EVO RULESET ANNOUNCED. The ruleset has been updated!

[~^.NoiR.^~]

QFT

10Squirtles

Q F T ? Means?

 

[Demon Kirby]

Q F T ? Means?

Quoted for truth.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

Q F T ? Means?

Quoted For Truth or I agree

I had no idea either until I looked it up.

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

Quoted for truth.

lol oh =] I thought it meant quit fkin talking hahaha.

 

[MechaJesus]

I was just taking a shower, geez.

MechaJesus, seriously, all of your points have already been soundly defeated several times over time and again. Look up any thread on items in Competitive play in the recent months and you'll see that they raged on for pages and pages and each of your arguments were defeated.

It all boils down to:
* Randomness is good if you want variety
* Randomness is not good if you want to measure who's the most skilled because then you wnt luck to have as little impact as possible, especially in a Competitive video game (it's not Poker)
* Items = A lot of randomness
* Therefore, Items = Bad for Competitive play
* The fact that items can determine the outcome a match means that they will

How is it fair if you're playing a championship final, last match, last stock and a lucky item spawn wins your opponent the match when you were clearly ahead? What, are you supposed to use the Law of Luck Evening Out (or whatever you called it) and try to make it to another championship final and hope that the items are all of a sudden on your side?

Entire tourneys can and most probably will be decided by lucky Final Smash (for example) spawns. Someone who's obviously more skilled will lose to someone of less skill as long as that someone can handle items. Heck, what if two people of equal skill face off? It's a stalemate and they're both down to their last stock, 0%, the fight will rage on down to the last Smash at high %, but wait! Final Smash! Wham! Someone just lost!

What if the skill gap isn't that large? Still, the less skilled player might win due to sheer dumb luck alone.

Items should not be on in Competitive play. SRK supposedly consists of Competitive fighting game players. How would they like it if we in Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike introduced items? Randomly spawning objects that can have huge consequences to the gameplay? If all Super Arts were limited to Super Art Balls (you must possess one to perform one... and they spawn randomly!)... and all Super Arts were unblockable (because almost every single Final Smash in Brawl is unblockable)? If a randomly spawning item could spawn in the middle of your combo, either enhancing it greatly (heck, Golden Hammer right after I fair!), screwing it up completely or actually killing you (heck, normal Hammer right when I'm about to fall off the stage without a 2nd jump!).

So what if luck averages out? Why should we let sheer dumb luck decide the outcome of entire matches/sets? Say 50% of all matches at EVO are decided by sheer dumb luck. Wow! What a great tournament! Say 25% of luck befell a small number of people (6) because they were just luckier than the rest. Even better! Say the final set was decided by sheer dumb luck. Great, now let's wait for the next EVO and see if the same two people make it to the final and the loser can win that EVO with sheer dumb luck (because it evens out in the end!).

Why... should... we... allow... sheer... dumb... luck... to... decide... the... outcome... of... matches... at all?!

Answer that question! Even if it evens out, why allow it to happen at all in tournaments with serious money on the line, where skill should be the most important factor?!

I have to run for the time being, but just to explain really quickly:

The problem you have cited is a problem with smash balls as a tournament-legal item, not a problem with items alltogether.

If you ran the same example with something like a green shell your example would suddenly seem sort of petty; because the smash ball does interfere with the actual match, while the green shell seems more of a footnote.

Someone who's obviously more skilled will lose to someone of less skill as long as that someone can handle items.

This is circular logic. You're assuming there is no skill in using items in your premise, to conclude that playing with items requires no skill.

Certainly this applies to some outliers (Again, Smash Balls, bom-ombs, etc.) but not to all items.

I guess people making the assumption that I support smash balls is my own fault; I shouldn't have used them in my examples.

I'll post more later, but I have to go for a bit.

 

[Aesir]

The items you're talking about in general aren't bad, it's the fact that they're not controllable advantages anything that can turn the tide of a match should be something you have to work for. Not something that just spawns near you because you happen to be at the right place at the right time.

 

[Zelc]

But that's a problem with smash balls as a tourney-legal item, and not a problem with items on all-together.
[...]
(As a side-note: You can put it in any situation you want, though, and it'll still even out. Sooner or later you will be on the other side of that ****ty setup you described.)

Fair enough about the Smash Balls being removed. However, you're still too focused on the mean and you're completely ignoring the variance. Again, when given a choice between $1 million and a 50/50 chance between $2 million and $0, most people choose the sure chance of getting $1 million even though they have the same expected value. When given a choice between a 50/50 chance between $1.5 million and $0.5 million and a 50/50 chance between $2 million and $0, most people choose the former option because of its lower variance. Now let's apply it to Brawl: given a choice between items on (which adds variance that probably has low covariance with skill level) and items off (less variance) and that people are usually risk averse, we should choose items off, all else equal. Of course, there may be some benefits to turning items on that overcomes the added variance, but I don't think they've been articulated.

By the way, it's not like it has to average out in a quick period of time, either. It's a well-known cognitive bias that people underestimate the streakiness of random processes. Given enough entrants, there will be at least one poor chap who will get eliminated earlier than you'd expect him to given his skill thanks to getting poor item luck 3 matches in a row. Take a look at the Gambler's Fallacy.

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

I was just taking a shower, geez.



I have to run for the time being, but just to explain really quickly:

The problem you have cited is a problem with smash balls as a tournament-legal item, not a problem with items alltogether.

If you ran the same example with something like a green shell your example would suddenly seem sort of petty; because the smash ball does interfere with the actual match, while the green shell seems more of a footnote.



This is circular logic. You're assuming there is no skill in using items in your premise, to conclude that playing with items requires no skill.

Certainly this applies to some outliers (Again, Smash Balls, bom-ombs, etc.) but not to all items.

I guess people making the assumption that I support smash balls is my own fault; I shouldn't have used them in my examples.

I'll post more later, but I have to go for a bit.

I agree that not all items are dumb lucky, but thats just not how the competitive community wants to play. Like Mr. Saturns aren't broken, but people want to play with the characters and only their abilities.

Personally, I only want to play with just the characters and on levels that don't change the physics of the game(pokemon stadium 2). This way it IS even.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

Green shells are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

Oh and Zelc you are SO right, couldn't agree more.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

Isn't that a bit dumb? disregard a thriving communitys 5 years of hard work? I lost respect for them after that lol.

Brawl has not been out for 5 years. It has been out for about 2 months. It is not Melee.

 

[pockyD]

items aren't the worst of it; it's the combination of items with the 2stock+3min timer that makes items truly horrible

losing a whole stock (50% of what you got) or even more to an element of pure chance is NOT indicative of a competitive ruleset

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

Brawl has not been out for 5 years. It has been out for about 2 months. It is not Melee.

Unfortunately it is not Melee.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

Green shells are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

Samus's charged beams are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

 

[Aesir]

Brawl has not been out for 5 years. It has been out for about 2 months. It is not Melee.

The argument is pretty bad now, because it fails to realize people have tried them and exhausted it.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

items aren't the worst of it; it's the combination of items with the 2stock+3min timer that makes items truly horrible

losing a whole stock (50% of what you got) or even more to an element of pure chance is NOT indicative of a competitive ruleset

Real skill involves being able to predict where items fall before they appear by analyzing the random number seed in a given Wii.

Or, y'know, being able to pay attention to more than one thing on the screen at once. I hear that's a good skill to learn.

 

[Kio Iranez]

Samus's charged beams are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

If it was so good, Samus would be used more often, hm? Items are random and can give the advantage to any player without a strategy, suddenly boosting their probability of winning, even though they might have less skill.

lol, items.

Real skill involves being able to predict where items fall before they appear by analyzing the random number seed in a given Wii.

HOW THE HECK ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PREDICT SOMETHING RANDOM?!?!

Even if you memorized every spot where an item can fall, that doesn't mean you'll be at every spot when it does. It's still an unfair advantage.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

Samus's charged beams are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

Except it's not random. And just because Brawl has been out for 2 months doesn't change Probability or Game Theory

(Awesome username though)

 

[ShadowLink84]

But that's a problem with smash balls as a tourney-legal item, and not a problem with items on all-together.

Certainly long-term you will equal out, in a future tournament, so I don't think this example refutes me. Still, I think it'd be simpler to just turn smash balls off if you think they are too powerful. (There's an important difference between the actual Law of Averages and the various fallacious interpretations of it, which comes into play here. I'm not trying to say each tournament match will be 100% even.)

Um it does?
The amount of time given for these matches is what 7 minutes max?
Extremely short amount of time to even things out.
not to mention that it doesn't take into account the placement of said item as well as the character being used.

(As a side-note: You can put it in any situation you want, though, and it'll still even out. Sooner or later you will be on the other side of that ****ty setup you described.)

It will even out over time but noone is going to run a 15 minute matchsimply in the name of balance.
be realistic.

I'm certainly not trying to say that all items are should be on; bom-ombs are one of those convenient straw-man outliers that people always use to argue against items because simply luck with them can radically change the course of the game.

Capsules, golden hammer, hammers, smart bombs.
Bring up any item and I will knock them down.

I personally believe that there are certain items that do add interesting strategic setups to the game, and that these items are acceptable, but that's not really relevant to my argument here.

Bunnyhood is broken.

 

[arrowhead]

Samus's charged beams are over powered, they are very fast, they can be moved by attacks, and if it hits someone with significant damage -- they're dead. You can use your imagination for the situations this would cause an issue with.

they're not randomly spawned

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Real skill involves being able to predict where items fall before they appear by analyzing the random number seed in a given Wii.

Or, y'know, being able to pay attention to more than one thing on the screen at once. I hear that's a good skill to learn.

Lol @ predicting item spawns. Go back to SRK. Those ******* over there are about as competent as a sack of ****ing bricks. You'll fit right in.

 

[maelstrom99]

Secondly, that's great if there are people who like items. Good for them! Since only 10,000 people enjoy playing Smash Bros. without items, why don't you invite the other 5,990,000 other people to your awesome item tournament? What's stopping you? Think of the potential profits man!

I believe it was John Locke - I may be wrong, haven't taken government in years - who said that if people did not like their government then they had the right to dispose of it. The same idea can be applied here. If the majority of players do not currently enjoy the way tournaments are being run - that is, without items - then it is up to the playerbase to change it. However, what we are seeing here is that people LIKE the current tournament scene, just like the current American people LIKE federalism! They are happy with what they have! They see items like Americans see communism, in a sense. It's out there, there are a lot of people who play by those rules, but hell are we glad we aren't under that set of rules.

You're doing a terrible job of convincing the current tournament players that items will be a better, more enjoyable, more fair system than no items. I have not bothered pointing out the complete idiocy of items because, well, plenty of other posters have done that to a much better degree than I could have.

This from a previous post where some guy was saying that "No Items" in a tournament is flawed. Where he claimed the only people that don't like items are on Smashboards, which roughly has 10,000 members. Anyways, some food for thought I guess. I thought this was a pretty good reply.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

they're not randomly spawned

If you opponent fires them at a random time then they are.

 

[ShadowLink84]

If you opponent fires them at a random time then they are.

No because HE is controlling when he fires the beam.
Stop trolling please.

 

[Kio Iranez]

If you opponent fires them at a random time then they are.

When your opponent charges a shot, you know that it will be shot sooner or later, so you start playing defensively. On the other hand, you have no idea when an item will pop up.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

^^^ You're missing the point, you know when the laser is charging/charged, you don't know where or when the shell is going to appear.

 

[MechaJesus]

Last quick reply before I go:

There's a lot of people going "LOL HE LOST", but really, I don't follow that train of logic at all. At best I think we're in a stalemate kind of stage, where there's a lot of unanswered questions in the argument right now. I'm fine with that, though. Any debate always goes through these stages.

Just as a general reply:

-A lot of people going on about how smash balls ruin the game: I think you're dead right. But I think there are items that don't, as well.
-If you get hit by a green shell at a high % damage, I'd have to ask; what got you to that damage in the first place? Why didn't you take advantage of other items that spawned? I'm coming to realize that any hypothetical gameplay situation we spawned is way too shallow, narrow-minded, and synthetic to really grasp the greater picture of a real-life game situation.
-I understand the Gambler's Fallacy. I still think that 27 trials is enough that the luck should be fairly balanced.
-There is sort of a Quake 3-ish notion in item control actually, which I touched on before; but I was unable to put 1 and 1 together until just now. True items are spawned randomly, but most of the levels are small enough that you can control the entire level yourself. Players who fight to try and stay on the ground and in control of their character, and who avoid being knocked around, will have the advantage in gathering items. I think that's pretty clearly skill-based.
-I also think that with most of the items that I feel should be tournament-legal, considerations like "He got item X by luck and I lost the game solely because of that" fall flat. If he hits you with a green shell it's not like the item is unavoidable. It's not your fault that your opponent got a green shell, but it's your fault you got hit by it. With the multitude of options you have in defense against thrown items - catching it, blocking it with your own projectile, dodging or air-dodging it, reflecting it - I think it's more than reasonable to see certain items as skill-based, removing that whole train of thought.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

No because HE is controlling when he fires the beam.
Stop trolling please.

Not if he decides to fire it based on random circumstances.

And now for something constructive: Wouldn't a skilled player be looking at his opponent's controller and watching his moves from the source instead of reacting to them onscreen?

 

[ShadowLink84]

Not if he decides to fire it based on random circumstances.

And now for something constructive: Wouldn't a skilled player be looking at his opponent's controller and watching his moves from the source instead of reacting to them onscreen?

Oh god this made me laugh.
Seriously that was great but you still fail as a troll.

Try harder.

in anycase so some noob doesn't get the wrong idea if you're looking at your opponent's controller you're not watching as your opponent's beam fires.
leading to ones ownage

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

Last quick reply before I go:

There's a lot of people going "LOL HE LOST", but really, I don't follow that train of logic at all. At best I think we're in a stalemate kind of stage, where there's a lot of unanswered questions in the argument right now. I'm fine with that, though. Any debate always goes through these stages.

Just as a general reply:

-A lot of people going on about how smash balls ruin the game: I think you're dead right. But I think there are items that don't, as well.
-If you get hit by a green shell at a high % damage, I'd have to ask; what got you to that damage in the first place? Why didn't you take advantage of other items that spawned? I'm coming to realize that any hypothetical gameplay situation we spawned is way too shallow, narrow-minded, and synthetic to really grasp the greater picture of a real-life game situation.
-I understand the Gambler's Fallacy. I still think that 27 trials is enough that the luck should be fairly balanced.
-There is sort of a Quake 3-ish notion in item control actually, which I touched on before; but I was unable to put 1 and 1 together until just now. True items are spawned randomly, but most of the levels are small enough that you can control the entire level yourself. Players who fight to try and stay on the ground and in control of their character, and who avoid being knocked around, will have the advantage in gathering items. I think that's pretty clearly skill-based.
-I also think that with most of the items that I feel should be tournament-legal, considerations like "He got item X by luck and I lost the game solely because of that" fall flat. If he hits you with a green shell it's not like the item is unavoidable. It's not your fault that your opponent got a green shell, but it's your fault you got hit by it. With the multitude of options you have in defense against thrown items - catching it, blocking it with your own projectile, dodging or air-dodging it, reflecting it - I think it's more than reasonable to see certain items as skill-based, removing that whole train of thought.

Man it's as simple as this.

Do competitive smash players want to play with items?

The answer is NO. It's not even an argument.

 

[All_Usernames_Are_Taken]

in anycase so some noob doesn't get the wrong idea if you're looking at your opponent's controller you're not watching as your opponent's beam fires.
leading to ones ownage

Yeah but then you're able to tell that the beam is going to be fired roughly 0.05 seconds faster than you normally would be able to.

 

[WuTangDude]

Rules aren't that bad, but ITEMS?

That's some bull****.

 

[MrOtter]

Yeah but then you're able to tell that the beam is going to be fired roughly 0.05 seconds faster than you normally would be able to.

... Controller watching as a constructive suggestion?

... Seriously?

 

[PozerWolf]

Ah, these rules sound interesting.

 

[a77]

SRK should not be deciding the rules.

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JC4E-RHLY

 

[Subach]

If you opponent fires them at a random time then they are.

That applies to every move in the game, it's part of what's called playing unpredictably, which requires skill.
Spawning items require no skill, in fact, it's entirely out of the player's control.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

-If you get hit by a green shell at a high % damage, I'd have to ask; what got you to that damage in the first place?

-I also think that with most of the items that I feel should be tournament-legal, considerations like "He got item X by luck and I lost the game solely because of that" fall flat. If he hits you with a green shell it's not like the item is unavoidable.

You could have 60% and your opponent could have 100% and you could still die by the green shell.

Because it gets hit by attacks, it could spawn and then be hit by an attack and fly into you with little warning, also when you are recovery and air dodging could lead to a failed recovery

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

SRK should not be deciding the rules.

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JC4E-RHLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP5i5-G2f3c

That's more entertaining.

 

[arrowhead]

And now for something constructive: Wouldn't a skilled player be looking at his opponent's controller and watching his moves from the source instead of reacting to them onscreen?

the troll just defeated himself

 

[~^.NoiR.^~]

the troll just defeated himself

lol that's like saying "Wouldn't a skilled halo player just pick up his T.V. and counsel and bring it over to his opponent's, so that he can watch his screen!".

Sometimes I just don't understand how people think.

 

[Gory snake]

SRK should not be deciding the rules.

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JC4E-RHLY

Im not one to post on Smashboards often, but this particular topic caught my eye. Firstly, what a bullsh*t ending to that match, solid proof that items have too much of a random factor to deciding match, the Wario player could have easily beaten that Pika if the items werent against him that match