosion instead. Or, he can ditch the bike, grab the capsule and use it, either by throwing it to the ground (probably after jumping so the risk of explosion is negated), or he can throw it at his opponent, where it could either drop an item in his position due to a block, could be caught, could explode, etc. At that moment in time, there was a lot of options. It just so happens Wario decided to continue his assault with the bike, hit the capsule, and blew up. Unfortunate, but ultimately just a bad decision, not random.

Also, while Pikachu is indeed in hitstun, Pikachu still has yet to land. When he lands, he could either think that Wario is going to take an attempt at continuing on with the bike, and roll away, or think that Wario will ditch the bike for the capsule, and instead roll forward and attempt to grab it before he does. This is how while Pikachu's at an immediate disadvantage, there's still options for both parties.

[Bakuryusan]

so I'm not sure if this is correct but it seems like on mushroomy kingdom you can make it always go to 1-2 by holding the shield button when you select the stage, i did it 10 times and it works every time. maybe you get 1-1 by holding A?

[lamewadd]

Please read my previous post about you.
If any of you are actually believing this guy:

Taken from here. (http://www.usc.uwo.ca/clubs/wmga/062006Rules.doc)

Unlike your previous posts, my posts tend to be rooted in fact. I'm not the one saying utter bullshit like the Halberd's cannon can possibly sneak up on you.

[alphazealot]

Your posts tend to be less than 20 words and trolling.

[lamewadd]

Your posts tend to be less than 20 words and trolling.

I hate to be pointing out irony so often...

[alphazealot]

Stop trolling, you do nothing but waste space and rarely contribute anything to any discussion, I'm not the only one in this thread that realizes this. I honestly picture you as a fat, 30 year old virgin man with nothing better to do with his time then eat pizza, drink soda, and sit at a computer while trying to posts retarded crap for shits and giggles.

Am I the only one who pictures Lamewadd this way?

[Parkreiner]

Stop trolling, you do nothing but waste space and rarely contribute anything to any discussion, I'm not the only one in this thread that realizes this. I honestly picture you as a fat, 30 year old virgin man with nothing better to do with his time then eat pizza, drink soda, and sit at a computer while trying to posts retarded crap for shits and giggles.

Am I the only one who pictures Lamewadd this way?

I imagine that most people who argue needlessly on an internet forum are like that.

In other words, you're a filthy hypocrite.

[subt-L]

Your posts tend to be less than 20 words and trolling.says the guy who's still hiding behind the "random" fire shield.


instead of still trying to find if the idea of items is broken, how about focusing on which items are broken.

one extreme in this conversation is NO ITEMS. the other extreme is ALL ITEMS.

a true compromise is somewhere inbetween. i'm sure there would be no arguments if it was all mr saturn's and bunny ears... just prove everything else is broken.

if you do, then there's no room for interpetation (unless a case for an item being broken isn't solid enough) and you've actually done something proactive.

but hiding in this shell of fighting game morality doesn't do any side of the arguement any good except for detracting from any meaningful discussion... instead, we're still arguing the same shit, and reiterating the same points that no one can prove because everyone's still arguing the same shit, and reiterating the same points no one can prove, because etc etc.

everyone's morals differ, but the stance of evo is solid... if its not broken, then it should be allowed. if it is broken, its up to the community to find it. that's my challenge to you and everyone else arguing against items, not if the idea of items are incohesive to how the game is played... because arguing semantics with people who's played broken games and persevered, none of the arguments seen through here hold any water, nor are progressive towards finding the real truth or a middle man.

[Bakuryusan]

so we should do a break down of each item and discuss why it should of shouldn't in the rule set.

[AlphaDragoon02]

I think that's a good idea. Play around with all the items individually, figure out what they're capable of and write it all down.

[Keits]

Unlike your previous posts, my posts tend to be rooted in fact. I'm not the one saying utter bullshit like the Halberd's cannon can possibly sneak up on you.

The lazer DID sneak up on my ONCE, and it was because it was during Snake's Final Smash, and I mistook the targeting reticle of the Halbred for Snakes. Hehe

so we should do a break down of each item and discuss why it should of shouldn't in the rule set.

Discussion is 10% of this proccess. We need documentation/video proof of proposed brokenness, then we need to see this brokenness skewing tournament results unreasonably, and/or becoming the only viable tactic in the game.

Every 'bullshit' thing Smashboards has told me about over the last 2 months, I have found a counter to, and Im not even that good.

[Bakuryusan]

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl/Items

heres a link to a list of all the items just in case you need a reference. id like to start off saying that i don't believe that we should have assist trophy's/pokeballs turned on.

Because:
1. there affect affect isn't controlled buy the user.
2. Some are really over powered while others or almost useless
3. some distract form what your doing as their only purpose (Togepi, Nintendogs, Tingle, Mr.Resetii.)
4. they can give a huge advantage while taking little skill to use .

this of course is my opinion i would like to hear a different one.

[PozerWolf]

off saying that i don't believe that we should have assist trophy's/pokeballs turned on.
I actually would agree with you on that part.

Me and my friends play with items on every now and then (set on low), and the results are really no different with items off.

However, when we did turn items on, we have trophies and pokeballs off.

At least with the Smash Ball, you can bait the opponent in trying to get it, only hit it once (not brake it) and can punish the opponent for trying to get it. While trophies and pokeballs, the reward is too large for the little work trying to get it.

[Muffin™]

im not to fond of there being items, skill level shouldn't be based on who gets the smashball firs, and as for dodging the final smash, that possible but not everyone, you have to di out of the attack before it can get you, Super sonic is broken when it comes to the final smash, I am down for 3 stocks and 5-6 minuets or no time, but thats about it.

[lamewadd]

The lazer DID sneak up on my ONCE, and it was because it was during Snake's Final Smash, and I mistook the targeting reticle of the Halbred for Snakes. Hehe


Ouch, that sucks...

But hey, we can all agree that saying the Halberd laser will just ZOMGSUDDENLYMAKEYOUGOSPLODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is completely incorrect.

And lol@the alphazealot smack talk that got promptly shot down.

[Statistics]

I don't suppose any real progress is being made on this issue, other than the decision that we should either have two tournament formats or a compromised one with no "broken" items.

I won't give you my 2 cents. Here's a penny, though.

I think these items will be shown through testing to warrant bans:
1) hammer
2) golden hammer
3) heart container
4) pokeball/assist trophy
5) fan (free infinite w/walls)

On a somewhat personal note, I really hope that this issue will be sorted out soon and in a polite, meaningful manner. Even though I happen to prefer no-item play, I can't really fault EVO for wanting to do what it's supposed to by collecting evidence that shows which items (and/or stages) shouldn't be allowed and why. I respect this community, and I think that we can make this game great if we can just get past this initial hurdle.

Melee's been around for 7 years. Who knows how long Brawl will last...

[Pimp Willy]

Just wanted to bring this video up, showing an exploding crate bringing a quick end to the match simply by chance

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b23d2opDD4Q

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Just wanted to bring this video up, showing an exploding crate bringing a quick end to the match simply by chance

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b23d2opDD4Q

I think I'd blame the spicy curry more than that fire crate due to how quickly it broke it, though both are factors of a random act ending the match. I can't say whether the random act could have been influenced in any way, as that spicy curry was out there for a while.

[felix45]

well, I would argue why not to have items, but everyone here is trolling so I'll just come in real quick, say what I gotta say, and leave.

items spawn randomly and provide advantages to the player closer to the item. I dont feel this random spawn can accurately gauge skill level of one player over the other, just because it was a luck based spawn. most items are broken/overpowered. I wont go too into detail, but basically pretty much any item you can jab with ends up being broken because the jabs when you have items get buffed to about the strength of a tilt but with the lag time of a jab. so you can just walk around and spam jab and end up killing your opponent. If i had a capture card I would demonstrate but alas I dont so yea....
basically, to compare to 3S, its pretty much like the speed of a jab from yun but the length of his mk. and its spamable because there is no real way to punish it thanks to start/end lag being really low.


on smashballs, I guess you dont really have to look further than sonic. all any sonic player has to do is run away all match, wait on the smashball, then go get it and abuse his broken FS. there is no dodging it, you will always die. to test it, I played vs my friend who mains sonic, 4 times without final smashes, 4 times with. on the match with, I told him to run away the whole time and get smashballs and thats it. he won by 1-2 stock (in a 3 stock match). without final smashes, I usually 2-3 stocked him. (oh if you were curious, we did it the tests on battlefield). the final smashes are broken, anyone can just pick sonic, run away, and get the final smash. it doesn't require skill, anyone can pick up the game and do it.

not everyone can pick up the game and play a character with items off and expect to win though. If items didn't give such extreme advantages I wouldn't have a problem with them. I'm seriously considering having food, sandbags, mr. saturn, bumpers, and a few other items that dont provide very extreme advantages even though their spawns are random. I honestly dont think that food, mr. saturn, or a few others should have been banned for melee either, but then it was me vs. tourney hosts word, and he always won out. but now that I'm hosting tourneys, I dont see the problem with them.




I hope you guys decide soon that there are quite a few broken strategies with items on, and that there really isn't anything you can do against the majority of items in smash. good luck in deciding what items should stay on and be taken off :)

[lamewadd]

well, I would argue why not to have items, but everyone here is trolling so I'll just come in real quick, say what I gotta say, and leave.You should've just skipped that first part.

items spawn randomly and provide advantages to the player closer to the item. I dont feel this random spawn can accurately gauge skill level of one player over the other, just because it was a luck based spawn. most items are broken/overpowered. No they aren't.

I wont go too into detail, but basically pretty much any item you can jab with ends up being broken because the jabs when you have items get buffed to about the strength of a tilt but with the lag time of a jab. The problem?

so you can just walk around and spam jab and end up killing your opponent. If i had a capture card I would demonstrate but alas I dont so yea....Funny how that happens.

basically, to compare to 3S, its pretty much like the speed of a jab from yun but the length of his mk. and its spamable because there is no real way to punish it thanks to start/end lag being really low.So it's so many of the good pokes in CVS2? I fail to see the problem.


on smashballs, I guess you dont really have to look further than sonic. all any sonic player has to do is run away all match, wait on the smashball, then go get it and abuse his broken FS. Sure is a coincidence that he's made to be fast enough to get the smash balls...but not so strong as to be incredible without them...almost like it was balanced with Smash Balls in mind?

there is no dodging it,Yes there is.

you will always die.No you won't.

to test it, I played vs my friend who mains sonic, 4 times without final smashes, 4 times with. on the match with, I told him to run away the whole time and get smashballs and thats it. he won by 1-2 stock (in a 3 stock match). without final smashes, I usually 2-3 stocked him. (oh if you were curious, we did it the tests on battlefield). the final smashes are broken, anyone can just pick sonic, run away, and get the final smash. it doesn't require skill, anyone can pick up the game and do it. Enter the next tournament and do this. If it's true, then prove it.

If items didn't give such extreme advantages I wouldn't have a problem with them.They don't.

I'm seriously considering having food, sandbags, mr. saturn, bumpers, and a few other items that dont provide very extreme advantages even though their spawns are random. That's stupid.

[WraithGadra]

Blast Boxes explode immediately if hit with fire attacks. It was the curry.

[GameBoyBob]

Why has this discussion gotten back to what items are “broken” and what are not. If the pro item people want their argument to hold even the least bit of water you can’t possible be considering banning any items? Seriously why would you ban one item over another if randomness can supposedly be controlled, or randomness is not bad at all in a tournament situations, or randomness doesn’t affect results, or it hasn’t been tested yet? You can’t just ban an item because of its supposed brokenness without defining what is broken, and from what you all’s post are saying is random advantages being given to a player does not equal broken. So again how can any item be even open to consideration of being broken? If you all remove any items or random oriented stages, then you all are the hypocrites to your argument. You’ll just be numbing the randomness without acknowledging the problem. Your definition of “broken” would be changing to suit your arguments.

[Shotokan Symphony]

Unlike your previous posts, my posts tend to be rooted in fact. I'm not the one saying utter bullshit like the Halberd's cannon can possibly sneak up on you.

I don't remember saying it snuck up on you. I said that you HAVE to MOVE to avoid it.

It's like you act as if positioning doesn't MATTER in a fighting game.

[Daemonk]

Next tournament we should just try to break the game:
-someone choose Sonic and try to run away the whole battle and wait for smash balls
-someone play Pit and try to stall by flying under battleground stage
-someone play sonic and just run around trying to get items
-play big stages and try to run away from opponent after you take one of their stock

Any argument for or against would all be theory gaming anyways. We should just try it out and see if it is broken.

[Ivootjes]

Why has this discussion gotten back to what items are “broken” and what are not. If the pro item people want their argument to hold even the least bit of water you can’t possible be considering banning any items? Seriously why would you ban one item over another if randomness can supposedly be controlled, or randomness is not bad at all in a tournament situations, or randomness doesn’t affect results, or it hasn’t been tested yet? You can’t just ban an item because of its supposed brokenness without defining what is broken, and from what you all’s post are saying is random advantages being given to a player does not equal broken. So again how can any item be even open to consideration of being broken? If you all remove any items or random oriented stages, then you all are the hypocrites to your argument. You’ll just be numbing the randomness without acknowledging the problem. Your definition of “broken” would be changing to suit your arguments.

QFT

Some of you seem to have made up an idea that consists of "acceptable randomness" and "unacceptable randomness" depending on the influence of the item. Only if one of you can prove (with tournament results!) that charachter x is broken and will win any match when he has item y this item will be turned off. Otherwise just accept it as part of the game.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

Why has this discussion gotten back to what items are “broken” and what are not. If the pro item people want their argument to hold even the least bit of water you can’t possible be considering banning any items? Seriously why would you ban one item over another if randomness can supposedly be controlled, or randomness is not bad at all in a tournament situations, or randomness doesn’t affect results, or it hasn’t been tested yet? You can’t just ban an item because of its supposed brokenness without defining what is broken, and from what you all’s post are saying is random advantages being given to a player does not equal broken. So again how can any item be even open to consideration of being broken? If you all remove any items or random oriented stages, then you all are the hypocrites to your argument. You’ll just be numbing the randomness without acknowledging the problem. Your definition of “broken” would be changing to suit your arguments.

I think we've been over this time and time again. I've been debating whether to even respond to this inane bullshit, but I once again will point it out to you. If points don't work, bludgeons will.

It may come to a point where we can see one particular item prove to give a player a massive reward with little risk. We are currently playing the game with all of them on to see if any items really even pose this problem to begin with. We're also seeing if ANY item poses this problem. In Melee, items weren't banned for a good long while but at the same time, certain items were removed early on due to the fact the reward was far too great for little risk and little strategy in its defense. This was the case in Hearts/Maxims and stars in Melee. Hearts/Maxims were automatically applied on pickup, and instantly healed 100%/50%. The only thing the opponent could do at the time was get it first. After it was collected, the damage was done (or undone, as it were), and that was it.

Similar case was made with stars, in that the item was activated on touch, gave no risk to its use while gave the player invincibility for a finite time. The only strategic point, again, was to get it before your opponent does. After it was touched, that was it. The player is invincible, and the only defense was to run from your opponent.

You could argue that smashballs have similarities between stars. The difference is that smashballs aren't activated by touch alone. It requires damage to be dealt to it, then used. All this time, it can be a battle for it. You can't knock a star out of your opponent, nor is there even time to do so even if you could between access and action.

As of now, not even healers or stars have been removed from play, as we have no idea how much of an impact they make here. There's a number of changes from Melee to Brawl that may just make these items not so overpowering. I personally don't see them yet in theory fighter land, but I'm not going to pass judgment on it two weeks after playing the game. So far in my experience, they haven't made an impact in any of my matches. This goes for any item so far. I haven't been able to blame a single item for a loss in my games. An item may have been what assisted/dealt the final blow, but I can't blame the item as I let my opponent receive it, then did not follow through with a proper defense and/or counter after I failed.

QFT

Some of you seem to have made up an idea that consists of "acceptable randomness" and "unacceptable randomness" depending on the influence of the item. Only if one of you can prove (with tournament results!) that charachter x is broken and will win any match when he has item y this item will be turned off. Otherwise just accept it as part of the game.

The bolded actually is what we mean by unacceptable randomness. So far, other than that specific scenario, I can't see a reason to ban an item either.

[Ivootjes]

That doesn't make the item broken though, only adds more variance in the game. But any item does that. Some do it more than others, but ultimately none of them really is broken as in unbeatable for the entire match.

BTW: Little risk high reward strategies is part of any fighting game.

[lamewadd]

I don't remember saying it snuck up on you. I said that you HAVE to MOVE to avoid it.

It's like you act as if positioning doesn't MATTER in a fighting game.

You act as if the Halberd cannon isn't part of positioning. Regardless, here's your bullshit post:

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.


Now, let's notice a few things:
1) Suddenly? The cannon takes a long time to fire.
2) It happens with any sort of speed? A better way to put it would be "LASER SIGHTS APPEAR ON BLANKA AND BOTH PLAYERS STAND PERFECTLY STILL BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN FIGHTING GAMES AND THEN TWENTY SECONDS LATER A DEATHBEAM GUARDCRUSHES HIM THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE COMING EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE WARNED OF IT AND WHERE IT WAS GONNA SHOOT TWENTY SECONDS AGO!"
3) He knew where it was going to appear. It was going to appear where the reticule appeared after a certain length of time, and can be seen in the background.

Nice try, pal. Leaving would be nice, though.

[GameBoyBob]

It isn’t about whether a single random event is the cause of the match. It’s about the accumulative randomness. Suppose Player A will get 94 points of randomness in his favor despite stage control and player B will get 93 points of randomness even though he didn’t control the stage for the majority of the match. It is common for randomness to favor a player in a single match. It is possible it could be evened out over a course of a several matches but possible not. It could take hundreds matches for items randomness to be evenly distributed. In any case, if a match comes down to the wire, a random factor could decide the outcome, which is unacceptable to most tournament organizers. The very nature of randomness is to be inconsistent in the short term and consistent in the long term. But single matches aren’t consistant. You could have three games were two of games had even distrupution of items(unlikly), but in one there was one single instance of unequal distribution that pushed a match in the direction of the person who would of lost.

I think we've been over this time and time again. I've been debating whether to even respond to this inane bullshit, but I once again will point it out to you. If points don't work, bludgeons will. We may have been over it but the result wasn't satisfactory. You give situations of touch-activated items but don't address the fact that any item is an advantage in one way or another. You say acceptable risk versus reward, but that doesn't relate to the fact that these items give advantages at differing degrees no matter their power. A star is a powerful item with low risk but you don't address that all items give advantages to some degree. You seem to agree items will cause skewed results at one point depending on the item and then you say acceptable risk versus reward, so therefore its ok?

By the way, I respect your arguments along with most of the people posting here, so lets keep this discussion from devolving into snips. I'm guilty of it as well.

I read your whole post, I just only quoted a part of it.

[Scamp]

That doesn't make the item broken though, only adds more variance in the game. But any item does that. Some do it more than others, but ultimately none of them really is broken as in unbeatable for the entire match.

BTW: Little risk high reward strategies is part of any fighting game.


I see this kind of statement a lot. I don't agree with it.

Just because something has the possibility to be avoided/countered doesn't mean that it's not broken.

Take, for example, the dragoon parts. It's a one-hit KO if it hits (just assume there are no walls or ceilings around) but it can be dodged. It's really easy to target someone with the shot, so the only defense is to dodge it. If you fail a dodge, however, you'll get hit (assuming your opponent can use it properly and reacts well). So it's kind of like a game of chicken, or rock/paper/scissors. However, in this game there is no punishment for one side if he loses.

As it stands now, I think that's way too powerful. Now, that doesn't mean they should be turned off right now because maybe something will come up with testing that makes it less powerful. But as it stands right now I think it's a strong candidate to be taken off.


Also, with all the evidence so far (video evidence even) why are exploding items (that explode on contact, mind you) still okay?


Again, keep them on for more testing. But I think there should be some things that should be getting the ax if Evo were held tomorrow.

[alphazealot]

This was the case in Hearts/Maxims and stars in Melee. Hearts/Maxims were automatically applied on pickup, and instantly healed 100%/50%. The only thing the opponent could do at the time was get it first. After it was collected, the damage was done (or undone, as it were), and that was it.

Aren't half the arguments about the skill required to be like a poker player so you get more spawns by controlling random variables (zoning) and get to items quicker. I see no reason this argument doesn't also apply to healing items.

[The Game II]

I can't believe how much this thread has moved; I'm not going to read it all. LOL

Anyway ...

I'm still not sold on items, but I am now in favor of FS.

A guy whose opinion I respect a lot talked about possibly allowing items into play. He brought up a list that could be acceptable in play (http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=154923) and I broke it down (http://www.gameriot.com/blogs/Get-Your-Tournament/An-items-list-worth-considering-for-Brawl-tourneys/').

For those who are in favor of items, this could be a starting point as to what is allowed.

I do want to say something about FS; just because one character is immune, I don't see all 300 EVO players gravitating toward that character because of that. The game is almost 2 weeks old, maybe there will be more revealed.

--GCII

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

For regarding items I was saying might be removed, I was referring simply to why they were eventually removed in Melee. I currently have no opinion on any item's "brokenness" at this stage in Brawl. The theory behind a specific item's removal is typically behind not just a risk vs. reward but what is sacrificed in the process. It's really hard to look at items like the wielders(bat, rod, stick,sword), and not see what you lose when you gain (most of your normal, faster, A moves and grabs). It's also difficult, albiet less so, to see what is lost when you gain in a tossed item like a Pokeball (similar with the A moves and grab, as well as a more defensive opponent to decide how to use it properly). It's much more difficult to see the loss in touching a star, picking up a heart or a spicy curry. Is the reward too much for so little lost? That's where the question brings us to an individual item removal. Again, I won't say these items should be outright banned. I won't make that call 'til I see a logical reason to why. However, they do look like something I'm keeping my eye on sharpest. They throw up a flag, but I can't really say whether it's justified or not.

[lamewadd]

a list that could be acceptable in play (http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=154923) and I broke it down (http://www.gameriot.com/blogs/Get-Your-Tournament/An-items-list-worth-considering-for-Brawl-tourneys/').
--GCII
DON'T CLICK HIS LINKS!

WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT CLICK THOSE LINKS!

[Septimus Prime]

The lazer DID sneak up on my ONCE, and it was because it was during Snake's Final Smash, and I mistook the targeting reticle of the Halbred for Snakes. Hehe
To be honest, I didn't see the laser coming either, for the exact same reason. :lol:

So now we know: if you're facing a Snake player, don't use Halberd as your counterpick. :rofl:

[caffeinetc]

I have a feeling all this debating is for naught. In the end, the best players will be coming from the tournament Melee scene. These players didn't play items before, and they won't want to play with items for Brawl for the exact same reasons. "Evo is gonna use items? Psh, forget that."

[Ivootjes]

I see this kind of statement a lot. I don't agree with it.

Just because something has the possibility to be avoided/countered doesn't mean that it's not broken.

Take, for example, the dragoon parts. It's a one-hit KO if it hits (just assume there are no walls or ceilings around) but it can be dodged. It's really easy to target someone with the shot, so the only defense is to dodge it. If you fail a dodge, however, you'll get hit (assuming your opponent can use it properly and reacts well). So it's kind of like a game of chicken, or rock/paper/scissors. However, in this game there is no punishment for one side if he loses.

As it stands now, I think that's way too powerful. Now, that doesn't mean they should be turned off right now because maybe something will come up with testing that makes it less powerful. But as it stands right now I think it's a strong candidate to be taken off.


Also, with all the evidence so far (video evidence even) why are exploding items (that explode on contact, mind you) still okay?


Again, keep them on for more testing. But I think there should be some things that should be getting the ax if Evo were held tomorrow.

I only say that we should either turn them all off (which i would love to see, the random impact is horrible for accurate results, imo we should try to avoid random advantages/disadvantages as much as possible) or turn all items on.

Some pro-item people in here post: "Yeah, random items are okay, as long as the randomness doesn't screw results too badly. so we should ban some items and some not."
...wtf? Doesn't that go against your own reasoning of allowing everything until proven broken in tournaments?

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

I only say that we should either turn them all off (which i would love to see, the random impact is horrible for accurate results, imo we should try to avoid random advantages/disadvantages as much as possible) or turn all items on.

This is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Others opinions are also equally entitled. I'll reuse what I said in the other thread:

Overall, opinions on the matter are fairly worthless in this topic as a whole. What seems to be the question at hand isn't a poll asking which way they prefer, but what hurts the game's competitiveness, which, aside from the opinions on the matter, hasn't really been discussed at all, nor can be, honestly. The game's too new to make decisions on it. Whatever our opinions may be, the fact is that what's a problem for the game will be looked at for removal. Not what's liked/disliked by a majority/minority.

Some pro-item people in here post: "Yeah, random items are okay, as long as the randomness doesn't screw results too badly. so we should ban some items and some not."
...wtf? Doesn't that go against your own reasoning of allowing everything until proven broken in tournaments?

Which is why... now listen closely... we are not removing them yet.

[Ivootjes]

At least i have some respect for that opinion. (looking at it from your point of view)

I don't have it for the "lets play with half of the items people"

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

At least i have some respect for that opinion. (looking at it from your point of view)

I don't have it for the "lets play with half of the items people"

I fully agree. Those claiming that we should turn off certain items at this time are doing so as prematurely as those claiming to turn them all off. It's unwarranted, and unfounded. Though, I do see a lot of people that talk as if to say they are expecting certain items to be turned off down the line, rather than trying to say to turn them off now.

[nasir]

Instead of constantly squabbling amongst yourselves..

Go help make a difference.


Next SRK Online Tourny (http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=152332)

[Shotokan Symphony]

You act as if the Halberd cannon isn't part of positioning. Regardless, here's your bullshit post:



Now, let's notice a few things:
1) Suddenly? The cannon takes a long time to fire.
2) It happens with any sort of speed? A better way to put it would be "LASER SIGHTS APPEAR ON BLANKA AND BOTH PLAYERS STAND PERFECTLY STILL BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN FIGHTING GAMES AND THEN TWENTY SECONDS LATER A DEATHBEAM GUARDCRUSHES HIM THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE COMING EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE WARNED OF IT AND WHERE IT WAS GONNA SHOOT TWENTY SECONDS AGO!"
3) He knew where it was going to appear. It was going to appear where the reticule appeared after a certain length of time, and can be seen in the background.

Nice try, pal. Leaving would be nice, though.

Nice try, indeed. I guess you missed the post where I stated that the situation is interchangable with items. You don't know when it's going to happen, but when it does, any rhythm you had going for the match just goes out the window when you make a mad dash for the item. But I keep forgetting that you don't like reading, and have a selective memory. Please go fuck yourself.

[Shotokan Symphony]

I fully agree. Those claiming that we should turn off certain items at this time are doing so as prematurely as those claiming to turn them all off. It's unwarranted, and unfounded. Though, I do see a lot of people that talk as if to say they are expecting certain items to be turned off down the line, rather than trying to say to turn them off now.

The thing is that it's easier just to turn off items now. That way, people can spend more time learning their characters before they learn items. and the whole deal with items, were they to be introduced into play, is that it's difficult to say which should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's very time consuming, and preventing players from focusing on their characters.

[subt-L]

is that how this argument has regressed? people arguing with reverse logic?

not only has this situation turned from beliefs and fighting game morals, now the debate lingers into lexicon and linguistics as opposed to the only thing ANYONE pro-items is arguing, and that is this:

If it ain't broken, its not worth fixing.

arguing otherwise is stupid thanks. break it and get items taken out. stop trying to find the fine print in your quest to make this a melee ver.2 tournament.

[Corner-Trap]

I've given up on the whole item debate, so for now I'm going to talk about the stage/character rules. First off who here agrees with my previous settings? If you don't remember them here they are again:

1) First stage is chosen randomly
2) Players then double blind pick their characters
3) Loser gets to choose next stage and change change character
4) Winner gets to strike out a stage and must keep the same character

Secondly, I don't think we should ban stages just because a certain character does well on it. Also I'm against the idea of neutral stages, because there literally is no such thing as a neutral stage. Falco and Marth do incredibly well on stages like Final Destination and Battlefield respectively, while characters like Olimar do bad on stages with ledges in general. So no matter how simple or fair a stage looks, it just can't be considered neutral.

I understand that the whole reason there are neutral stages is so that players won't get screwed over for the first stage being bad for their character. But if we simply announce the first stage before anyone chooses their character then he can pick a character who doesn't do so bad on that particular stage.

[Ceirnian]

The thing is that it's easier just to turn off items now. That way, people can spend more time learning their characters before they learn items. and the whole deal with items, were they to be introduced into play, is that it's difficult to say which should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's very time consuming, and preventing players from focusing on their characters.

You can spend plenty of time learning your character with items on, and if you want to devote time to just that there is training or... turning items off for awhile! Just because something is easier doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

If you are going to flame me for reading comprehension, instead turn that energy back on yourself and write out your responses in a more 'clear' manner.

[Yeroc]

You make it sound like items-on and items-off have mutually exclusive skillsets. It's still Smash. And easier =/= better, necessarily.

Ediit: Corner I'd be interested to see how your rules turn out. Admittedly I still feel like you give the loser of a match too much control over counterpicking, but I think the strike rule is interesting. How exactly would one pick the stage first before characters?

[Corner-Trap]

You make it sound like items-on and items-off have mutually exclusive skillsets. It's still Smash. And easier =/= better, necessarily.

Ediit: Corner I'd be interested to see how your rules turn out. Admittedly I still feel like you give the loser of a match too much control over counterpicking, but I think the strike rule is interesting. How exactly would one pick the stage first before characters?

Well there are two options:

1) In Melee you could pick a stage and exit right back out before it loads. I'm not sure if this can be done in Brawl, but if it can we can just use that method. Simple pick random select to see what stage pops up then exit back out and let people pick their characters.

2) If this feature is not in Brawl then whoever is observing the station(assuming theres at least one staff member at each setup) can pick a stage at random and tell the players.

And I do realize that it may seem like I'm giving the loser to much of an advantage, but I want to see how it works out before I tweak anything. And I did offer the strike out rule specifically to combat the losers of getting to much of an advantage.

[WraithGadra]

Why has this discussion gotten back to what items are “broken” and what are not. If the pro item people want their argument to hold even the least bit of water you can’t possible be considering banning any items? Seriously why would you ban one item over another if randomness can supposedly be controlled, or randomness is not bad at all in a tournament situations, or randomness doesn’t affect results, or it hasn’t been tested yet? You can’t just ban an item because of its supposed brokenness without defining what is broken, and from what you all’s post are saying is random advantages being given to a player does not equal broken. So again how can any item be even open to consideration of being broken? If you all remove any items or random oriented stages, then you all are the hypocrites to your argument. You’ll just be numbing the randomness without acknowledging the problem. Your definition of “broken” would be changing to suit your arguments.

I only say that we should either turn them all off (which i would love to see, the random impact is horrible for accurate results, imo we should try to avoid random advantages/disadvantages as much as possible) or turn all items on.

Some pro-item people in here post: "Yeah, random items are okay, as long as the randomness doesn't screw results too badly. so we should ban some items and some not."
...wtf? Doesn't that go against your own reasoning of allowing everything until proven broken in tournaments?

To both of these: Just because you deal in absolutes (all items or no items) doesn't mean everyone else has to. If (a rather large IF) one or two items prove to be detrimental to the game as a whole (not to the game a specific group wants to play), they can be removed without removing every other item. I don't see what's so difficult about that.

The thing is that it's easier just to turn off items now. That way, people can spend more time learning their characters before they learn items. and the whole deal with items, were they to be introduced into play, is that it's difficult to say which should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's very time consuming, and preventing players from focusing on their characters.

Sounds like "I don't want to think about what game I'm playing, so let's just use the rules to the old game so we don't have to." That attitude is lazy, pure and simple. So what if it's time consuming, what else do you have but time? Brawl's not going anywhere any time soon, we may as well look at the entire game and determine what should and should not be used. After all, there's no guarantee that we'll get another one, let's make the best of what we have.

I have a feeling all this debating is for naught. In the end, the best players will be coming from the tournament Melee scene. These players didn't play items before, and they won't want to play with items for Brawl for the exact same reasons. "Evo is gonna use items? Psh, forget that."

If the old guard doesn't want to try any thing new, the new blood will. Brawl is ridiculously popular, there will be no shortage of players whatever rule set Evo decides on. Sure, they were good at Melee, but that doesn't grant them some "special power" over how Brawl will develop, no matter how much some people wish it did.

[Henaki]

If the old guard doesn't want to try any thing new, the new blood will. Brawl is ridiculously popular, there will be no shortage of players whatever rule set Evo decides on. Sure, they were good at Melee, but that doesn't grant them some "special power" over how Brawl will develop, no matter how much some people wish it did.

It gives them the most insight over competitive brawl considering they are the best players at it from their melee experiences.

[Shotokan Symphony]

You can spend plenty of time learning your character with items on, and if you want to devote time to just that there is training or... turning items off for awhile! Just because something is easier d