Experimental Tournaments

[Dash000]

Since I've been name dropped, I guess I should say something.

First of all, this thread is continuing a discussion that I've had with people long before this forum started and that AA has continued and written a very eloquent OP for in another thread. I have always, since the beginning of Brawl's lifespan, thought that we went about nurturing Brawl, as an independent game, in a horrible manner. We made a LOT of mistakes in the first 6 months of that game, which is weird to me, since in the 6 months preceding Brawl, I had gotten into more arguments with people on these very boards over David Sirlin's competitive design philosophy than almost any other time in my life; we threw all of that into the trash and embraced the "scrub" mentality that he discusses in his writings.

I had always been, am now, and will always be a proponent of throwing out the rulebook with each new iteration of the game. I firmly think that, even if a few top players understand the rationale behind most of the decisions the previous generation of Smashers made in relation to their one game, each successive iteration of Smash brings in such a massive influx of new players to the scene that without classes and Smash history books, teaching all of those players the ways of the old guard is just impractical. So, forcing all of the old rules on them as though they are law and not simply the result of an accident of which game was being played by which people at the time is suicide (and obviously, that was the case with Brawl; the community, though still kind of ok right now, essentially cannibalized itself less than 2 years in).

It is important to start at square one and let all of these new players, under the wise guidance of what older players remain, figure out on their own that 1 v 1 is better than FFA or what number of stocks is best because:

A ) our old answer MAY NOT BE RIGHT anymore, and
B ) by telling them what the answer will be, whether it's the right or wrong answer, we stop them from experimenting with ideas we didn't even think of and coming to a better answer for the new game.

For instance, I have many times said that Brawl 1v1 is more fair, more balanced, less broken, allows more viable characters, weakens most of top tier, and removes OP strategies when a VERY curated list of items (with a corresponding counterpick system) set on low is introduced. This is tested, it's true, it works. I spend over a year, more including side stuff, of my life with various people on and off line testing this theory. The proof is there. Brawl with items is competitive. As Overswarm correctly stated, the results of ISP tournaments are consistent, and they aren't viewed with as much salty rage as Melee item events were. It's a perfectly viable, very fair, very balanced way to play.

But, items were turned off from day one in Brawl. No, side events don't count; there was NEVER a serious national item event until WHOBO 1, and guess what? I ran that event and it was beautiful. It was a 2v2 event, and we had to cancel the 1v1 event due to a scheduling conflict with the anniversary of the resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ ( -_- ) , but guess what? M2K, who teamed with Inui and won the 2v2 event, personally came up to me and expressed his disappointment because the 2v2 went so well.

MANY parts of Brawl were like that. Stages lasted a grand total of about 3 weeks before bans were made, hard bans that last to this day. It's been over 6 years and we haven't undone the damage of being stubborn and closed-minded on day 1 of Brawl's lifespan.

So, guess what? Here's my recommendation for how we handle SSB4: no regional or national events in the United States with a cash prize for at least 365 days after the release of the game. Have all the locals you want, but there should not be a tournament scene for the first year at all. No money should be on the line. The first year should be nothing but Smashfests and time spent in the lab. This will take dedication. Players who live off the game will have to get a job. TOs who rely on their events will have to lose money on events for a year, most likely. This is a good thing, because it means only the most passionate who actually CARE about the game will be active. In that time, literally EVERY possible combination should be tested. Coin mode? Go for it. 7 stocks? Have fun. And, yes, items?

I'll be restructuring the ISP thread myself. Now that I'm out of college, I'm planning on dedicating my life to that thread again, organizing events nationwide (and locally), re-testing all of the new items, rebuilding the recommended counterpick and ban lists, and building a ruleset that we can all agree on will be competitively viable.

This is literally the only way to make SSB4 as healthy a game as possible, competitively. We can't use the same tired old philosophies as the traditional FGC uses, recycling their rulesets with every new game on day one because so little of the core mechanics have changed. We can't afford to do that. We have to teach a massive new influx of players not only how to play, but how to be a part of a competitive community, how to debate properly their ideas, how to integrate in and interact with the existing playerbase. We have to figure out the best ways to play the game, without bias, only caring about what's best for the community.

That's what I think we should do.

I am with you in every way. By no means did I win big tournaments in brawl, so therefore I can't speak for those who did, but I do agree that we need to be WAY more open-minded about SSB4, and actually take time to make a ruleset, not just ban everything but the "usual" 1v1 , Final Destination fights.

 

[Ulevo]

Melee tournaments? lol

The rules for Smash tournaments are roughly the same across the board because they work. Not because Melee adopted the rules. The rules are probably going to be the same for Smash Wii U. Also because they work.

Don't know why you're making an example out of Melee here.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Well let's be honest about what is needed to make a tournament ruleset...

Keep in mind I love 1v1 no items, and FFA w/ items, so I'm trying to just be objective here.

tournament ruleset constants:

1. I think it's safe to say that there WILL be BS stages in this game. Brawl actually had a staggering number of stages where it was just obvious that you were fighting the stage, rather than the opponents (DK Rumble falls, Warioware, Spear Pillar, the new F-zero stage, etc) and stages that just really de-emphasized the ability to fight (New Pork City, 75m, etc). iirc, these stages were all almost instantly banned... and honestly, that was just the right decision. Some stages (Pikmin, Pictochat, etc) required a lot more thought and discussion in the banning argument (and some mistakes were made, imo), but there will almost certainly be instantly ban-worthy stages in the new game, and we should make quick calls on them instead of leaving them legal and letting them decide tournaments. That's not to say they cannot be re-discussed later, but it's just a fact.

2. FFA will not take off on a major tournament / people traveling scale unless we can come up with a way to control teaming (2v1, 3v1 situations versus the skilled player). See my previous posts on this topic. There's no way a renowned player is going to travel to a tournament to be teamed against. This is another candidate for online tournaments, possibly.

3. A ruleset must be formed based on what is fair to all players. Items are not inherently unfair to characters, but they do add a bit of randomness to the game that could potentially decide matches. That said, they can also potentially help the game's balance, so I think it's worth the discussion. I don't have much of an opinion either way for items, but I feel like the majority of the community will vote to ban them.

4. The only way to really form and verify rule-sets is through tournaments... online or in person.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well let's be honest about what is needed to make a tournament ruleset...

Keep in mind I love 1v1 no items, and FFA w/ items, so I'm trying to just be objective here.

tournament ruleset constants:

1. I think it's safe to say that there WILL be BS stages in this game. Brawl actually had a staggering number of stages where it was just obvious that you were fighting the stage, rather than the opponents (DK Rumble falls, Warioware, Spear Pillar, the new F-zero stage, etc) and stages that just really de-emphasized the ability to fight (New Pork City, 75m, etc). iirc, these stages were all almost instantly banned... and honestly, that was just the right decision. Some stages (Pikmin, Pictochat, etc) required a lot more thought and discussion in the banning argument (and some mistakes were made, imo), but there will almost certainly be instantly ban-worthy stages in the new game, and we should make quick calls on them instead of leaving them legal and letting them decide tournaments. That's not to say they cannot be re-discussed later, but it's just a fact.

This is why I said there shouldn't be tournaments for the first year, especially not ones with cash prizes. We say "yes, of course there will be bull**** stages"... but do we REALLY know that? I mean, we assume. But, people played on freaking Poké Floats. Sakurai has already said he's keeping us in mind, and while part of Smash is stage involvement, we don't actually know the level to which each stage will be involved in a match until we play it. And, EVEN IF stages have lots of involvement, we don't know if that involvement is gamebreaking or not until we try to defeat it, which is the flaw in your argument.

The whole point of withholding bans is that it is infinitely harder to un-ban something than to ban it. Just look at Brawl Port Town or DP. The reason we wait to ban things is because we need to give defeating whatever we think is "broken" more than just a college try. We need to sit down, focus, and put all of our resources into verifying that there is indeed NO viable way to beat something before we ban it, and that includes stage interference. Whether we like it or not, stage interference is a part of this game, a significant part that differentiates Smash from other fighters. If you think that defeatable interference, significant though it may be, warrants a ban in SSB4, you probably shouldn't be playing Smash at all and should stick with a traditional 2D fighter that has no stage interference because you have significant philosophical differences with Smash and it's not Smash's responsibility to conform to your ideas of what it "should" be.

So, no, we SHOULDN'T just ban stuff day one. We should make sure that nothing of significance is on the line so that if a stage decides a match, we can take the time to have the perspective to say whether the interference was acceptable or not, because contrary to what some people may think, sometimes (for instance, on a CP), it is acceptable for a stage to decide the match.

2. FFA will not take off on a major tournament / people traveling scale unless we can come up with a way to control teaming (2v1, 3v1 situations versus the skilled player). See my previous posts on this topic. There's no way a renowned player is going to travel to a tournament to be teamed against. This is another candidate for online tournaments, possibly.

I agree that FFA tournaments probably aren't the way to go, not because of anything in the game itself, but because of issues out in the real world. Maybe side tournaments, though. Or, perhaps intro tournaments that are only open to unranked, unseeded players, tournaments that can ease newer players into the scene, where renown isn't a problem. I think, given the right context, it's still worthwhile to create a tournament-worthy FFA ruleset.

3. A ruleset must be formed based on what is fair to all players. Items are not inherently unfair to characters, but they do add a bit of randomness to the game that could potentially decide matches. That said, they can also potentially help the game's balance, so I think it's worth the discussion. I don't have much of an opinion either way for items, but I feel like the majority of the community will vote to ban them.

Again, we have this strange concept that things other than the players shouldn't (in a normative sense) decide matches, and it's very paternalistic and inappropriate for a Smash game. If two players enter a match with full cognizance of the risks of what can and probably will happen in said match, the match is fair. They agreed to the terms; you can't ***** about the outcome when you agreed to the terms. A lottery is entirely fair, even though it's total random chance that the player has no control over, because all players agreed to the terms, terms they knew full well, when they entered.

Just because an item spawned and helped to decide the match doesn't mean the match was unfair. Stage control affords a certain percentage chance of having an item spawn in your controlled space, and stage control is a skill we can test with this game, and so is managing the percentage chance of having a beneficial spawn (since the spawn rate and timer are involved). So, for instance, a player who attacks whenever he wants will probably lose to a player who times his attacks every 30-45 seconds with the intent of getting his opponent off-stage and recovering during the likely item spawn (assuming a "low" rate). This is strategy, and this is fair if both players agree to and know about the spawning of items during a match.

The problem isn't with the fact that items spawn. That's not it at all, and it's a misconception people have due to not knowing their Melee history. In Melee, items weren't disabled because they were inherently unfair. Items were disabled because their risk / reward ratio were uncontrollable due to not being able to disable crates and containers, or rather exploding ones. The match that resulted in items being banned was disabled due to an exploding crate spawn, which was seen as unacceptable. Items, in general, were ok, but we couldn't turn off boxes, and we couldn't allow boxes, which meant we had to turn them ALL off. Now, we CAN turn off boxes, and as my ISP neutral / counterpick / banned item lists show, that gives us the ability to curate the list to favor acceptable risk / reward ratios.

So, the fact that people want to ban them shouldn't be relevant because things in a competitive community are banned when they are broken, not when we don't like them. And, we won't know until we test them.

4. The only way to really form and verify rule-sets is through tournaments... online or in person.

But, the first year of the game, our goal will not be creating a tournament ruleset. It will be exploratory. The players who care so much about the game that they'll play it without expecting money in return will push the game to its boundaries. Our goal will be to see what's viable, what's broken, and what we have to work with when we do make a ruleset. It's why we can't have a ruleset that bans items day one, because if in the first year we find out that items are OK, like we did in Brawl, we won't be able to un-ban them. We find VERY low-level strategies and information, then we, after the year is up, use that information to make some different rulesets, try them out, see which one is the most consistent, and use that one.

Other games don't have to do this. Marvel 3 came out and had tournaments the first week, but they also didn't have the sheer volume of content to curate as we do. They also didn't have as many mechanics to test as we do. We're playing a strange game, a game that isn't meant out of the box to be played the way we want to play it, so we have to be patient and take our time to care for our game to make it what we want it to be.

People forget that Melee wasn't tournament ready for 2 years. SSB4 might not be, either.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Not saying I completely disagree with everything you're saying, but I do disagree with some points you're making.

This is why I said there shouldn't be tournaments for the first year, especially not ones with cash prizes. We say "yes, of course there will be bull**** stages"... but do we REALLY know that?

Yeah, I'd say we do from the precedent set by previous Smash games..especially Brawl.

I mean, we assume. But, people played on freaking Poké Floats.

Pokefloats was a relatively fair stage... sure it benefited certain characters to some extent, but there was nothing terribly bad about it (aside from being able to fall through the stage, which was horrible)

Sakurai has already said he's keeping us in mind, and while part of Smash is stage involvement, we don't actually know the level to which each stage will be involved in a match until we play it. And, EVEN IF stages have lots of involvement, we don't know if that involvement is gamebreaking or not until we try to defeat it, which is the flaw in your argument.

It's pretty easy to tell when a stage can kill you with something you can't actively avoid at 80% (port town), or encourage people to run away the whole match (spear pillar, etc) after playing for a couple days.

Whether we like it or not, stage interference is a part of this game, a significant part that differentiates Smash from other fighters. If you think that defeatable interference, significant though it may be, warrants a ban in SSB4, you probably shouldn't be playing Smash at all and should stick with a traditional 2D fighter that has no stage interference because you have significant philosophical differences with Smash and it's not Smash's responsibility to conform to your ideas of what it "should" be.

Smash has options for turning stages/items/etc off... so yes, it apparently is the game's responsibility to conform to the player's wishes, and "you're not playing it right!" isn't really a good argument..

So, no, we SHOULDN'T just ban stuff day one. We should make sure that nothing of significance is on the line so that if a stage decides a match, we can take the time to have the perspective to say whether the interference was acceptable or not, because contrary to what some people may think, sometimes (for instance, on a CP), it is acceptable for a stage to decide the match.

...


Again, we have this strange concept that things other than the players shouldn't (in a normative sense) decide matches, and it's very paternalistic and inappropriate for a Smash game. If two players enter a match with full cognizance of the risks of what can and probably will happen in said match, the match is fair. They agreed to the terms; you can't ***** about the outcome when you agreed to the terms. A lottery is entirely fair, even though it's total random chance that the player has no control over, because all players agreed to the terms, terms they knew full well, when they entered.

No... it's never acceptable for a non-player involvement to decide a match in any sort of tournament setting. This may just be a logic difference between the two of us, but it is incredibly important to control non-player controlled factors in any type of tournament. Otherwise, there's no reason for anybody to travel for a tournament.

Also, CP's are specifically debated so that they are not a terrible advantage for any character, so no, they don't decide the match, and are not a good example here.

But, the first year of the game, our goal will not be creating a tournament ruleset. It will be exploratory. The players who care so much about the game that they'll play it without expecting money in return will push the game to its boundaries. Our goal will be to see what's viable, what's broken, and what we have to work with when we do make a ruleset. It's why we can't have a ruleset that bans items day one, because if in the first year we find out that items are OK, like we did in Brawl, we won't be able to un-ban them. We find VERY low-level strategies and information, then we, after the year is up, use that information to make some different rulesets, try them out, see which one is the most consistent, and use that one.

Other games don't have to do this. Marvel 3 came out and had tournaments the first week, but they also didn't have the sheer volume of content to curate as we do. They also didn't have as many mechanics to test as we do. We're playing a strange game, a game that isn't meant out of the box to be played the way we want to play it, so we have to be patient and take our time to care for our game to make it what we want it to be.

People forget that Melee wasn't tournament ready for 2 years. SSB4 might not be, either.

There's no reason to limit the tournament scene (not to mention that this will be impossible) so people can learn the game for a year. The first year of Brawl tournaments were hilarious, and I'm looking forward to that period in this game.

Also, Melee had maaaaany tournaments the year it was released, so I'm not sure where that is based.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

No... it's never acceptable for a non-player involvement to decide a match in any sort of tournament setting. This may just be a logic difference between the two of us, but it is incredibly important to control non-player controlled factors in any type of tournament. Otherwise, there's no reason for anybody to travel for a tournament.

This is why they have the wind turned off for the PGA Tour.

Okay, that was incredibly sarcastic, but it gets my point across. Video gamers are so spoilt when it comes to competition; we have finely-crafted perfect scenarios stripped of all random elements, all to make sure that our games are 100% fair and all wins are really clear-cut; this is far from the norm, and occurs in so few other competitive activities.

I play competitive Riichi Mahjong. Randomness is an enormous factor. Through no fault of your own, you can be completely ruined in a tournament if one of your opponents gets a crazy-good hand, and nobody complains about it (usually), because that's just how the game is. The difference is, that when you have to contend with intrinsic random elements, you find ways to deal with it.

Have you ever watched competitive poker? So much left to chance, and those guys make bank.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I want to respond to this thread, but I have a SPLITTING headache right now. T_T Ugh, this is miserable; I can't even think straight, much less put together coherent sentences. I'll post later.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

I want to respond to this thread, but I have a SPLITTING headache right now. T_T Ugh, this is miserable; I can't even think straight, much less put together coherent sentences. I'll post later.

I'm just glad I could start a thread compelling enough that you feel you need to post to apologise and excuse yourself. Hope you feel better soon!

 

[Fenrir VII]

This is why they have the wind turned off for the PGA Tour.

Okay, that was incredibly sarcastic, but it gets my point across. Video gamers are so spoilt when it comes to competition; we have finely-crafted perfect scenarios stripped of all random elements, all to make sure that our games are 100% fair and all wins are really clear-cut; this is far from the norm, and occurs in so few other competitive activities.

I play competitive Riichi Mahjong. Randomness is an enormous factor. Through no fault of your own, you can be completely ruined in a tournament if one of your opponents gets a crazy-good hand, and nobody complains about it (usually), because that's just how the game is. The difference is, that when you have to contend with intrinsic random elements, you find ways to deal with it.

Have you ever watched competitive poker? So much left to chance, and those guys make bank.

wind in golf = mostly constant and affects everybody (mostly) equally... not sure what that point is.

And yes, there are a large number of games that are incredibly random... but they are designed to be so. You can't "turn off" the different hands in Poker and give everybody the same. You can in Smash.

yes, there are a handful of examples of games that function solely on randomness (most of them card games), but there are at least an equal number (and probably larger number) of games/sports that are specifically designed / ruled over to be fair and equal.

In football, basketball, soccer, etc, equipment is mostly standardized to avoid giving one team an advantage. "Spying" on another team's playbook is not allowed. Baseball games are not played in the rain. All cars have to fall below a certain performance level in Nascar (this ruling was actually changed because of one team winning due to more powerful cars), and must be mostly the same. etc etc etc.

I'd say in most instances of actual competition, regardless of game or sport, huge efforts are made to make the game fair to all contenders. The only examples I can think of where randomness and luck are actually encouraged are card games (which is why they are generally called gambling).

My point is, we have the tools to make the game as fair as possible for tournament play.. Why would we intentionally not do so, as problems are found? Yes we have leaned too conservative in the past (and I'm completely against bans based on "I don't like it"), but that doesn't mean we should completely swing the other way with the new game...

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

wind in golf = mostly constant and affects everybody (mostly) equally... not sure what that point is.

Well, my point is that non-player factors are always present in most sports, and while everything is done to keep these to a minimum, the fact that there are non-player factors really adds depth to a sport. Imagine if they worked out a way of stopping wind during golf tournaments; a lot of players who have a competitive edge due to being able to read the wind better would suddenly lose that edge.

Honestly, I think my point has become way too hypothetical to really hold up to criticism, so I'm happy to abandon it. I just hope I've been able to get across some of my thoughts regarding variable non-player elements in a competitive environment.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Well, my point is that non-player factors are always present in most sports, and while everything is done to keep these to a minimum, the fact that there are non-player factors really adds depth to a sport. Imagine if they worked out a way of stopping wind during golf tournaments; a lot of players who have a competitive edge due to being able to read the wind better would suddenly lose that edge.

Honestly, I think my point has become way too hypothetical to really hold up to criticism, so I'm happy to abandon it. I just hope I've been able to get across some of my thoughts regarding variable non-player elements in a competitive environment.

Well, the point you made is incredibly valid for stage selection.

I remember fairly early on in the Brawl cycle, there was a large push to ban stages like Distant Planet and Frigate, mostly because they were different than other stages and people didn't like them (and a few cheap deaths here and there before people figured them out). But I view them with the "wind in golf" argument that you're using... the stages (for the most part) didn't really benefit a single character greatly, and just benefited the player that was better at dealing with them, so I vehemently argued that they should be legal.

That's where I really think our mindset as a community should change. If a stage significantly benefits a small number of characters (infinites, etc), or disrupts tournament play (infinite running tactics, glitches), then it should be banned... but unless you can argue one of those points, the stage should be legal

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I'm feeling much better today, so maybe I'll be able to be coherent this morning. -_-;

Not saying I completely disagree with everything you're saying, but I do disagree with some points you're making.

Yeah, I'd say we do from the precedent set by previous Smash games..especially Brawl.

First of all, precedent doesn't mean as much as you think it does when we're only 4 games in and the first one was essentially an experiment. I mean, we had a "precedent" of Sakurai making games we liked at Melee, so we had "no reason" to worry about Brawl, and then everyone hated Brawl. Obviously, Sakurai is a bit Miyamoto-esque in that he's more than willing to "upend the tea table" if it suits the vision or design he has in his head.

Second, even if we do have precedent, that's not a sufficient reason to go into SSB4 expecting to ban things left and right. I mean, we seriously have people expecting and talking about banning everything that could possibly cause interference day 1. And, they aren't viewed with contempt or as insane. The fact of the matter is that we have to be mature and act with restraint because the mindset a lot of people have about Smash now, that it should be a model competitive fighter with 0 interference from non-combatant entities and that we should make it as close to Street Fighter as possible without adding health bars is a self-fulfilling prophesy in that the more we expect to have to ban things, the more we inevitably WILL ban things, whether they are warranted or not.

Pokefloats was a relatively fair stage... sure it benefited certain characters to some extent, but there was nothing terribly bad about it (aside from being able to fall through the stage, which was horrible)

There was nothing terrible about DP, either. There was nothing terrible about a LOT of Brawl stages. And, now, we essentially have a 5 stage list.

It's pretty easy to tell when a stage can kill you with something you can't actively avoid at 80% (port town), or encourage people to run away the whole match (spear pillar, etc) after playing for a couple days.

Ok, that's BS and you know it. It's exactly the mindset we're trying to avoid in this thread. Can't actively avoid? Are you kidding? You know when they're coming, they're telegraphed, and not a single transformation has a lack of safe zones. If you can't dodge the cars without interference from your opponent, you have no hands, and if you can't dodge them because of interference from your opponent, you got outplayed. Circle camping is something that stops the game, which is a special case of stalling and, you're right, is easy to spot. But, Port Town is a perfectly viable stage that gets WAY too much hate from people who are closed-minded and refuse to actually learn how to play there.

Smash has options for turning stages/items/etc off... so yes, it apparently is the game's responsibility to conform to the player's wishes, and "you're not playing it right!" isn't really a good argument..

Just because the game has options, that doesn't mean it's balanced with those options in mind. Every time we make a change from default settings, we're messing with the balance, and that's not something we should take lightly. Items, for instance. We know because we've been told that Brawl was balanced with items in mind. And, what happens when we turned them off? All sorts of stupid stuff was possible, mainly things around stage control and the edge. And, what happens when you leave them on? Top tier gets a nerf, all the bottom tiers get a buff, everyone gets new techs (not something balanced for, but a neat side effect), planking is eliminated, stage control is better tested as a skill... the entire game gets more depth. We ***** and moan incessantly about "we have to add depth, we have to add depth", yet when the option is there, we turn it down. It'd be nice if we just admitted we were children instead of pretending we're making the adult decision.

The fact of the matter is that Street Fighter is not a party game and wasn't designed to be, so if their competitive community tries, either through in-game options or out-of-game rules, to turn it into something it's not, it's not Capcom's responsibility to facilitate that by changing their design. Same here. Smash is a party game first and a serious fighter second. We are trying to force it into a box. Sakurai is giving us options to make the box at least a bit larger so that it's a better fit, but when we turn those options down and fail at cramming it into a tiny box it was never designed to fit into, WE complain and say it's his fault. No, it's not. It's ours. We have the option to play it more as intended, as a strong competitive fighter that incorporates elements that aren't just two players beating up on each other, but a radical minority of small-minded players is forcing everyone to play Street Fighter when they want to play Smash.

No... it's never acceptable for a non-player involvement to decide a match in any sort of tournament setting. This may just be a logic difference between the two of us, but it is incredibly important to control non-player controlled factors in any type of tournament. Otherwise, there's no reason for anybody to travel for a tournament.

And that's just plainly false. As the "wind in golf" example shows, we do allow for non-player involvement because it allows us to test skills that aren't just "execution and reaction time". For every non-player element in a game, that's another layer of execution and strategy added to the game. Wind in golf allows for the testing of more advanced physics. We could eliminate that by building all courses indoors, sure. Hell, the sport is rich enough to do it. -_- But, that would eliminate a layer of strategy and require less from the players.

ALL that's important is consistency. Level of involvement can be literally anything as long as that involvement allows for consistent results. As long as two players would always (or nearly always) place the same in relation to each other, it doesn't matter if the involvement is wind, or cars, or items, or anything. The goal of a tournament, we sometimes forget, is to seed players, to find out the ranking as accurately as possible, and if ANY gametype or ruleset or non-player involvement allows for that, then it's acceptable... because at the end of the day, we only ban things that are BROKEN and have no viable consistent counters. Period.

Also, CP's are specifically debated so that they are not a terrible advantage for any character, so no, they don't decide the match, and are not a good example here.

Not true. There are plenty of characters who, when taken to FD in any Smash game, get the matchup turned from 5.5-4.5 or 6-4 into 7-3 or 8-2. Fox had matchups like that in Melee. MK has matchups like that in Brawl (not necessarily just on FD). So, in those cases, yes, stages are ENTIRELY allowed to decide a match. That's why counterpick stages are counterpick stages, so that they can help decide the match.

But, let's be as generous to you as possible. Two players of similar skill are playing a ditto set. Both Marth. But, one is more comfortable playing on Smashville, and one is more comfortable playing on Battlefield, due to preference and amount of practice. On FD, it comes literally down to percent; they don't even take each other's stocks. But, on SV, player A wins, and on BF, player B wins.

That means the stage decided the match. And we allow and encourage this.

So, explain that.

There's no reason to limit the tournament scene (not to mention that this will be impossible) so people can learn the game for a year. The first year of Brawl tournaments were hilarious, and I'm looking forward to that period in this game.

I gave you a reason earlier. Because we're bad people. Because we're immature children who can't handle the power to create their own community and ruleset. Because when we're given the easy excuse of "well, people will lose money on this!", we abuse that excuse to ban everything under the sun. We're incapable of using a modicum of restraint. This is me trying to force us to use that restraint by taking away the easy excuse to ban something by saying "we don't want this to decide a 500$ pot".

I'm looking forward to the first year of SSB4 as well, but I'm not looking forward to all the bans. And, this is a consistent, rational, logical, and effective way to curtail our childish behavior. Have fun enjoying all the Smashfests and money matches you want during the first year, but leave the serious tournaments for when we know what we're doing. You can have all the fun wacky matches you want without people ******** about a Motion Sensor Bomb screwing them out of money.

Also, Melee had maaaaany tournaments the year it was released, so I'm not sure where that is based.

And, if you paid attention, Melee also didn't have consistent rankings, a set tier list, or a solidified community or player base until about 1.5-2 years in. It had tons of events, sure, but the actual competitive scene wasn't anything significant until the metagame started solidifying almost 2 years in.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Tons Of Good Stuff

It has been mentioned in many posts on rulesets and designing them many times that there should be a direct method of deciding what is banable that holds a specific criteria. A very "famous" thread on items play did this and had some phenomenal success, you might recognize it I remember when the items that could be legal had a very specific criteria for what would be necessary for an item to be legal or not.

We should attempt to do something similar for the entirety of Sm4sh were whether we like something or not, when it does not fit the criteria it can't be banned. It way produce the best ruleset we've ever imagined.

And we seriously need to only think we can use a starter/cp system. There are other options people! We tried bunches in PSASBR and many turned out to be much more popular and fair (till the poor game died... darn you sony execs). It is a great time to throw out the old playbook and see what we can do to make the game better. Too often before people have selfishly banned things they do not like, forgetting that there are others who play, then wonder why we have less and less people coming to events. Sometimes, even if it's not what is best for us personally, we must think of the ongoing community as a whole and preserving it, which we just don't always do.

 

[Ulevo]

Well, my point is that non-player factors are always present in most sports, and while everything is done to keep these to a minimum, the fact that there are non-player factors really adds depth to a sport. Imagine if they worked out a way of stopping wind during golf tournaments; a lot of players who have a competitive edge due to being able to read the wind better would suddenly lose that edge.

Honestly, I think my point has become way too hypothetical to really hold up to criticism, so I'm happy to abandon it. I just hope I've been able to get across some of my thoughts regarding variable non-player elements in a competitive environment.

Your example is a flawed one. A professional golfer might not be able to control the wind, but he can account for it, and attempt to make adjustments that increase his odds of winning. Items in Smash are not like this. Their impact is far too profound, and they cannot be accounted for. They can spawn at any time, anywhere, near anyone, with any item that is turned on. While there is an inherent skill in trying to make the best of a situation from moment to moment, there is too much advantage that is either given to or removed from the players in question with items present to really say that the ball is in their court.

Also. The reason people deal with luck in specific sports is because it would be too denaturing of the sport to otherwise remove it, or they simply can't because its inherent within the game itself. That doesn't mean you should promote luck in a competitive setting.

Players who are competitive with Smash enjoy testing their skills in an environment where they can be assured that if they lose or win, regardless of the outcome, the result falls on the players. You call this spoiled, but so long as we have the luxury to turn things like items off, it's an option we're allowed to make. Competitive environments can only thrive if the players in question enjoy the terms and rules set for the competition.

I don't understand what's difficult about any of that to grasp. It's pretty basic. If you're suggesting that free for all tournaments or item tournaments should make some more appearances, then yeah. That's fine. There's often side events for these types of things. But if you're suggesting we change the standard rules, that's a fruitless effort, and you should know why.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Your example is a flawed one. A professional golfer might not be able to control the wind, but he can account for it, and attempt to make adjustments that increase his odds of winning. Items in Smash are not like this. Their impact is far too profound, and they cannot be accounted for. They can spawn at any time, anywhere, near anyone, with any item that is turned on. While there is an inherent skill in trying to make the best of a situation from moment to moment, there is too much advantage that is either given to or removed from the players in question with items present to really say that the ball is in their court.

This is entirely an overstatement. Jesus, you make it sound like whenever an item spawns, someone is guaranteed to die in the most BS way possible. Have you even played in an ISP tournament? Do you have any experience at all playing with items in a high-level competitive setting? It's not what you're describing. First of all, as far as ISP is concerned, there are no legal items which have the kind of drastic effects you're talking about; they're all banned. Second, you know enough about item spawns, as a player, to be able to roughly account for them: they spawn at a "low" setting, so the spawns are guaranteed every 45-50 seconds, at most (generally ever 35-40 seconds), there's a small list activated at any time (so you can roughly guess what might come up next), and the amount of stage you have behind you is the percentage chance you'll get a good spawn location (if you control 60% of the stage, there's a 60% chance that an item will spawn in a location that's good for you). Those are all the things you have to deal with, item-wise (aside from knowing all of their mechanics, which is kind of a given).

It's not bad, or hard, or even excessive. Stop whining until you try it. Hell, multiple high-level players did it just fine at WHOBO 1. Look it up.

Also. The reason people deal with luck in specific sports is because it would be too denaturing of the sport to otherwise remove it, or they simply can't because its inherent within the game itself. That doesn't mean you should promote luck in a competitive setting.

It also doesn't mean you should eliminate it, either; you've never actually shown that, you've just assumed it to be true. Whether or not you should have a luck-based factor in a game is, as always, contextual. Also, you're assuming that the reason people deal with luck is because they have to; it is, again, ignoring all the games played competitively throughout the history of humanity in which luck was purposefully introduced to the benefit of the depth of the game.

Players who are competitive with Smash enjoy testing their skills in an environment where they can be assured that if they lose or win, regardless of the outcome, the result falls on the players. You call this spoiled, but so long as we have the luxury to turn things like items off, it's an option we're allowed to make. Competitive environments can only thrive if the players in question enjoy the terms and rules set for the competition.

Again, this is just... *sigh* Players who are competitive in Chess are like that. Competitive in Street Fighter. Not in Smash, or at least they shouldn't have that expectation because that kind of play removes all of what makes Smash unique. If players REALLY want to do that, to eliminate all luck, then there's only one stage we should play: Battlefield. We should automatically ban ANY character that has to use the pRNG, so Peach has to go, as does G-dubs, among others. I mean... I don't know how else to say this: if that's the kind of play you want, play something else. Don't force everyone else to butcher a unique game just because you have some delusion that luck based factors or non-player interference is blasphemous.

Jesus, as I've already said multiple times, what is the issue in competitive play is consistency, and any game that allows for consistent results is fine. Smash with items and many of its stages allows for consistent results. We don't have to bend over and take it, banning everything left and right, just because you tell us to. And we SURE AS HELL don't have to do it day one, with no evidence otherwise.

I don't understand what's difficult about any of that to grasp. It's pretty basic. If you're suggesting that free for all tournaments or item tournaments should make some more appearances, then yeah. That's fine. There's often side events for these types of things. But if you're suggesting we change the standard rules, that's a fruitless effort, and you should know why.

It's not hard to grasp at all. It's just completely and totally irrelevant to Smash. You always ignore context in your posts and arguments on this subject, simply assuming as given that all of your base premises, like "luck is always bad", universally apply. They don't. Tell that to a poker player and he'll laugh you out of the room, because in the context of poker, a game designed and balanced around having random elements, there is nothing wrong with luck. Well, in the context of Smash, a game designed and balanced around having random elements, we are going to laugh you out of the room, too, for your extremist, hard-headed, shallow view of what can be and is competitive.

We're not suggesting we change anything, because as you fail to understand, THE STANDARD RULES FOR SSB4 DON'T EXIST YET BECAUSE THE GAME ISN'T OUT. We're suggesting we not make the rules ******** from the get go this time and learn from our mistakes with Brawl.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Your example is a flawed one. A professional golfer might not be able to control the wind, but he can account for it, and attempt to make adjustments that increase his odds of winning. Items in Smash are not like this. Their impact is far too profound, and they cannot be accounted for. They can spawn at any time, anywhere, near anyone, with any item that is turned on. While there is an inherent skill in trying to make the best of a situation from moment to moment, there is too much advantage that is either given to or removed from the players in question with items present to really say that the ball is in their court.

Also. The reason people deal with luck in specific sports is because it would be too denaturing of the sport to otherwise remove it, or they simply can't because its inherent within the game itself. That doesn't mean you should promote luck in a competitive setting.

Players who are competitive with Smash enjoy testing their skills in an environment where they can be assured that if they lose or win, regardless of the outcome, the result falls on the players. You call this spoiled, but so long as we have the luxury to turn things like items off, it's an option we're allowed to make. Competitive environments can only thrive if the players in question enjoy the terms and rules set for the competition.

I don't understand what's difficult about any of that to grasp. It's pretty basic. If you're suggesting that free for all tournaments or item tournaments should make some more appearances, then yeah. That's fine. There's often side events for these types of things. But if you're suggesting we change the standard rules, that's a fruitless effort, and you should know why.

I'm completely aware that my argument is flawed, comparing video games to sports is not a perfect comparison, I admit.

I disagree that the impact of every item is too profound; most items in Smash are possible to deal with, and not game breaking to the point that skill is completely thrown out of the window. The proof of this is, as Jack Kieser is saying, is that ISP tournaments show consistent results; this cannot be refuted.

I really need to go bold for this next part:
The purpose of this thread is not to bring items into standard play, nor to diminish the current standard no-items scene, nor to promote more FFA tournaments in general. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what kind of tournaments could be held in the first months after the new games are released to trial their competitive nuances, and how these tournaments will help to set a precedent for the next generation of competitive Smash.

 

[Ulevo]

I'm completely aware that my argument is flawed, comparing video games to sports is not a perfect comparison, I admit.

I disagree that the impact of every item is too profound; most items in Smash are possible to deal with, and not game breaking to the point that skill is completely thrown out of the window. The proof of this is, as Jack Kieser is saying, is that ISP tournaments show consistent results; this cannot be refuted.

I really need to go bold for this next part:
The purpose of this thread is not to bring items into standard play, nor to diminish the current standard no-items scene, nor to promote more FFA tournaments in general. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what kind of tournaments could be held in the first months after the new games are released to trial their competitive nuances, and how these tournaments will help to set a precedent for the next generation of competitive Smash.

I'm not arguing every item is too profound, but a substantial amount of them are (in lieu of Brawl and Melee items anyway.) I can assume the next game's items will be similar. It's also not a matter of them being game breaking, but favouring advantage to a particular player on a whim. Tripping was scoffed at for the same reason. It too wasn't gamebreaking, and while it probably lost a tournament match or two to some unlucky players, it didn't stop the top players from winning consistently. That doesn't mean its a desirable trait, or it's something people even like to see in their game if given the option.

The problem with trying to set precedent with alternative rules is publicity within our community and other communities, and consistency. Smash as a whole still has a bad reputation in specific circles regarding its well deserved spot amongst competitive tournament fighters. While there are a select few who argue it's a joke because we actually turn items off, the main consensus is that it is just a party game. I don't think feeding that idea is a good thing for the sake of the competitive scene, even if there isn't anything inherently wrong with partying out with Smash. And you'll be hard pressed to find people willing to divide their time in trying to compete in multiple types of tournaments outside of teams and 1v1.

Either way, you say it isn't to bring items in to standard play. But it sounds like that is exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, what other purpose would there be in testing these ideas within the first few months? A precedent has already been set as it is for the past three Smash games in a row now. Unless Sakurai heavily revises the way items work, I highly doubt there will differences to merit another look in to it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not arguing every item is too profound, but a substantial amount of them are (in lieu of Brawl and Melee items anyway.) I can assume the next game's items will be similar.

Yes, you explicitly said all items were too profound literally 4 posts ago.

It's also not a matter of them being game breaking, but favouring advantage to a particular player on a whim.

NO. No no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO. Under NO circumstances is this correct! You. Only. Ban. Something. That's. Gamebreaking. No exceptions. You do not ban because you don't like them, you don't ban because a player is favored, or a character, or anything (many stages favor characters over others). YOU BAN THINGS WHEN THEY HAVE NO COUNTERS. When using them results in a guaranteed win and there is NOTHING the other player can do about it. Period. End of story, end of discussion, this is not up for debate. Full stop.

Tripping was scoffed at for the same reason. It too wasn't gamebreaking, and while it probably lost a tournament match or two to some unlucky players, it didn't stop the top players from winning consistently. That doesn't mean its a desirable trait, or it's something people even like to see in their game if given the option.

And tripping was scoffed at for stupid reasons, too. Given the choice, I would rather not have it because I didn't enjoy it, but in NO way does that mean it is purely bad design. It de-emphasized running, made walking more of an option, and made air combat safer. We can quibble all day about whether we liked it or not, but there is NO debating that it had a gameplay job and did that job.

The problem with trying to set precedent with alternative rules is publicity within our community and other communities, and consistency. Smash as a whole still has a bad reputation in specific circles regarding its well deserved spot amongst competitive tournament fighters. While there are a select few who argue it's a joke because we actually turn items off, the main consensus is that it is just a party game. I don't think feeding that idea is a good thing for the sake of the competitive scene, even if there isn't anything inherently wrong with partying out with Smash. And you'll be hard pressed to find people willing to divide their time in trying to compete in multiple types of tournaments outside of teams and 1v1.

This... look, you're not EPF. I have at least respect for you. But, don't. Just don't. You're smarter than that. Smash only has a bad reputation for one reason: us. Yeah, some people on SRK don't think Smash is a real fighter or something, but if you even pay glancing attention to them, you know that they hate US a lot more than they hate our game. And, I don't blame them. We whine when we don't get our way, we're hateful, we gut our game like scrubs, then claim we're oh so mature and competitive and deserving of respect.

Look, competitive Smash players are hypocrites, plain and simple. They say "oh, we're banning all of these things because we want the game to be competitive!", but when given an option that DOESN'T require banning an entire part of the game that DOES increase the depth of the game, they say no. Just admit that you're a scrub who is banning stuff because you don't like it and stop the charade. And don't blame ANYONE else for your decisions but you. "We don't care about what those assholes at SRK think of us! ...but, we can't turn on items because they'll judge our game." Really?

Don't go down that road, because I don't want to lose what respect I have for you; I enjoy posting with you, and I'd really like not to have to out you on my ignore list, too.

Either way, you say it isn't to bring items in to standard play. But it sounds like that is exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, what other purpose would there be in testing these ideas within the first few months? A precedent has already been set as it is for the past three Smash games in a row now. Unless Sakurai heavily revises the way items work, I highly doubt there will differences to merit another look in to it.

I'm sure you saw this in the other thread, but it's a similar thing: no one is adding anything to standard play in SSB4 because the default play of SSB4 is everything enabled. YOU have the burden of proof to disable things, NOT the other way around. We don't have to prove items or stages or anything is not broken before you turn them off, YOU have to prove to US that they are broken enough to turn off. Precedent has NOT been set for all the games, because items were only turned off halfway through Melee and ISP existed in Brawl. These are all bull**** reasons for you to impose the status quo on everyone without have to reprove the status quo is valid in an entirely brand new game.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Tripping was scoffed at for the same reason. It too wasn't gamebreaking, and while it probably lost a tournament match or two to some unlucky players, it didn't stop the top players from winning consistently.

It was right to be scoffed at, but that's because it didn't bring anything to game, it only took away.

The problem with trying to set precedent with alternative rules

Alternative to what? There are no rules for Smash 4 yet.

Either way, you say it isn't to bring items in to standard play. But it sounds like that is exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, what other purpose would there be in testing these ideas within the first few months? A precedent has already been set as it is for the past three Smash games in a row now. Unless Sakurai heavily revises the way items work, I highly doubt there will differences to merit another look in to it.

This isn't about testing "ideas". It's about playing the game with as much variation as possible before arbitrarily taking stuff out. Allowing a precedent set over a decade ago by a previous iteration to dictate how Smash 4 is played cannot possibly help the game to gain footing in its own right.

Clearly you advocate day-one removal of items from Smash 4. Why not wait? If Smash 4 is better without items, we will discover as much when we actually play it.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

no one is adding anything to standard play in SSB4 because the default play of SSB4 is everything enabled. YOU have the burden of proof to disable things, NOT the other way around.

YES. This.

 

[Ulevo]

I can't believe I'm reading this. lol

One. The item/free for all debacle was not decided over a decade ago. It was decided when 64, Melee, and Brawl hit the tournament scene respectively. Each generation has had new players like you waltz in and suggest that items should be a tournament format. If not the standard, than at least an alternative. And each time it was ultimately rejected for the same reasons.

Smash has not fundamentally changed so much to the point in which this is worth discussing again for a fourth time.

Secondly, I'm afraid the onus does not fall on me. We're not talking about what the default settings are (which ironically you yourself are ignorant to.) We're talking about what the community by default will use in tournament play, as per tradition for the last 3 games for very good reasons. Stuff was not arbitrarily taken out, despite you believing so. If you want to change 3 generations of tournament rules, the onus falls on you I'm afraid. Particularly since you're not going to have to disprove me, but convince the mounds of people who will ignore disagree with you.

 

[Jack Kieser]

If you don't even understand what burden of proof is, then we're done here.

 

[Ulevo]

If you don't even understand what burden of proof is, then we're done here.

I'm comfortably aware of how burden of proof works. You're just mixing up credentials here. But if it means we can drop the topic, I won't complain.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

I can't believe I'm reading this. lol

One. The item/free for all debacle was not decided over a decade ago. It was decided when 64, Melee, and Brawl hit the tournament scene respectively. Each generation has had new players like you waltz in and suggest that items should be a tournament format. If not the standard, than at least an alternative. And each time it was ultimately rejected for the same reasons.

Smash has not fundamentally changed so much to the point in which this is worth discussing again for a fourth time.

Secondly, I'm afraid the onus does not fall on me. We're not talking about what the default settings are (which ironically you yourself are ignorant to.) We're talking about what the community by default will use in tournament play, as per tradition for the last 3 games for very good reasons. Stuff was not arbitrarily taken out, despite you believing so. If you want to change 3 generations of tournament rules, the onus falls on you I'm afraid. Particularly since you're not going to have to disprove me, but convince the mounds of people who will ignore disagree with you.

"New players" like who, exactly? You aren't arguing with any "new players", I'm afraid.

If you can't see the merits of starting a new game with a clean slate, then you are speaking for one side of the Smash community (a mound, if you will), not all of it. Please don't come to my thread, which I made for the sole purpose of discussing how we, on the other side of the Smash community, would be experimenting with the new game, and tell us that we can't, or shouldn't, do it.

If you want to remove all the items from Smash 4 on day one, please start a thread entitled "Lets remove all the items from Smash 4 straight away". I'm sure the conversation will be riveting.

 

[Ulevo]

"New players" like who, exactly? You aren't arguing with any "new players", I'm afraid.

If you can't see the merits of starting a new game with a clean slate, then you are speaking for one side of the Smash community (a mound, if you will), not all of it. Please don't come to my thread, which I made for the sole purpose of discussing how we, on the other side of the Smash community, would be experimenting with the new game, and tell us that we can't, or shouldn't, do it.

If you want to remove all the items from Smash 4 on day one, please start a thread entitled "Lets remove all the items from Smash 4 straight away". I'm sure the conversation will be riveting.

If I spoke out of terms, then I suppose that's my fault. You'll have to forgive me. It's been an eternity since I saw a tournament regular put genuine effort in to re-hauling the current list of tournament rules.

As long as you open up discussion in a public forum, and I as a poster obey the ToS and keep discussion pertinent to the conversation, I'm afraid you're SOL. You need to learn to submit to criticism and take it objectively, particularly if you want people to take you seriously enough to sympathize with your cause.

I'm not telling you what you can or can't do. I'm giving you criticism for why your ideas for the next Smash game likely won't gain traction. Telling me to go away doesn't help your case in the slightest I'm afraid.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

If I spoke out of terms, then I suppose that's my fault. You'll have to forgive me. It's been an eternity since I saw a tournament regular put genuine effort in to re-hauling the current list of tournament rules.

As long as you open up discussion in a public forum, and I as a poster obey the ToS and keep discussion pertinent to the conversation, I'm afraid you're SOL. You need to learn to submit to criticism and take it objectively, particularly if you want people to take you seriously enough to sympathize with your cause.

I'm not telling you what you can or can't do. I'm giving you criticism for why your ideas for the next Smash game likely won't gain traction. Telling me to go away doesn't help your case in the slightest I'm afraid.

What I'm trying to get across, is that you've made your point, and you've made it well. You speak for some of the Smash community, who aren't interested in experimenting with the new game as much as I or Jack Kieser are, which is fair enough. If you want to do that, be my guest. But by repeated reiterating that you don't want to experiment, your posts are essentially just spam.

What more, exactly, do you have to say about the matter that you haven't said already!?

 

[Jack Kieser]

If I spoke out of terms, then I suppose that's my fault. You'll have to forgive me. It's been an eternity since I saw a tournament regular put genuine effort in to re-hauling the current list of tournament rules.

As long as you open up discussion in a public forum, and I as a poster obey the ToS and keep discussion pertinent to the conversation, I'm afraid you're SOL. You need to learn to submit to criticism and take it objectively, particularly if you want people to take you seriously enough to sympathize with your cause.

I'm not telling you what you can or can't do. I'm giving you criticism for why your ideas for the next Smash game likely won't gain traction. Telling me to go away doesn't help your case in the slightest I'm afraid.

Yeah, I've had to deal with people who had your attitude before. SamuraiPanda had to lay down the ban hammer in the ISP thread because people had your attitude.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

In fairness to Ulevo, I made no hard list of discussion points in the OP, and it wouldn't be right to add one now. I would like to request that we move the discussion away from whether or not experimenting with the new games is worthwhile, and simply accept that we will, and discuss how.

 

[SmashChu]

I'm not arguing every item is too profound, but a substantial amount of them are (in lieu of Brawl and Melee items anyway.) I can assume the next game's items will be similar. It's also not a matter of them being game breaking, but favouring advantage to a particular player on a whim. Tripping was scoffed at for the same reason. It too wasn't gamebreaking, and while it probably lost a tournament match or two to some unlucky players, it didn't stop the top players from winning consistently. That doesn't mean its a desirable trait, or it's something people even like to see in their game if given the option.

As mentioned before, getting an item doesn't guarantee victory/ Some items are stronger than others and this is where the community can pick and chose a bit. If a Smoke Ball spawns in front of me, so I now have an unstoppable advantage. Or what about food? Even items like the Fire Flower, Freezie, and Gooey Bomb aren't that bad. Items are just another elements of the game. The players who expect items, adapt on the fly, and know how to use/them and counter them will have more success than those who don't.

The problem with trying to set precedent with alternative rules is publicity within our community and other communities, and consistency. Smash as a whole still has a bad reputation in specific circles regarding its well deserved spot amongst competitive tournament fighters. While there are a select few who argue it's a joke because we actually turn items off, the main consensus is that it is just a party game. I don't think feeding that idea is a good thing for the sake of the competitive scene, even if there isn't anything inherently wrong with partying out with Smash. And you'll be hard pressed to find people willing to divide their time in trying to compete in multiple types of tournaments outside of teams and 1v1.

The main reason for the hate, both from the FGC and from other Smash players is because the community is far to ban happy. This is why the No items, Fox only, Final Destination joke came from. It is a big issue that the community has never been willing to address.

The thing no one considers is that by having a ban happy mentality the community sacrifices depth and other skills to eliminate an unfounded fear. Using stage hazards to your advantage is a skill. Using items is a skill. By utilizing these, you make a more interesting game that can't be done with traditional fighting game. In the end, we have a glorified house rules that have to be defended at every turn.

 

[Ulevo]

As mentioned before, getting an item doesn't guarantee victory/ Some items are stronger than others and this is where the community can pick and chose a bit. If a Smoke Ball spawns in front of me, so I now have an unstoppable advantage. Or what about food? Even items like the Fire Flower, Freezie, and Gooey Bomb aren't that bad. Items are just another elements of the game. The players who expect items, adapt on the fly, and know how to use/them and counter them will have more success than those who don't.


The main reason for the hate, both from the FGC and from other Smash players is because the community is far to ban happy. This is why the No items, Fox only, Final Destination joke came from. It is a big issue that the community has never been willing to address.

The thing no one considers is that by having a ban happy mentality the community sacrifices depth and other skills to eliminate an unfounded fear. Using stage hazards to your advantage is a skill. Using items is a skill. By utilizing these, you make a more interesting game that can't be done with traditional fighting game. In the end, we have a glorified house rules that have to be defended at every turn.

You make the flawed assumption that because the community made the decisions to set the rules as they are, it's because they were ban happy. The reality is that tournament organizers and top players considered what was fairest in respect to competitive matches, and they based the rules around that. Brawl's ruleset has become more complex than either 64's or Melee's because Brawl is littered with problems and so it is difficult to properly ascertain how to handle specific cases. Never the less, the intention was always fair play and promoting competitive environment.

I don't even know what premise you have for calling the community ban happy. If it's because items and specific stages are turned off, I've already addressed that. And you likely won't read with consideration.

Also, your direction implies that adding items in to competitive play would add depth when the opposite is also true, but to a more significant extent. I've already explained why. You can't account for things like being thrown off a stage and then having a Homerun Bat spawn right next to your opponent on the ledge while you're trying to recover. When you add items in to the game, it becomes less about who can control their characters skillset the best and more about who has a fortunate drop more times than the other, and who can get to it first under those circumstances.

These rules are defended because they're proven to work. They've been tested and tried. You think this is the first time someone's talked about allowing items in to competitive play? And items do not make Smash a unique experience. It's unique in and of itself. And I'd prefer to keep the integrity of that experience intact as opposed to play a mini-game in my matches revolving around variables out of both my and my opponents control.

 

[salaboB]

One. The item/free for all debacle was not decided over a decade ago. It was decided when 64, Melee, and Brawl hit the tournament scene respectively. Each generation has had new players like you waltz in and suggest that items should be a tournament format. If not the standard, than at least an alternative. And each time it was ultimately rejected for the same reasons.

Having been around for all of Brawl and the time leading up to it (Though often just lurking)...this statement is wrong.

Brawl's items were banned from the start because Melee's items were banned, they were never rejected in Brawl for the same reasons as they were rejected in Melee -- they were rejected in Brawl because they had been rejected in Melee.

This was a terrible mistake, but trying to pretend it didn't happen is only begging for it to happen again. Scrub mentality, indeed.

 

[Jack Kieser]

You make the flawed assumption that because the community made the decisions to set the rules as they are, it's because they were ban happy. The reality is that tournament organizers and top players considered what was fairest in respect to competitive matches, and they based the rules around that.

You're entirely right that they did that... with Melee. No such thing happened with Brawl; items were banned day one, and less than 3 weeks later hard stage bans started. 3 weeks. Tell me that's not too little time to find out if the stage is really broken or if we're just playing on it badly / haven't found the counter yet. How long did it take for Akuma to be banned, again?

Brawl's ruleset has become more complex than either 64's or Melee's because Brawl is littered with problems and so it is difficult to properly ascertain how to handle specific cases. Never the less, the intention was always fair play and promoting competitive environment.

Yes, problems that are largely mitigated in item play. Which everyone seems to selectively ignore. Never the less, the intention was always to preserve an old and tired ruleset because people were set in their ways and too afraid and hard headed to try something new.

I don't even know what premise you have for calling the community ban happy. If it's because items and specific stages are turned off, I've already addressed that. And you likely won't read with consideration.

How many stages do we have legal, again? What percentage of the game do we have banned, again? And how much of that is truly broken beyond all reasonable salvation, again? We're the poster child for ban happy. It's exactly because we have all items and 90% of the stages turned off.

Also, your direction implies that adding items in to competitive play would add depth when the opposite is also true, but to a more significant extent. I've already explained why. You can't account for things like being thrown off a stage and then having a Homerun Bat spawn right next to your opponent on the ledge while you're trying to recover. When you add items in to the game, it becomes less about who can control their characters skillset the best and more about who has a fortunate drop more times than the other, and who can get to it first under those circumstances.

... ... ...WHAT? First of all, what you described can't happen in ISP events... because the Home Run Bat is banned. Oh, what's that? You didn't know? Because you didn't read the 22+ page ISP thread and accompanying sub-threads in which, over the course of an entire year, multiple people tirelessly worked to make sure what you described wouldn't happen? Which also explains why you blatantly ignore every time I've told you to your face that items aren't nearly as broken as you claim they are?

...that's what I thought. Just checking.

Oh, and by the way, items spawning while someone is recovering is how it's supposed to work; it's the best play. It means at least one player timed his attack with the spawn timer and had 100% stage control, thus earning his 100% chance to get an item spawn. That's not a bug; that's a feature.

These rules are defended because they're proven to work. They've been tested and tried. You think this is the first time someone's talked about allowing items in to competitive play? And items do not make Smash a unique experience. It's unique in and of itself. And I'd prefer to keep the integrity of that experience intact as opposed to play a mini-game in my matches revolving around variables out of both my and my opponents control.

Guess what, chief? ISP rules have been proven to work, too. They've been tried and tested. I know for a fact this isn't the first time someone's brought this up because I worked for an entire year of my life on it. Items entirely make Smash a unique experience. No other competitive fighter has items. No other competitive fighter has non-static stages that interact with the fighters. We removed both of those elements; now, there are NO items, and 90% of the stages are banned, leaving only the ones most like stages in every other fighting game known to man. I'd prefer to keep the depth and interactivity that items and stages add to the game instead of watching two people beat their heads against each other trying to replicate what happens in every single other fighting game known to man.

You don't seem very keen about caring about other people's desires, though, instead acting like they don't matter at all and what you want is more important. If we aren't allowed to use "this is what we want" as a reason for something, neither are you. So, the only thing you have left to fall back on is the depth argument, which we have systematically eviscerated for the past 2 pages in just this thread alone.

 

[Fenrir VII]

my god these posts are verbose..

Since it's physically impossible for me to respond to everything posted here, I'll talk to a few things. Please keep in mind that I am not personally against items in tournament play, and I tend to be more liberal than the general rule-makers with stage selection.

First of all, precedent doesn't mean as much as you think it does when we're only 4 games in and the first one was essentially an experiment.

Are you seriously saying you expect the new games to have 0 non-tourney worthy stages?

Ok, that's BS and you know it. It's exactly the mindset we're trying to avoid in this thread. Can't actively avoid? Are you kidding? You know when they're coming, they're telegraphed, and not a single transformation has a lack of safe zones.

The stage was first banned when it came to light that the cars would hit you in certain spots through the flying platform (not a transformation) without you being able to see them... it was fairly particular spacing/timing, but no, there was no way to avoid by reaction.

Just because the game has options, that doesn't mean it's balanced with those options in mind. Every time we make a change from default settings, we're messing with the balance, and that's not something we should take lightly. Items, for instance. We know because we've been told that Brawl was balanced with items in mind. And, what happens when we turned them off? All sorts of stupid stuff was possible, mainly things around stage control and the edge. And, what happens when you leave them on? Top tier gets a nerf, all the bottom tiers get a buff, everyone gets new techs (not something balanced for, but a neat side effect), planking is eliminated, stage control is better tested as a skill... the entire game gets more depth. We ***** and moan incessantly about "we have to add depth, we have to add depth", yet when the option is there, we turn it down.

I have a large amount of doubt that items nerf MK in any way other than potentially limiting edge camping. Items benefit A) fast characters and B) chars with good zoning. MK fits both of those... whereas the bottom tier is typically lacking in one of those traits... so I seriously doubt items have a huge impact on the tier list, instead of just particular characters.

And that's just plainly false. As the "wind in golf" example shows, we do allow for non-player involvement because it allows us to test skills that aren't just "execution and reaction time".

wind in golf is a bad example for many of the arguments listed in this thread. wind in golf universally affects all players (for the most part).. stage selection / item selection does not universally affect all characters. broken argument. and....this isn't golf.

Not true. There are plenty of characters who, when taken to FD in any Smash game, get the matchup turned from 5.5-4.5 or 6-4 into 7-3 or 8-2. Fox had matchups like that in Melee. MK has matchups like that in Brawl (not necessarily just on FD). So, in those cases, yes, stages are ENTIRELY allowed to decide a match. That's why counterpick stages are counterpick stages, so that they can help decide the match.

...

But, let's be as generous to you as possible. Two players of similar skill are playing a ditto set. Both Marth. But, one is more comfortable playing on Smashville, and one is more comfortable playing on Battlefield, due to preference and amount of practice. On FD, it comes literally down to percent; they don't even take each other's stocks. But, on SV, player A wins, and on BF, player B wins.

That means the stage decided the match. And we allow and encourage this.

The rules have been carefully created so that the legal stages do not decide the match... it's a minor factor that is easily overcome by the players... yes there are minor advantages here and there (5-5 to 6-4, etc), but not enough to completely decide a match and A) matches are 2/3, and B) counterpicking / striking prohibit unfavorable stage picks for more than 1 round. Also, player comfort =/= stage advantage.

And, if you paid attention, Melee also didn't have consistent rankings, a set tier list, or a solidified community or player base until about 1.5-2 years in. It had tons of events, sure, but the actual competitive scene wasn't anything significant until the metagame started solidifying almost 2 years in.

tier lists and rankings were formed, the community solidified, and the metagame solidified because of the events.. you just defeated your own argument.
The same thing happened in Brawl, but much quicker.

ALL that's important is consistency. Level of involvement can be literally anything as long as that involvement allows for consistent results. As long as two players would always (or nearly always) place the same in relation to each other, it doesn't matter if the involvement is wind, or cars, or items, or anything. The goal of a tournament, we sometimes forget, is to seed players, to find out the ranking as accurately as possible, and if ANY gametype or ruleset or non-player involvement allows for that, then it's acceptable... because at the end of the day, we only ban things that are BROKEN and have no viable consistent counters. Period.
...
NO. No no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO. Under NO circumstances is this correct! You. Only. Ban. Something. That's. Gamebreaking. No exceptions. You do not ban because you don't like them, you don't ban because a player is favored, or a character, or anything (many stages favor characters over others). YOU BAN THINGS WHEN THEY HAVE NO COUNTERS. When using them results in a guaranteed win and there is NOTHING the other player can do about it. Period. End of story, end of discussion, this is not up for debate. Full stop.

just...stop. It's possible to make a point without making a donkey out of yourself.
And no... in any kind of fair competition (regardless of game/sport) you ban things that inherently give one player / character a large advantage. Nobody should have to argue that a stage that puts one character at an advantage 9/10 times should be banned, instead of waiting until it's 10/10. This is obvious. And this has nothing to do with player preference... I'm purely talking character advantage (a stage with a wall and DDD, etc)

Like I said, the neutrals and counterpicks in Melee and Brawl can give slight advantages here and there, but it's not enough to sway a match from 5-5 to 7-3, for example.

It's pretty obvious you and I have disagreements about what the rule-set should do, so I'm willing to let it go in here. That said... I would be in favor of actively trying out new stage lists / item lists, etc through online tournaments, if they were hosted. I don't necessarily think you're making bad points... it's just the arguments that you are using that are...incomplete.

Smash will never compare to other fighting games mainly because other fighting games generally don't have to worry about items / stages lists. Those options literally don't exist. The point has never been to make Smash like Street Fighter.... it has been to A) limit/avoid large character advantages and B) limit randomness.

In the same vein, let's stop comparing Smash to unrelated things (golf, card games, other video games, sports, etc etc)... for every argument you can make using one of those, I can make another using a different one, so it really becomes useless...

I believe that we can make strides in making items less random and more indicative in skill, and I'm not against that (although I feel that the large majority of players will be). however, we need to keep the pendulum in the middle here.. fanatics shouldn't run banning everything without basis, and die-hards shouldn't actively resist bans when they are actually warranted. Let's spend the time and energy to actually consider everything in play here and come up with a rule-set that will most benefit the community... However I make the point that to do that, we HAVE to have events / tournaments... without that competition scene in the first year, we'll learn nothing as a community.

Please be respectful in debate, though.. calling other community members children, "chief", etc and actively mocking them won't help your case, and it won't help the community.

 

[salaboB]

I have a large amount of doubt that items nerf MK in any way other than potentially limiting edge camping. Items benefit A) fast characters and B) chars with good zoning. MK fits both of those... whereas the bottom tier is typically lacking in one of those traits... so I seriously doubt items have a huge impact on the tier list, instead of just particular characters.

MK's zoning is amazing...but it gets even better when he has the freedom to hang around the edge of the level and force the opponent to come to him (Or slowly push against them). Who knows what his balance would end up with items involved. It's not that he couldn't use them effectively -- but it seems likely that other characters would gain more. Bear in mind he does have a few even-ish matchups, so it wouldn't take too much of a nudge to possibly solve the balance problem he presented. All that being said, it's no longer really important (And we're unlikely to get enough testing to determine any answer, now).

On an older, somewhat related topic from earlier in this thread though -- I think the MK ban is actually a divergence from the traditional "ban happy" attitude that was being referenced. Item and stage bans were both traditional, but I remember (What felt like) a couple years of arguments about whether MK deserved a ban or not. His ban actually was the community finally breaking with tradition because of the recognition of what MK does to the counterpick system that tournaments so often support.

Hopefully the community has grown through Brawl's life, and is ready to try a new game from a fresh start -- without carrying in all the old rules before judging the game on its own merits. I personally don't think FFA is going to be the place where new breakthroughs will be found given that FFA starts dipping heavily into diplomacy (Which is not usually a skill people want to test in Smash) but I support the idea of trying new and unusual things and seeing how many desired skills they do allow to shine through.

 

[Aidebit]

First, refer the the post above. I'm not sure if it was this thread, but someone noted that items remove some of the BS characters can do and does weaken the top tier characters. Second, Dota 2 has a TON of random elements (in RNG) yet that doesn't stop anyone from playing it competitively.

Is DOTA comparable to Smash? Did I say that randomness makes every game bad?

As someone noted above, stages were banned 3 months in with no change. There wasn't any testing.

Stages were allowed for three months, and we saw that they weren't that good. Most stages were banned because Sonic and MK can run around for the whole match on them, some mistakes were made, but most stages were banned for good reason.

ZSS beta a MK in the finals at Apex 2013. M2K lost to a ROB with Meta-Knight at 2012. I fail to see an issue.

The reason the community bans things has more to do with they don't want to deal with it rather than it causes an issue. Most of what happened with Brawl was porting Melee's rule set with no question as to why.

Has Salem won a tournament since then? He got 6-1'd by M2K in WF's and GF's of WB7. He beat Zero there, but Zero beat a few weeks later 3-1. MK's have to learn the matchup to be broken. Anti, the guy who could beat Salem, lost to M2K. Seibrik, an MK with good ZSS experience, lost to Otori one round before fighting Salem. ESAM, who had practice from his brother, was on the other side of the bracket, and lost to Anti. No one had a reason to learn ZSS before Salem came. For ROB, M2K simply fell to a loss of matchup experience. The matchup is +3 for MK.

Please, while some things were hastily banned, a lot of things were banned for good reason.

 

[SmashChu]

You make the flawed assumption that because the community made the decisions to set the rules as they are, it's because they were ban happy. The reality is that tournament organizers and top players considered what was fairest in respect to competitive matches, and they based the rules around that. Brawl's ruleset has become more complex than either 64's or Melee's because Brawl is littered with problems and so it is difficult to properly ascertain how to handle specific cases. Never the less, the intention was always fair play and promoting competitive environment.

I don't even know what premise you have for calling the community ban happy. If it's because items and specific stages are turned off, I've already addressed that. And you likely won't read with consideration.

No, I call them ban happy because they ban everything. They ban items. They ban most of the stages. They even banned Meta-Knight. Everything gets turned off.

Also, your direction implies that adding items in to competitive play would add depth when the opposite is also true, but to a more significant extent. I've already explained why. You can't account for things like being thrown off a stage and then having a Homerun Bat spawn right next to your opponent on the ledge while you're trying to recover. When you add items in to the game, it becomes less about who can control their characters skillset the best and more about who has a fortunate drop more times than the other, and who can get to it first under those circumstances.

Yes, you can account for items. Because you already know that items can spawn at any time. So, you can anticipate their arrival. What you focus on is that someone could get an item and that gives a huge advantage (again, does having a smoke ball drop right in front of you give you a huge advantage?). In reality, it's a scare tactic. You remove something not based on an actual instance but because something could potentially happen. And it goes back to the community being ban happy. There reason things are banned is because something could happen, not because something did.

These rules are defended because they're proven to work. They've been tested and tried. You think this is the first time someone's talked about allowing items in to competitive play? And items do not make Smash a unique experience. It's unique in and of itself. And I'd prefer to keep the integrity of that experience intact as opposed to play a mini-game in my matches revolving around variables out of both my and my opponents control.

That depends on your definition of work. Being ban happy has created many and enemy and hater outside the small community. The other thing is Smash is based on adapting so things like items and stages only facilitate that. The game was not made to remove everything and fight on the flattest surface.

 

[SmashChu]

You make the flawed assumption that because the community made the decisions to set the rules as they are, it's because they were ban happy. The reality is that tournament organizers and top players considered what was fairest in respect to competitive matches, and they based the rules around that. Brawl's ruleset has become more complex than either 64's or Melee's because Brawl is littered with problems and so it is difficult to properly ascertain how to handle specific cases. Never the less, the intention was always fair play and promoting competitive environment.

I don't even know what premise you have for calling the community ban happy. If it's because items and specific stages are turned off, I've already addressed that. And you likely won't read with consideration.

No, I call them ban happy because they ban everything. They ban items. They ban most of the stages. They even banned Meta-Knight. Everything gets turned off.

Also, your direction implies that adding items in to competitive play would add depth when the opposite is also true, but to a more significant extent. I've already explained why. You can't account for things like being thrown off a stage and then having a Homerun Bat spawn right next to your opponent on the ledge while you're trying to recover. When you add items in to the game, it becomes less about who can control their characters skillset the best and more about who has a fortunate drop more times than the other, and who can get to it first under those circumstances.

Yes, you can account for items. Because you already know that items can spawn at any time. So, you can anticipate their arrival. What you focus on is that someone could get an item and that gives a huge advantage (again, does having a smoke ball drop right in front of you give you a huge advantage?). In reality, it's a scare tactic. You remove something not based on an actual instance but because something could potentially happen. And it goes back to the community being ban happy. There reason things are banned is because something could happen, not because something did.

These rules are defended because they're proven to work. They've been tested and tried. You think this is the first time someone's talked about allowing items in to competitive play? And items do not make Smash a unique experience. It's unique in and of itself. And I'd prefer to keep the integrity of that experience intact as opposed to play a mini-game in my matches revolving around variables out of both my and my opponents control.

That depends on your definition of work. Being ban happy has created many and enemy and hater outside the small community. The other thing is Smash is based on adapting so things like items and stages only facilitate that. The game was not made to remove everything and fight on the flattest surface.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

In the same vein, let's stop comparing Smash to unrelated things (golf, card games, other video games, sports, etc etc)... for every argument you can make using one of those, I can make another using a different one, so it really becomes useless...

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not necessarily trying to compare Smash to anything. The "wind in golf" example was to illustrate that non-player elements can deepen a game. It isn't a great example in the context of Smash, but the point shouldn't be dismissed.

Regardless of how a person wants to play Smash, there are a lot of different ways that we can play Smash, and the experimentation I described in my OP would be to help promote diversity in the community.

I see no reason why we can't have compete in No-Item tournaments and Item Standard Play in equal measure when competitive Smash 4 kicks off, as well as any other styles of tournament that may arise. There's also no reason why (although people may have a preference) you can't practice and compete in a variety of styles. Unless anybody here is actively advocating that we only have one style of tournament, which in a game as customisable as Smash is frankly absurd.

 

[Fenrir VII]

I see no reason why we can't have compete in No-Item tournaments and Item Standard Play in equal measure when competitive Smash 4 kicks off, as well as any other styles of tournament that may arise. There's also no reason why (although people may have a preference) you can't practice and compete in a variety of styles. Unless anybody here is actively advocating that we only have one style of tournament, which in a game as customisable as Smash is frankly absurd.

sure, I agree with that. I don't really have an issue with what you're saying or the way that you're presenting it. I'm just saying there are so many things to compare Smash to, that we can really base any side of the argument around them...

MK's zoning is amazing...but it gets even better when he has the freedom to hang around the edge of the level and force the opponent to come to him (Or slowly push against them). Who knows what his balance would end up with items involved. It's not that he couldn't use them effectively -- but it seems likely that other characters would gain more. Bear in mind he does have a few even-ish matchups, so it wouldn't take too much of a nudge to possibly solve the balance problem he presented. All that being said, it's no longer really important (And we're unlikely to get enough testing to determine any answer, now).

Yeah, you're right in saying we really don't have much conclusive data on item-allowed tournaments and their affect on tiers/rankings, so most of what we can discuss on it has to be based on opinion, unfortunately.


The way I'm thinking about it is this-

Assumptions and facts:
1. Items spawn at random times and locations during a match, so everything is based on probability
2. Players who get items are at somewhat of an advantage over players who don't (character dependent to some extent)
3. Good zoning divides the stage into "territories"
4. You have a better chance of grabbing every item that falls in your territory
5. The larger your territory is, the higher probability of you getting an item and thus being at an advantage.
6. Fast characters generally have a better chance to infiltrate the opponent's territory
7. Items that fall in "neutral" territories (in the middle of 2 chars, for example) are "up for grabs" and generally go to the char that has the faster/safer approach


So from this, I conclude that A) Characters who have good zoning capability (who can take control of the stage and territories) are at an advantage because they can grab more territory and have a greater probability of getting an item; B) Fast characters can deal with zoning a bit better, and get in and out of opponent's territories... so they limit the amount of zoning that can occur; and C) A character with a good / safe approaching option is at an advantage when items fall in neutral territory.

So when we apply these to characters, MK has A, B and C; Olimar has A and C; Diddy has all three; Marth has all three (little slow but ok); etc etc etc while the bottom tier (Ganon, Zelda, Link, Bowser, etc) are really lacking in these categories... So if my assumptions are correct, the inclusion of items would actually emphasize the current tier divisions (aside from shuffling a few characters like IC's, Fox, Sonic, etc here and there), rather than improve balance... (the minor caveat is that more high-tier characters might be more benefited from items than MK/IC's/etc, and have a better shot against them... no way of really knowing that at this point) So I could see the tiers shifting somewhat, but I don't see a reason that the bottom tier would benefit against the high-tiers.

This is also a truth from Melee, where the top tiers were better with items than the lower tiers... I personally feel that Fox was the best item player in the game... so if they were included, he would have been even more dominant.

Now having posted all this, I realize that it's mostly based on assumptions and opinions (although I do have some item tourney exp with Melee), and may not directly apply to SSB4, but there's no way to know that at this point...

 

[salaboB]

I could be mistaken on this, it's been a loong time.

1. Items spawn at random times and locations during a match, so everything is based on probability

One key thing: They tend to spawn near the center of the stage, not out near the edges. That pesky ledge grab limit only comes into effect when MK is fooling around out near the edge. MK still had his close matchups even when he was using the edge to his best advantage (I recall discussions from tournies about people working the LGL by pushing their grabs up close to it, implying it was one of his best options since they risked forfeiting by using those tactics if they screwed up) which means that it's a strong strategy for him -- and it's weakened by items, because they won't spawn for him out there and he's forced to move in onto the map if he wants his territory there.

So there's one rule that might no longer be needed (Maybe. I recall also a discussion about how MK could get enough of a % lead and then go hang out at the edge all day even if his opponent was getting items), as well as the basis for my belief that at least some other characters will benefit more from items than MK does. Like you say though, it would probably cement the rest of the tier list in place (But that's a bit hard to predict for sure, and still doesn't really matter too much for Brawl since we're probably not going to be seeing enough testing to ever say either way. Accurate tier lists are hard.)