Evo Brawl Rules Discussion

[Captain Falcon]

edit actually the sensor system here totally had forced sex with my original post so I'm not gonna bother posting it

can't you fucking have the cd-i king or something if you have to have a dumb ninty character, at least he's cool and knows exactly what all true warriors strive for

*karakusa -> fierce -> ex hayate*

as for your peepee. ...YES! *Falcon knee's it*

[Reno K]

The right thing to do after people got screwed, was to continue playing with items, tell the internet trolls to stfu, and have the community develop and lobby for ways to improve the game and make items and stages play better. Had that happened, brawl might have handled items in a better way, and we may not have needed to address it again now.

How is that more right than playing the way they found to be deeper and more fun? For all the community cared, Nintendo had already given us a way to improve the game and make items and stages play better - by giving us the item and stage switches.

Because the wrong choice was made then, the same issues continue today. Nintendo has added more to the game, the players are even more judgemental, with even less experience. Some players feel it's ok to just reject the new game. Other players are still afraid of people calling the game a "party game" and players not "taking smash seriously", and promoting these illogical fears as facts. The door has been opened to "game design via internet posts", and it looks like a big mess.

How was that the wrong choice? It seems rather relative to me if it was right or wrong - if you're pro-items, you probably thought it was wrong, and if you're anti-items, you probably thought it was right.

Anyone like the gamestop tournament? well there's a reason they didn't respect the 'official tournament ruleset', and it's just the beginning. If we want to help make future smash games better, we have to play them close to whats released, not a stripped down version made over the internet.

The reason they didn't respect the community's ruleset is because they don't care about it; does that matter for a community that built up the game to a level beyond what they could've imagined? We already rejected the idea of timed FFA matches with items on all stages - why would we accept 'Nintendo-sanctioned' tourney rules?

And how is not playing "a stripped down version made over the internet" going to "make future smash games better"?

Alternatively we can not learn from past mistakes, and Nintendo will continue adding items and features without player feedback, players will continue to fall back to older versions and make up complaints about smash going in the wrong direction, and the scene will continue to diverge from the actual Smash series.

This whole post boils down to an opinion of yours - that the melee players made the "wrong" choice. Which is cool - that's just part of this argument.

But then you try to spin it into how that decision caused Brawl to be worse than it could've been, and that Nintendo would've designed Brawl items to be more acceptable to the hardcore competitive players they totally care about if ONLY the Melee community had embraced item play?

That's where I call BS.

[subt-L]

yeah, i think it wasn't exactly the most thought out argument to say that items off in melee was a bad thing for the game.

in melee, i'll admit, the random crates and capsules you couldn't turn off... yeah, those needed to go.

the items weren't really that bad, to be honest. but since you couldn't turn off containers, and explosions killed really low in melee, items did need to go.

and melee was forced to play that hand... simply because too many people found themselves on the bad side of exchanges where they would get owned for no good reason.

but to turn that back to our current situation...

now, capsules and crates can be turned off. on top of that, explosions aren't as bad of a low level killer anymore.

items did go through a rebalance. things have changed. we can break down when items spawn, with a good gameplan, you can have a decent amount of control who gets to which items. with a good item list that has been tried through fire, you can have a good, skill based match without the worry of a random crate spawning in your shit and killing you.

the thing that melee did wrong was not make clear as to why items needed to go. the core argument back then hasn't changed. now the biggest problem with melee has changed... and now, its up to the community to find out which items are simply "party" and which ones are good for "serious" gameplay.

the whole "absolutely no items" thing is still fear of the unknown.

items can fix alot of problems gameplay without weapons has. distance between tiers is shortened. camping is disadventageous. items encourage and often force offensive gameplay. items give players edgeguarding options. items help speed up gameplay, and add dimensions to characters that lack in certain areas.

i really wish people would really try playing with items instead of falling into the status quo. its the vagueness and situationals that are trying to masquerade as proof against weapons that really do reflect badly. it does come off as bullying evo into deciding its rules without considering balance or testing. overpowered weapons? unbeatable situations?

those can only be found by playing the game with weapons, not by rhetorically stating off hand situations that could cost you 10 million dollars...

[M3zm3r1z3]

No items, thanks.

[Fat Otaku]

It is a pitty. I think people like the Smash Brothers series for a few reasons.

1. Recognizable characters for the young and old. Kids love Pokemahns! >_< me love Sonic!
2. Relatively simple gameplay compared to other, more intense fighting games like Guilty Gear.
3. Spacing between n00b, scrub, and pro is much smaller then said fighting games like Guilty Gear.

Here we are arguing about factors that items contribute that ruins the gameplay, when we are playing a game that is a joke in skill compared to the traditional fighting games.

[Ceirnian]

It is a pitty. I think people like the Smash Brothers series for a few reasons.

1. Recognizable characters for the young and old. Kids love Pokemahns! >_< me love Sonic!
2. Relatively simple gameplay compared to other, more intense fighting games like Guilty Gear.
3. Spacing between n00b, scrub, and pro is much smaller then said fighting games like Guilty Gear.

Here we are arguing about factors that items contribute that ruins the gameplay, when we are playing a game that is a joke in skill compared to the traditional fighting games.

You just opened up a can of worms that should have stayed sealed up...

[Fat Otaku]

Its almost breakfast time for the fish. Your going to need it.

[Tam]

I like capsules and boxes to be turned off indefinitely

That shit is crazy lamel!!!!!! You don't know which one will explode or not!!!!!!!!! FORGET THAT!!! I DONT WANT TO GET HIT BY A CAPSULE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP!!!!!

I'll take any ruleset Evo is going to have! CUZ ROB IS GOING TO TAKE THAT CROWN!!!!!

[Reno K]

It is a pitty. I think people like the Smash Brothers series for a few reasons.

1. Recognizable characters for the young and old. Kids love Pokemahns! >_< me love Sonic!
2. Relatively simple gameplay compared to other, more intense fighting games like Guilty Gear.
3. Spacing between n00b, scrub, and pro is much smaller then said fighting games like Guilty Gear.

Here we are arguing about factors that items contribute that ruins the gameplay, when we are playing a game that is a joke in skill compared to the traditional fighting games.

I'm going to assume this was merely flame bait because otherwise it's the stupidest post in this entire thread. =p

[lamewadd]

why do u insist on address my posts when you don't read them, or fail to understand them.I read it. That's why I responded to it, rather than letting your idiotic, baseless, senseless ramblings slide.

I said that his claim is dumb that he knows better than a large group of people, and would have done better than them in accomplishing something that they not only did quite spectacularly, but also something which he can't Objectively prove to be done poorly.Your claim is dumb. You're the one coming here and saying "lol, r way is the better way, even though you SF guys have been doing this shit since afore we were born!" and you're saying you know how to run a tournament when Evo has always 1) been bigger and 2) been better than anything lowly smashboarders could comprehend.

second i don't recall claiming to mess with the game, i didn't, and i have no intention to now, so piss off with your petty insults, and lack of comprehension. What do you think turning off the items is?

I may not post in perfectly planned grammar and spelling, but at least i don't intentionally read Got that right, at least.

also he didn't criticize anyone, he made a sweeping generalization with no evidence, and claimed something as ludicrous as being able to out develop a game/ community thats been going for 7 years.He's here on SRK. I hate to tell you, but he HAS developed a game and there's not even a contest as to who has the better community. I laugh! :rofl:

and since for the last two pages I've been arguing for all items, your Piplup reference is not only stupid but off base, and revealing that you really aren't reading much, if any of the words I'm saying.Typically a new "paragraph" (that is, in text, the beginning of a new thought represented by a space between it and another block of text) means a new subject. I was no longer directing my thoughts at you. I was mocking the silly pokeball EBILNESS!!!!! Man...you really DON'T know how to read.

lol and then you finish with an adhom, its great that your mature, and with 120 + posts devoted to this topic you prove not only do u have no life, but you can troll.

(see what i did there, ya adhoms can go both ways.)Well...I can't argue with that.

[M3D]

Your claim is dumb. You're the one coming here and saying "lol, r way is the better way, even though you SF guys have been doing this shit since afore we were born!" and you're saying you know how to run a tournament when Evo has always 1) been bigger and 2) been better than anything lowly smashboarders could comprehend.

I think I've already demonstrated that this entire argument is pointless. I have personally directed bigger gaming tournaments/events than Evo and have been competing in tournaments for various games since ST hit arcades back in the early nineties. I know a lot of hardcore smashers with similar gaming and/or professional resumes. For that matter, Evo has to run several games to draw the audience they do. Major smash events regularly beat single-game turnouts for Evo events.

Just because we're on your forum doesn't mean you get to make stuff up about how much more experienced and intelligent you are than Smashers. And playing the same old tired games after years and year doesn't make you superior in anyway. Each community has had its share of successes and its pointless to be arguing over who has the biggest ePeen in a discussion like this. So to parrot that brilliant argument, "Your claim is dumb."

[Keits]

I like capsules and boxes to be turned off indefinitely

That shit is crazy lamel!!!!!! You don't know which one will explode or not!!!!!!!!! FORGET THAT!!! I DONT WANT TO GET HIT BY A CAPSULE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP!!!!!

I'll take any ruleset Evo is going to have! CUZ ROB IS GOING TO TAKE THAT CROWN!!!!!

Capsules, you are correct on. Crates and Barrels do not explode unless marked. They can be filled with exposives, but you'd have to use a multihitting attack on it to get blown up. Learn how to safely bust these open, or just avoid them entirely :)

[Yeroc]

Tam, your complaint is valid, but it's the wrong facet of the problem.

I will try to sum up why I think they (plus probably the rest of the explodable bomb items) can be turned off without further testing. Capsules can be broken in one hit. They can also explode. That means that a capsule can in theory be detonated immediately upon instantiation by an attack that was input before the capsule was even there. This gives no chance to even begin to react to the capsule, or the probable chance that it could explode. We've already determined that this is an extraneous and unanswerable condition that resulted in the wholesale banning of items in Melee, and this has not changed in any fundamental sense in Brawl. Therefore, containers have to go.

[Keits]

Well it HAS changed, in that

A.) they do not knockback nearly as far take much higher percentages to kill and
B.) the items come at a fairly predictable spawn time, so pay attention and be aware that charging a smash between the 10 and 14 second interval is a risk. (just quickly attacking can cause this, but its not as common).
C.) only 25% of the capsules are explosive.


So, i could see people eventually wanting bob'ombs to go... but the idea of the current ruleset in testing is that you play longer sets so that these wtf-moments mean a lot less.

[CyntalanMaelstrom]

B.) the items come at a fairly predictable spawn time, so pay attention and be aware that charging a smash between the 10 and 14 second interval is a risk.

Just a note: Items spawned in similarly predictable intervals in Melee and SSB64 as well. Not exactly a change.

[alphazealot]

So, your argument is that we should make sets longer because you do, in fact, admit that wtf moments happen with items? Best of 5, 7, 9, 11...extending the set length doesn't decrease the importance of a single game (and therefor a single stock/item wtf moment). In 2006, most of MLG's tournaments went at least 9 games (a couple went the full 11 games). 1 game always means a lot, regardless of the length of the set.

[Yeroc]

Well it HAS changed, in that

A.) they do not knockback nearly as far take much higher percentages to kill and
B.) the items come at a fairly predictable spawn time, so pay attention and be aware that charging a smash between the 10 and 14 second interval is a risk. (just quickly attacking can cause this, but its not as common).
C.) only 25% of the capsules are explosive.


So, i could see people eventually wanting bob'ombs to go... but the idea of the current ruleset in testing is that you play longer sets so that these wtf-moments mean a lot less.Yes, but it's the fact that it even happens that's the issue here. It's already been established that it was the instance of the problem, not the results of it, that caused problems in Melee. And the problem hasn't been solved, only its impact been lessened.

A. You still don't even get a chance to react to it, you just take 20%, which makes it essentially arbitrary. I don't think that's right.

B. But you still can't predict it entirely, so you're left with your ability to react to what happens. See point A.

C. In Melee, and I think SSB as well, it was 12.5%. So now, despite the fact that it's, as you say, less consequential, it actually has a higher probability of happening in the first place. Which as I've said is the entire problem.

[Galactic]

By arguing that if one item needs to be turned off, then the rest do, you're just showing your ignorance on the subject.

There are plenty of items which serve only to enhance gameplay, and there are plenty of items which don't. Our goal is to find out which work; yours is to remove them all entirely. If there is a decision to remove Hearts because theres no counter in place for it, that doesn't make smokeball a broken item. If we decide to remove curry because it leads to easy KO's on walkoff stages, that doesn't make ray gun broken.

All items on is exactly what you claim it is: random. Random enough that there will be some "Oh-Fuck" moments with containers exploding in peoples faces, starmans falling mid combo, hearts giving people free stocks, and the like. If you are truly prepared to accept such a tournament, then fine, let's do it. Either one of 2 things will happen:

1) The tourney will turn out to be a great success. The top players will rise, place in the top 8, get their respect. Afterwards, everyone will give those players their respect for doing a good job, learning to deal with evolving situations, and truly being the best at the game. Afterwards, Evo staff will be happy with the results, the attitude of the players, and the resulting aftermath, and Brawl will be back next year.

Or

2) The tourney is filled with people bitching about items left and right. The attitudes is entirely negative, nobody takes the tournament seriously, and wins are blamed on "luck." Afterwards, nobody respects the top 8, except maybe a few top players who were expected to win: everyone else just lucked their way to the top with this pointless tournament. Everyone decries item tournaments to be retarded, points to players dying to elements out of their control, and disrespects the evo staff and event. The following year, Brawl is dropped from the lineup in favor of Street Fighter 4.

My goal is to get us to number 1. Yours seems to be to get us to number 2.

How did you magically determine which items "enhance gameplay" and which don't? What criteria do we use and WHO gets to make up that criteria?

What items-off people like me are saying is, turning items off at Evo would actually GUARANTEE us the first scenario you mentioned. Why? Because scenario 1 as you described it is exactly how it happened last year, while pro-items people are throwing in ways to potentially get us to scenario number 2.


The fact that so few people understand how items work is good evidence that they haven't been tested enough.

Pokeballs and Dragoon are instant unavoidable damage? What?

To use Dragoon someone has to get all three parts, it can be dodged, and when dodged IIRC the guy who used it drops down from the sky and you get a free hit. (I might be wrong about that last part) For Pokeballs you can dodge/catch/reflect the ball itself then dodge the spawned Pokemon as well.

It's kinda funny that you're talking about people not knowing what items do when you yourself didn't know people dropping down from a Dragoon attack is invincible for a short time.

BTW, speaking of items you can just pick up and instantly benefit, stopwatch isn't being banned because it COULD effect the user instead of his opponents, but that's the ONLY reason, right? Because we all agree that being 2-3x faster than your opponents for any amount of time is a HUGE random advantage, no? Well Shadow the Hedghog assist trophy does exactly that, only it doesn't have a chance of backfiring...

If it ain't broke, why are people trying to fix things? The majority of smash tourney players agree that items add a degree of randomness and luck to a game that really can be all about skill. This is a NEGATIVE aspect in terms of video game tourneys.

The bottom line is: We should take a vote, AT EVO (online polls are for the most part bullshit and can be fudged) and whatever style wins should be how the matches at EVO is run. That way people who aren't even gonna SHOW UP to the damn tourney doesn't have a say. (And really, why the fuck should you?) I can almost guarantee that if this happens, it will be an items-off tourney, as it should be.

I understand people's opposing stances to "majority is not always right" but this isn't slavery or the Holocaust or some shit. This isn't like that shit at all. This is more like Coke vs New Coke.

^_-;

[Ceirnian]

Are you joking? Take a vote at Evo? Yeah right.

I agree with Yeroc about the exploding capsules, this includes bomb and deku nuts as well. Having something drop down and kill you mid attack (or stun) is something I think detracts from the gameplay. Keits you are going abit too far saying you should time the 10-14 second intervals and never charge up a smash attack at those times. I'm all for most items, but I can't see any reason why certain things should be in like that.

[Galactic]

Are you joking? Take a vote at Evo? Yeah right.

I agree with Yeroc about the exploding capsules, this includes bomb and deku nuts as well. Having something drop down and kill you mid attack (or stun) is something I think detracts from the gameplay. Keits you are going abit too far saying you should time the 10-14 second intervals and never charge up a smash attack at those times. I'm all for most items, but I can't see any reason why certain things should be in like that.


Because the opinions of random people on the internet should decide the way a tourney is run more that the opinions of the people that will actually attend and participate in said tourney? Maybe having a physical vote would be tough to uphold, but the majority of the actual PARTICIPANTS of the tourney should have the last say in how the matches will be set. That's unquestionably the best way to get to the best-case scenario Pimp Willy depicted.

^_-;

[Ceirnian]

What happens then if people buy their plane ticket expecting it to be a no items tournament, but then the 'live' vote makes it an item tournament? Why make someone spend money going there if they don't want to play in a ruleset they do not like?

From what I understand the people in charge of Evo have to set rules way before the event itself so that people know what they are getting into.

[Reno K]

Because the opinions of random people on the internet should decide the way a tourney is run more that the opinions of the people that will actually attend and participate in said tourney? Maybe having a physical vote would be tough to uphold, but the majority of the actual PARTICIPANTS of the tourney should have the last say in how the matches will be set. That's unquestionably the best way to get to the best-case scenario Pimp Willy depicted.

^_-;

I don't think it's unquestionably the best way to get the best-case scenario - what happens if the vote is split 50.1/49.9? You're going to piss off what is essentially the same amount of people when they show up.

[Galactic]

I don't think it's unquestionably the best way to get the best-case scenario - what happens if the vote is split 50.1/49.9? You're going to piss off what is essentially the same amount of people when they show up.

The odds of that happening are incredibly low, and if it DID happen, REGARDLESS of what you did before or after the effect, half the people would be pissed either way no matter what.

It will most likely be closer to 80% - 20% in favor of items off. Especially since a lot of people who actually participate in Smash tourneys already recognize how badly items broke the previous 2 Smash games at their infancy and don't need to see another year getting wasted by random ass victories/losses.

Perhaps it's unrealistic to think they could actually hold the vote AT Evo, perhaps there's a way with a pre-registration system? I really think it should be played the way the people who are actually gonna show up to PLAY the game want it to be.

^_-;

[Reno K]

The odds of that happening are incredibly low, and if it DID happen, REGARDLESS of what you did before or after the effect, half the people would be pissed either way no matter what.

It will most likely be closer to 80% - 20% in favor of items off. Especially since a lot of people who actually participate in Smash tourneys already recognize how badly items broke the previous 2 Smash games at their infancy and don't need to see another year getting wasted by random ass victories/losses.

Perhaps it's unrealistic to think they could actually hold the vote AT Evo, perhaps there's a way with a pre-registration system? I really think it should be played the way the people who are actually gonna show up to PLAY the game want it to be.

^_-;

Actually, if people knew the rules ahead of time and didn't agree to them, they probably just wouldn't show up. Big difference is they can be pissed off at home, instead of having spent $$ traveling and then getting pissed off.

Voting at Evo for the ruleset is both inefficient and has a higher risk of pissing a lot of people off with greater punishment for the losing vote.

[Pimp Willy]

How did you magically determine which items "enhance gameplay" and which don't? What criteria do we use and WHO gets to make up that criteria?

What items-off people like me are saying is, turning items off at Evo would actually GUARANTEE us the first scenario you mentioned. Why? Because scenario 1 as you described it is exactly how it happened last year, while pro-items people are throwing in ways to potentially get us to scenario number 2.


Well, heres how we decide: we play with them on, all the time. We run online tourneys multiple times a week with different rulesets. We ask for players to save replays of their matches with questionable content, so people can evaluate it and see if the match loss/win was really out of their hands. So, in that sense, the people who care enough about the game to put their time into testing it FULLY are those who get to make up that criteria as a community.

Also, Items-off doesn't guarantee Brawl being picked up again. This part of the argument is fairly trivial, in the grand scheme of things, but Brawl has to be appealing. Melee has a HUGE issue with the typical Evo community not caring about it, mainly because it's boring to watch. If we turn off all items, we're left with a fairly simple game thats trying emulate Street Fighter in an attempt to identify itself as a "Real fighting game." The finals go off as expected, people show up, nobody has anything to blame but themselves right (which is true even with a proper items-on ruleset in reality, and I guarantee you people will bitch and moan about the new FD ledge leading to their demise)? But the game is merely a shallow version of a much deeper game that could have been.

Now, next Evo, there is again a limit on which games are going to get included. With SF4 releasing, GG not getting represented this year, and countless other games being released vying for a spot, it's in the communties best interest to build up enough hype at Evo to secure another spot. And honestly what's going to bring more hype: A slower paced, 4 stock, 8 minute event, or one filled with controlled chaos, increased offensive, split second decisions/reactions to unexpected events, shorter quicker matches (2 stock/4 min seems to be about right)? The latter is very much a spectator friendlier version. Again, fairly trivial, but something to consider.

So, my goal is to get Brawl as an Evo staple through making the game exciting. That is why me, as well as many others, are dedicating our time to trying to exploit as many items as much as possible in order to break the game. Surprisingly, we're not finding much, definitely nowhere near the level of brokeness I would have expected after hearing melee players demonize items. I'm sure a hefty part of this is the changes to the game engine (games more floaty, kos at higher %, explosions don't KO so easily), but I feel a large portion of it is also because people got into the Melee scene where items were already off, and as such have never given them a chance to begin with.

Smash definitely doesn't have it easy, being a very rare console only fighting game with no arcade standard to try to emulate. The game can be played in SO many ways, all with their own benefits and drawbacks, that it seems crazy to even begin to fathom a standard ruleset. Stock, timed, coin? Shorter Matches, Longer Matches? 2,3, or 4 stock? Stages? Counterpick stages/random stages? All items on, off, or a mixture of the two?

It seems unfair to not give the game a chance at evolving by simply turning off items, sticking with what worked for melee, and going at it. THAT is our goal here: to develop the deepest, most interesting and skill challenging ruleset that will foster good competitive play for this game years down the line.

[Daemonk]

But what would really be the purpose of doing additional "testing". None of the items are incredbly broken. We've already kinda established that I think. Is it really testing or just playing the game in all different kind of ways and seeing which way people prefer the most/annoys less people. In that case, the format that the majority prefers the most will be adopted? I am all for people trying the game different ways and then coming up with their own preference by the way. I think playing only items-off and then proclaiming its the best way to play is foolish and I understand there are plenty of melee people who are doing that. But I can tell you personally, I have played with items-on and off and I still prefer items-off.

[subt-L]

But what would really be the purpose of doing additional "testing". None of the items are incredbly broken. We've already kinda established that I think. Is it really testing or just playing the game in all different kind of ways and see which way people prefer the most/annoys less people. In that case, the format that the majority prefers the most will be adopted? I am all for people trying the game different ways and then coming up with their own preference by the way. I think playing only items-off and then proclaiming its the best way to play is foolish and I understand there are plenty of melee people who are doing that. But I can tell you personally, I have played with items-on and off and I still prefer items-off.
uhmmm...

it'd be good if everyone gave it a chance?

it'd be like if flavor flav ran for governor of alabama. he might be a great governor. well... if people gave him a chance, right?

odds are people are going to get caught up in the other issues. odds are he doesn't have a chance.

if the majority of people go in with a predisposed hatred of weapons, odds are that they aren't going to play with weapons. and odds are they sure as fuck aren't going to vote for weapons.

preference is one thing. actually giving it a fair shake is another.

every attempt to bully rules on evo is pretty fucking lame. i'm all about change and game development, but this majority rules bullshit isn't a good standard in this case.

if there was a way of voting and to filter out all the predisposed weapon haters, i'm sure there'd be a solid case.

[Daemonk]

Well but it seems like thats whats gonna happen at the end of the day.
-No items are broken
-Every practical way to play the game (items-off, on, stock, time matches, all stages) is valid
-We let people try every different way and come up with what they like
-We see what most people like and come up with a ruleset

The difference would be informed majority rule vs shady majority rule. Which I agree with. I do think people should play all the different rulesets before they settle on the one they like. That goes for both items-on and off people.

[M3D]

Also, Items-off doesn't guarantee Brawl being picked up again. This part of the argument is fairly trivial, in the grand scheme of things, but Brawl has to be appealing. Melee has a HUGE issue with the typical Evo community not caring about it, mainly because it's boring to watch. If we turn off all items, we're left with a fairly simple game thats trying emulate Street Fighter in an attempt to identify itself as a "Real fighting game." The finals go off as expected, people show up, nobody has anything to blame but themselves right (which is true even with a proper items-on ruleset in reality, and I guarantee you people will bitch and moan about the new FD ledge leading to their demise)? But the game is merely a shallow version of a much deeper game that could have been.

Calling Melee shallow and boring should instantly disqualify you from having a vote on the subject. Smash kids were never bored by big matches because they understood it and played it competitively. The Evo crowd didn't "get" smash and so it was boring to them, but that didn't make it anything close to shallow. Your ignorance just colored your perception.

If I don't play baseball and I see it on TV, I'm probably going to find it boring. That doesn't mean we should throw a bunch of random nonsense on the field and ramp up the chaos to make the game more interesting to benefit the ignorant. Giving the Yankees buckets of oil, bouquets of flowers, swords, soccer balls and crates to use on the field might make the game more interesting, but it wouldn't be healthy for the game. It also might mean that more stuff is going on, but that doesn't add "depth" to the gameplay. It adds chaos. More activity/elements don't necessarily add any depth. Sometimes its just clutter that gets in the way of the true core of the game.

You clearly don't get smash, so why are you trying to ruin Evo for the kids that do?

[Pimp Willy]

Reading comprehension, do you have it?

I called Items-off Brawl a shallower version than items-on Brawl, because there is less skill-set involved. A person who is able to learn their characters, AND tactics with items, has more skills than one just who learns their characters and calls it a day.

I never said anything negative about melee, because I didn't play it enough to have an opinion on it. All I said was it was boring to watch for the Majority at Evo, which it was, as you've conceeded.

Also, can everyone please stop pulling random comparisions out of their ass? Baseball wasn't designed to have obstacles on the field from the outset. If it did, you'd have professionals playing now who are able to deal with them, and baseball WOULD be more exciting to watch. But that's neither this nor there. This is Brawl, nothing else. The core gameplay is not hurt by keeping items in the mix, that's just an argument made to discredit items on gameplay. You still have 2 players using whatever is at their disposal to win.

[Marty]

uhmmm...

it'd be good if everyone gave it a chance?

it'd be like if flavor flav ran for governor of alabama. he might be a great governor. well... if people gave him a chance, right?

odds are people are going to get caught up in the other issues. odds are he doesn't have a chance.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but those two situations are in no way comparable. I mean, that was just awful.

[Ignoring the case in point governator,] you can't compare assumptions about a human's ability to rule with the assumption that an spawning item system will be extremely comparable from one game to another.

It IS a safe assumption to think that the system is similar, and will be received in similar ways. A large portion of items from the previous game were transferred over, and it's not a huge leap to think that the new items (of which ATs act essentially as Pokeballs do) will effect a similar reaction from you.

All that aside, this point still assumes (ironic, ain't it?) that everyone who is against Brawl items hasn't even played with them.

[Pimp Willy]

But Pokeballs seems dramatically nerfed in Brawl, from what limited experience I had with Melee. Another example of how things can be different in Brawl, while appearing the same.

[Marty]

I'm not trying to incline people one way or the other, I just found that particular post infuriating.

I was surprised by some of the Pokemon attack's reduced effectiveness, but I attributed it to the over-all higher survival rate in the game.

[alphazealot]

Now, next Evo, there is again a limit on which games are going to get included. With SF4 releasing, GG not getting represented this year, and countless other games being released vying for a spot, it's in the communties best interest to build up enough hype at Evo to secure another spot. And honestly what's going to bring more hype: A slower paced, 4 stock, 8 minute event, or one filled with controlled chaos, increased offensive, split second decisions/reactions to unexpected events, shorter quicker matches (2 stock/4 min seems to be about right)? The latter is very much a spectator friendlier version. Again, fairly trivial, but something to consider.

Honestly, if you think its slow paced, I don't know what game you've been playing. Sure, its slower than Melee, but items does nothing to make the game appear fast. Smash will be perfectly fine if no items is the standard, it already is perfectly fine and still getting bigger numbers than any other fighting game out there. If you didn't find Melee exciting that was your own problem for not knowing the deeper level of the game. Melee as the highest levels was freaking fun as hell to watch, so long as you knew what was going on.

[Daemonk]

Reading comprehension, do you have it?

I called Items-off Brawl a shallower version than items-on Brawl, because there is less skill-set involved. A person who is able to learn their characters, AND tactics with items, has more skills than one just who learns their characters and calls it a day.


I disagree. Items-off presents new stratgies that's not found in items-on games. Vice versa. Not having to control territory opens up options. I really don't think its shallower at all.

[Reno K]

Also, Items-off doesn't guarantee Brawl being picked up again. This part of the argument is fairly trivial, in the grand scheme of things, but Brawl has to be appealing. Melee has a HUGE issue with the typical Evo community not caring about it, mainly because it's boring to watch. If we turn off all items, we're left with a fairly simple game thats trying emulate Street Fighter in an attempt to identify itself as a "Real fighting game." The finals go off as expected, people show up, nobody has anything to blame but themselves right (which is true even with a proper items-on ruleset in reality, and I guarantee you people will bitch and moan about the new FD ledge leading to their demise)? But the game is merely a shallow version of a much deeper game that could have been.

I will grant you the first point if you grant me that items-on doesn't guarantee Brawl being picked up again, either. However, I will not agree that that part of the argument is fairly trivial.

Melee might have been boring to you and the rest of Evo, but that's only because you don't understand the game at the level SWF players do.

With items off, you are not left with "a fairly simple game thats trying emulate Street Fighter", because the battle systems are almost completely different. This is the worst argument ever. Melee without items, Brawl without items are not trying to emulate Street Fighter. The closest you can relate to them is that they are fighting games, and they share some aspects of gameplay that all competitive games share.

The last statement is an opinion. Some feel the fighting system becomes deeper when the randomness of items rewarding/hurting the players is removed.

But Pokeballs seems dramatically nerfed in Brawl, from what limited experience I had with Melee. Another example of how things can be different in Brawl, while appearing the same.

I never found Pokeballs to be that broken in Melee. The problem was the randomness of the rewards. You get 2 goldeens and a wobuffet after "controlling all the area" in order to get all the pokeballs, your opponent gets one and porygon owns you instantly.

I disagree. Items-off presents new stratgies that's not found in items-on games. Vice versa. Not having to control territory opens up options. I really don't think its shallower at all.

Melee (and Brawl) with items off still requires a good deal of area control. It's just a bit more dynamic, imo, and with items on the area to control is broader, lessening the overall value of the individual areas (ledge, platforms, etc).

One really annoying thing about items is the camera zoom-out when a particular items spawns in a far-off location. On Hyrule Temple it is pretty damn annoying when you're in the cave.

[Shaman]

Lol, the assumptions of what people play are staggering.
I play with items on, I have in all the smash games, i compete with items off, though i have competed with items on, (though my brawl competition with items was limited to relatively small copetitions.)

And the assumption that someone dislikes Items therefore they are biased therefore they shouldn't get a say is not sensible, it follows the same line of reasoning as: "they didn't play melee, they didn't like melee, they shouldn't get a say in brawl." peoples experiences with the past game are pertinent, the bat for example works in the same way as the old bat (though i believe its more laggy now) now granted you could argue i should test it because that lag may balance it, but if my beef with the bat wasn't the lag, then my opinion remains valid between games.

Some pokeballs were nerfed, piplup who replaced the old Maryl was drastically improved, though individual examples are hardly here or there.

It seems like everyone agrees that at some point, some majority will determine the ruleset regarding items, and well the people who don't like items don't not like them because they are broken, they aren't, they weren't in melee, or 64, and they likely wont be in the next one. but they don't like the random elements items present, and while many compelling arguments have been presented in defense of items/ positing that items take skill, and the more skilled player will still win. I would agree that over enough trials normalization of your statistics will occur, and the best will be the best. However a tournament doesn't offer enough trials for that normalization, and the number of trials necessary for this normalization would be hard to determine, but likely much too many for a single tournament. So with that said, those who were against items due to their random interference are right, items are random, theres no argument there, so they will try to ban them regardless. As far as they are concerned the items while requiring some skill to employ, require too much of a match to be left to uncontrolled elements which they don't consider to be conducive to a competitive environment.

Sadly that means that if the majority are left to decide, Items will be off, and while I'm quite sure everyone has played with items some may not have as much experience as you would like them to, but they will still ban them.

Lastly, i think the pro items crowd needs to stop assuming they are the only ones who play with items. probably everyone who owns brawl has played with items, some maybe not as much as you would like, but at least somewhat. anecdotally some friends of mine who didn't previously play melee competitively decided to ban items autonomously once they started getting good at it, because they felt it to be an unfair element, that might simply be noob logic, but its a testament to how a large majority of people agree on that one idea.

EDIT:
And to piggyback on the post above, the opinion that items deepen the game is just that, an opinion stop stating it like its a fact, its neither fact that no items is deeper, nor fact that item play is deeper. you can argue its more competitive if you would like, but most people would argue the closer a competitive medium can get to participant A directly against Participant B, the more competitive the game, thats why chess has been so successful, because your only opponent is yourself, and well technically if your black the FTA of white, but thats a pretty negligible difference which is balanced by switching sides each set. And the anti items crowed would say that they are trying to achieve that as closely as they can by removing items, an argument i simply can't fault even if i disagree with it.

[Fat Otaku]

Here is the thing. The people who play this at pro level would still play SSBB even if items were on this year. In fact, you would probably get more people who have had fun with items and now have a reason to dedicate themselves to the game. Oh sure. Will will have people bitch, whine, and moan about how much bullshit it is, and how how unfair it is that they lost because they got hit by a bat. They will likely get over it. Evo is highly respected, and it should not be afraid to try different things and not be subject to rules set from a prior game when so much has changed.

[Shaman]

Thats a good point, but then you face the argument that items off is as close as brawl gets to being a "proper" fighting game. And Evo is highly respected because its the largest Fighting game Tourney, so why invite party games to ruin the streak, certainly no one has advocated expanding the scope of Evo to say Gran Turismo, or initial D even though they both have healthy competitive scenes, one even being an arcade staple.

[KrsJin]

^Well, Mario Kart DS was at EVO once.

Still no set rules eh. Probably won't have a set till July huh? lol

[Hogosha]

I really don't know if the statement "items add a skill to the game that items-off players don't want to learn" has any merit behind it whatsoever. If I play basketball in the driveway with my friends, is it a BETTER game if I'm constantly looking over my shoulder to see if my mom's driving her car into the driveway? And, if I look over my shoulder 99% of the time and my opponent looks over his 1% of the time and, lo and behold, THERE SHE IS, does that mean my opponent is more skilled? Nope. Bastard got lucky and I got run over. There's your "skill".

Items are random. They spawn in somewhat random places at somewhat random intervals, and they are random as to what they are. Controling space and knowing how to use items and being better than your opponent by five-fold doesn't guarantee you a victory in such matches, whereas being twice as good as your opponent in an items-off match practically does.

[Fat Otaku]

Thats a good point, but then you face the argument that items off is as close as brawl gets to being a "proper" fighting game. And Evo is highly respected because its the largest Fighting game Tourney, so why invite party games to ruin the streak, certainly no one has advocated expanding the scope of Evo to say Gran Turismo, or initial D even though they both have healthy competitive scenes, one even being an arcade staple.

Good point. But I really dont consider this game to be on the level of skill as Guilty Gear, however it CAN be what you say it is, if not as good as others. I just think it should be tested.

[Keits]

I disagree. Items-off presents new stratgies that's not found in items-on games. Vice versa. Not having to control territory opens up options. I really don't think its shallower at all.

This makes zero sense. Removing something does not give you new strategies choices or situations. All of those exist in items/stages on and more. Removing is removing. There is no opinion to be had. Show me a situation/strat/choice that can happen with items off on a "nuetral" stage that cannot be had in items/stages on. Please.

Hogosha - another terrible analogy. stick yo comparing this to items spawning in games that dont have them, instead of watching for cars during street ball. jesus what a reach...

[margalis]

Banning items and playing only on flat stages is pretty damn close to "trying to emulate Street Fighter." It's an attempt to remove much of what makes Brawl different.


You clearly don't get smash, so why are you trying to ruin Evo for the kids that do?


You clearly don't get Brawl. Maybe you should have your own for-kids tournament? Catering to small children is not really the SRK philosophy.

Edit: If removing unbroken stuff adds strategy lets remove everything but jabs. Best game ever? Keits you walk towards me on a flat stage and I'll walk towards you, we'll both jab and see who wins. An epic test of pure skill!

[Daemonk]

This makes zero sense. Removing something does not give you new strategies choices or situations. All of those exist in items/stages on and more. Removing is removing. There is no opinion to be had. Show me a situation/strat/choice that can happen with items off on a "nuetral" stage that cannot be had in items/stages on. Please.

Hogosha - another terrible analogy. stick yo comparing this to items spawning in games that dont have them, instead of watching for cars during street ball. jesus what a reach...

Well for one thing, you can't really camp. Whether you think camping is cheap or whatever doesn't negate that camping is ineffective with items-on.

Its disadvantageous to run towards the edge and jump off to bait the opponent to go after you because you are now losing tons of territory. The fact that you need to constantly worry about leaving too much space open limits the amount of character specific skill you can use. A lot less emphasis will be placed on certain aspects of the game.

I guess you aren't "losing" strategy per say. But you are making some strategies almost ineffective.

[Corner-Trap]

Assuming that Evo uses the old system of stage selection, here's my stage list.

Neutral:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Yoshi's Island/Brawl
Lylate Cruise

Counter Pick:

Delfino Plaza (movement, walk off ledges, walls, water)
Bridge of Eldin (hazards, walk off ledges)
Rumble Falls (movement, hazards)
Skyworld (destructible environment)
Castle Seige (transformations, walk off ledges)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (transformations, various effects)
Halberd (movement, hazards)
Shadow Moses (walls, walk off ledges)
PictoChat (transformations, hazards)
Summit (hazards, water, various effects)
Norfair (hazards)
Mario Circuit (hazards)
Frigate Orpheon (transformations)
Yoshi's Island/Melee (walk off ledges)
Corneria (hazards, walls)
Onett (hazards, walls)
Brinstar (hazards, destructible environments)
Rainbow Cruise (movement)
Distant Planet (hazards, various effects)
Mushroomy Kingdom (movement, walls, walk off ledges)
Port Town Aero Dive (movement, hazards)
Green Hill Zone (hazards, walk off ledges)
Luigi's Mansion (destructible environment)
Jungle Japes (hazards, water)
Green Greens (hazards, various effects)
Pokemon Stadium (transformations, walls)
Hanenbow (various effects)
Pirate Ship (water, movement, hazards, walls)

Banned:

WarioWare Inc. (adverse effects, walk off ledges)
New Pork City (infinite stalling, hazards)
Hyrule Temple (infinite stalling, walls)
Mario Bros. (adverse effects, infinite stalling, walk off ledges)
Spear Pillar (adverse effects, infinite stalling)
75m (infinite stalling, walk off ledges)
Flat Zone 2 (adverse effects, walk off ledges)
Big Blue (adverse effects)

Criteria:
These are the specifics I used to deem whether a stage is neutral, counter pick, or ban worthy. If a stage had none of these traits, then it's neutral. If a stage had any of these traits aside from infinite stalling, and adverse effects then it's counter pick. If a stage had infinite stalling, or adverse effects then it's banned. If other traits are deemed broken in the future, then the stages that have them will be banned.

Movement- stage moves among locations
Hazards- stage can cause harm to the players
Walls- stage has walls
Walk off ledges- stage has walk off ledges
Water- stage has water
Transformations- stage transforms
Destructible environment- stage can be destroyed
Various effects- other effects including low traction, gravity, etc.
Adverse effects- stage is deemed too random or detrimental to the players
Infinite stalling- players can runaway indefinitely in a loop

Stage/Character Selection:

1) Players take turns striking out one neutral stage, remaining stage will be the first stage.
2) Loser can pick the next stage or change their character.
3) If loser changes character then repeat step 1.
4) Winner must keep their character

[Reno K]

Banning items and playing only on flat stages is pretty damn close to "trying to emulate Street Fighter." It's an attempt to remove much of what makes Brawl different.

No it isn't. What makes Brawl different is the fighting system itself.

You clearly don't get Brawl. Maybe you should have your own for-kids tournament? Catering to small children is not really the SRK philosophy.

Edit: If removing unbroken stuff adds strategy lets remove everything but jabs. Best game ever? Keits you walk towards me on a flat stage and I'll walk towards you, we'll both jab and see who wins. An epic test of pure skill!

What a stupid post.

[lamewadd]

Big Blue? Banned? Absolute horse shit. The damn platforms and cars move on a fixed route at all times! How can its ban possibly be justified?

[Corner-Trap]

Big Blue? Banned? Absolute horse shit. The damn platforms and cars move on a fixed route at all times! How can its ban possibly be justified?

It was banned in melee :arazz:

[Yeroc]

Well for one thing, you can't really camp. Whether you think camping is cheap or whatever doesn't negate that camping is ineffective with items-on.

Its disadvantageous to run towards the edge and jump off to bait the opponent to go after you because you are now losing tons of territory. The fact that you need to constantly worry about leaving too much space open limits the amount of character specific skill you can use. A lot less emphasis will be placed on certain aspects of the game.

I guess you aren't "losing" strategy per say. But you are making some strategies almost ineffective.Since the absolute biggest complaint so far from well-known Melee players is how "campy" the game is, I would consider this a good thing. So would they, I imagine, if they weren't (apparently) of the opinion that items are the worst of the worst when it comes to viable game options.

Also, I very much agree with the stage list Corner has. When we gonna have a tourney, mate?

[Corner-Trap]

Also, I very much agree with the stage list Corner has. When we gonna have a tourney, mate?

I'm trying to talk to some TO's so I can learn how to organize tourney's myself.

[NikoK]

That stage ban list is a bit too leniant IMO

This seems a lot more reasonable to me. Obviously not concrete but a bunch of your counterpicks are definitely not tournament liable.

Neutrals:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Smashville

Counterpicks:
Delfino Plaza
Distant Planet
Pokemon Stadium
Castle Siege
Luigi's Mansion
Pirate Ship
Frigate Orpheon
Battleship Halberd
Skyworld
Mario Circuit
Jungle Japes


Banned:
Mushroomy Kingdom
Rumble Falls
Bridge of Eldin
Norfair
Pokemon Stadium 2
Port Town
Wario Ware
New Pork City
The Summit
Pictochat
Shadow Moses Island
Donkey Kong Arcade
Spear Pillar
Mario Bros.
Flat Zone 2
Electroplankton

[Corner-Trap]

That stage ban list is a bit too leniant IMO

This seems a lot more reasonable to me. Obviously not concrete but a bunch of your counterpicks are definitely not tournament liable.

Neutrals:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Smashville

Counterpicks:
Delfino Plaza
Distant Planet
Pokemon Stadium
Castle Siege
Luigi's Mansion
Pirate Ship
Frigate Orpheon
Battleship Halberd
Skyworld
Mario Circuit
Jungle Japes


Banned:
Mushroomy Kingdom
Rumble Falls
Bridge of Eldin
Norfair
Pokemon Stadium 2
Port Town
Wario Ware
New Pork City
The Summit
Pictochat
Shadow Moses Island
Donkey Kong Arcade
Spear Pillar
Mario Bros.
Flat Zone 2
Electroplankton

You didn't offer any explanations for why you deemed stages counter pick or ban worthy. It seems more like you're banning stages that you personally dislike, instead of using some kind of basis for judgments.

[NikoK]

I planned on debating on what you disagreed with since I didnt feel like typing a long explination for each of the stages.

Im not being biased in my choices at all. What do you disagree with?

[lamewadd]

You didn't offer any explanations for why you deemed stages counter pick or ban worthy. It seems more like you're banning stages that you personally dislike, instead of using some kind of basis for judgments.

He's from smashboards. Have they come up with any sort of actual explanation for anything yet?

[Pimp Willy]

I planned on debating on what you disagreed with since I didnt feel like typing a long explination for each of the stages.

Im not being biased in my choices at all. What do you disagree with?

for starters, every stage on your ban list that's not on his?


Also, why is a walk off stage considered ban worthy? Is it more than D3's chain grab? Because if thats it, then thats no reason to ban a stage.

[Corner-Trap]

I planned on debating on what you disagreed with since I didnt feel like typing a long explination for each of the stages.

Im not being biased in my choices at all. What do you disagree with?

Basically everything that doesn't go along with mine.

He's from smashboards. Have they come up with any sort of actual explanation for anything yet?

Lets not start this again.

for starters, every stage on your ban list that's not on his?


Also, why is a walk off stage considered ban worthy? Is it more than D3's chain grab? Because if thats it, then thats no reason to ban a stage.

D3, IC's, Falco, and Pikachu all have CG's that can carry people off walk off ledges, but so far they have yet to be proven broken by any means.

[NikoK]

Assuming that Evo uses the old system of stage selection, here's my stage list.

Neutral:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Yoshi's Island/Brawl
Lylate Cruise

Counter Pick:

Delfino Plaza (movement, walk off ledges, walls, water)
Bridge of Eldin (hazards, walk off ledges)
Rumble Falls (movement, hazards)
Skyworld (destructible environment)
Castle Seige (transformations, walk off ledges)
Pokemon Stadium 2 (transformations, various effects)
Halberd (movement, hazards)
Shadow Moses (walls, walk off ledges)
PictoChat (transformations, hazards)
Summit (hazards, water, various effects)
Norfair (hazards)
Mario Circuit (hazards)
Frigate Orpheon (transformations)
Yoshi's Island/Melee (walk off ledges)
Corneria (hazards, walls)
Onett (hazards, walls)
Brinstar (hazards, destructible environments)
Rainbow Cruise (movement)
Distant Planet (hazards, various effects)
Mushroomy Kingdom (movement, walls, walk off ledges)
Port Town Aero Dive (movement, hazards)
Green Hill Zone (hazards, walk off ledges)
Luigi's Mansion (destructible environment)
Jungle Japes (hazards, water)
Green Greens (hazards, various effects)
Pokemon Stadium (transformations, walls)
Hanenbow (various effects)
Pirate Ship (water, movement, hazards, walls)

Banned:

WarioWare Inc. (adverse effects, walk off ledges)
New Pork City (infinite stalling, hazards)
Hyrule Temple (infinite stalling, walls)
Mario Bros. (adverse effects, infinite stalling, walk off ledges)
Spear Pillar (adverse effects, infinite stalling)
75m (infinite stalling, walk off ledges)
Flat Zone 2 (adverse effects, walk off ledges)
Big Blue (adverse effects)

Criteria:
These are the specifics I used to deem whether a stage is neutral, counter pick, or ban worthy. If a stage had none of these traits, then it's neutral. If a stage had any of these traits aside from infinite stalling, and adverse effects then it's counter pick. If a stage had infinite stalling, or adverse effects then it's banned. If other traits are deemed broken in the future, then the stages that have them will be banned.

Movement- stage moves among locations
Hazards- stage can cause harm to the players
Walls- stage has walls
Walk off ledges- stage has walk off ledges
Water- stage has water
Transformations- stage transforms
Destructible environment- stage can be destroyed
Various effects- other effects including low traction, gravity, etc.
Adverse effects- stage is deemed too detrimental to the players for randomness
Infinite stalling- players can runaway indefinitely in a loop

Stage/Character Selection:

1) Players take turns striking out one neutral stage, remaining stage will be the first stage.
2) Loser can pick the next stage or change their character.
3) If loser changes character then repeat step 1.
4) Winner must keep their character


So in terms of stages I disagree with the following

Bridge of Eldin should be banned due to the walk off edges which enable characters to chain throw to a characters death (IC, Dedede, etc) also the stage breaks from underneath and can completely turn a match around since it is completly random. Not too mention the bomb threats.

Rumble Falls is a scrolling level, barely giving you anytime for real 1v1 combat, you have to focus more on not getting eaten alive from the scrolling camera than actually fighting.

Pokemon stadium has tons of interuptions, the wind stage completely changes the physics of the entire game and is at random. As well as the escalator thingys which retract you towards the edge.

Shadow Moses has walls which enable infinites and force you to kill upwards (which is a ridiculously high ceiling)

Pictochat has too many interuptions that include random objects popping out of the ground that cause damage and stop gameplay completely. Also the line that draws across the stage edgehogs people lol

Norfairs lava completely forces you to 1/10th of the stage making it ridiculously easy for any fast character to bounce you off the lava to your death. Completely disables the rest of the stage for this random event.

Summit changes its physics and causes all the characters to float, not too mention the stage completely tilts itself and that fish eats your entire stock if you happened to get knocked over there.

Mushroomy Kingdom has ridiculous walk off edges and is a side scroller..It has tons of interuptions which you have to jump over and avoid stopping 1v1 combat.

Port Town Aero Drive's cars are enough to warrant a ban doing a ridiculous amount of knockback and come around fairly often.

Hanenbow is just MASSIVE and has no steady area for 1v1 combat.

[Shaman]

I have seen Hanenbow on just about every ban list, and i know why, everyone hates it, but thats not justification for banning, nothing wrong with all platforms, though a more valid complaint is that some edges aren't edges, which is extremely hard on tether recoveries. asside from that you absolutely cannot justify banning it.

[Keits]

Wow, Shaman with the voice of reason!

You absolutely cant justify banning any of it (stages). And its very very very safe to assume evo will not be using the 'old' stage selection method.

Why people think this discussion is only about items is beyond me. We are going to use all the stages, too.

[Septimus Prime]

I just want to remind everyone that infinites take skill to pull off and that we should not be banning stages that are advantageous to those players who took the time to learn and practice these gimmicks. I remember during Evo finals last year, that Ice Climbers player stopped doing his wobble infinite because the crowd was booing him for playing well. That single moment turned me off from ever embracing the Smash "community."

Anyway, I also want to remind Keits that I've never been UltraDavid because he thought I was the last time I posted. :tdown:

[Keits]

Im not sure how I made that mistake, Sep, but I was probably posting on my phone and confused. Not sure.

Sorry, please forgive :)

[Shaman]

hardly the first time i've been reasonable, but i digress.

infinites are bs, i would be with you somewhat septimus prime if infinites required as much skill as wobbling used to, but fox literally just needs a wall and the ability to tap the b button while holding down. Granted the setup may not be the easiest, but only a single instance and its a guaranteed stock, for something thats not that difficult to set up (depending on the stages, obviously harder on say corneria where the opponent will do their best to avoid the wall than Pokemon stadium 1 where the wall might just spawn behind them.

[Keits]

Infinites are BS. Being a competitive gaming champion means finding, perfecting, and or using the best BS you can to win as much as possible.

Its not about how much skill they take to do, setup, or anything. Turning off half the game to avoid them is admitting no one (who made that decision) has what it takes to be a champion.

[subt-L]

hardly the first time i've been reasonable, but i digress.

infinites are bs, i would be with you somewhat septimus prime if infinites required as much skill as wobbling used to, but fox literally just needs a wall and the ability to tap the b button while holding down. Granted the setup may not be the easiest, but only a single instance and its a guaranteed stock, for something thats not that difficult to set up (depending on the stages, obviously harder on say corneria where the opponent will do their best to avoid the wall than Pokemon stadium 1 where the wall might just spawn behind them.

tekken 4 had infinites in the garage stage.

all it required is getting a launch, and jabbing over to the pillar. after you've done that, all you really need to do is tap the jab button, and wait for your free win.

it was never banned. people just got better at avoiding that situation.

skill in an infinite shouldn't be an issue. there are more important factors to weigh in.

[Daemonk]

alright I am done debating on this thread. I still prefer items-off but I really don't care what ruleset you guys use at the end. I'll probably still play in the tournament anyways. I'll probably try to set up some kind of unofficial items-off tournament at Evo. I'll try to setup a website to coordinate hotel rooms and TVs/Wiis. I am sure a lot of people would go for that.

But I do think some of you guys need to seriously re-examine your stances. Please don't dismiss something just because its the stance that a group you don't like takes. And don't dismiss something if you havn't even tried it out. At the end of the day, I really think rulesets comes down to preference.

[Septimus Prime]

hardly the first time i've been reasonable, but i digress.

infinites are bs, i would be with you somewhat septimus prime if infinites required as much skill as wobbling used to, but fox literally just needs a wall and the ability to tap the b button while holding down. Granted the setup may not be the easiest, but only a single instance and its a guaranteed stock, for something thats not that difficult to set up (depending on the stages, obviously harder on say corneria where the opponent will do their best to avoid the wall than Pokemon stadium 1 where the wall might just spawn behind them.
Fox is right there on the character select screen for you to pick. So are the stages on the stage select screen(s). If that one tactic is so good, you should be using it yourself to get that "guaranteed stock" off your opponent.

What's the problem?

[Hogosha]

Chain throws, infinites, and all that other stuff is part of what makes the game "competitive". I've got no problem with that. I loved that about Tekken 4, actually. Doing stupid stuff in that game was awesome. You know what I DIDN'T like about Tekken 4, though? Elevation. Sometimes it let you do something, other times it wouldn't. Or stages that had a side with little to no warning (like it being nigh-invisible at the Airport or something). Random shit like that would cost you the match by ruining a juggle or pressing you against a wall that you couldn't see. The Jungle was probably the stupidest fucking stage because of this (hello hill and stupid tree).

Random is fun. But it's not competitive.

[PozerWolf]

I remember during Evo finals last year, that Ice Climbers player stopped doing his wobble infinite because the crowd was booing him for playing well. That single moment turned me off from ever embracing the Smash "community."
Oh shit, is that for real?

Wow... messed up :shake:

[Ceirnian]

Can you explain to me how a the level with the wall you couldn't see is considered random? Or a stage with a side with 'little to no warning' is random?

[subt-L]

Chain throws, infinites, and all that other stuff is part of what makes the game "competitive". I've got no problem with that. I loved that about Tekken 4, actually. Doing stupid stuff in that game was awesome. You know what I DIDN'T like about Tekken 4, though? Elevation. Sometimes it let you do something, other times it wouldn't. Or stages that had a side with little to no warning (like it being nigh-invisible at the Airport or something). Random shit like that would cost you the match by ruining a juggle or pressing you against a wall that you couldn't see. The Jungle was probably the stupidest fucking stage because of this (hello hill and stupid tree).

Random is fun. But it's not competitive.
cept the levels never changed. and you always knew what was coming up.

anything that fucked you up was situational, not random.

if you knew what was ahead, you could extend out juggles. if you predicted a wall was coming up, you could alter your juggle.

if this is an attack on items, i'd counter that knowledge is as good of a tool as it pertains to items as it does to enhance gameplay in games such as tekken 4.

take for example, the hills you hate so much in jungle.

very few characters could utilize the hill as an offensive weapon. but it didn't alter your regular moveset. if you threw a jab from a higher position, it would still angle down. nothing really changed. juggles didn't change, attack priorties didn't change..

yet from a downhill position, a knowledgebale christie player could abuse a simple, safe attack in d/f+2 and get some really fucked up shit off of it. d/f2, qcf+3 clean launch uphill was stupid good.

but in addition, she had simple timing d/f+2 infinites in 3 parts of the level.

but once again, this infinite was situational. getting to those positions was hard, even when the other person had 0 clue as to what you were setting up. i mean, by the logic of banning wall stages because fox can infinite on wall, christie should have an auto-win if she got jungle.

learning how to defend against situations was equally as important as utilizing that situation for yourself.

fundamentally, this should be taken into consideration for items and stages. if you know what someone is capable of, you can enact a gameplan. if you know what the level brings to the table, you know what to utilize and what to avoid. if you know how to defend against a strong tactic, that tactic either needs to get stronger to counter that tactic, or it becomes useless.

the more knowledge that is built up, the less "random" things become. like that "random" wall in airport... odds are you always knew that wall was there. how far it was, which juggles you could use to get there, what landmarks you should be looking for to judge distance... these are all things that go through players minds when they are playing, not simply "character vs character." i'm sure if that's all your focusing on, everything else can seem random, but to someone seeing the whole picture, its simply "situational."

[Corner-Trap]

So in terms of stages I disagree with the following

Bridge of Eldin should be banned due to the walk off edges which enable characters to chain throw to a characters death (IC, Dedede, etc) also the stage breaks from underneath and can completely turn a match around since it is completly random. Not too mention the bomb threats.

Rumble Falls is a scrolling level, barely giving you anytime for real 1v1 combat, you have to focus more on not getting eaten alive from the scrolling camera than actually fighting.

Pokemon stadium has tons of interuptions, the wind stage completely changes the physics of the entire game and is at random. As well as the escalator thingys which retract you towards the edge.

Shadow Moses has walls which enable infinites and force you to kill upwards (which is a ridiculously high ceiling)

Pictochat has too many interuptions that include random objects popping out of the ground that cause damage and stop gameplay completely. Also the line that draws across the stage edgehogs people lol

Norfairs lava completely forces you to 1/10th of the stage making it ridiculously easy for any fast character to bounce you off the lava to your death. Completely disables the rest of the stage for this random event.

Summit changes its physics and causes all the characters to float, not too mention the stage completely tilts itself and that fish eats your entire stock if you happened to get knocked over there.

Mushroomy Kingdom has ridiculous walk off edges and is a side scroller..It has tons of interuptions which you have to jump over and avoid stopping 1v1 combat.

Port Town Aero Drive's cars are enough to warrant a ban doing a ridiculous amount of knockback and come around fairly often.

Hanenbow is just MASSIVE and has no steady area for 1v1 combat.

So basically you just want to ban all stages with walls, walk off ledges, and hazards. Neither walls, or walk off ledges have been proven to be broken. Some characters may be good on them, but it has yet to be proven that only they can dominate those stages, plus those are the only stages Olimar does well on :sad: Also, why is one stage's hazards acceptable, but not another's? There is too much hypocrisy in this post. And why does everyone keep putting Hanenbow on the ban list? There is literally no justifiable reason for doing so, except for they don't like it.

hardly the first time i've been reasonable, but i digress.

infinites are bs, i would be with you somewhat septimus prime if infinites required as much skill as wobbling used to, but fox literally just needs a wall and the ability to tap the b button while holding down. Granted the setup may not be the easiest, but only a single instance and its a guaranteed stock, for something thats not that difficult to set up (depending on the stages, obviously harder on say corneria where the opponent will do their best to avoid the wall than Pokemon stadium 1 where the wall might just spawn behind them.

Infinites have been in fighting games for years, lets not start complaining about them now.

[SN3S]

So basically you just want to ban all stages with walls, walk off ledges, and hazards. Neither walls, or walk off ledges have been proven to be broken. Some characters may be good on them, but it has yet to be proven that only they can dominate those stages, plus those are the only stages Olimar does well on :sad: Also, why is one stage's hazards acceptable, but not another's? There is too much hypocrisy in this post. And why does everyone keep putting Hanenbow on the ban list? There is literally no justifiable reason for doing so, except for they don't like it.


Hannenbow is disliked by all :lol: It's just... frustrating IMO.

And olimar can easily hold his own on neutral stages, I play as him on occasion and we do just fine.

Walk off ledges aren't broken, but they do allow for easier kills than normal (E.G. If you force your opponent into either a backwards roll to death or a forwards roll to smash to death or a wakeup attack to dodge to smash to death or...), not to mention that chaingrabs are more deadly.

Walls are debatable because they allow easier kills than normal as well. They aren't hard to avoid, but let's say you trip into a wall, and the opponent is playing as fox, falco, dedede, or others. They can easily Shine/Chaingrab you from 0 to death in most cases.

Hazards were banned in melee because they just favored faster characters.

In fact, all the prior reasons were the reasons stages like those were banned in melee. But pray, keep debating. I have little say in the matter; I just like to watch.

For me, this is how I have my stages set up:

Neutral-
Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville

Counterpicks-
Battleship Halberd
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Pokemon Stadium Melee
Delfino Plaza
(argh, I can't think this early in the morning :rofl:)

I forgot the rest, but it isn't that much more. I know, it's tourney-faggish, but I like it nonetheless. There's still a ton of variety between these stages, which is why I like Brawl's stages in general

[Reno K]

I remember during Evo finals last year, that Ice Climbers player stopped doing his wobble infinite because the crowd was booing him for playing well. That single moment turned me off from ever embracing the Smash "community."

Because letting one guy who cares a LOT about his image and his ego define your views on an entire community isn't over-reacting.

[subt-L]

Because letting one guy who cares a LOT about his image and his ego define your views on an entire community isn't over-reacting.

i don't think his issue was with chudat. i think his issue WAS with the community.

i am also in the same boat. i thought the ssb crowd were a bunch of bitches.

[Yeroc]

It wasn't that he stopped, it was that they were booing him.

[SN3S]

It wasn't that he stopped, it was that they were booing him.

Which is like the crowd booing Yipes for pulling off Magneto's snapback trap.

[UltraDavid]

Who cares about whether an infinite is easy or hard to pull off? The best players will learn the hard ones and will be able to pull it off anyway; to them (and that's who we're concerned with), it really makes no difference. I think we can say that you can ban the infinites once your opponent gets to 300-400%, like we don't allow infinite dead-body juggles in Marvel 2, but it's ridiculous to want to ban them before then.

And we've got to get rid of this neutral stage fiction. Sorry guys, no stage is neutral. Some characters do better on small flat hazard-less stages than others do, and in picking those stages as neutrals you're essentially making those characters better. We should just pick the first stage randomly (after banning overly hazardous and random stages like Warioware and Flat Zone and overly runaway-able stages like New Pork City, Temple, and Summit), and then allow the loser to choose between picking the same character and a new stage and picking a new character and another random stage.

[Keits]

Leave NO stage behind!

[Shaman]

you all make compelling arguments for the infinites, i conceed the point, though if i may comment on your stance it seems that because the competitive community evolved in the direction it did around games like SF and CVS, MVC, GG, etc that you consider infinites acceptable. Thats totally cool, but conversely a different community could evolve in such a way that using the easy button to win isn't acceptable regardless of how avoidable it is, simply because its not conducive to demonstrating skill, rather than strategic superiority and/or intelligent opportunism. I think both of the groups make compelling arguments, and poo poo-ing one groups way because its not how you do it, isn't really good.

If i could use the example of chess, and the 3 move checkmate as it stands thats totally acceptable because its easily defensible, but lets say that against anyone even Big blu the 3 move checkmate worked lets say 25% of the time, you can argue the best player won, because they used the tools they were given to beat their opponent, but you can't argue that the 3 move checkmate is conducive to strategic competitive chess, knowing the depth that comes from such things not exists, or not being allowed by the games rule set.

Now i know what your thinking the game comes with its own rules (its coding) and that should determine what goes and what doesn't. But you have to a recognize the complexity of any game (which i know most of you do) in realizing that while the developer may not have intended any strategy to be an auto win, that the complex interactions of coded systems result in unanticipated results. I need only point at Akuma to point at an example where something was an easy win, and it was banned. granted they are slightly different situations, but the logics the same. anyways i don't know where I'm going with this, just thought i'd point out that u don't need to attack the motives of those who oppose you since really your all applying the same metric in different ways to spectacular results.

as for the crowd booing, someone already raised the example of magneto's snapback trap at MvC2 infinites aren't fun for people to watch in most cases, and sometimes the crowd gets uppity when they expect a good competitive match and instead they get wobbling, or snapback traps...

[SN3S]

as for the crowd booing, someone already raised the example of magneto's snapback trap at MvC2 infinites aren't fun for people to watch in most cases, and sometimes the crowd gets uppity when they expect a good competitive match and instead they get wobbling, or snapback traps...

But you can shout commentary (http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZZUMjoxfZA&feature=related) during those moments to liven things up! :lol:

Consider this a joke post, I just had to. Sorry for that.

[Right-Card]

Hey, I go by the name Card and I'm from the Smash World Forums. I've actually been following this thread since page 1 (surprising, isn't it), but I've never really bothered to jump into the discussion, until now that is.

I've got a question for everyone, including SWF people who are posting here...


Just where on earth did the insane animosity for the other group come from??


Some examples from SRK;
i thought the ssb crowd were a bunch of bitches.
Originally Posted by lamewadd
He's from smashboards. Have they come up with any sort of actual explanation for anything yet?
Originally Posted by Bakuruyusan
oh and yay for smash kids.... maybe we need a secret back room to escape them now lol

Some examples from SWF;
wow, these scrubs want some hella-casual rules
Originally Posted by everlasting yayuhzz
SRK guys are failing pretty hard right now. Buncha scrubs.
Originally Posted by EnigmaticCam
That whole forum is a complete joke.


I'll bluntly say it right now, just what the f*ck? It really is quite ridiculous. We have Shoryuken.com, one of the most recognized competitive fighting websites, not to mention having been around for a tremendously long time and seen more tournaments for different fighting games than I can count on my hands and toes. Then we have Smashboards.com, the number one resource for everything Smash Bros related, not to mention one of the most bustling and thriving single-game communities out there. Yet these two colossal, respected, and well-known communities can do nothing but sling their shit at one another like monkeys in a zoo. Just fantastic.

I've been twisting my head around the real reasons as to why there is so much hatred for one another, and quite frankly I could not find a good, acceptable reason. Maybe it is because SWF feels that SRK is ignoring them. Maybe it is because SRK feels offended that SWF demands that their ruleset be put in place for their tournament. Whatever the case may be... somewhere down the line, something happened that stepped on the toes of the other, and what we end up with is one of the most immature flame wars I have ever seen... and the fact that it's between two of the most well respected communities makes it even more embarrassing to watch.

So far what I feel is the best explanation, is SRK and SWF have two different ideologies, beliefs, and methods towards playing Smash Brawl competitively, and because the pieces don't match your way, you've suddenly grown a hatred for each other. It is seriously like an Atheist and a Catholic hating eachother because they have different beliefs, and do not follow eachother. (I'm not even going to label one group as one of the choices in my example in fear of another childish session of poo-flinging starting)

As it stands, niether SRK or SWF are WRONG in their methods. There is absolutely nothing wrong with SWF having a Backroom where major TO's and intelligent and well-respected members can collaborate with the ideas of posters on the rest of the board. There is absolutely nothing wrong with SRK wanting to build this game from the ground up, testing everything and removing that which is deemed broken. On the contrary side to this, niether SRK or SWF are RIGHT in their methods as well! Niether method of deciding how this game will be played competitively brought up by SWF or SRK is better than the other. It is just different.

To SWF; Technically speaking, SRK does NOT have to listen to you. EVO is a SRK-sanctioned tournament, and therefore they can do whatever they want. If they want to make competitiors compete blindfolded with their controllers upside-down, they are allowed to. It's their tournament, hosted by their community, with their money. Of course it may be in their best interest to listen to you, since SWF is by far the largest Smash Community which in turn would guarantee the largest turn out, they still don't have to. So you cannot get offended that they are not catering to our rules, no matter how wrong or right they may be. SRK knows what they are doing just as well as SWF does. They know what sort of problems might arise, they know what sort of benefits they will have. Also when you think about it, just because EVO runs a tournament differently to how we do, is NOT going to affect us in the least. We are such a strong community that just because one large-scale tournament runs things differently, we'll still be just as strong as ever.

To SRK; Belittling the SWF, which I have seen countless times throughout this massive thread, is not only childish but stupid. You have at your disposal the SWF commuity who is extremely knowledgeable about all 3 iterations in the Smash Bros series (Particularly Melee). SWF has experience on what works and what doesn't work from Smash Melee, many of which still applies in Brawl. They know that if you fight on Hyrule Temple, it will lead to a Lazer Run-Away Game which is not enjoyable to watch or fight against. They know that Timed and Coin matches does not prove which player is the most skilled. They know about and have experienced MANY things which can be applied onto Smash Brawl. Of course the issue at hand being Stage and Item Switch, which you disagree with. It is completely FINE for you to disagree with their Stage and Item Switch, but to disregard the ENTIRE community, not only for your rules for Brawl, but criticizing and showing no respect for the entire SWF Community for how they handled Melee is not only offensive, and like I said childish and stupid.


What should of happened from the beginning, is that both SWF and SRK should have been collaborating together in order to get the absolute best experience at EVO, which both parties would be satisfied with. Not only just because it would be a ruleset that both groups could agree on, but because the ruleset would have been thoroughly tested in various small-scaled tournaments, rather than using EVO (one of the largest fighting game tournament) as the testing grounds.

SWF, want to prove to SRK that the ideas from Melee haven't changed, why not try hosting a couple of Items Tournaments. The Game II's (Is he even the host? I'm unsure, correct me if I am wrong) Limited Items Tournament at FFA I thought was a resounding success. Even though I heard some comments from SRK people that seem to belittle this tournament because they did not turn on all items/stages, which actually surprised me because it's actually one of the first real data we have on a tournament with Items-On (although limited). It's times like these I wish I lived in a very popular area which had a ton of Smashers, because I would be the first to host these "test" tournaments, in hopes of not allowing EVO to be the testing grounds.

SRK, why not ask for some help from SWF to actually have some tournaments with YOUR rulesets, so you can see with your own eyes what works and doesn't work in a tournament environment. So you can see what is broken, and what is manageable. SRK has hosted what.. around 4 Online Tournaments since the release of Smash with your rulesets? Laggy Online matches is not an accurate measure of the test results you are looking for. SWF must have hosted atleast 10 Offline Tournaments around North America just on the Japanese Release, that is just a testament to how many Offline Tournaments are held weekly. SRK could jump in the SWF community and host some actual Items-On tournaments, tons of people from SWF will come regardless. But if you guys are planning on just hosting those horrible Online tournaments (This is not to be offensive to SRK, but Nintendo sucks at making anything Online) you are going to fall very short when it comes to providing actual data and Smash @ EVO just may become a complete joke.

Why this hasn't happened from the beginning, is just baffling...



Anyways I just had to get this off my chest. To sum up this post in as few words as possible, Quit hating on eachother and work together :wonder:

For the record, I'm for Items-Off. Specifically almost everything Alphazealot has debated about could have been words taken directly out of my mouth. Not to mention he is one of the only people to have posted any actual "evidence" against the Randomness of Items with the Chu-Dat clip where he picked up a Heart mid-attack, totally by accident.

[Pimp Willy]

The two communities just have very different philosophies that rub eachother the wrong way. SWF is a very big, and very immature (in terms of growth through the years) forum. Here, we try to play the game to the fullest extent possible, using whatever we can to get an edge. There, you try to balance the game by removing things that are deemed unfair, thus unbalancing the game AWAY from certain tactics. It's impossible to balance a game by omitting things left and right, you're just going to have the SECOND most effective strategy become dominant. This is the sort of experience we've gotten over the year, through multiple titles, series, sequels, and tournaments.

Heres a glaring example, everyone on Smash boards (I say everyone, but of course it's not EVERYONE, but the hefty majority) was already banning items, making banned stages/neutrals/counterpick lists, and deeming stuff like Chain Grab banned BEFORE THEY HAD EVER EVEN PLAYED THE GAME. That's just absolutely astounding to me, and I'm sure to many of us here.

So yes, things could have/should have been done differently, but it wasn't. SWF would never run an Evo rules tourney (outside of Arileth, who's been trying and getting shit from them for it). Hell, you have your "top players" saying shit like they wouldn't waste their money on an items on tourney ever again (Referring to the upcoming FFA tourney, with 3(!) of the tamest items possible). Do you really think they are interested in doing items on play? They are only interested in one thing: keeping Brawl as close to Melee as possible, so they have to learn little to no new skills, and continue to make their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Your post is definitely accurate though. But theres just too many differences to get along. So build that hype. SRK vs SWF Evo 2k8 CASH BATTLE!

[Hogosha]

I'm not really completely happy with the single-counterpick thing either. It REALLY benefits high-tier/safe characters. I used to just stick with "loser picks stage and character, winner keeps character", but that was a bit much. I like the SWF/MLG way of doing thing, which is "loser picks stage, winner picks character, loser picks character".

If I play characters that have SEVERELY crappy stage-handicaps, I could peace MYSELF out with two bad random stages. Here's a good situation: I play Yoshi first round, get either Yoshi's Story (new one) or something else where someone can sit under me and beat the tar out of me with little to no risk of getting hit. I lose that round, then decide that I want to play Zero Suit. I get Rainbow Cruise, Skyworld, or Pirate Ship on random. Congrats, you just won, and you probably didn't have to work nearly as hard as you would've if we'd played on FD, Castle Siege, Smashville, etc.

Same scenario with MLG/SWF rules. First stage we do random. I play Yoshi and still get Yoshi's Story (it's a random stage). I lose and decide I'm done playing shit-tier and go Zero Suit. They play Marth. I pick Castle Siege and win that round. Now, they get stage choice. They pick Rainbow Cruise. I pick Peach. They pick Pit. We have a good final match.

I like scenario #2. It allows people the opportunity to play different characters, rather than just sticking to high/top tier.


As far as the Tekken 4 analogy, most things are situational, yes. But it is difficult to judge where the hell you are out in the middle of the runway on the Airport level. Or exactly where the pillars are in the middle of a heated match. Or the stupid effing rails in the Mall. Little things like that can cost you a match and really don't help gameplay much if at all.


As far as infinites go...I was pro-wobble 100%. As was a lot of the SWF community. Just sucked that many of the others were retards about it and were VERY loud about their position.

[IstariAsuka]

I think a large part of the problem stems from the fact that most of SWF is really immature, most people there are total scrubs, and that the average age and intelligence level there is simply quite low. People here are, on average, more mature and reasoned. So SRKers see the smashboards forums and it makes them hate the whole community.

Therein lies much of the problem. The real tournament smash community is a small fraction of the smashboards forums. If you go to the regional subforums you see a much higher level of discourse; you avoid most of the random casual players who don't know what they are talking about, or who are just simply stupid.

These things shouldn't be conflated. People like M3D, and AlphaZealot, PC Chris, Gimpyfish, and others who have come and posted here on SRK are smart guys. Dismissing the whole community due to the immaturity of most smashers is silly; they're really two separate communities, that just happen to inhabit the same forum. A lot of smashers are smart. You want to read interesting critiques of why Brawl is not that good? Try reading some of Cactuar's posts, for example. Whether you agree with him or not, they're still great posts. Similarly any other topic, there're a lot of thoughtful, intelligent smash players.

For example, I saw the issue of wobbling brought up here. As has been mentioned, a large majority of the best and most influential smash players and tournament organizers discussed the issue and gave the public opinion that wobbling is a legit tactic and should not be banned. This was in the face of the rest of the more casual community, who behaved to large extent as has been described here. But the core of the community didn't just run away screaming "cheap!" and ban it; they considered it, its implications, and deemed it fair. For those interested in this discussion, there was a thread at one point where Wobbles himself was defending wobbling as a legitimate tactic that should be left unbanned against page after page of ignorant posts (admittedly, there were a few insightful dissenting posts).

In conclusion, I don't think SRKers give the smash people enough credit, and they conflate the casual scrubs who are the majority of smashboards with the serious tournament goers. Damning the whole smash community is just silly -- especially as, in a very real sense, you all are part of it now, and you'll be attending many of the same tournaments (EVO, and many others I'm sure).

[Keits]

So Hogosha and those with a like-mind.. you want to ensure that the best characters dont have an edge? Or that the weaker characters are not as weak?

sinse when was a tournament about these things? its about the best player using his best character and his best strategies to WIN.

just because you like playing low tier at a tournament isnt an excuse to buff/weaken other character through bans (items stages and strats). Bone up on your strategies for playing as yoshi on his bad stages, pick a character with fewer weaknesses, or get peaced out.

[Right-Card]

The two communities just have very different philosophies that rub eachother the wrong way. SWF is a very big, and very immature (in terms of growth through the years) forum. Here, we try to play the game to the fullest extent possible, using whatever we can to get an edge. There, you try to balance the game by removing things that are deemed unfair, thus unbalancing the game AWAY from certain tactics. It's impossible to balance a game by omitting things left and right, you're just going to have the SECOND most effective strategy become dominant. This is the sort of experience we've gotten over the year, through multiple titles, series, sequels, and tournaments.

It's to be expected. When SmashBoards.com is printed in the Prima Brawl Strategy Guide, along with NSiders Brawl boards getting closed down, you can only imagine how many newbie members SWF has gotten since Brawl was announced. Top that with the fact that Smash Bros is already a game catered towards the younger "pokemon-loving" audience (a demographic of 12-16 year olds) compared to almost every game on SRK (Usually a demographic of 16-25), and then some of you wonder why SWF Back Room exists? :wonder:

Anyways like I said in my post. Niether "way of playing" is better or worse than the other. It's just a different set of beliefs for a different demographic. What I am really trying to say is for both groups to look PAST their differences, and work together towards a better... uhh.. tomorrow. (That sounds so corny haha)


Heres a glaring example, everyone on Smash boards (I say everyone, but of course it's not EVERYONE, but the hefty majority) was already banning items, making banned stages/neutrals/counterpick lists, and deeming stuff like Chain Grab banned BEFORE THEY HAD EVER EVEN PLAYED THE GAME. That's just absolutely astounding to me, and I'm sure to many of us here.

Again, it's just a different way of playing, niether better or worse. For the record you can lump me into that group of people. I've been a part of SWF since 2001, and before Brawl was even released, I was looking on the Dojo with my friends and saying "Oh man, Smashville is totally neutral, let's play on it alot", and Items-Off was decided before Brawl was even ANNOUNCED.

You are surprised of this? You shouldn't be.
Am I surprised that many players want to play the game to the fullest extent first (Read: You guys at SRK)? No, not at all.

I can see what kind of points you guys at SRK are trying to make. In fact I support your points, because I am definitely curious to see if the outcome might be different. I'm open to the suggestion of trying everything out, while at the same time using many of the experiences we've learned over the past with Melee to strengthen it even further. What I do not like seeing though, is how EVO is doing "Ban only if Deemed Broken" (which is good), Nobody on SRK is really going at any lengths PAST "Theory" or "Online Friendly Tournaments" to prove what is broken and what isn't. This is the problem I have, and this is why I want SRK and SWF to look past eachothers differences and work together for a change.

Sure the FFA Tournament had a limited item set, but then again has there even been an All Items Offline Tournament? One small step is better than taking No step at all.


So yes, things could have/should have been done differently, but it wasn't. SWF would never run an Evo rules tourney (outside of Arileth, who's been trying and getting shit from them for it). Hell, you have your "top players" saying shit like they wouldn't waste their money on an items on tourney ever again (Referring to the upcoming FFA tourney, with 3(!) of the tamest items possible). Do you really think they are interested in doing items on play? They are only interested in one thing: keeping Brawl as close to Melee as possible, so they have to learn little to no new skills, and continue to make their money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Was it not you (along with many others) who brought up the "Brawl is not Melee, It's a different game".

Top Melee Players =/= Top Brawl Players

Right now there is already a huge debacle over Brawl vs. Melee and it's competitive worth on SWF, blah blah blah blah. It's just a big mess and it's ugly and I don't really feel like talking about it. But basically the point I was trying to make is that many Melee pro's are sticking with Melee, so quite frankly if they aren't interested in a Brawl tournament, it doesn't really matter. There are SO many new players to Brawl, and there will be bound to be "Top Brawl Players" that won't necessarily HAVE to be "Top Melee Players."

The way I see it... everyone who chose to stick with Melee, just do not want to adapt to everything new in Brawl, or just plain prefer the current Melee over it. There is nothing wrong with their decision either, but thats just the way it is.

Another thing... You would be surprised at how many players on SWF debate Items-On. They are hard to see, but they are definitely there. Not to mention the FFA Arcade tournament had a reasonably good turn-out, along with some notable names of the scene making appearances. I really am not worried about Items tournaments attendance. The point is that these Items Tournaments are meant to gather up Data for BRAWL to use in EVO. I am also sure that if that is explained in a tournament hosting thread, more people would be happy to try.

[UltraDavid]

Hogosha, how about allowing the loser to choose between staying with his character and picking a new stage or getting a random stage before picking a new character, and in neither case allowing the winner to pick a new character? Would that solve your problems with the first scenario?

[UltraDavid]

You would be surprised at how many players on SWF debate Items-On. They are hard to see...
Yeah, impossible, actually, since the Backroom is invitation only. Why don't they let other people at least view it, even if they won't let us post in it?

[Right-Card]

Yeah, impossible, actually, since the Backroom is invitation only. Why don't they let other people at least view it, even if they won't let us post in it?

Who was talking about the Backroom?

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=154923
http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=155819
http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=152530

Here's an example of all public threads on SWF debating about Items. Anyone can take a part of the discussion and throw their weight on the issue. These threads are seen by everyone, including members of the Backroom. They definitely do not fall on deaf ears.

This is another incredible stereotype I've been seeing lately on SRK. Just because you are not a part of the Backroom, does NOT mean you cannot influence the rulesets or the decisions made to host tournaments. Everyone has a voice on SWF, and everyones voice can be heard. I'm not even a member of the backroom, and I have not once ever felt like I could not influence any decisions made in the backroom. If I feel there is an issue that I want to bring to the attention to the community, I can post it in the respective forums, and everyone can debate and collaborate together with it.

When I said that there are many users posting about Items, it in the General Discussion forums, as well as Tournament Discussion forums. I don't know why you instantly assumed I was talking about the backroom....

[alphazealot]

Another thing... You would be surprised at how many players on SWF debate Items-On. They are hard to see, but they are definitely there. Not to mention the FFA Arcade tournament had a reasonably good turn-out, along with some notable names of the scene making appearances. I really am not worried about Items tournaments attendance. The point is that these Items Tournaments are meant to gather up Data for BRAWL to use in EVO. I am also sure that if that is explained in a tournament hosting thread, more people would be happy to try.

There are a group of people on SWF, formally the "casual competition league" that are working on play with items.

1) Advanced slob picks is an amazing system. Both parties should be allowed to choose characters for each game in the set. The only problem is the random stage being unknown, which can easily be solved (have the stage random, reset, double blind characters). Others have suggested having a odd numbered list of randoms, then have each player strike stages until one is left.

2) I liked right cards post. Yet I found it ironic reading Pimp Willy's post right after.

In conclusion, I don't think SRKers give the smash people enough credit, and they conflate the casual scrubs who are the majority of smashboards with the serious tournament goers. Damning the whole smash community is just silly -- especially as, in a very real sense, you all are part of it now, and you'll be attending many of the same tournaments (EVO, and many others I'm sure).

Evidence of this can be found right here:

In conclusion, I don't think SRKers give the smash people enough credit, and they conflate the casual scrubs who are the majority of smashboards with the serious tournament goers. Damning the whole smash community is just silly -- especially as, in a very real sense, you all are part of it now, and you'll be attending many of the same tournaments (EVO, and many others I'm sure).

Essentially, things posted by randomscrub309 get regurgitated in this thread as evidence of Smash players ignorance. No one is going to ban chain grabbing. That said, Eldin bridge is a fine level, walk off ledges are fine and if you character gets chain grabbed then be thankful the level will likely be a counter pick, so you can make sure you choose a character in the half of the cast that doesn't get cg'd by Falco/D3/etc.

Was it not you (along with many others) who brought up the "Brawl is not Melee, It's a different game".

Top Melee Players =/= Top Brawl Players


C3 (70 or so people): 1st: Azen, 2nd: Chillin, 3rd: Forte, 4th: Greg 7th: ChuDat
Critical Hit: 1st: Azen, 2nd: Chillin, 3rd: Forte 4th: Greg 5th ChuDat

I included ChuDat because he was Melee pro. Forte is a new name, new names are expected. The old people are still really good. That is the point. Kirbster also took top 7 I think in both.

---

Some threads in the SBR contain confidential information.

[Shaman]

to go back to a Tangent Keits and i went on regarding "Meta-Game"
I was just on smash boards, and Damn you were right, they really do rape that word.

I like the method AZ outlined above, I don't think you should be restricted to the first char you picked for all the other games in the set. and i think his method best allows that ideology to be applied at tourney's

[EDit2:] heres an example of one of the many newbs and newb influenced threads that make SWF look rediculous, but several seconds of readin demonstrates how there are the scrubs, the new to the community moderates, and the older established and reasonable players. and well its the last group and a bit of the middle group that have influence, but the first group that is loudest. anyways heres the example (http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=153275&page=2).

[lamewadd]

Some threads in the SBR contain confidential information.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: