Zamuel, post: 2166488 wrote:
-Smash Ball might have been a bad idea. I feel that they need to be tested in a tournament setting but in the two matches they were used, they very heavily swayed the match and the person who chose to CP was the one who got the Smash Ball. Intriguingly enough, the characters were ROB and Mr. Game & Watch.
Noopytisk, post: 2166494 wrote:
There is no standard play for items, and high level players never play with them seriously because no legitimate tournament ever runs their shit with items. In other words, this thread is for noobs who know nothing about the real tournament Brawl scene.
SRK already wised up and realized how ridiculous their rule set was last year. They hired AllisBrawl to run their Brawl tournament at EVO this year, and they're using TRUE standard rules (no items). You guys should get with the times, because this idea of "standard play with items" is a total joke for anyone takes this game seriously.
Cyntalan, post: 2166501 wrote:
No sense regurgitating what we've said since Brawl came out. Hell, since Melee came out. They don't listen.
Smashchu, post: 2166502 wrote:
True dat. Ehh, maybe one they they'd listen. Or I'll just listen to my self talk. Is is disheartening as Smash is the game I'm really good at, yet is bogged down by it's community. Oh well.
Any comments on Home Run Bats and Smash Balls.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166504 wrote:
Homerun bats are an issue because you throw them... they're insane edgeguarders.
Star rods are worse though, their angle is perfect.
Overall though, no items is a ruleset more conducive to competitive play, it's not that items are broken so much as they confer random advantages/blueshell effect, removing them makes skill more rewarding.
There's nothing wrong with an items ruleset, but it's a side-ruleset, not the main event.
Keits, post: 2166506 wrote:
Cynt thats EXACTLY what I was going to reply!
"Blah blah blah doesnt know how to read blah blah blah believes everything he is told without questioning"
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166507 wrote:
It seems to me that you're the people who support without questioning because you seem unwilling to respond to the fact that they DO increase randomness and they have a strong Blue Shell effect.
Keits, post: 2166508 wrote:
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Do some reading, or do the experiments yourself, and then come back to us.
How am I supposed to respect your argument when your statement prove that you dont know how the system in Brawl works?
Keits, post: 2166510 wrote:
You are adorable, but no.
Any difference you could find would be within the normal allowable variance for any randomized statistical trial. I dont know how far behind in stocks the losing mario was in Wobble's test, but All-Brawl uses only 2 stocks. You can never be more than 1 stock behind in these rules, so if any difference existed, it would be negligible. On top of this, if items did actually favor the losing player to the degree that you suggest, that should just make it easier to predict where they are coming in from.
I challenge you to prove this yourself in a similar fashion, by sticking a Mario with 1 stock on one side of final destination, and a mario with 2 stocks on the other side, and catalog at least 10 runs of 1000 item drops and which mario they were closer to. Statistically speaking, the more items you let drop, the closer you should get to 50/50.
The items crowd's line was always "people should be able to play how they want", while the anti-items people were always saying "we boycott this and that and condemn items play". In the end, what you got was a boring game, and a community that split again trying to hack to "make better"... the only really sad part is still the insane association of the word "random" with "anti-competitive". In the last 100+ years of gaming in all its forms, there is no evidence at all that having random elements makes a game bad for competition. Its competitive if people want to compete at it. The retarded concern with consistency of results was also put to rest in brawl+item's case a number of times, but the haters just found reasons to ignore the results.
Remember, its not that the same players who won without items are winning with, its that the same players of any format are winning consistently.
Anyway, I'm done with you. Go talk to AlphaZealot about it if you want it from someone in your own community. He is a smart fellow who argued feverishly against All-brawl for a while, but now totally gets it.
You are totally 100% free to prefer no-items. Thats just an opinion, and a choice, and no one gives a shit if you like pepsi or coke better. But its when you come out saying that Pepsi has more fairness to your bloodstream than coke or some bullshit, that you are going to get laughed at by the people who had this discussion years ago.
Cyntalan, post: 2166512 wrote:
Seriously. Stop talking. You sound like a goddamn echo of the last two years and it's just as ignorant and retarded now as it was then. If you decide to actually stop being a closed minded sheep and regurgitating the smashboards creed, then you can come back and try to formulate a reply. Until then, please, for the sake of this board, shut the fuck up.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166513 wrote:
If my strong support for the Items Standard Play, my support for inclusion of ittems before it was known that they were conferred random advantage, and the fact that I frequently take positions in start opposition to the community at large (especially my region, see: Planking, DDD's infinite, understanding match-ups, etc.) don't convince you that I'm not being a sheep... well then I think you need to re-evaluate who's being the sheep here.
My points have been well thought out, I have not been abrasive in the least, I never even condemned items play (I merely was trying to illustrate that non-items play is better from a competitive standpoint, though ISP comes very close).
Remember, opposing the popular viewpoint doesn't make you not a sheep, it's just as easy to be a sheep in a sub-culture, you're only not a sheep when you think for yourself.
*P*L*U*R*, post: 2166516 wrote:
I was under the impression that ISP started with all the items on and then we slowly began to drop them in favor of more balanced ones.
Cyntalan, post: 2166515 wrote:
Look, what I'm trying to get at is you're here, where the viewpoint is drastically different from what you're used to. You come from a place where items are trying to be introduced like if they were cooties. Here, ISP is considered NOT ENOUGH. It's the redheaded stepchild of what we came to discover as the proper way to play the game competitively. Giving props to ISP here is almost as insulting as claiming that no items play is "better competitively" as fact, because, quite frankly, that thought is ignorant as shit. AT BEST, it's a heavily biased opinion, and the core reason people stop listening to you here.
ISP will never discover what we have because they're going about it backwards. It may be the only way for you people to ever even remotely consider items in any form, but it'll never go anywhere. The very idea that "well, once we've figured these out, we'll try this item and see how it meshes" is going to lock out the majority of them simply because there is a lot of counterbalance that won't be shown without other yet-to-be-added items. As one that's been in the trenches since 2002, I give Jack Keiser props simply trying to go into the lions den covered in t-bone steaks and slapping his ass, but I'd rather that community just not touch the shit to begin with.
Cyntalan, post: 2166517 wrote:
Negative. Started with the "socially acceptable" items and worked up. The first list had, what, 15 items, tops?
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166518 wrote:
You don't know the history.
It started with the presumption that all items should be legal and disqualified.
That's because the list began based on internal testing, the first list was put forth after elimination process had begun, but everything was considered a candidate.
That's the same way it started with smash back in the early melee days (and before anyone says different game, sure, but there are enough similarities that you can test based on the differences).
Personally, I came into the scene as an anti-items player since I opposed them back in 64 and i didn't go competitive into well into melee's lifetime. At that point I already had a competitive mindset (people complain about my edge-hogging, my response, "you can do it too") but my recognition always was that they detracted from the competition because of their inherent issue of giving random advantage. Before that, I was playing Gundam Wing Endless Duel and camping with the best of them, no matter how much people complained.
Yes, I'm biased, but so are you, everybody is biased in their own way. But bias does not mean you're incorrect, which brings me back to my core point which you have yet to respond to.
My core point is that their inherit randomness detracts from competition (competition being defined as something to select for the most skilled player possible), care to respond?
Remember, the game was designed with the ability to turn off items, so it isn't like we're banning something inside the game, it's the use of in-game options in the exact manner they're designed for.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166509 wrote:
The location that they spawn takes into account the current players and which player is losing, they spawn with considerably greater frequency near the player that is losing.
We tested this over on smashboards, I can cite this if you want.
Smashchu, post: 2166520 wrote:
@Cyntalan:On Final Smashes, I can see what you mean. One thing Warioman can do is juggle foes off the stage with his air attacks, but it is hard to set up. But, then again, Warioman can do some crazy stuff in general. It would really take a lot of matches to see if Warioman just has some crazy tricks he can do.
Cyntalan, post: 2166521 wrote:
It's a lot easier to do than one would think. Especially for someone who's already a good Wario. Even Sonic has troubles avoiding Warioman. He's honestly the only one that has a guaranteed kill on getting a Smash Ball. Sonic is the only other one with that possibly under his belt, but since it's a guaranteed straight popup, some stages he's going to only get damage (which, depending on the timing, may be a "might as well be dead" scenario, but not necessarily). There's a slight possibility that a strong Wario could get a second kill, but I'd chalk that up to an awesome skilled play over "smash ball is cheap!". The guaranteed one kill could eventually be a problem, though. Never gonna know though, so it's kinda pointless to think about.
*P*L*U*R*, post: 2166523 wrote:
okay, so you guys dislike isp because.....? like, i'm confused.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166526 wrote:
I feel like this isn't going anywhere, but I guess I'll reiterate my main points.
1. I'm a little confused by why you guys contend that randomness (unless properly contended with in the game mechanics). The idea of competitive gaming is to pick the player who is the best, and the strongest measure of what makes a competitive game good in my opinion (kudos to anyone who can figure out who I'm a devotee of by this comment) is how much the game rewards you for reading your opponent.
Randomness generally knocks that for a loop, because great reads can easily be spoiled by the universe hating you (smash example, first game I played of 64, a bomb spawned into my f-smash). Granted, in some games it works, hold-em has no other mechanism for generating different conditions to read your opponent in for example, but smash already has a mechanism outside of randomness.
2. Play how you like, definitely no hard feelings on my end towards item players, and I'd hope that you guys could feel the same way towards non-items players. Unfortunately, casual players and scrubs pretty much universally hate no items rulesets, and they're extremely evangelical about it (in the same way the, "all you can do is throw" crowd is), that cause no items players to be defensive, but honestly, no "no items" player is gonna oppose you playing with items. Probably just not interested in playing it and thinks his format is better.
Arrow Of God, post: 2166531 wrote:
I'd be in full support of this except for one thing.
This would make the game completely revolve around avoiding/obtaining items. You can't zone properly because there's a risk of an item blowing up. So when your opponent approaches you, it's a gamble whether or not he'll succeed because of an item spawning. I feel that any sort of gamble not associated with reading the opponent doesn't belong. The same applies to chaingrabbing your opponent. When I get a grab, whether or not I get the next grab should be up to my abilities, not up to a gamble.
If it were possible for items not to detonate or activate on contact, then I don't think there should be any argument over whether or not items belong. But unfortunately there is no such option.
I actually really hope that this ruleset somehow works out, because Brawl is possibly the most boring fighting game I've ever watched or played.