Is All-Brawl the future competitive standard?

[Dustlord]

OK, first, the SRK forums post on the All Brawl rule set: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=162502

An interview with the All Brawl tournament organizer: http://www.shoryuken.com/?p=265

And a youtube page with All Brawl matches: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Rockeits


Now, I've been checking out the SRK forums, and the group there seems to agree that this rule set is very good. With 2 lives and 3 minutes, its hard for the items to make too much of a difference, and most people agree it doesn't change the match ups too much to matter in a tournament. But what really bothers me is that there seems to be an overall negative attitude to the Smash World Forums, so I thought I'd raise the topic here (I didn't find any other topics on it, so either I missed it or searched for it with the wrong search terms.)

There is something else that bothers me, I forget who, but a while back someone said, "We've been playing this game for many years, and our bannings of stages and items came after years of testing with them on." While this might be true concerning melee, Brawl is a completely different game, with item and stage balance being different. And with Melee, there were many advanced techs that kept the game interesting with all that. But you know what? Everyone still wants Brawl to be Melee 2.0. Even the people who say Brawl isn't melee are still trying to play Brawl with the same rules as Melee. So why is it so hard to adopt a completely different mindset about Brawl? Although on the other hand, it probably IS hard to adopt a completely different mindset, and that's where I can see most of the trouble coming from.

And I've also heard of many people either going back to melee or quitting smash altogether. I've also heard of people trying these rules and having a renewed liking of this game at a competitive level. As for myself, after seeing these rules, I had a renewed vigor to actually play Brawl, and now I'm considering taking my game to the next level and finding a tournament to join, whatever rules they choose.

Although far be it from me to dictate how other people to play, think of this: When Melee came out, it took 3-4 years for the community to agree to turn items off. So why isn't Brawl allowed the same amount of testing that Melee had, seeing as the two are almost completely different games, with different physics, and many other things leading the balance of the games to be different. So hey, before anything gets banned, it should at least go through rigorous tests. Next thing you know, people may discover some crazy things, like that the Earth is round, and revolves around the sun! Now all that's left is for everyone to label me a heretic and burn me at the stake...

Oh, and if any of my links are something I shouldn't directly link to, please let me know so I can remove them.

 

[-Mars-]

Prepare to be flamed the word item doesnt sit well with most of us

 

[DRaGZ]

SRK knows very little when it comes to the good of the Smash community.

Basically...just ignore them. They can make up their own BS, and no one will really listen to them.

 

[BentoBox]

Because we didn't start from scratch like you seem to imply. The game is still fundamentally the same. What aspect changed so drastically as to suddenly make items viable in competition? For what reason would anybody play 75m when money is on the line?

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

OK, first, the SRK

Stopped reading here.

The very notion that anything that comes out of SRK would be a competitive standard for Brawl is a joke.

 

[Praxis]

What? This ruleset is outright stupid. All items on? Including the items that A) Completely dominate the metagame and B) Completely unbalance individual characters (like Final Smashes)?

You have to at least ban some items. You can't leave them ALL on.

 

[Dustlord]

Dragz: It's easy to say that SRK knows very little about Smash as a whole, but on a broader level they also know a lot about fighting games in general. In fact, they've hosted several of the largest fighting game tournaments in the U.S. So it's not like they're just talking out their ***, but it's also not like they're the only ones with views on Smash. In fact, the fact that they've even started putting as mush emphasis on Brawl that they have should be a positive sign. With the community of Smash players growing, there are more people with differing opinions, and the more the game evolves.

Bento: Everything changed. The physics changed, the power of items changed, and even the balance of characters have changed. Many advanced techs that defined melee, such as wavedashing, are gone. Take Captain Falcon as an example, in Melee he was seen as one of the best characters. Now, the way the physics and his own move attributes have changed, he's considered by many to be the worst character (Case in point, The Smash Back Rooms have put him on the bottom of the tier list.) Now, that may be an extreme example, but it still shows that almost everything is changed. In fact, I think the better question is, "What HASN'T changed?"

And why would anyone play on 75m when money's on the line? For one, it's not a bad choice for a counter-pick. Some people do very well on 75m, and if you do very badly on it, why WOULDN'T they pick it?

 

[-Mars-]

told ya, items aren't for competitive gaming......player skill becomes less of a factor.

 

[Dustlord]

Praxis: At first, I thought the same thing. I was thinking, "How can you leave all items on when someone can just grab a Star or a Final Smash and dominate?" However, if you follow the links I posted at the beginning, you would see the matches are only 2 stocks and 3 minutes long in a best 3 out of 5. That means that matches should go by fast enough for items to not have a great impact. In fact, according to many people, the items make surprisingly little difference in keeping a better player from losing to a lesser skilled player, while at the same time adding a new depth of strategy to the fight. Again, it's easy to say something's no good without ever trying it, but things change when you actually put it to the test.

Also, how can you have Mind Games if you don't even have an Open Mind =O.

 

[DRaGZ]

Dragz: It's easy to say that SRK knows very little about Smash as a whole, but on a broader level they also know a lot about fighting games in general. In fact, they've hosted several of the largest fighting game tournaments in the U.S. So it's not like they're just talking out their ***, but it's also not like they're the only ones with views on Smash. In fact, the fact that they've even started putting as mush emphasis on Brawl that they have should be a positive sign. With the community of Smash players growing, there are more people with differing opinions, and the more the game evolves.

Bento: Everything changed. The physics changed, the power of items changed, and even the balance of characters have changed. Many advanced techs that defined melee, such as wavedashing, are gone. Take Captain Falcon as an example, in Melee he was seen as one of the best characters. Now, the way the physics and his own move attributes have changed, he's considered by many to be the worst character (Case in point, The Smash Back Rooms have put him on the bottom of the tier list.) Now, that may be an extreme example, but it still shows that almost everything is changed. In fact, I think the better question is, "What HASN'T changed?"

And why would anyone play on 75m when money's on the line? For one, it's not a bad choice for a counter-pick. Some people do very well on 75m, and if you do very badly on it, why WOULDN'T they pick it?

It's not that SRK doesn't know anything about fighting games. They know quite a lot and they have a lot of experience with a broad variety of fighting games.

It's that they don't give a ****'s *** about SMASH.

This has been proven time and time again when they simply refuse to listen to what the majority of the Smash community wants when it comes to determining rules (look at the EVO 2008 debacle). The "silent consensus" at SRK is that Smash Bros. in general is an inferior game and is not worth their time seriously evaluating. The only reason they even bother discussing Smash at all and including it at EVO is because it's so popular and they want more publicity, i.e. more people to come, i.e. more freakin' money. It's all economics and politics.

Also, your entire argument is sounding very embarassing as a whole, and I say this not from a Smasher's viewpoint but from a debaters viewpoint. It's just...so cornily and poorly realized. (I mean seriously, your final retort was "I think the better question is "What HASN'T changed?" I mean, just think of it practically. Do we still have a major focus on ring-outs? Do characters still have double/multiple jumps? Is the moveset system still the same? It's not like suddenly we've got command inputs, walljumps off of the edge of screens, and stamina bars, for Christ's sake.)

 

[Steeler]

something in dragz's post stood out to me

smash game with stamina bars would be kind of cool. :D

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Dragz: It's easy to say that SRK knows very little about Smash as a whole, but on a broader level they also know a lot about fighting games in general.

Smash is far too different from your typical fighting game for this to matter.

Also, everything Dragz said.

 

[Dustlord]

It's not that SRK doesn't know anything about fighting games. They know quite a lot and they have a lot of experience with a broad variety of fighting games.

It's that they don't give a ****'s *** about SMASH.

This has been proven time and time again when they simply refuse to listen to what the majority of the Smash community wants when it comes to determining rules (look at the EVO 2008 debacle). The "silent consensus" at SRK is that Smash Bros. in general is an inferior game and is not worth their time seriously evaluating. The only reason they even bother discussing Smash at all and including it at EVO is because it's so popular and they want more publicity, i.e. more people to come, i.e. more freakin' money. It's all economics and politics.

Also, your entire argument is sounding very embarassing as a whole, and I say this not from a Smasher's viewpoint but from a debaters viewpoint. It's just...so cornily and poorly realized. (I mean seriously, your final retort was "I think the better question is "What HASN'T changed?" I mean, just think of it practically. Do we still have a major focus on ring-outs? Do characters still have double/multiple jumps? Is the moveset system still the same? It's not like suddenly we've got command inputs, walljumps off of the edge of screens, and stamina bars, for Christ's sake.)

Evo 2k8, I thought someone might bring that up. The truth is, the rules at Evo were a mess. After rewatching the final match videos of CPU vs Ken, I realized something. If the rules at Evo were the same as the All Brawl rules Keits has set up now, then Ken WOULD have won. You say they don't care about Smash, but I think that they just haven't had enough time to understand what makes a good competitive standard for it yet. They're still trying to develop a format that follows the most basic rule; That the most skilled player wins.

And as for what hasn't changed, yeah, it still has the same basic rules for smash. But beyond the basic smash formula, everything has changed. It's time to stop trying to apply Melee concepts to Brawl and start applying Brawl concepts to Brawl. You're trying to tell me that my argument is weak and poorly thought out, but it's hard to take you seriously when you keep saying "SRK is dumb and you're dumb for talking about them."

 

[manhunter098]

Just no. A vast number of items remove skill from the game. The winner of a skill based game of any kind should always be the person who PLAYS BETTER. Allowing all items to be on ADDS an unnecessary element of LUCK to the game. I can say that its possible Brawl could be a better and more balanced game with some items on, but with all items on, while I guess its possible it still might become more balanced, its going to have a much greater element of LUCK attributing to the outcome of a match and that goes against the idea of competition in general, even poker matches tend to focus on the ability of the players to read their opponents faces to see how good their hand is, and to be able to hide your emotion completely, or fake out your opponent when you have a good or bad hand yourself.



So I will reiterate, you simply dont seem to understand that we are trying to do everything we can with the rules for Brawl to make it so the person who plays better wins every single match.

And as for what hasn't changed, yeah, it still has the same basic rules for smash. But beyond the basic smash formula, everything has changed. It's time to stop trying to apply Melee concepts to Brawl and start applying Brawl concepts to Brawl. You're trying to tell me that my argument is weak and poorly thought out, but it's hard to take you seriously when you keep saying "SRK is dumb and you're dumb for talking about them."

So you are basically saying that everything that changed, changed...thats such an intuitive statement. You are being *COMPLETELY* subjective in your ranking the impact of the alterations to the game. I should ask you why shouldnt we play Melee with 2 stocks and a 3 minute time limit with items on. You CANT give me a reason better than your own for Brawl as to why we shouldnt.

 

[DRaGZ]

Evo 2k8, I thought someone might bring that up. The truth is, the rules at Evo were a mess. After rewatching the final match videos of CPU vs Ken, I realized something. If the rules at Evo were the same as the All Brawl rules Keits has set up now, then Ken WOULD have won. You say they don't care about Smash, but I think that they just haven't had enough time to understand what makes a good competitive standard for it yet. They're still trying to develop a format that follows the most basic rule; That the most skilled player wins.

And as for what hasn't changed, yeah, it still has the same basic rules for smash. But beyond the basic smash formula, everything has changed. It's time to stop trying to apply Melee concepts to Brawl and start applying Brawl concepts to Brawl. You're trying to tell me that my argument is weak and poorly thought out, but it's hard to take you seriously when you keep saying "SRK is dumb and you're dumb for talking about them."

I just said SRK isn't dumb. This was in the first god**** line.

SRK is very knowledgeable.

They just don't care about Smash, at least not enough so that they give it any serious thought.

Read my god**** post before you respond.

 

[Nybb]

Hope you're still having fun while I shine-infinite you against a wall, then beat you to the smash ball and Landmaster your other two stocks.

There is nothing wrong with items for fun, but they do not go with competitive play. Every match turns into a fight for the dragoon parts, or a contest of who impales themself with their controller last after going through a match with spicy curry on.

 

[J4pu]

Bento: Everything changed. The physics changed, the power of items changed, and even the balance of characters have changed. Many advanced techs that defined melee, such as wavedashing, are gone. Take Captain Falcon as an example, in Melee he was seen as one of the best characters. Now, the way the physics and his own move attributes have changed, he's considered by many to be the worst character (Case in point, The Smash Back Rooms have put him on the bottom of the tier list.) Now, that may be an extreme example, but it still shows that almost everything is changed. In fact, I think the better question is, "What HASN'T changed?"

And why would anyone play on 75m when money's on the line? For one, it's not a bad choice for a counter-pick. Some people do very well on 75m, and if you do very badly on it, why WOULDN'T they pick it?

So you are saying because the physics changed and because tier positions have switched around and because we lost some ATs [and gained some new ones (mainly character specific)] we should make the game less skill based? That is some terrible logic, especially throwing in the CF part, what the hell does that have to do with any of this?
75m is a perfect example of making the match less skill based, hit once and run your butt off if you play MK or any other fast character that can travel well. Objects attacking that give no prior warning, Marth breaks a shield with shield breaker and is charging up an attack for the win and a spring or w/e they are bounces by and knocks him outside the blastzone, the winner is a person who is stunned from having their shield broken.

Praxis: At first, I thought the same thing. I was thinking, "How can you leave all items on when someone can just grab a Star or a Final Smash and dominate?" However, if you follow the links I posted at the beginning, you would see the matches are only 2 stocks and 3 minutes long in a best 3 out of 5. That means that matches should go by fast enough for items to not have a great impact. In fact, according to many people, the items make surprisingly little difference in keeping a better player from losing to a lesser skilled player, while at the same time adding a new depth of strategy to the fight. Again, it's easy to say something's no good without ever trying it, but things change when you actually put it to the test.

Also, how can you have Mind Games if you don't even have an Open Mind =O.

i dont understand how matches going by fast would keep items from having an impact, seems like it would be the oppositte to me, you get a HR bat, you get a kill with it and still have it for the opponents remaining life, you are a space animal and get your FS and kill your opponent immediately, best case scenario is now that your opponent takes a lot of damage on their last life before you lose the FS (worst case you kill them again).
You said the items make "surprisingly little difference" in changing the outcome, right there you say they do make a difference, why risk it at all when you can play with them off and not have the chance of somebody getting 2 smashballs and a HR bat in 3 of their matches?

 

[manhunter098]

Hope you're still having fun while I shine-infinite you against a wall, then beat you to the smash ball and Landmaster your other two stocks.

There is nothing wrong with items for fun, but they do not go with competitive play. Every match turns into a fight for the dragoon parts, or a contest of who impales themself with their controller last after going through a match with spicy curry on.

Actually...fighting over items isnt really a bad thing. The game could still retain its skill factor if it wasnt for the random spawns of amazing items when you allow every single one of them. And the random kills that can be attributed to bob-bombs and other explosives appearing right where you are already attacking...

 

[Dustlord]

Dragz: You said, "It's that they don't give a ****'s *** about SMASH." That
s the part of your post I was referring to. It seems before you flame me for not reading your post, you should remember what you actually posted.

 

[DRaGZ]

What part of what I said contradicts something else I said?

Let me speak in caveman for you.

SRK, smart fight game.

But, SRK no care Smash.

But, SRK want Smash popularity.

Thus, SRK pretend like Smash.

*grills a mastadon trunk in a fire*

 

[J4pu]

Jack Kieser's (i think im speelling that right) item list for competitive play seemed very insightful and could potentially be used in respectable tournaments imo (although personally I still prefer them to be off) but having all items on is a terrible idea and just like with Evo, everybody would get pissed.

 

[DRaGZ]

And really, Jack's experiment with items was a way of demonstrating how items aren't very good for tournament play, since at the time there was a movement to see how item tournaments would do. Obviously, the movement fizzled out, not for lack of effort, but because item tournaments are sucky.

 

[Dustlord]

75m isn't really that random. Springs don't travel in an erratic pattern, they travel in a predictable line, and only when DK is out, which is after the music changes. And like any fighting game, someone might get lucky and get a perfect match. Thats where the 3 out of 5 comes into play. Getting a Perfect once is unlikely, getting it three times is almost impossible.

 

[HeroMystic]

2-stock, 3 minutes is ridiculous. Not only 2-stock is very unforgiving and gives you a lack of time to think (which is a pretty bad thing for Brawl), but with ALL items ON, just that ONE item that drops from the sky can completely allow one player to dominate the other. (It doesn't take a Final Smash to dominate).

And then the luck factor. Relying on luck SUCKS for competition when everything is on the line. Items like bomb-ombs and the bumper will completely screw you over. Things like Sonic's Final Smash would completely dominate the competition.

Items for competiton has and always will be bad. My friends and I stopped using items when we played Melee, and that was LONG before I knew this place ever existed.

 

[manhunter098]

75m isn't really that random. Springs don't travel in an erratic pattern, they travel in a predictable line, and only when DK is out, which is after the music changes. And like any fighting game, someone might get lucky and get a perfect match. Thats where the 3 out of 5 comes into play. Getting a Perfect once is unlikely, getting it three times is almost impossible.

Im pretty sure the reason 75m is banned isnt because its random but because it has a couple walk of edges and is so big that it just makes playing on it impractical.

Also...Im pretty sure that unless the most powerful items arent as likely to come out in the first minute or so of the match...having more matches with less stocks and time isnt really going to change the impact that luck actually has on the outcome of the fight.


You still dont get it. We are trying to remove luck. Thats our GOAL. We arent going to change our goal and playing with the rule set that you suggest might be better increases the impact of LUCK on a fight no matter what you say.

 

[J4pu]

Not only 2-stock is very unforgiving and gives you a lack of time to think (which is a pretty bad thing for Brawl), but with ALL items ON, just that ONE item that drops from the sky can completely allow one player to dominate the other

While that may be true for one match, the reason having this way is a good thing is because it's 3/5 rather than 2/3 which I suppose does cut down the chance for items to make an impact. But like i said before why not just eliminate that chance completely and turn items off?

 

[Dustlord]

I'm not saying I want Luck to be a bigger factor in Brawl, but the way things are now, Brawl players are quitting and either going back to Melee or quitting Smash altogether, and that's with the rule set of no items and stages being banned. It doesn't matter how competitive or balanced a game is, even if there is no luck involved, if it's just not interesting to play. However, I'd like to think that Brawl with Items and Brawl without items are both valid ways to play. I'm suggesting that a Brawl with all items and stages on is the future because that seems to be what a majority of people are leaning towards.

And it seems some people are more forgiving about allowing all stages than all items, with the noticeable exception of 75m. Than again, if 75m is such a bad stage to pick, why would anyone pick it in a money match anyway? So, why is it that you're more accepting of stages than items?

 

[xiferp]

Items -> Chance -> Luck

 

[manhunter098]

I'm not saying I want Luck to be a bigger factor in Brawl, but the way things are now, Brawl players are quitting and either going back to Melee or quitting Smash altogether, and that's with the rule set of no items and stages being banned. It doesn't matter how competitive or balanced a game is, even if there is no luck involved, if it's just not interesting to play. However, I'd like to think that Brawl with Items and Brawl without items are both valid ways to play. I'm suggesting that a Brawl with all items and stages on is the future because that seems to be what a majority of people are leaning towards.

And it seems some people are more forgiving about allowing all stages than all items, with the noticeable exception of 75m. Than again, if 75m is such a bad stage to pick, why would anyone pick it in a money match anyway? So, why is it that you're more accepting of stages than items?

I will tell you right now that most people who play Brawl at a competitive level dont want to see items (as in ALL of them) in it, furthermore most people who will actually attend a tournament (even if they arent all that good) are not going to want items on. The people who like to play with items on are the people who like to play the game almost purely for fun, not the ones who want to beat people by being better than them.

And I already addressed your concerns with 75m. It has a walk off edge and its so big that it takes forever to kill people and forever to actually move around on the level. The hazards have only a minimal impact on its banned status.

 

[-Mars-]

I'm not saying I want Luck to be a bigger factor in Brawl, but the way things are now, Brawl players are quitting and either going back to Melee or quitting Smash altogether, and that's with the rule set of no items and stages being banned. It doesn't matter how competitive or balanced a game is, even if there is no luck involved, if it's just not interesting to play. However, I'd like to think that Brawl with Items and Brawl without items are both valid ways to play. I'm suggesting that a Brawl with all items and stages on is the future because that seems to be what a majority of people are leaning towards.

And it seems some people are more forgiving about allowing all stages than all items, with the noticeable exception of 75m. Than again, if 75m is such a bad stage to pick, why would anyone pick it in a money match anyway? So, why is it that you're more accepting of stages than items?

Who are you fooling.....please stop. There is no epidemic of Brawl players just stopping. In fact, most of the noticeable melee players are still around. SUre, maybe they don't like Brawl as much as melee, but they still have fun or else why on Earth would they play?

 

[Pearl Floatzel]

M'kay. First, I'm going to use words. Then I'm going to use your videos to demonstrate the stupid things that happen when all-items and all-stages are allowed.

First: The game has not completely changed. The physics have changed, and some characters have changed. Just because people move around on the tier list doesn't mean that the game has radically changed.

Second: Even if the game has changed, that wouldn't be a basis for putting all stages on. Play against a campy ROB or Lucario or Falco on Hyrule Temple. Lose a stock against a smart Sonic on New Pork City and get stalled for the entire match. Play a Marth, or Falco on Big Blue, where they can just hit you away until you hit the road and die. On Big Blue, there's a punishment for touching the ground. Tell me that's fair. On 75m, springs and fireballs run around the stage with ridiculous knockback, and anyone with a decent grab range kills instantly. Sit on the edge and bthrow for the win. On Super Mario Bros. the basis of play is the turtles and crabs, who have ridiculous knockback and try to attack you anyway. Not to mention that a DDD grab means instant death. And you're going to get grabbed against DDD.

Third: Even if the game has changed, that doesn't provide a basis for all-items. Items create a luck-based game. That's always been agreed, and will always remain true. There is an item-play standard item list somewhere, and if they played with only those items and that ruleset, I'd see the logic. But Smash Balls? An intelligent Sonic will guaranteed get the Smash Ball, and will guaranteed take off your two stocks. There is no way a smart Sonic can't. Same with a Fox. And Falco. And Wolf.

Fourth: Three minutes? Three minutes just makes it easier to camp until the end when you've got a Dragoon kill. Three minutes, instead of making the matches less based on luck, makes it more. Camping dominates, making it a more boring game, which seems to be your idea. A luck kill from a Bob-Omb is going to win you the battle. Just camp. All characters in Brawl can camp, and with items, that's easier.

Five: Two Stocks? Combined with Smash Balls, that makes Sonic, Falco, Fox, and Wolf guaranteed to win the battle after getting the Smash Ball. And it's ridiculously easy with all of them.


Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAbNzsYmbqA
:40, 1:00 and 2:46. :40-First Big Blue Kill. 1:00 Big Blue kill. 2:46 lucky Big Blue kill gives Wario the match even though he was playing terribly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ngr8V7TzXE
At 1:00 an item appears and the match switches from trying to kill each other to trying to get the items.

More later.

 

[Luigi player]

Oh god, this is SO wrong >_> those people know nothing about smash...

If items were the standart it would just be a noob game... I would probably stop playing it... >_>

 

[neon..?]

wow. lol these are the worst rules i've ever seen.

 

[ph00tbag]

tl;dr - Keits knows nothing about Smash, and no; this will never be a tournament standard.

After much discussion with SWF related parties

Who? I don't know any respected member of this forum that would endorse such a joke. It's not April First, is it?

I'm sorry. This moveset shows absolutely no understanding of Smash. People keep saying that SRKers understand more about fighting games than SWF, but after Evo2k8 and now this, I'm really, really starting to wonder.

First of all, and I really wish you people over at SRK would pick up on the meaning of this:

Items are not banned.

Items are set to none and all off in the SWF ruleset. This function is a part of the game's design. Ergo, we are meant to be able to play it this way if we so choose. It is no different from changing the settings in other fighting games to suit our idiom. And after five or so years of playing Smash games, we knew that this idiom is the more competitive way to play them.

And yes, our experience with Melee counts. It counts many times more than your experience with other fighting games. This is because these other fighting games, to my knowledge, don't have this element, while Melee does. Contrary to popular belief, we know how it affects the game. We know what the items do. We know what uses they have. We have this experience, and the fact that you pooh pooh our experience so readily shows a great lack of respect and is downright insulting.

Second: Some stages are broken. We're not just talking about the word being thrown around by scrubs and n00bs to describe Snake and Metaknight. I mean, some of these stages literally break the game. They make it so that certain characters cannot lose. Their opponent has no chance. That. Is. Broken. If SRK cannot understand this, then what business do they have deciding what a SSBB ruleset should look like?

Keits argues that SWF members were out there banning stages before the game even came out in the US, but this just shows that he is a complete and utter n00b, and has no place saying how the game should be played. If he knew how SWF worked, he would know that there were no standard official stage bans or even item bans in place until about two months ago; six months after the game came out, and even then, this list is up for review at any time. And even then, the SBR gives a hell of a lot of wiggle room for customization of rulesets. They even encourage tweaking the rules. Keits has obviously never read the ruleset.

It is true that we were making predictions as to what levels would be banned from the beginning, yes, but that's because we had our experience with Melee and 64, and we were using that to come to conclusions about what, given Brawl's physics engine, would make what stages broken. We weren't telling anyone how to play the game, we were making decisions as to how we would play the game, and coming to a concensus over time. And guess what? Some of those predictions were wrong!

Furthermore, the stage ban rules are very dynamic. If both parties don't mind playing on WarioWare, they can. This is provided for in most rulesets. Someone who doesn't know this has no business coming up with a ruleset of their own.

Third: Advanced Slob works. This method was arrived at after years of playing Smash games. It works better than any other method previously used, and a lot have been used. Again, telling us that the use of it is wrong is disrespectful and insulting.

Fourth: Why can't percent decide winner? Doesn't it make sense that if you can do more damage to your opponent in the time limit, you win? That's how it works in other fighting games. Furthermore, it's more reliable than Sudden Death results. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whK6CxaRE6E

Lucario won. He won. He beat his opponent. Then he lost. By all accounts, he lost the match that he had won, and no person would be in the right to disagree with that. That is stupid and unfair. I'd much rather win based on my efforts to stay above my opponent than by a bob-bomb that spawned on top of him.

Finally: What the hell is this about players not being allowed to agree between them to modify the rules for their set and their set alone. This is even more Draconian and tyrannical than our tourney*** SBR ruleset. Who the hell is this guy? This has got to be a very late April Fool's joke.

Oh wait, this is the guy who announced at Evo.

You realize this guy knows absolutely nothing about Smash Bros., right? He has no authority to make this ruleset.

 

[popsofctown]

Do you realize how these rules work against themselves???

You are hoping that the 5 matches would allow you enough leeway for the items not to ruin everything. But then you allow super liberal counterpick stages. People will win on their counterpick turn every time, even if God's Holy Dragoon falls from the sky in 19 parts on your character. Sonic is waaaay OP on Hyrule temple. Dedede is waaaay OP on wall-to-wall stages.

 

[feardragon64]

Let me sum up one reason with one word.
Planking.

Go home

 

[D. Disciple]

As a smasher that has enter an All-Brawl tournament (Shocking yes.) But I was repping MN Smashers at that tournament along with 56k. They had a no item tournament as well, I got first, 56k got 2nd in that, and I can tell you that All-Brawl is massively based on luck, and control of items. I didn't want to sign up, cause I really didn't like the fact of playing with items, but I was like. I'm here anyway so why not have some fun, playing with items is fun, you really can't deny that. There were matches where I lost from a Final Smash, Explosive Crate, or a bob-omb falling on me from sudden deaths. Really didn't care that much, I got 2nd place in All-Brawl.

The main thing that upset me was when I went on SRK boards to talk to the tournament hoster about how we ban stages and all that shiz. Keits got on my case about it, then I easily clowned him back without flaming. I can pull up the topic and my vids at that tourney. Both all-brawl and no-brawl (That's what Keits calls no item gameplay) were recorded, but, he won't put up the vids of No Item Brawl gameplay up. Even though it happened before the All-Brawl tournament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvPqN_Pc3sA Greatest match of all time! (For items)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8chDUjqUIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyAiTQAcXZ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyHs_BAoNSc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k91uPaG3NX4 Need to work on my teching lol

Grand Finals vs Keits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsMRi4aksrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN779vSD298
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs3SHhJxLyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xtzYl29Zo

Loser Finals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3XL8q10g_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c40H_UNTyVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy85lB8-uFk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqXkcN6ZLdQ

Loser Semi - Finals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHnNY2qI38g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP0THQSOnAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhunfnKGgOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzh5Nx88B3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaav6JrCeg8 - Items counter Metaknight

After experiencing an All Brawl tournament and was impressed that some people actually practice with items on, like we practice with items off. I gave my respect to them. I probably won't do another one but I'm willing to try out certain rule sets for a game for the 1st time.

EDIT - Oh yeah, here is the link about the argument of stage choices. http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=161635&page=3

 

[XienZo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaav6JrCeg8 - Items counter Metaknight

O_o I see why item containers are banned now.

 

[Dustlord]

Ok, I think I get it. The 3/5 matches are supposed to reduce the luck aspect of items, but from what you're saying it's better to take the luck factor out entirely. Also, I didn't really understand why some of the stages were banned, and I thin k I must be hallucinating, because I thought someone posted a link to a thread about why stages are banned, but now I can't find it =/. Though it seems a lot of people just blindly agree to what the SBR says than argue with it, I'm gonna go hunt down that thread and give it a looksie.

And also, I probably shouldn't rely on anecdotal evidence so much, but I can't really think of a reliable way to figure out who still is or isn't playing Brawl besides what some people say. Although, I guess it works better when I'm talking about people who played with items tournaments, but so far only one person in this thread has played it and given his impression.

I'd like to hear both sides of the argument, but it's hard not feel defensive when I feel like I'm being yelled at online, even if that wasn't anybody's intention. So barring items and stages, is there anything wrong with a 2 stock 3 minute time limit? I have heard some opinions that it's too short for a real game, but in a competitive setting which is better, a quick match, or a slower paced fight with more stocks? The standard here seems to be on 3 stock fights, though.

Also, don't think I'm from SRK, since I'm not even registered on their forums yet, I just wanted to see what people here thought of their opinion.

 

[DRaGZ]

Two stocks simply doesn't allow enough time for an opponent to properly gauge another opponent. Some people's playstyle are about being as all-out as they can be and others greatly depends on how well they conform to the opponent's playstyle and then counter it.

Two stocks does not let the latter strategy work. Plus, having three stocks makes comebacks possible, and that's a big part of a lot of the excitement of fighting games.

And you need anecdotal evidence to see how Brawl is doing. Just look at the tournament listings here or on AiB and just look at how many tournaments are happening all the time.

And while some people just blindly agree with the SBR, the majority of the people follow the SBR rules because they were designed to be as objective, unbiased, and tournament-friendly as possible.

In other words, the SBR works for the community, the community does not work for the SBR.