Cyntalan, post: 2166527 wrote:
I think the problem here is simply the fact that you overlook everything that comes beyond the word "random". The ONLY aspect that's truly 100% random is what item is coming next (and technically, that's not even true considering you know dragoon parts 2 and 3 are coming once part one spawns). Everything else has a lot of manipulative properties, to the point where it actually takes greater skill to keep the flow of battle going in your direction: adaptation.
The concept you bring about here further illustrates what you're missing. The beauty of item spawn is that it forces people to MOVE. It also forces people to stop a wall of hate (see: Marth and MK for some of the more lucrative examples) and actually think on their toes. Then there's also the fact it'll puts the fear of continuing an infinite for longer than a small window. In the ruleset we came down to, it was 2 stock, 3 min, best of 5. The item spawn was set so that every 10-14 seconds, an item was going to spawn. Guaranteed. This means you have a good degree of predictability. You also have a 3 minute timer going on above you to assist in keeping track of time and thus being able to better prepare for the oncoming spawn any second and stop and think before mashing A like a monkey. It now becomes a risk to be overly aggressive by just keeping out a constant hitbox because there's always that good chance during that window... kablooey. It's not as though the game spawns it suddenly without warning and purposely while you're charging a smash or swinging an arial at head level, because the intervals are predictable enough that it really becomes your own damn fault.
This another thing that you may not understand why there is such animosity here to the majority of smash players. There is a VERY vocal majority both online and in real life that will do what it takes to get people that actually might want to play all-brawl away from "their damn game". It's pretty much this aspect of the community that almost entirely killed Smash at EVO ever returning, and it IS why they won't do anything more than just give the players a corner of the room. The whining, the rage, the boycotts... the overall evangelical attitude got so out of hand we frankly just got sick of the shit. Now whenever we see someone pop in and go "wtf random?", we shit on them, because 99% of the time, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
EDIT: The irony of all of this is that one at a time, as we sit their asses down and point shit out, the item ragers stop raging and start relating and understanding. Not all of 'em go "oooh, that's much better", but they all end up going "yeah, I can see how this is just as skillful".
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166535 wrote:
Honestly, you gotta understand it from our prospective, the vast majority of smashers have no issue with other formats.
But, we don't like people forcing other formats on us, and that's what was attempted at Evo. Most smashers took that as a literal slap in the face. Regardless of whether or not it's a push, there's bad blood on both ends, SRK'ers being as hostile to smashboarders as the reverse is never gonna help the situation.
If you approach smashboarders from the prospective of "I prefer the game with all items, but itemless play is cool too" instead of the common attitude of "itemless play is an abomination before all that is holy", then I can see a lot better results.
Cyntalan, post: 2166536 wrote:
What you describe is our position, not yours. Nowhere did Evo say "we're doing it this way, so you better fucking do it too", meanwhile, your community actively boycotted and slammed any attempt at doing anything items-wise the second the game came out. Evo said "well, since this is a new game, we'd like to see how we should run the game first. Can you show us why not?" Then no one did. Lots of heresay and doom prophecies, but no evidence. Just whining.
Meanwhile, proof was given to WHY Evo's stance should be supported, and even with all that, Evo still decided to attempt some sort of compromise, which due to the lack of understanding of the intricacies of the game, led both sides kinda miffed about it all, 'cause ultimately, it was fairly unbalanced in some aspects (Smashballs w/o anything out there to dilute the frequency or counter in play and the whole "First round always on Smashville" being the bigger problems).
The fact remains that Evo did nothing of the sort regarding "forcing formats on you". Their tournament, their rules. That's as far as it went. Nowhere did they say "you must follow the law of Evo for your own tournaments". No, that goes more to the whole Back Room thing you guys got going on over there. No, they don't say "these are the Smash Commandments", but the community treats them as such, right down to the point of making a veritable holy war between the communities (see the whole fiasco in SoCal when your own community whined and bitched and boycotted the guy that was honestly trying to run tournaments to prove Evo wrong about their thoughts until the guy caved 'cause otherwise his tournament would be dead.) It's hard to take that whole "forcing formats" crap when Evo practically begged for a good reason NOT to do it this way. In the end, what happened? Brawl got booted from Evo as a whole. Sure, they got "invited" to a corner of the place last year, but they might as well have not even been there. It was nearly a quarantine zone. Haven't even heard if you guys will get that shot again. But the general attitude received from the community kinda made any chance at Smash ever appearing as a main title at Evo again an impossibility.
It's funny, your community can claim "it's just another tourney" about Evo, and so do we here, but the second we do so, it's right back to the whining that you guys aren't ever getting your fair share. It should tell you something when Melty Blood gets a nod over your guys.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166537 wrote:
When you're trying to get attendance, you gotta appeal to the community, not the reverse.
How can you take them not attending as a slight to Evo and say that it wouldn't be perceived as an attempt to force the format on smash? It was aimed at competitive smashers, was it not? Competitive smashers overwhelmingly are in favor of itemless formats as the standard for competitive play, sure they'll attend items play, but they not gonna attend a tournament for just that. So how can you not expect us to interpret it this way?
How would you guys feel if for the next SF game that comes out, let's say it's several months after release and SF players have already been running tournaments. Now smashers try to run a major SF tournament (lets say it's a combined fighting game tournament), but they use a completely different set of tournament standards then your tournaments do (not necessarily better or worse, just different), would you attend?
Wouldn't that strike the SRK community as "we know how to run your game better then you guys do?" Especially if you guys repeatedly say "you won't draw many SF players with this ruleset" and they're like, "our ruleset is better". Especially if they interpret lack of attendance as a sign of bad faith.
Yet, if it were run explicitly as an experiment (aka, yea, we understand, but we're gonnna try this and see how it works, it's gonna be a side tournament, and if it doesn't work out we'll do things differently next year) and smashers were not held responsible for not being interested, it could've been taken for what it was, a failed experiment, it didn't draw in the community.
Now I'm not gonna say smashers haven't been obnoxious about this, but at the same time, you can't say it was unexpected, and you can't say that it was just smasher's fault. It was at best a push, where both sides were looking for things to take as slights, and the end result was obviously gonna be animosity.
But better PR on both ends would've helped a lot. Hell, maybe it still can if people are, I dunno, willing to listen to each other.
TL;DR: Smashers didn't go to Evo 2008 because the format didn't interest them, everything was a matter of bad PR.
Cyntalan, post: 2166538 wrote:
The problem with your thought process here is we're talking about Brawl when it first came out. New game. From our standpoint, instantly translating rules from a game's predecessor, which took years to get to in the first place, was indeed asinine. It's a foreign concept to you guys, I know. This is your first real "new" game, as Smash really didn't get a scene until Melee. You guys haven't dealt with iteration after iteration, nor have you dealt with other games similar but different enough from the game you're used to (somehow I doubt any of you took TMNT Smash Up with more than a grain of salt, for example), so the idea of resetting and experimenting all over again was terrifying to the point where you just assumed "let's just do it like we did before".
The fact that our standpoints are so radically different should be enough to realize just how impossible it would be for you to grasp where Evo was coming from. They were looking out for the best interest of the GAME, not its community, as it was brand spanking new. If you take notice, they did nothing to influence how Melee was done in 2007, as it was an established game and over the years developed what was pretty much universally agreed as the most optimal way to play. I could see reason to complain if Evo had decided to say "all stages all items" in 2007 with Melee.
As I've said before, I was in that community back when Melee was still in its infancy. I watched the evolution of Melee up until around 2005, where I just got bored with the game from what it became. I still think the decision to cut items originally was a little rash, but understandable. To keep with tradition for tradition's sake from the get-go on a game that did pretty damn well on fixing items shortcomings on its predecessor? It just shows how far that community has fallen into its own circlejerking scrubbery.
Lastly, just to hit the argument you claim for the sake of the argument: yeah, by disturbing a currently established ruleset for any given game, you're bound to get lesser attendance. This has happened on many occasions. Good example was Evo moving to console from arcade. There was a lot of complaint, and in a few people, still does have some people complaining, but overall, the decision was respected and now is the standard. A good example to come will be MvC2, where it's the first time to be there and not be on arcade/Dreamcast. Lots of hate's coming from that, and I'm sure the attendance won't be nearly as big as it was last year, but either one of two things will come out of it: the game'll die at Evo, or it'll become the new standard. Lots of legitimate reasons to move on to the PS3, lots of legitimate reasons to stick w/ the DC, but ultimately it's Evo's decision and they're sticking to it. Only can respect their decision and compete or not.
What is BAD to do, however, is to go out of your way and make sure no one else does. This is what your community did on several occasions, not even including Evo itself, and Evo still got fairly good numbers in spite of neither side of the whole thing was happy about the ruleset. Had the massive whining that continued even after Evo by the majority that wasn't even there (note: Evo 2k8 Brawl was still hype in spite of the meh rules) not occurred, I'd not be surprised to have seen Brawl in the lineup in 2k9, with All-Brawl's set, as all it did was convince people the shit works, and either one two things would have happened yet again: either the game would die, or it'd become the standard. Though, admittedly, I think this is much more of a gray area. I think it would not have become standard, but either become its own scene or made the game more crossover between the two. Back in the days of Melee's growth, both types of tourneys were run, rulesets were fairly consistent with the exception of the biggie (items in meant stages in, items out meant stages out). There was a pretty fair amount of harmony for a good couple of years. At worst, people would begrudgingly play in something "not the ruleset they're used to", but nowhere was all the animosity that exists today.
AdumbroDeus, post: 2166539 wrote:
Actually, there was a great deal of experimentation, it just wasn't tournament experimentation (which, to be fair, is exactly what I've defended the HD remix community for doing with Akuma). A lot of the items data that you cited to me came from internal SBR testing, with the objective being questioning whether the game was "different in the crucial aspects that made melee items with melee as opposed to the reverse, and this had been occurring from the time that it came out in Japan.
And think reasonably, even though smash might not have had the depth of field that SF does, the SF community in general has significantly less of a grasp of the series then smashers do overall, so the recommendations just don't come with the credentials it would if it was internal.
kataridragon, post: 2166541 wrote:
This shits gay. Look if you cant play with items you DONT know how to play smash. Thats all it comes down too. If you were to have a smash tourney it really should be random items on medium all on random stage, thats it.
Who ever thought it was a good idea to make no item tourneys is wrong.
kataridragon, post: 2166543 wrote:
Truthfully you gotta think about it Smash is the most "unfriendly" community to new members. With blah blah blah rules counter pick stages and all kinds of weird crap it really dilutes the game itself. The Smash meta game is complete for the most part, Metaknight is win. How long did it take mvc2 to get that way? Brawl has been out for what 3 years and its already a done deal. The worst part is the community just deals with it.
If I thought I could change things I would. :(
I love smash.
Oh well there is some satisfaction in being a big fish in a small pond.
kataridragon, post: 2166545 wrote:
I would say all stages are good in that game except maybe skyworld and the dk rumble falls (pretty broken). No custom stages. All items on, on medium drop rate for 1v1. High drop rates for 2v2. that is about it. 8-9 minute time limit 3-5 stock (items can take lives pretty fast).
What do you think?
Smashchu, post: 2166546 wrote:
This wasn't mentioned but I think Friendly Fire should be off in team games since it brings back some strategy into team games. Seems to much like coordination (playing online, I far to often see these really good players leave their team mates to die rather than join the fight). I think items on high is an interesting touch for a team game.
Cyntalan, post: 2166547 wrote:
A big problem with TA off is that when it comes down to a 2v1 situation, it's a no-win situation for the 1. Also, with TA on, the more in sync you are with your teammate, the more likely you can play in the dangerous waters of side-by-side. A huge advantage over other teams without this capability, and successfully pulling such a thing off consistently is much more awe-inspiring than a TA off tag-team wall of hate.
I will say this much: if there's one thing that changed little between Melee and Brawl, it's the strategy of TA Off, and that got silly real quick.
Admittedly, this is quite impossible to pull off online... but that's friggin' online. Even if it weren't for Nintendo's shitty WFC, it'd be difficult to coordinate the kind of things that are relatively easy to do live.
Smashchu, post: 2166548 wrote:
A 2v1 situation isn't unique to Smash Brothers, it's the nature of a 2v2. In RTSs, you are at a huge disadvantage in a 1v2. The same be true in shooters if the other team doesn't decide to play rouge agents. But heck, making a 2v1 situation is part of the strategy. If one team makes a 2v1 situation, good for them. That was their strategy and hopefully it worked out for them. Making a 2v1 fair for the 1 guy makes no sense as this is a team match.
Also, part of the strategy would be breaking the wall. Since we were talking about items on high, this will solve the wall as a well placed item or an assist trophy will break it. A team camping gives up their item advantage and a team that is a moving wall is amazing, but can be broken by good tactics and execution.
Cyntalan, post: 2166549 wrote:
It's not that the 2v1 situation is unfair, it's that it's unwinnable. The 2v1 scenario is so lopsided the remaining player would be better off just jumping in the pit and starting the next round. Overall, TA Off is a removal of depth in a team scenario where "vs. the other two" is just as important as staying in sync with your teammate. That aspect just isn't there when you remove the concern from your own attacks near your teammate. No having to think about jumping into a brawl. The concern for your teammate makes you think about how to assist rather than just fly at someone screaming "YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGHHHH!!!!"
Again, it's probably one of the only things I will concede to not having much, if any, change between iterations of Smash. There was a reason why TA On became the standard then, and there was a time in which TA Off was tried. The simplest strat of covering each other's smash attacks repeatedly was nigh invincible. Hell, I remember a time myself and LordLocke, for lulz, did double Ice Climbers and just moved around the stage alternating down and up on the c-stick on top of each other. Doing nothing but that netted us 5th out of 40+ teams, no effort put in. A lot of which we KNEW were better than us in any other situation, even had we taken it seriously, all because of how dumb TA Off was. And that's not even counting the silliness that would occur once 1 teammate was removed from play.
Not to say 2v1 TA On is a "fair" scenario, 'cause it's far from this. The two still have a major advantage, it's just not a totally unwinnable scenario if TA were Off. In a TA Off scenario, that last one player cannot do ANYTHING offensive. Even the most mediocre of teams will still understand the basics of praying on the opponent's recovery to any offense, and with TA Off, there is no repercussions to camp out behind your teammate and wait for said offense with a burly attack chain that would otherwise never land on an intelligent opponent. He can't turtle up, 'cause he'll eventually be backed into a corner by one, while the other either a) flanks safely, or b) in an items scenario, scrounge up items like crazy and throw them into the mix. With TA Off, those items are safe to throw in there, aside from an explosive.
These are far from the doom prophecies that items bring to the table, as they are core strategies and not dependent on anything "random" to cause the scenarios. The second one teammate is ousted and the remaining two regroup, the last teammate has no chance of success. Jump in the pit is a better strategy. Up until the time the team can regroup, there lies the hope that the remaining teammate can make a kill and bring it to 1v1. If that's not feasible? They'll eventually regroup and Jump In The Pit becomes the strat of choice again.
Meanwhile, a 2v1 TA On scenario still keeps the team on their toes, as the 1 player can hang onto the hope that he can get the two opponents to break each other apart/kill. The two can decide to step up and double-team with that risk, or have one sit back and tag-team/item scrounge, both of which can be considerably more risky than in a TA Off scenario due to the fact the remaining 1 player does not have the fear of going offensive if the opponent's teammate abandons them. They can still punish said offense rather easily, but it's not a derp scenario. The "tagged out" teammate actually has to pay attention for a proper time to step in.
Smashchu, post: 2166550 wrote:
I disagree entirely. Turning FF on removes depth. There is no longer any strategy or any realy team work. It justy boils down to 2 1v1s that go on at the same time. It should be no surprise that the team tier list mimic the 1v1 list when it shouldn't.
Doing silly things like Yoshi's egg roll and having another player attack is an assist. It allows the attacking player to get easy shots off. Of course, Yoshi is doing nothing besides helping the other team mate. If the other guy's assault fails, then the assist end badly. Right now, it has nothing to do with combining attack or using unique tactics. It's just split off and fight.
Again, it's not invincible. You just have to break the wall. A moving wall is vulnerable in that it's moving. Since the players are going to try to stay together, it's going to be slower than the other team. The other team could go for a mobile force and try to break the wall by attacking from two sides. They could also use projectiles, items, or assist to pull it off. It's stage dependent, but I can't see how you can not break it. I think the IC thing has more to do with they didn't know how to break it more than it's invincible (this is competitive Smash Brothers players we are talking about. They will shield against a warp star).
The problem is we shouldn't change the rules of the game for one scenario that is not unique to Smash Brothers but is true of almost any team game. I can tell you from experience that in Starcraft 2, if you lose your partner early on, it's game over. Heck, losing a partner at all is game over as the other team can just make more units than you can.
Given, the 1 player can still win. It's a lot more of a struggle for him, but it can be done if it's close (i.e. they both have 1 stock and at least one of them has high damage). If the other team has more lives than it doesn't matter how fair it is for the 1 guy, he still lost. So I don't see the logic in bending the rules for just this.
The best option for the one player is dodge, seek items, and land pop shots. Basically, guerrilla tactics. He can hope for the time to run out or get lucky with an item. But again, why are we trying to create rules for a 2v2 game based on 2v1? This is the same logic that is why items are off and most of the stages are banned.
Put into a tough scenario that happens a lot, the best players will find ways to deal with it and get around it. Seeing as one of the "best," choices you mentioned was "jump into the pit," I think that you have no hope of figuring out new tactics and trying a new way of playing (which I think adds far more). To be the best, players have to grow. Smash Brothers problem is that it wants to contract.
kataridragon, post: 2166552 wrote:
This one is particularly for you cyantalan
If you have the problem of winning in a 2v2 get better, get a better partner or make your partner better!
Cyntalan, post: 2166553 wrote:
Will edit with a proper response once I get an understanding of what you meant by this.
kataridragon, post: 2166554 wrote:
Ha ha ha. What do you not understand? I feel that my post is pretty black and white.
Is your post a place holder for your argument which you cant seem to formulate?
I should do this too. It will go like this
"Hey your wrong! Ill explain later"
NJzFinest, post: 2166556 wrote:
I don't see why outside competitive gaming sites don't accept smashboards' rulesets.
Competitive smash was given life there and is still growing because of it and only because of it.
NJzFinest, post: 2166558 wrote:
NJzFinest, post: 2166560 wrote:
Do you know what trolling is?
Was my post inflammatory, extraneous, and/or off-topic?