Is All-Brawl the future competitive standard?

[Turbo Ether]

Good luck infinitely wall teching bomb-ombs + enemy attacks at ludicrous percents.

 

[tropewhat]

Hold on a sec, contributory is a word?

WTF.

Mindgames.

And ****. You're eloquent as all get out when you want to be. Thanks for meat-riding my white noise though, Trope.

Smooth Criminal

lol you started it

edit to contribute heres a pretty funny example of all brawl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPcek8Q4kVM while this is a pretty good example of why the ruleset is kind of silly for true competitive play, i think that the notion of making competitive play utilize more features of the game is a good idea in an abstract kind of way

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Good luck infinitely wall teching bomb-ombs + enemy attacks at ludicrous percents.

But it's still possible, though.

Hell, I personally LIKE this "All Brawl" thing as a side idea guys. When you look at it from a TO's perspective, you can garner a lot of players by sponsoring one of these.

More people=more money for future endeavors and all of that.

I just don't think it should be a high-stakes competitive standard.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Foxy]

WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS AGAIN

We went through enough of this kind of talk when SRK announced their old Evo ruleset, we proved them wrong countless times, they shrugged all of it off with STAGE CONTROL ARGLE BARGLE and they never changed their minds.

Even after the complete failure of Brawl at Evo '08, they see it as a success so we don't even have anything to show them.

If anyone supports items and believes that we should put the ruleset through rigorous testing, here's some info:
-SRK held its own testing at tournaments and you can see on Youtube some videos of their "best" players (who are absolutely terrible) playing "competitive" matches that somehow are supposed to prove that items are viable even though matches are completely decided by random item spawns and are jokes. The actual smashers at those tournaments goofed around because it was such a joke.
-SRK held Evo '08 with items, and you can't really ask for a better test. The results? A kid who's never been to a tournament in his life beat a world champion in the finals, only one other notable player made it to the finals (Bardull, and he's only really knows for online sillies), and some other good players (SK92, one of the best Falcos in the world and arguably the best player in Vegas; toasty, some other semi-known guys) didn't even make the finals.

If you don't see those results as proof, then you're beyond hope. Go play another game.

/thread

 

[Dark Sonic]

Good luck infinitely wall teching bomb-ombs + enemy attacks at ludicrous percents.

Have you ever played Hyrule temple matches? Me and my friends do them all the time when we're bored, and compete to see who can live the longest.

Teching rests and Falcon Punches at 400%? Not hard at all. Teching bombombs thrown at you? Only a little bit harder, but still do able.

Edit:Foxy just ***** this thread.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Have you ever played Hyrule temple matches? Me and my friends do them all the time when we're bored, and compete to see who can live the longest.

Teching rests and Falcon Punches at 400%? Not hard at all. Teching bombombs thrown at you? Only a little bit harder, but still do able.

That's why I said 'good luck'. If you can easily infinite tech bomb-ombs at 999%, more power to you.

 

[Geist]

EDIT: nvmd


Honsestly, if anyone actually wants items in tournaments, at most make it a side event. I don't know anyone in their right mind who would bet big money on something like that.
The present ruleset is time-tried and has been in place for a long time. Making a universal change that drastic isn't going to happen anytime soon.


thank you Foxy.

 

[Turbo Ether]

In Hyrule it's common for people to live up to 600%.

I said good luck infinitely wall teching. Last time I checked, living up to 600% is not infinitely. People need to stop ignoring the fact that I explicitly used the word "infinitely", in the post they keep quoting.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I said good luck infinitely wall teching. Last time I checked, living up to 600% is not infinitely. People need to stop ignoring the fact that I explicitly used the word "infinitely", in the post they keep quoting.

you can do it up to 999%. Its not hard.
Infinite cannot be done because there isn't enough time and our fingers get tired.

 

[ph00tbag]

Why is it apples and oranges? Isn't both Smash and sports designed to be competitive?

Aren't apples and oranges both fruit? Why the hell is your name pink?

You still haven't disproven any of my points. You've only dragged us down into a senseless semantic argument with overextended analogies and logical fallacies. Instead of nitpicking, could you please tell me why it is a ban if I change settings that I've always been allowed to change by the game itself.

At least I'm not making anything up. Nowhere in the language of the SBR ruleset does it say, "items are banned." In fact it says "items are set to 'off' and 'none'." It says this directly after two other rules pertaining to in-game settings, neither of which have anything to do with bans. Then, anything that is banned explicitly uses that language. "Metaknight's Infinite Dimensional Cape glitch is banned." "Stalling is banned." Stages are divided into those that can be brought up in Random Stage select, those that can only be brought up by player choice, and those that are explicitly banned. All instances of a ban in the SBR ruleset are explicitly stated as such.

-------------------------------------
I'd also like to state that I think AZ's contribution here is certainly worth noting. A lot of people here are discrediting item play saying that it requires less skill or that it narrows the skill gap. This is a debatable point, since item play still requires skill and knowledge, just different skill and knowledge from that of standard tourney play. AZ has shown this pretty well.

But he also made sure to make a point that needs to be emphasized, since no one else wants to:

It's a good side tournament.

The fact is, the ability to generate tournout is what really decides the standard, and the SBR ruleset generates a bigger turnout. You can say all you want about Evo2k8 drawing in a hundred something people people for Brawl. But when you consider that tourneys like Critical Hit and HOBO sometimes generate comparable attendance without the Evo name, you realize that the Evo attendance was far less than it could have been. This is the point. The current standard ruleset is in place, because it draws in participants. You will have a more successful tournament if you use this ruleset. I think most TOs on this forum will confirm that.

Of course, this doesn't restrict you from designing other events beside the main event just for the fun of it. An All Brawl side event, with a smaller pot, or maybe just bragging rights as the grand prize, is fun, and still tests people's skills while letting them experience parts of the game that aren't played in the standard set. It has the potential for successful side tourneys. But these rules won't draw the crowds that a standard ruleset will.

Maybe All Brawl experiences will influence changes in opinion towards some aspects of the standard

 

[wangston]

Super Smash Brothers Brawl (3 Viewing)
Talk going on about Nintendo's new hit, SSBB. Get Hype!

Thats how many people are currently on that board. LOL Good stuff. All stages and all items. I'm so counter picking Mario Bros. every time and going there with a reflector in hand.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Super Smash Brothers Brawl (3 Viewing)
Talk going on about Nintendo's new hit, SSBB. Get Hype!

Thats how many people are currently on that board. LOL Good stuff. All stages and all items. I'm so counter picking Mario Bros. every time and going there with a reflector in hand.

See, what you're missing is that's what they want to see. They want solid evidence that this kind of thing is broke. Lots of jokes, lots of theory, no putting down something to prove it. You'll be more than welcomed, and in fact, it's been said many times before that they want people to be as exploitative as possible to show hard evidence that some things just don't belong. You think you can go own in that environment using that strategy? Do it. You won't get booed. You won't get dirty looks. You won't feel like you're the bad guy. You'll be revered as the winner using a valid strategy within the confines of the rules provided.





Or this could be a lot of bull like all the other spouts of hearsay and conjecture that comes from the unwashed masses here.

 

[DRaGZ]

Aren't apples and oranges both fruit? Why the hell is your name pink?

You still haven't disproven any of my points. You've only dragged us down into a senseless semantic argument with overextended analogies and logical fallacies. Instead of nitpicking, could you please tell me why it is a ban if I change settings that I've always been allowed to change by the game itself.

At least I'm not making anything up. Nowhere in the language of the SBR ruleset does it say, "items are banned." In fact it says "items are set to 'off' and 'none'." It says this directly after two other rules pertaining to in-game settings, neither of which have anything to do with bans. Then, anything that is banned explicitly uses that language. "Metaknight's Infinite Dimensional Cape glitch is banned." "Stalling is banned." Stages are divided into those that can be brought up in Random Stage select, those that can only be brought up by player choice, and those that are explicitly banned. All instances of a ban in the SBR ruleset are explicitly stated as such.

-------------------------------------
I'd also like to state that I think AZ's contribution here is certainly worth noting. A lot of people here are discrediting item play saying that it requires less skill or that it narrows the skill gap. This is a debatable point, since item play still requires skill and knowledge, just different skill and knowledge from that of standard tourney play. AZ has shown this pretty well.

But he also made sure to make a point that needs to be emphasized, since no one else wants to:

It's a good side tournament.

The fact is, the ability to generate tournout is what really decides the standard, and the SBR ruleset generates a bigger turnout. You can say all you want about Evo2k8 drawing in a hundred something people people for Brawl. But when you consider that tourneys like Critical Hit and HOBO sometimes generate comparable attendance without the Evo name, you realize that the Evo attendance was far less than it could have been. This is the point. The current standard ruleset is in place, because it draws in participants. You will have a more successful tournament if you use this ruleset. I think most TOs on this forum will confirm that.

Of course, this doesn't restrict you from designing other events beside the main event just for the fun of it. An All Brawl side event, with a smaller pot, or maybe just bragging rights as the grand prize, is fun, and still tests people's skills while letting them experience parts of the game that aren't played in the standard set. It has the potential for successful side tourneys. But these rules won't draw the crowds that a standard ruleset will.

Maybe All Brawl experiences will influence changes in opinion towards some aspects of the standard

It's a ban because you're not allowing it in play.

It's like...the most simple definition of "ban". Not allowing something is "banning" it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban

I like that Merriam-Webster's definition specifically gears it towards legality, which I find humorous.

 

[toasty]

and some other good players (SK92, one of the best Falcos in the world and arguably the best player in Vegas; toasty, some other semi-known guys) didn't even make the finals.

have nothing to say about the quality of content of the post, but for the record, I wasn't even there. Unless you mean that name thief "Toasty!" [note the !] ..from Texas maybe? don't matter, just clarifying

 

[Tyser]

You suck and so does those rules.

 

[infernovia]

No. But the arguments against All-Brawl are largely exaggerated/untrue. I would definitely enter a $5 All-Brawl tournament again if held with no-items tournaments. I would not travel cross country for the All-Brawl ruleset, but I do think its a great extra event to have that you can run concurrently with regular Brawl Singles/Doubles.

Forward and I each won about equal number of regular spawns. He held the advantage in Smashball's won because of two factors:
1) On more then one occasion I had plenty of space/oppurtunity to hit the Smashball and I simply wiffed repeatedly.
2) Snake can break the Smashball in 1-2 hits within 5-7 seconds of it spawn. Diddy can only break the Smashball within about 7 seconds after 3-4 hits.

My only complaints are pretty much assist trophies and poke balls, Pokeballs really are a problem because I don't think I got one **** Pokemon the whole tournament, while my opponents got legendaries. Assist trophes are a similar problem (Nintendog covering the screen, sigh). All other items are not to big of a deal.

Yeah, pokeballs are the most problematic itmes. I am surprised at no bomb-oboms mention.

I am surprised that diddy is still viable with 75m and norfair.

 

[Turbo Ether]

The thread title of this topic probably ruffled a few feathers. All-brawl isn't meant to be the future competitive standard, it's meant to be an alternative way to play the game. If you like the format, play it. If you don't like the format, don't play it. It's simple.

It's not even a debate, too many people don't know what the hell they're talking about for a proper debate to occur in the first place. There's no reason to complain about something that doesn't affect you. Why are people on the internet so adamant about hating on random stuff for no reason?

Before you quote me in disagreement, let me reiterate my point: If you like the format, play it. If you don't like the format, don't play it. Am I wrong?

 

[ph00tbag]

It's a ban because you're not allowing it in play.

It's like...the most simple definition of "ban". Not allowing something is "banning" it.

Items are allowed, though. They just don't appear frequently in the mode we play.

 

[fromundaman]

You suck and so does those rules.

This statement oozes of wisdom. Never have such insightful words been spoken. May we all gaze upon these words and be enlightened!

 

[AlphaZealot]

off the topic of items:

I use to hate the Norfair-Pit-Diddy match up...but now I think its freaking amazing for Diddy. I've learned some cool **** on that stage.

 

[Vulcan55]

I want to go to these "tournaments" and play all these "pros" and "engage in enlightening and friendly competition" and "make new friends".

Translation for the sarcastically impaired:

Spoiler

I want to go to these noob gatherings and play all these noobs (Really, I've seen the videos, they play horribly) and show them how ridiculously broken this is and rub it in their faces

.

 

[infernovia]

Good luck beating Forward.

Edit: Just one more question AZ, what did you think of heartcontainers/maxim tomato/starman (mostly I am concerned with item healing).

 

[infernovia]

Edit: woops.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Healing items were not a problem. The damage healed is mostly negligible, and hearts/tomato's appeared extremely rarely.

 

[kr3wman]

Did you guys read the interview on shoryuken.com?

I was really impressed with how big of a deal keits said All-brawl is.

Keits: Attendance is going to be disapointing, because they are on separate days and Brawl players plan to go home after saturday. Melee is running sunday though too, so there is some hope for some cross-entry from those players. In case you didnt know, large portions of the smash community are already getting bored of brawl and moving back to melee. To me, this is a sign that they’ve chosen the wrong rules to play Brawl by, and given a little more time, I think more people will become more open to Items-on play. They really should embrace the game for what makes it unique.

I think those never actually played Brawl seriously.

There is a small group of us who love the game this way, and this ruleset is MUCH more popular with players who started initially with old school 2d games, but skipped on Melee. No one has been able to prove that any stalling tactic, stage, or item is broken yet.

It's broken if it lets a player win EVO against better players than him. There, I prove it.

Another point of contention was the winner, CPU. He was undefeated the entire tournament, and soundly defeated the Melee crowd’s favorite-to-win, Ken, twice. Its not easy, at any skill level or any age, to get up on the stage and play on the big screen and be as solid as CPU was. He practiced with stages and items, he played smart, and he won. He was in my pool, and I played him first round. He sent my *** to losers like it was nothing. (I went on to get 13th).

I watched some of Keits vids.

That guys sucks sooo much. It's like he doesn't know how to punish anything, he can't space well and he plays horribly with pretty much all the characters. Of course if you practice with items you're going to be better than other people at an items tournaments, but CPU probably would have kicked his *** without them. And probably everyone else too.

Long story short, Evo wanted to try an items-ruleset, and even the pro-items people could not agree on what should and shouldnt be legal. So Evo went with a ruleset that was basically a compromise between Items-on and Items-off. While the tournament was a total success

No it wasn't. EVO would have had probably 5 times the numbers of entrants and probably would have been the biggest Brawl tournament to date if it wasn't for the ruleset.

The debate started not with Evo, but even before Brawl was out in the states. Groups of melee players had imported the game and were already banning stages and items before the bulk of us even had a chance to play. Being interested in the game competitively, I took offense to this. Melee went through a lot before it became what it is. It needed the changes the community gave it because, lets face it, it was unfinished. Its lucky that the community ended up finding an end to Ban-road and ended up with a game that worked. So, when large groups decided they would just apply melee’s ruleset to brawl as closely as possible, I knew something was not right with these players.I dont blame anyone for jumping on the bandwagon, but I do blame the people who have recognizable names/voices in the smash communities who rallied everyone into a state where they didnt even want to test what was in the game.

All of the smash games are horribly polished, not just Melee. Hal Labs didn't really care about gameplay balance or anything, and yet Smash 64 and Melee do a better job at it than Brawl.

Seriously, this guy should stop having so much misconceptions about the SWF community. I felt insulted at some of his comments.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

^

Like I said, Krewman. Keits is an idiot when it comes to Smash. Ask AZ and Emblem Lord all about that ****, especially when it came to EVO.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SothE700k]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UteUjTdqjL0
:42 to :45

I dunno about you guys, but this ALONE is making me say, "THAT'S why items should not be allowed in serious tournaments"

 

[ftl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UteUjTdqjL0
:42 to :45

I dunno about you guys, but this ALONE is making me say, "THAT'S why items should not be allowed in serious tournaments"

To be fair, that time was totally ZSS's own fault. The capsule had been around for a while, and instead of doing something safe like tossing it at an opponent, or tossing it up, or jumping and tossing it down to break it, the ZSS jabbed it twice. But yeah, I see what you mean.

 

[infernovia]

To be fair, that time was totally ZSS's own fault. The capsule had been around for a while, and instead of doing something safe like tossing it at an opponent, or tossing it up, or jumping and tossing it down to break it, the ZSS jabbed it twice. But yeah, I see what you mean.

Try this one instead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDvCiVmWGpM

 

[XienZo]

Try this one instead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDvCiVmWGpM

Or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaav6JrCeg8

 

[AlphaZealot]

I never thought keits was an idiot. In fact, I agreed with him that if you were to have items, you should have ALL items, because eliminating any single item represents a hiprocrosy.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I never thought keits was an idiot. In fact, I agreed with him that if you were to have items, you should have ALL items, because eliminating any single item represents a hiprocrosy.

>__>

I should have said something to the effect of, "Well, I think Keits is an idiot when it comes to Smash; I didn't like some of the counterpoints that he used against you and Emblem Lord during the Evo-Brawl fiasco."

And what is this "hypocrisy" you're talking about, AZ? Balancing the game is a form of hypocrisy? Enlighten me here.

Smooth Criminal

 

[infernovia]

I would ban pokeball and assist trophies.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I idea is pretty simple: choosing to ban one item but not another makes it a question of an arbitrary degree of what is acceptable. True, if you attempt to define what is acceptable you can make a run for "balance", but in the end the argument for randomness will always exist, so why not simply embrace all of them?

 

[infernovia]

The criteria I think would be the item doing what you expected it to do. For example, when you crack a smashball you know what you will get. But when you throw a pokeball or activate a timer, then you don't.

Just throwing something out there. I know I hated these items anyway. < personal bias.

 

[Lord Yawgmoth]

Alright, I just had a day of playing nothing but this ruleset. (2 stock, 3minutes, timer runs out-sudden death, all items medium, all stages.)
It's definitely not for me.

To answer the thread name: I don't think so.




To Alpha Zealot, I agree this could potentially be an alright side event at a tourny, if I am able to organize another one, I might throw this in just as a test, who knows.

(that said, I am still bothered by the emnity that Keith seems to have towards SmashBoards, even though I admittedly know nothing of him other than what was posted throughout this thread.)

 

[Turbo Ether]

Alright, I just had a day of playing nothing but this ruleset. (2 stock, 3minutes, timer runs out-sudden death, all items medium, all stages.)
It's definitely not for me.

To answer the thread name: I don't think so.




To Alpha Zealot, I agree this could potentially be an alright side event at a tourny, if I am able to organize another one, I might throw this in just as a test, who knows.

(that said, I am still bothered by the emnity that Keith seems to have towards SmashBoards, even though I admittedly know nothing of him other than what was posted throughout this thread.)

It's easy to see why Keits or other SRK members would have understandable enmity towards SWF and vice versa, if you've kept up with the fiasco.

 

[Animeko]

XienZo and infernovia: those were terrible video examples of why items should be banned.
Trust me, the video "proving" that items should be banned isn't uploaded yet. And yes, it put Justin Wong in a bad mood. Was Justin going to win the tournament though? No. Not by a long shot.

First video: That was ZSS's fault. Never punch a capsule that has been out that long.

Second video: That was Diddy's up+b, not a bomb spawn. First of all, items do not spawn that early in the match. Second, you can tell by the damages received that Diddy just did Rocketbarrel Blast. Meta got hit for 18% damage while Diddy recieved 5% damaged because he hit the ceiling. You're simply looking for evidence that isn't there.

Third video: D-Disciple was slated to win. He was at 99% as Lucario and was up one stock. In other words, Guang was at one stock, 77% damage, and had a 1:40 to either defeat D-Disciple or get him to lose one stock and face him in Sudden Death anyway.
Though random, the crate-kill was not a game changing upset. (Especially since All-Brawl is set at the best 3/5 matches.) If that one kill is enough to scare you out of spending the whopping 5$ to enter, then don't enter All-Brawl.

This is a debatable point, since item play still requires skill and knowledge, just different skill and knowledge from that of standard tourney play.

Just to switch it up, I'll post a video that "proves" items don't have to be banned, necessarily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf-8uhaNgBs
1:46 / 2:17

Samus obtains a starman, food (that heals 7%), and a fan. Damage done to Dede as a result? 0%. The Dedede player knew exactly what to do in this situation. Though Samus won the match in the end, it was NOT because the player got the starman, food, and a fan all at once.

((PS: Props to Forward and AlphaZealot. You guys rocked my socks! I haven't seen a Snake played quite that well, and I certainly never saw a high-level Diddy. I should just make you guys ties for free. :embarrass ))

 

[Animeko]

(that said, I am still bothered by the emnity that Keith seems to have towards SmashBoards, even though I admittedly know nothing of him other than what was posted throughout this thread.)

hehe.

Anyway.

I'm not naming names, but SWF members have gone beyond this forum to troll SRK, troll his SRK account, and troll his youtube channel. He's been called everything from *** to an elitist ****tard. Someone even made a youtube account "Keitsucks". He doesn't even bother making an account here. Why should he?

 

[ftl]

I idea is pretty simple: choosing to ban one item but not another makes it a question of an arbitrary degree of what is acceptable. True, if you attempt to define what is acceptable you can make a run for "balance", but in the end the argument for randomness will always exist, so why not simply embrace all of them?

Remember, the amount of randomness is also variable - it's not like it's "no randomness" or "completely random" - there's a sliding scale, all the way from no items fox only final destination to all stages all items on high random characters. People are trying to find what areas of that continuum can be done competitively.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but it's no more arbitrary than selecting which stages are in starter/counterpick/banned. Are we "hypocrites" for allowing a number of stages, but not all of them? I don't think so. The goal is to make a competitive game using the available settings, and there's many ways to try and do that. Some will work and some won't, but I'm not sure that you can discard everything in between "no items" and "all items" out of hand, if you're accepting "all items". The community has settled on "no items" being the best, but if you're arguing for "all items" also being playable, why not something in the middle too? What about the ISP's criteria for item selection? They've got some way of distinguishing what should be in and what isn't. Sure, it's got some judgement calls, but so does stage choice.