Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

Scamp · Sep 11, 2002

Play Melee!

I agree that at this point the only thing that people should do is play melee, but I don't agree with the simple "adapt and play" thing. Surely anyone who plays a lot of smash could get a good game in under practically any setting, but changing the settings changes the game, and someone who is the best ever under one setting won't be under another. Going back to the SF analogy, John Choi is easily one of the best in the world at Super Turbo and Alpha 2 and 3. But he's not top 10 in 3rd strike, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, CvS2, and so on, even though it's basically just Street Fighter with "extras".

As for the SF analogy, I don't wanna go into detail about the whole thing on this thread. But since you read the "play to win" article, you'd probably understand that at the highest level (one I am not at.

there's an extreme mental game that gets played between the contestants, and generally the player with the deeper understanding of the game wins. It's not just about knowing combos and techniques, that's about 50 percent of it. This is why some people never excel, even if they practice way too much.

Also, I must disagree with SSBM not being about combos and memorization. Personally, with Fox, I know about 10 or so reliable combos, and I also know which characters they work on and in general which percentages they work on as well. I can also improvise as well. Memorizing your combos helps you play to your maximum potential, as long as you don't rely on them for everything.
This is especially important with Fox, who moves so fast you need to know what you're going to do next. Obviously, this isn't as important for, say, Bowser or Ganondorf. But it still helps.
As is, I tend to have a "premium moveset" for each character. Fact is, some moves are much better than others for almost every character. As is, though, I think only Fox, Falco, and Samus have a complete set of useful moves on the ground. (By useful I mean constant situations where that move is better than any other in the character's arsenal.)

Finally, I may have dropped the ball with the Super Turbo analogy, but I still think ST is a deeper game than you think it is. In any event, when I played SSB it was all about rolling, throwing, spiking, and using items. You could say the same thing about SSBM, except you take out throwing and add in dodging and smashing. I think that's what a lot of the SF community thinks about SSBM.

I can't remember Recipherus losing a single game except to his brother at the last TG tourney. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. If I'm right, though, that's impressive, as all the games were stock 3.

Finally, I'd like to chime in and say that I love randomness. If I had my way I'd have only moving stages with items on very high. I feel I'm at my best when there's lots and lots of complications going on and you need to move fast. I prefer a very fast-paced high intensity game, which may seem odd if you play me because I generally play defensive. Oh well.
But, as standards go, the only problem with that is that generally people don't agree with items on or off, and team attack on or off. The rest is usually meaningless or subbornness. (Like Cello refusing to move people in the brackets in a single elimination tourney, even if that means two people from California would have to play each other in the first round.)

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

From your response it sounds like you do agree with the simple adapt and play i brought up. Other than that, you brought up your playing style and how you like your fights, then went a little off-topic. :chuckle:

Recipherus · Sep 11, 2002

Tavo, why are you spamming up this thread, you're bringing nothing new to the table.

3) turning on items make the game so much more in depth when you play in such a way that you try to maximize the odds of you getting an item, and minizing your opponents odds.

Whatever turns you on dude, thats just your opinion. I don't like it, and you can't make me like it. It's all just opinions and views, no ones right, no ones wrong.

turning items add another variable to the game, thus increasing the possibilities of play. can you at least try to defend yourself using logic.

Nothings ever gonna be fair, thats why i originally said to play on whatever rules the host is making and shut up. I never said mines were perfect or a standard. All i'm saying is......play Melee!

so, do you agree there should be a standard? If so, then you will agree that we should work on figuring out what the ideal settings should be, and that's what we're discussing on this thread. If you don't have something relevant on this topic to discuss just don't post at all.

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

your missing the point and you sound more offended than anything. What is this logic i'm missing? Just because "YOU THINK" it adds another element to the game isn't the point, do you understand that? It's still just prefrence, don't you agree?

And no, i don't agree there should be a standard. Go re-read that

All i stated was my opinion, and no i'm not spamming the topic, just stating my views as you are doing, except i'm not being rude.

Recipherus · Sep 11, 2002

yes, but you are not supporting your opinions with anything.

Scamp · Sep 11, 2002

Well, yes and no.

I do agree, in a way, to adapt and play. It is up to the tourney organizer to choose the game and rules. However, my point was that no one in the world can adapt and play and win. (I mean, they CAN win, but they're far less likely to.) People go to tournaments to have fun and to play against the best people around. People read up on tournaments that are too far away to attend to see who is the best player and new tactics that may have been discovered.
If there isn't a standardized set of rules, then what happens is that people are only good because the rules favored their playstyles. (Well, that's not the ONLY reason they're good, but I exaggerate to get a point across.) The whole Cali vs. NY thing would be in doubt, even if we ever do meet, because over here the biggest tourney is 3 stock/best of 3/items on/double elim and over there the biggest tourney is 10 stock/best of 3/items off/single elim.
And, of course, if I ran a tourney, it'd be 50 stock/all items on very high/Flat Zone only/Pichu only. Pichu is actually pretty good on Flat Zone, but I digress. The point is, without a general standard there's no absolute way to tell who's the best.

But, if you go to a tournament, and they have screwy rules, you have to adapt and play. And then you can use the changed rules as an excuse for losing. Simple.

Hey Recipherus did you lose any games at TG3 besides to Adam?

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

Do i need to give you a cookie or something? What do i need to back up? i stated my views, i said how it is unfair on certain situations and how i personally don't like items.

But i also said that there shouldn't even be a discussion, because it's all just opinions. Nobodys right, nobodys wrong, your just wasting your time arguing back and forth. And as far as there being a standard, i already stated twice that i don't agree, and that you should just listen to the host and adapt and play. You know the rules beforehand, so just practice at it. It's just Smash Brothers dude....

In short, i just re-posted everything i said, what exactly do i need too back up?

oh yeah, here....

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

Scamp, you make some good points and your right. Your being thrown back and forth because of all the different rules and on how some people could be better at that than others. But whats stoping you from beating them at your own game. It's really not that BIG of a difference.

But this is where you lost me, you want a standardized set of rules to see who is best in the Nation?? uhh.... Maybe around these boards, but your seeing as a whole different picture. 40 people playing on this side of US, with another 40 on the other end doesn't mean squat. My local Toys R Us sold 90 copies of smash last week....

Anyways, leave that to Nintendo. Maybe they'll up a National Tourney for us like in Japan, but it's doubtful. But this forum is so mini-scule compared to the entire smash community in the world. Online hopes is the best we can pray for....

Recipherus · Sep 11, 2002

But i also said that there shouldn't even be a discussion, because it's all just opinions. Nobodys right, nobodys wrong, your just wasting your time arguing back and forth. And as far as there being a standard, i already stated twice that i don't agree, and that you should just listen to the host and adapt and play. You know the rules beforehand, so just practice at it. It's just Smash Brothers dude....

exactly what part of the argument is opinion. Don't take the easy way out and say the whole thing is contrived of opinions. tell me, have you read all the previous posts? if not, please do so. I tried to create an argument that is opinion free and would apreciate it if you at least read it before saying it's invalid.

Fine, if you don't agree there should be a standard then don't post on this thread. This thread is about deciding what the standard should be for tournament rules.

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

Actually, my replies are aimed towards the creator. I read his topic and have based everything on that. I'm not taking the easy way out on anything, i'm doing everything exactly as the original topic.

Your over here demanding stuff from me, flaming and trying to kick me off a thread that wasn't created by you. And i already talked about not having a standard and how i don't agree with it. It's not like i barged in here and just said "i don't agree" and left.

And you didn't thank me for my cookie d@mnit!

Recipherus · Sep 11, 2002

well fine, i'll take it then you haven't read every post and are calling people's arguments invalid before even reading them. All i'm asking is to take the time to read the posts and then respond to them. You can then say " this part of your argument is purely opinion, here's why...."

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

hmmm....

i'll take it then you haven't read every post and are calling people's arguments invalid before even reading them.

Don't put words in my mouth, i never called anyones comments invalid. All i did was stated my views and opinions, and you didn't reply on them, just flamed them and tried to kick me off the thread.

"With skilled players, random appearing items don't randomize the results of a match (btw the apearence of crates and maybe other/all items are not random, they apear in only certain places on the stage). Poker is a good example. The cards are random, with unskilled poker players whoever gets the best cards by chance will probably be the person who wins the most money. But then there are those world champions who consistently win tournaments, Why? Because they play in such a way that even with random cards they will win in the long run, this also applies in ssbm. When ever i play my brother one of the things i consider ( along with other things) is my position on the board relative to where an item may appear. I try to position myself so that I will have a better chance at reaching an item then him."

All you really manage to explain here is that you know and have memorized where items are placed and that it gives you an advantage knowing where they are. True, that items do spawn at same locations, but it still a random item showing up. I already used my example of someone recovering and a turtle shell popping up, pick it up and throw it. Doesn't mean you killed him or he dodged, but it's RANDOM, which you keep saying isn't. Just my Opinion, but if there were to be a standerdized rules, items should always be off. Just because you and your brother have fun with it, doesn't mean squat, it's still random(different) items popping out.

It seems like the main reason you want items off is that you want the supposed best player to win every game every time. In all sports the number 1 seeded team/player doesn't always win. Things happen. If they took certain things/ "cheap"strategies out: aces in Tennis ( a non-returnable serve), rushing in football, slam dunking in basketball (all shaq does is camp in the key waiting to slamdunk), homeruns in baseball, etc. These games would be played drastically different, the very thing that defines "the best" would be changed. The reason, IMO, these things are left in is because they increase the variety of skills needed to play the sport competetively. Which is exactly what items do. If they took out these things it would simplify the game. Baseball is an example of a game so simplified that strategy is a very little part of the game, 90% of the game is technique(throwing, catching, batting, pitching, etc. It's clear how the game needs to be played, it's just a matter of perfecting the technique. Football however is different, It's not always clear what needs to be done ( rush, punt, go for a touchdown or a field goal, should the team try to run it for TD or throw it. Football is a great combination of technique and strategy, however the supposed "best team" doesn't win consistently. Here's a good Q which sports video game is funner/ more challenging to play well, baseball or football, IMO football.
Sorry if i went off topic i just wanted to prove a point. I guess in conclusion i can say this: no items=baseball, items=football.

You say this to a response on how items are random and they should be kept. Well all that you wrote really is just your view on the game and your opinion. Who are you to judge how the game should be played? you even stated earlier that Items option shouldn't be used to defend because the creators just added that for tweaking reasons of the player? i mean WTF? Your the one going out and speaking for the developers and just cancelling it out all together? All this goes back to my original point of just letting the host decide, because opinions will be thrown back and fourth. If you guys want to set something apart for tournament rules around here, then set up an identical tourney on both sides of the nation, for that, make a different thread and let the hosts talk it over. Because really, were not helping.....

After futher reading you guys discuss starts and how they can't be used in arguments, then bumble bee brings up a solution. Scamp and 1psemet were up to it and then you disagree on it and so forth....nothing much for me to comment on. After this you argue some more on items and how you "like" playing like this and how you'll most likely win and so on....once again, all this is just your opinion on how to play. It still doesn't eliminate the fact that random(different) items pop up on certain situations. Maybe you'll kick *** with items on, but wouldn't it even it out more with items off? After all, i'm more intrested in hazard free player skill, and items totally go againts it, but thats just me. I could go on and talk about it, but whats the point? I just think it's more "fair" like that. To you items add another element, but thats fine, it's just your opinion, but to me, it makes it less fair. And i already stated why incase you get confused.....

Then you start off going into another "thing" that you like, saying that without items the game start losing it flash and it will become dull. umm I Totally disagree here, thats the great thing about smash! you can CC if the games start getting dull, or really master other characters. If you and your brother kept having the same results back and fourth, then thats where you lost, the game expands beyond same results. Don't be so short-sighted on playing with items off, for example, i use Link. I can beat up my friend with almost every character except Fox. As much as i try, me and him seem to even out when it's Link vs Fox. Well what i do is whoop out my Peach on his Fox, and suddenly i can kick his a$$ whereas Link can't. Thats why i have 3 great characters and like 5 ok characters.

Then you go ranting on items once again, and how they settled a few matches and how it's argueable that they favor some characters more than other. It's like going all the way back to the beggining, i already stated how i don't like the idea of random(different) items deciding a match. And thats it, all and all, I think I just wasted my time. Nothing new, and everything i said still stands exactly the same. I didn't even have to go and read all of that.....

Recipherus · Sep 11, 2002

ok, here's my argument. Just because the type of item that apears is random, doesn't mean that will randomize the results. Take my previous example of two players who usually split their matches with items off. However, one plays style of play allows him to claim most of the stage, say 80%, this means that at any given moment a item is more likely to popup in a place where he will be able to get to first. Now, if they played a 10 stock match the player who owns most of the stage should virtually every match.

After futher reading you guys discuss starts and how they can't be used in arguments, then bumble bee brings up a solution. Scamp and 1psemet were up to it and then you disagree on it and so forth....nothing much for me to comment on. After this you argue some more on items and how you "like" playing like this and how you'll most likely win and so on....once again, all this is just your opinion on how to play. It still doesn't eliminate the fact that random(different) items pop up on certain situations. Maybe you'll kick *** with items on, but wouldn't it even it out more with items off? After all, i'm more intrested in hazard free player skill, and items totally go againts it, but thats just me. I could go on and talk about it, but whats the point? I just think it's more "fair" like that. To you items add another element, but thats fine, it's just your opinion, but to me, it makes it less fair. And i already stated why incase you get confused.....

don't give vague descriptions of my argument. quote me and then show me specifically where my argument is based on opinion.

You say this to a response on how items are random and they should be kept. Well all that you wrote really is just your view on the game and your opinion. Who are you to judge how the game should be played?

geez, tell me. tell me why it's opinion and not fact. that's the least you could do. Do you not agree that adding variables to something increases possibilities?

Tavo_7 · Sep 11, 2002

I won't waste my time anymore, theres no need to go back and quote you back and forth. All you were discussing is how the test wouldn't work and the strats. Like I said, i had nothing to comment on that, if anybody wants to go read all that, just go back a page.

Just because the type of item that apears is random, doesn't mean that will randomize the results. Take my previous example of two players who usually split their matches with items off. However, one plays style of play allows him to claim most of the stage, say 80%, this means that at any given moment a item is more likely to popup in a place where he will be able to get to first. Now, if they played a 10 stock match the player who owns most of the stage should virtually every match.

Again this is all just pro-items, and your statements are so flawed. Your like guaranteed to lose if you don't cover the stage like you explain.

Just because the type of item that apears is random, doesn't mean that will randomize the results.

yes, yes it will....you just said that covering 80% of items will give you victory. This isn't an item hunting game....

What if we cover the stage %50 each, just that i always ended up getting a mr. saturn, and you kept getting bom-bombs? Isn't that enough to prove how items would decidedly predict the match since it's RANDOM(different)?

And as for me agreeing that adding more variables increasing possibilities, yeah i do agree. But not in adding items, as i have explained, do more damage than good since theres no way to know what items popping up.

Recipherus · Sep 12, 2002

Again this is all just pro-items, and your statements are so flawed. Your like guaranteed to lose if you don't cover the stage like you explain.

well then, to give yourself an edge you should cover the stage. IMO it's part of the game.

yes, yes it will....you just said that covering 80% of items will give you victory. This isn't an item hunting game....

Well it's your opinion it isn't an item hunting game. I believe that being aware of your environment, and grabing stage space is part of the game.

What if we cover the stage %50 each, just that i always ended up getting a mr. saturn, and you kept getting bom-bombs? Isn't that enough to prove how items would decidedly predict the match since it's RANDOM(different)?

I can't believe you said this. OK, let's say we're playing a 10 stock match and indeed we both own 50% of the stage. Furthermore let's say our upclose strait up fighting skills are the same. Because of this we usually split matches. With items on however, the person who is more skilled with items is much more likely to win the match. The less skilled player may get lucky with an item or two, but in the long run the more skilled player should win.

And as for me agreeing that adding more variables increasing possibilities, yeah i do agree.

then you would also agree this means more strategies/ styles of play, which means a more deep/ complex game.

Devious · Sep 12, 2002

Let's put it this way: Item fighting is just another facet to Melee, kind of like Edge-guarding. You can take it out if you want, but either way you can't fit everybody's needs. Playing with and without items is, to a certain extent, playing a different type of game, the same way Stamina and Tiny Melee are different.

So if you want to play with items, do so! It's just one way of playing the game. Most of the time items favor skill more than luck, but it's just like edge-guarding, with skill and luck. In fact, EVERY skill requires skill and luck. Taking away items makes the game more simple and intense, while with items it is more complex and scheming.

Tavo_7 · Sep 12, 2002

I can't believe you said this. OK, let's say we're playing a 10 stock match and indeed we both own 50% of the stage. Furthermore let's say our upclose strait up fighting skills are the same. Because of this we usually split matches.

Why can't you beleive i said that? because i'm correct. And your assuming a bit to much thinking that you'll just split some matches. Someone will have to take control and be the winner. Don't let items decide that! There is no "tie" in smash brothers, someone will be declared winner.

With items on however, the person who is more skilled with items is much more likely to win the match. The less skilled player may get lucky with an item or two, but in the long run the more skilled player should win

Again, this is just another flawed theory. Assuming once again who will win, and still, like you have mentioned, RANDOM "luck" items do occur. Your gameplay has flaws in it, don't play a style where items decide the match, let it all be character skill with no hazards. Thats why i'm also againts stages with hazards.

And in that last quote, your putting words in my mouth again, please do me a favor and completly quote me next time. I agree on variables and such, but not using Items in Smash brothers because of the "luck" involved. My prefrence might not be perfect also, but it sure is alot more "fair".

heres my entire quote, don't chop it off

And as for me agreeing that adding more variables increasing possibilities, yeah i do agree. But not in adding items, as i have explained, do more damage than good since theres no way to know what items popping up.

Recipherus · Sep 12, 2002

Why can't you beleive i said that? because i'm correct. And your assuming a bit to much thinking that you'll just split some matches. Someone will have to take control and be the winner. Don't let items decide that! There is no "tie" in smash brothers, someone will be declared winner.

If these two players were exactly equal in skill, in the long run they would each have the same amount of wins.

Again, this is just another flawed theory. Assuming once again who will win, and still, like you have mentioned, RANDOM "luck" items do occur. Your gameplay has flaws in it, don't play a style where items decide the match, let it all be character skill with no hazards. Thats why i'm also againts stages with hazards.

again, randomness is evened out in the long run. example, if you flipped a coin 1000 times the amount of heads would be extremely close to 500. In a 10 stock match the randomness would be evened so much that the player who was more skilled with items would have an advantage.

Tavo_7 · Sep 12, 2002

If these two players were exactly equal in skill, in the long run they would each have the same amount of wins.

Yeah i guess, but your drifting off now, were suppose to be talking about a tournament here. If theres a best of 7 series going on, someones gonna go out. If 2 people are really that equally skilled, then someone going to get eliminated, theres no way around that. Whoever takes the 4th win first would win.

Even if the matches were all that close, you could say you were the winner that day. It's not like your gonna deny the loss? you had your chance, and a best of 7 series is enough to show it wasn't a fluke.

again, randomness is evened out in the long run. example, if you flipped a coin 1000 times the amount of heads would be extremely close to 500. In a 10 stock match the randomness would be evened so much that the player who was more skilled with items would have an advantage.

Again your assuming an outcome of something random, you can't do that, it's random for god's sake. Just because it "might" end up being even, doesn't mean it's fair. My major beef with items is that random issue, and theres no way around it. You even admit to it, but it's not a problem to you for some reason.

1psemet · Sep 12, 2002

Hmm... so much to reply to. That's what I get for being at a friends house, I suppose. Thankfully for me the majority is Recipherus and Tavo reiterating and arguing about certain aspects already covered.

First of all, Tavo, I fail to see how you can maintain the position that standardisation is futile and pointless to attempt, and there aren't any fundamental differences in the superiority of settings. Yes, it is my place, as well as anyone with a mind, to try to sift through the various aspects of reality and determine what makes sense. It doesn't matter if you and forty other people like to play on a setting that isn't indicative of skill to the extent that it could be, you are still wrong. You could have the "opinion" that the earth is flat, does that mean that we would be in the wrong for critisizing you and informing you that you are misinformed? Even if the majority of people believed this, it doesn't make it any more correct. While not as blatant as that, proving whether items increase randomness, and to what extent for what items is certainly possible. If there was a big government project that surveyed everyone who owned the game, collected all of the data from their playing, took several control groups of select people who were highly skilled, had them play thousands and thousands of different matches and did the same, looked keenly at all of the guts of the game and performed all sorts of mathematical and probabilistic analyses' on it, then we would have some data that was rather incontrovertable. They could make graphs of all the possible situations and show that either items did increase randomness by varying the results, or that they didn't. They could also show how all of the other settings effected the outcome, and in which ways. Utilising this data, they could draw conclusions about which tournament settings were best in that they were most fair, and by exactly how much. Just because we don't have this data isn't a demonstration it not being possible, similar to if you accosted me on the street corner, insisting that the world was flat, I wouldn't have any data on hand to disprove you, but would still be right. I am not in a position to dictate a standard, to be sure, but I can lay down the basics of what I think is the best fashion to do so. Thus is the point of this thread.

The next few paragraphs are in response to Scamp's original reply after my last post.

Scamp, you hit upon the most basic argument for standardisation, of course. That being that wildly varying settings from tournament to tournament make the results incompatible and unreliable. We can only hope that as the SSBM community expands there will eventually arise such a standard.

And as for your response to my reply to the SF analogy... I, of course, agree. The game isn't solely dependant on play-time or memorisation, but on a variety of other subtle factors involving the players ability to excel. This works as well for SSBM as for SF though, you have to realise.

In regards to the game being about combo's... I say it isn't so. First of all, the "combos" that exist in SSBM are fundamentally different than those in other games. The game is designed in such a way that it's not really possible to get a combo larger than three hits in (not counting multi-hit moves as seperate from themselves). A skilled player can recover rather quickly from things. The game simply wasn't made with a conventional combo system. In all my playing experience, and in all the movies i've downloaded and threads i've perused, it's never become apparant otherwise. There are no instant kill combos, there aren't any combos that even come close to killing them dependably, as you can see from the sorry state of the combo thread currently in existance on the first page. There are handfulls of moves that when done, the recovery time is perfect for you to do one, or maybe two, other moves. A further complicating factor to this is that they only work at certain percentages, against certain characters. Thus you have very specific circumstances and ranges that they work on. This is utterly at odds with the combo system in most games. They are much more elaborate and inescapable, as well as not dependant on environmental factors like the stage and peoples percentages.

Memorizing these and using them when they are applicable is indeed conducive to your odds of winning... consider, though, just how little SSBM is reliant on memorization compared to almost any other fighter. In other fighters, you have your characters lengthy list of moves and combos, many of which are only usefull in clearly defined circumstances. In the more complex ones you also have to memorize combo breakers and the like for each one. In SSBM the characters have a small and distinct moveset, and no real combos to speak of. It's less about memorisation than about timing and strategy.

As for premium movesets... I agree with you, but probably not to the same extent. I think that most people underestimate a good deal of the moves, by not taking into account speed and recovery time. For some characters though, there simply isn't incentive for using some. In this way SSBM is similar to the majority of other fighters. As I'm sure you'll agree with, knowing the characters blatantly best moves wont let you win any matches against an opponent who is actuall skilled.

And lastly, I may have sounded too harsh in my assessment of SF. I'm sure that at high levels it can be pretty complicated and intense. Then again, I think that what you say about most people's impression of SSBM isn't applicable to how it can actually be at high levels. You could say it was all about those factors... but you wouldn't be being very fair to the game, or entirely justifiable.

Hmm, got to go. Will be back later with more replies.

Scamp · Sep 12, 2002

Tavo....

We appreciate your arguments, but everything you've said has already been argued by 1psemet. All I hear from you is that you think the games should be about skill, and not about randomness. Well, that's exactly what 1psemet is arguing as well. Look at what Devious said. The only thing I don't understand in how taking off items makes things more intense.

Good ol' street fighter! Anyway, there's a distinct difference in combos depending on which SF game you're playing. There are the famous inescapable 90 percent combos (which plague MvC2 and Alpha 3, but only in extreme cases in MvC2. Most only do 60 or 70 percent.

) but in most of the other SFs (and even in A3 as well, you can't win with only one combo, unless the game is poorly designed) there are tons of combos that set up future combos, or even combos you do when your opponent blocks. It's not always about the damage you do, but the position you're in after you're done. And while the stages obviously don't affect things as much as SSBM (can you imagine whispy woods blowing around Ryu and Ken in the middle of their match?) you definitely want to stay out of the corner in every SF game ever.

With that being said, the variations I have of combos depend on the situation I'm in and (if they are on) where the items are. There are no more 90 percent combos like there were in the first game (unless you count Peach vs. metal anything) which is a good thing. I think the less damaging combos are the closer the fights are, and therefore the more enjoyment people get from the game. I really enjoy doing nothing and watching people randomly thrash around, trying to anticipate my follow-ups.

In any event, we are in agreement. Combos are important, but rely less on memorization and more on reaction than other fighting games. The obvious counter is robotic Chun-Li's in third strike and the different combos you have to do depending on whether or not your opponent blocked the first hit, but going into all that isn't necessary. However, I would say that the memorization you don't need for combos instead goes into memorizing moving stages, item locations, and various item and stage factors.

You can't reflect a star rod! Why? Why must this be so?????????

I'm gonna go play in a weekly Street Fighter tourney now. See you guys later!

Recipherus · Sep 12, 2002

Again your assuming an outcome of something random, you can't do that, it's random for god's sake. Just because it "might" end up being even, doesn't mean it's fair. My major beef with items is that random issue, and theres no way around it. You even admit to it, but it's not a problem to you for some reason

I don't want to sound snooty, but if you took a statistics class you'd know the odds of one player getting significantly more and better items in a 10 stock match is probably less then 1%. My point is, skill will would have decided the match, not randomness.

glad your back 1psemet. I guess we agreed to disagree. but at least we do agree that there should be a standard and at least we (myself, you, and scamp) provided people with information and opinions that will help them decide for themselves what the standard should be.

Tavo_7 · Sep 12, 2002

Ummm, I guess i'll leave this thread now.........

All i can say is that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell if something random is going to decide a match. Even if the risk is less than #1, it's still there, and it wouldn't be that small of a margin in smash brothers, since theres so many other things going on that can't be put into statistics. You can't predict the human mind, that can't be used againts it.

And scamp, about not understanding how playing without items making it more intense? i never said that, i said more fair. The intensity to which one sees the game is personal opinion.

I more than proved my point on how to make the tournament more fair, and how using items might make it more complex/skillful in a sense, still has that random flaw in it which can't be fix.

my last thought is....ignorance is a bliss!

this won't be fixed, and i still say let the host decide, and adapt and play.

CORY · Sep 12, 2002

rice fairy

i've been reading along with this thread but could never come up with anything more than what recipherous would have said after he said it so i've kept quiet. but i just thought of something right now.

basically everyone in here has said that in the end we're all going to have to agree to disagree, basically meaning that although everyone understands and more or less respects the arguments and reasoning for their "opponents" that they still believe their method to be the best.

well, this is probably going to be true all across the country and internationally as well. the people who've been playing their way will have their reasoning for it and most likely be deadset in them. what does this mean?

well, basically, that there is no way to establish one standard. rather, it seems that the best method is to try and establish a number of major standards to encompass the major modes of play.

now, moast people will agree the only tourney worthy modes are team and one on one. within those you have a choice or time or stock. within those even more, you have items, no items. then, with team, you have team attack on and off.

so, what i'm thinking is along these lines. for each major mode you have smaller standards. for example:
one on one:
one standard:
stock: extremes are three to ten. decide this later.
items: off
another standard:
stock: aforementioned extremes.
items: on (maybe turn off heart/tomato)

so, on and so forth. you basically have four standards if you count in time as well (which it seems most people don't.) so moast likely you'll have just two standards: agree on a stock or a small range for the stock (between 3 and 5?) and turn items on or off.

team gets it more complicated if you count time but if you discount it you end up with four:
stock: between an unkown range
items: on or off
team attack: on or off

if we can somehow agree within the major standards what the standards are then we can start to whittle down slowly on the major moast agreed upon ways to play.

if somehow we manage to make a national tourney we'd probably have to go with the separate standards as well, at least in the beginning. it'll be more time consuming but at big tourneys that's to be expected and you'll get more accurate results since participants can register for the rule set that moast closely resembles their home rules.

i suppose that's all. feel free to comment, dissect, whatever.

theend · Sep 12, 2002

why are you even talking to this ***?

1psemet your an idiot, thats all i really wanted to say, but then again, i won't stop here, cuz your an idiot and now i'll explain why. for one thing you've already acknowledged what items do to the game they require more skill when playing. thats the whole argument for items in the first place, which means your arguing for no reason because you've already accepted the goal of pro-item use in the first place. and if it doesn't take any skill to use items, what the **** do you call it when i throw a bomb at my friend and he ****ing catches it? that takes timing and anticipation, and the risk factor of him dying is quite high. if thats not skill then your gay. and the argument of how items differentiate this game from the other fighting games is true, because if you say without items the game is already different enough, its only appearance, it does make ssb smash bro's and not fatal fury or some ****. and how the **** can you think that fighting game designers don't want to use items in fighting game, they have been trying for years, what the **** you think a ****ing projectile is? they just haven't been able to implement it in fighting games yet, its the next step in fighting games if they could perfect it. and personally your ****ing ********, you sit there with your ****ing thesaurus and argue how ****ing smart you are, your not man, hope i didn't break your ****ig heart, but your not that smart, your argument has no real basis and lacks direction. all you try to do is make ****ing marathon post and try to make it look like you know what you talking bout, and that **** bout anything that uses analogy's is worthless shows how stupid you are. go buy your self an MLA hand book. and don't reply you ***, i don't have enough time in a day for your bull**** defense.

Bumble Bee Tuna · Sep 12, 2002

as I said elsewhere...

Please ignore theend. Thank you. We will take care of it.

-B

theend · Sep 13, 2002

who me?

take care of me? what the f^ck have i done to your ***, whats next you gonna cut some guys tongue out cuz he says you have **** on you face? you have f^ckers posting **** bout how "pretty pokefloats" are and ****, or "man, i love mario he's soo cool" bull**** threads like that, that what you shuld be taking care of, not someone who's just posting a real opinion to actual legitimate threads. i explain my reasoning.

Tavo_7 · Sep 13, 2002

Bumble Bee Tuna · Sep 13, 2002

lol

theend, you haven't explained jack ****.

And, while I personally don't care about swearing, there is a rule against it here. As you can tell, most of the clientele is of the preteen crowd. The webmaster doesn't allow it. Now he'll tolerate your occasional swear (see: my first sentence) so long as you let the censor do its business. But when you go excessively and you try to dodge the censor...well that's when we take action.

Yeah, we discuss things here, not blatantly insult while contributing nothing to the discussion. Deal with it and act maturely, or be banned. Gideon seems to give a whole lot of chances so he probably won't ban you right away. Who knows, maybe you'll turn out like MattDeezie, who came here as a bragging ******* and was almost driven away but eventually turned out to be one of our greatest members. If you want to stay, you'll have to lose the attitude.

-B

theend · Sep 13, 2002

oh god dude

**** you, dude, is that better. the way i'm posting is the exact way i would be talking in real life. and what the ****, just cuz some guy has problems someone else he can't express that ****? i don't see why the **** not, after all isn't that what these **** boards are suppose to be about anyway? you want me to come up in here and pat everyone on the *** for being nice to eachother? expecially coming from you who flamed snap pop, a chick that had more balls than you to say **** and back it up at the tournament, so what if she lost two straight, a ****load of good people can lose two straight; act like jordan never missed a dunk and ****. how clever tavo, nothing to say, so you use pictures, if only you could transfer the creativity in which you post to your bull**** tournament; and for all the preteens out here, better lock yourselves in a room, cuz Tuna is worried that you mgiht hear read a cuss word or (*gasp) two cuss words...

Tavo_7 · Sep 13, 2002

someone here sounds a little disgruntled and seems to pretty much know the community, i wonder who he really is. Can MODs do an IP check on these boards? cause i smell a rat.

edit - sorry for going off-topic, just that this idiot also followed me to my tournament thread, and he's not making any points. Just bashing and swearing....

game and kirby · Sep 13, 2002

Sigh .Tavo, that wasn't necessary. Theen is not an ideal member, and I think he's already been banned, but that doesn't give you the excuse to post a blatant swear word. He's not worth it. Anyway, shouldn't we be returning to 1psemet's brilliant topic? What's the latest opinion?

1psemet · Sep 13, 2002

Sorry for the spaced out nature of my replies people, I've been at a friends house for the last couple days, so It's hard to squeeze in.

Anyway, Scamp, we are in agreement about the SF thing it would seem, but I would like to restate a point that I think important. In SSBM pulling off combos is less important to the overall outcome of the match. Play isn't as dependant on it for a variety of reasons: the fact that they comprise only a couple hits in a non-absolute life system, and the fact that a match is comprised of a number of lives (usually much larger than classic fighters). They are important to know, but not such a requirement.

CORY brings up a very good point. If, as seems to be the case, the argument is fundamentally insoluble then perhaps the focus should be moved away from creating a single standard to creating a few. CORY said it all rather well, so I actually have very little to add in this manner. As he says, there are basically just two camps, those with items on, and those with items off. The disparity between the number of stock at TG and the other big tournaments is, I believe, a matter of time considerations. From what I've heard in my other threads, it's almost universally accepted that higher stock is more fair, and all of the other factors (stage selection methods, stock vs time, etc.) are also seemingly undisputed. Therefore I think that it would actually be rather easy to get tournament operators to comply with one of a few standards, if they were clearly outlined and fair. If we got Matdeezie to up the number of stock in the finals, for instance, than it would already be compliant with one of these.

As for the main argument here, of just how much the randomness is a factor... While I realise that it's not going to conclusively prove anything, me and my playgroup are in the middle of a massive number of matches with both items on and off, with a variety of different characters (part of the reason that i'm over here). When we are done, we plan on putting all of the data into graphs to see if there are any blatant trends. We've argued most of the points that can be made exhaustively, so I think that some empirical data is in order. I still plan on debating any further points that come up, of course, but I belive that we should also try some experiments. If any others among you feel like doing the same, I would be much obliged.

After this point in the thread, Theend rears his head and conversation centers around thwarting him, so there's not much else right now. I would make a point for point refutation of his statements, but i'm sure you all realise the obvious fallacy of his arguments. Thus, it's really not worth the effort. Though I must mention that I for one enjoyed your graphical rebuttal, Tavo. Most entertaining.

Got to go again. Until next time.

Scamp · Sep 14, 2002

Few points.

Seems this thread is starting to wind down. But anyway...

The stock 3 in Matt's tourney isn't so bad when you consider it's the best out of 3 sets. In a way, it's like having 9 lives, with a skunk at 6. Having best of 3 means there's less of a chance the stages will decide everything. While I personally like stock 10, I think it's a little extreme. I think I'll try and ask Matt to up the stock to 4 in the next tourney, followed by multiple requests for people to bring TVs and cubes so that time will be even less of an issue.
Upping the stock in the finals isn't good enough, IMO. Already the finals are best of 7 (best of 5 in the last finals due to time constraints, and the fact that RoyalFlush and Recipherus play each other enough anyway.) but that's beside the point. The fact is that at the TG tourney there are what I consider the "elite 8". That is, 8 people that have shown enough potential and results to have a shot at winning the tournament. On top of that, there were several more people that had some real skill and posed a threat for some upsets. With that being what it is, just adding more stock to the final matches doesn't mean anything because I'm concerned with the first few rounds of the tourney. (The more games you win in the winner's bracket, the less games you have to play to make the finals once you lose.)

As is, the only thing besides items that people largely disagree on is team attack. While I have nothing against team attack off, I believe team attack on to be a much more tactical and strategic game, especially with the items on. Perhaps this calls for another thread!

Also, I really can't do any kind of super data analysis. The only constant competition I have (and pretty much the only person that can beat me that I ever play with regularly) is my brother, and he's better at using items than I am. I'm reasonably sure that my data will be constant if we played a bunch of games.

Man, my Fox is WAY out of shape.

Mattdeezie · Sep 14, 2002

alright mofos, its go time

Alright, now I am doing something that i hate. I am not reading all the threads. Why? Cause it just took me effing 45 minutes to get throught the first page, and I think I have a gist of what I am going to try to get across. I had pure intentions of reading everything, and gave myself a 2 hours block, but Im gonna risk it, and make my points.

-by1pms
One of the primary reasons used to defend the use of items in general (and in tournaments specifically), was that items are a gpart of the gameh, and that mastery of the game includes the mastery of items. Since having items on or off is an option, playing with items is itself merely an option to the greater game. I say that the opposite is not true, because the vast majority of the game physics, animation, and complexity is separate from and not reliant on items at all. Turning off items has no effect on the game other than their existence. They are an added extra, a consideration, a method of playing many different modes and extending the lifetime of the gamefs enjoyment, but they are in no way integral. They provide variation and randomness, they are there for fun……SSBM is the great game that it is due to itfs finely tuned fighting engine, and general play balance, the items add nothing to this.

I dont think that the mastery of the game, includes the mastery of items. I think no item play is completely different than item play. The thing is, is that no item play, tournament wise, is BIG time flawed. item play is just all around a better way to play. It makes the game like 75% better, with maybe around a 2% flaw. Maybe thats extreme, but Im an extreme kinda guy. Im gonna take this post to the LIMIT!.

Items adding noting to the fighting engine? The strats added with items are inummerable. The mind games that occur in item play are HUGE! Edge guarding, reasons to attack, times to turtle, being advantaged or disadvantages while having an item. The gameplay is always switching from styles to attack patterns. Im sure ill make more points along this line later.

by 1pms
Its also been said that items serve as an equalizer for Hal-given disadvantages. I find this to be one of the more ludicrous arguments….From these alone I believe that you could conclude that Hal intended it to be a stand-alone fighter, with items as an added bonus. A bonus to which not as much effort was put into balancing.

by scamp
I'd like to argue that items primarily help out the aggressor, not simply the faster character. It's true that if Fox and DK are standing on opposite sides of the level, and an item appears in the middle, then Fox will probably get it. However, unless you're playing on Hyrule Temple, whoever the item appears closer to should get the item. Thus, when playing with items on it is important to try to cover as much space as possible, so you can have your run of the best items that appear.

Okay the balance issue, and how it effects the characters. Yes faster characters do get more items. However, they dont need them. Often i see people grab an item and throw it away. Why? Cause their base game is better than the item they just got. Other characters need to boost in gameplay from items, the boost in ledge guarding and such. A pichu with a bombomb is a force to be reckonded with, at least for a moment it would make a top tier character stop their barrage of attacks to overwhelm their opponent. Basically if no item gameplay is in effect, i think it gives the good characters even more of an advantage. You may disagree, but who effing cares. This is a MINOR point in the argument against no item play.

Also, due to the fact that faster characters get more items. There is another mind game invovled in getting the item. Lets say its DK vs Fox both at opposite ends of FD. An item falls in the middle. They both go for it. Of course fox gets there first. However DK got in range to hit fox in the face with an effing big punch. You cant attack while picking up an item, you are open. Granted its not long, but its there. Items being on the stage, and people going for them lead to many a set-ups. I remember watching probably in my opinion, the greatest item match ever at TG3, where Vien ended up dying cause he went for the pokeball. It distracted him, and he was more concerned about the item then jon jon, who was waiting for him to go for it. Mind games.

-scamp
Also throw into the mix human error. Accidentally airdodging off the stage, holding down and pushing A trying to crouch cancel but instead you do your down A arial attack to your doom, missing the edge for some inexplicable reason, falling to your death because you thought you had a third jump, and so on. These all are player errors, and they'll greatly skew the results of a tourney, just like a random bob-omb will.

-1pms
The difference between player errors and bomb-ombs is the same as the difference between hazards and items. This is the playerfs fault. If he loses because of this, he has only himself to blame. Essentially, he deserves to lose because he made a mistake, while in the other situation his loss is through no fault of his own.

After watching match vids, the randomness of items killing someone is generally prolly 5% of all item related deaths. you watch all these players go and run into stuff falling. You just didnt realize you could have avoided it cause you didnt tape yourself. Its easy to complain about something, its not easy to learn to adapt.

1pms
. I would like to stress once again: I'm not saying items are bad. I'm not saying items don't require a good deal of skill to use properly. I'm not saying that they even effect the odds by a huge extent, but merely that they do, and so aren't appropriate.

Alright Im going to use a whack a$$ anaolgy. Lets say you have a chance to make 100 dollars in an hour. The pros, you get a great benefit out of the money. The cons, you lose and hour. Are you really gonna pass up that offer just cause you lose the effing hour.

its the same as items. Items add tons! People who dont know this, do NOT understand the game. For people to throw them out cause one match out of 100 is gonna be an upset it ridiculous.

Alright, now for the cream of the discussion of why no item play is detrimental to a tournament.

The Pro-items side is, of course, that it helps to break any stalemate. The No-items side is that, when this happens with items, it happens because one player is given an advantage of some sort by an item happening to appear next to him instead of his opponent.

The solution to this may sound somewhat arbitrary, but is still preferable to items in most cases from my viewpoint. Thinking on this situation, youfll find that it's necessary to provide external impetus. I believe that the best thing to do, when confronted such is to tell the contestants that unless they finish the match (or at least break any stalemate) within a certain time that they both forfeit the match. If it's the last one, then the winnings go to the third and fourth place finishers instead. This is distinctly different than merely imposing a time limit, for reasons that Ifm sure all of you realize.

This is actually what made me skip the rest of the thread, and jump to posting. This comment infuriated me.

YOU CANNOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO PLAY THE GAME!

Why dont you say instead, hey every 5 minutes I need to you get hit by the other persons smash attack. Or hows this one, if the match lasts 7 minutes you arent allowed to block. You cant tell someone how to play the game. A stalemate occurs because each person does not want to lose their advantage. You cant force them to lose their advantage. Someone has to attack, no matter what someone gets screwed.

The ONLY way to solve a stalemate, is to either turn off all stages with small ground platforms, walls, height advantage, or sides with no pits. Basically you have like FD, and Battlefeild, and the moving stages. How effing lame is that.

Or you could turn items on, and play the whole d@mn game.

If there is a tournament with items off, on hyrule, I CAN BREAK YOUR TOURNAMENT. I play fox. I could touch you once, and run away all day long. There is NOTHING you can do to catch me.

Items naturally balance the given advantages a person has. They either camp and risk losing items, or they attack. It is much easier to take someone down that has a formidable advantage in an area with and item than it is without them.

In conclusion, there is probably much more I can post, but I really dont have the energy for it now. I see it as a lost cause. Why? Like a wise man once quoted, "95% of all people are choads" or it was something like that. I can guaruntee that 90% of the people are stuck in their ways and dont listen to reason. Items will forever be known as "cheap" to people, and I dont think people will ever understand their importance. Perhaps me and Vien might have to go break a few tournaments out there to get people to learn. (and if Tavo doesnt turn off fourside, this might happen unintentionally)

1psemet · Sep 15, 2002

Just when the thread would seem to have been winding down... Well, I appreciate your response Matdeezie, though it was around for several days before you made such. You being one of the major tournament operators, this is really geared toward you. If you would please finish reading the thread before you respond to this post, then we can probably save ourselves from going over a lot of ground that's already been covered. The average length of the posts in this thread is indeed amazingly long... but would you rather read five pages of well reasoned, intelligent debate, or five pages of mind-bending and grueling spam?

You say that items add innumerable strategies and tactics, as well as skill-sets. This does, as you say, make it basically a different game. I firmly believe that the item game isn't the fundamentally more complex or superior one though. The amount of complexity gained isn't completely additive. I've gone over this briefly in one of my prior posts, but no one bothered to comment on it. I will go into it in more detail currently, as I think it important. I will utilize the extreme example, as it is simply easier to illustrate that way. With all items on very high, items fall every couple seconds. There are so many items littered about that the most important aspect in that match shifts over from innate fighting skill to item grabbing and using skill. As more and more items appear on the stage, you'll notice that less and less actual fighting goes on, and vanishingly few of the kills aren't item related. If you have a man who trains in this mode, who is frightfully good at grabbing and using items, and another who is just amazingly good in general and of simply good ability with items, the former will put up an amazingly good fight, even though he neglects basic fighting skills such as throwing and actually attacking. This is because the use of items, because of the way that they are integrated, doesn't blend smoothly with the other skill sets. It's basically a separate ability that is parallel to the gestalten whole of the others, and becomes more or less important depending on what items you have on and how often they fall.

About your spin on the balance issue relating to speed... I disagree completely. You say that you see the speedier characters simply throwing away items, as they don't need them? This could very well be true... for some items. The melee weapons and whatnot, sure, but this is never the case for pokeballs, stars, cloaks, hearts, food, warp stars and whatnot. Many of the items blatantly confer an advantage to whoever grabs them, and it would be simple insanity to throw them away, therefore no-one ever does. And since these speedier "top-tier" characters get them at least as often as others, their innate advantages are only magnified by this. Therefore I draw the opposite conclusion: if item gameplay is in effect, the good characters have even more of an advantage. As to your final couple sentances in the paragraph I'm referring to, they strike me as unnecessarily defensive and personal. Please don't take it that way, it's both not intended and souring of the objective nature of the discourse. Though this may be a minor point, I am still obligated to give my view on it, as it radically differs from yours and this is, after all, a debate.

In regards to your next paragraph, I agree. This is one of the aspects in which items increase stratagy. It is, however, rarer than not. Most of the time when an item appears, one person can get there and grab it without the other having the slightest possibility of touching them. It is generally only applicable if there is only one item on the stage, or an obviously superior one, and furthermore if the characters are both a distance away that they could both reach it at the same time, taking into account their differing running and jumping speeds. This is a rarity.

Even if the random item related deaths were only about 5% (a reasonable figure indeed), that is still far too much. Espescially in a stock three environment, if you get unlucky and it happens to you once it could very likely cost you the match. Most of the ones that whinners blame on items are certainly avoidable. Those 5% that aren't though, could easily be done without.

Ahh, the fun of analogies. I'll make a whack a$$ (as you say) one that works for my side. Note that I think that analogies pointless in this argument (if you would read all of the previous posts, you will see that this has been addressed, and Scamp sums it up nicely), and this one, like all of them, wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny, but eh, what the ****. Say you have two people playing chess, a game completely dependant on skill and stratagy. Then you propose that they spice up their game, add a little more complexity. So at random times during the game they take a break to play some other game, say checkers and sometimes tick-tack-toe, and flip a coin for who goes first in those games. Whoever wins such then gets to take two moves in a row when they get back to their chess game. It still takes skill and stratagy to win this way, but in an entirely different way that isn't very integrated. To complicate play in this fashion is rediculous.

The examples that you give for what telling them that they must break the stalemate is like aren't apropriate. They aren't remotely similar, in fact. First of all, you CAN tell people how to play, and you should if they don't understand tacitly what should happen. Even with items on, without a time limit, both people could simply decide that it's too risky to move, and sit there forever. Nothing would prevent this from happening. It's not like items majically make people move. They could sit there just as well as without items, though they would be slightly more stupid to do so. Should they be allowed, in a tournament, to do this? What would you do if a couple people at TG3 just refused to go at it and sat there with the controller in there hands? Wait until one of them fell asleep and the other took advantage of it? No, what you would do is something very similar to what I suggested, because it's really the only possible solution. If neither one of them is brave or competent enough to do something about it, it's the only thing you can do. There are other situations where you have the obligation to tell people what to do. If one player picks the fastest character and simply runs around and dodges someone who's playing a slower character, and obviously intends to just keep on doing so forever, you don't simply let him do so. This is called stalling, and being a ****er. The penalty for this in tournaments is generally to disqualify the person.

As for your "breaking the tournament" statement, it is simply ludicrous and wrong. I am willing to retract my statement if you manage to explain it, but I rather don't think that you can. If you are fox on hyrule you can become magically untouchable, eh? What if your opponent is playing Fox? What if he's a faster character yet? What if he is a comparable character, and simply better than you? Or camps somewhere forever? If you are saying that you could simply avoid them forever, you could do this with items on just as easily. If you were facing Bowser, you could stall forever. Refer to the above paragraph for the solution.

Edit: I originally made a reply to your very last paragraph here, but it was pointed out that it was rather too heated. I will suffice it to say that your comments are unwarranted, and note that I've never said that items are "cheap" or anything of the sort, but have provided exhaustive reasoning for everything, and kept an open mind.

Mattdeezie · Sep 16, 2002

Originally posted by 1psemet
Just when the thread would seem to have been winding down... Well, I appreciate your response Matdeezie, though it was around for several days before you made such. You being one of the major tournament operators, this is really geared toward you. If you would please finish reading the thread before you respond to this post, then we can probably save ourselves from going over a lot of ground that's already been covered. The average length of the posts in this thread is indeed amazingly long... but would you rather read five pages of well reasoned, intelligent debate, or five pages of mind-bending and grueling spam?

No I dont plan on reading it. Why? Cause I already know its useless, and I have a pretty good idea of what was discussed in the middle having prosed it. I dont have the time, and frankly I can just respond to your current post and save myself a couple hours.

You say that items add innumerable strategies and tactics, as well as skill-sets. This does, as you say, make it basically a different game. I firmly believe that the item game isn't the fundamentally more complex or superior one though. The amount of complexity gained isn't completely additive. I've gone over this briefly in one of my prior posts, but no one bothered to comment on it. I will go into it in more detail currently, as I think it important. I will utilize the extreme example, as it is simply easier to illustrate that way. With all items on very high, items fall every couple seconds. There are so many items littered about that the most important aspect in that match shifts over from innate fighting skill to item grabbing and using skill. As more and more items appear on the stage, you'll notice that less and less actual fighting goes on, and vanishingly few of the kills aren't item related. If you have a man who trains in this mode, who is frightfully good at grabbing and using items, and another who is just amazingly good in general and of simply good ability with items, the former will put up an amazingly good fight, even though he neglects basic fighting skills such as throwing and actually attacking. This is because the use of items, because of the way that they are integrated, doesn't blend smoothly with the other skill sets. It's basically a separate ability that is parallel to the gestalten whole of the others, and becomes more or less important depending on what items you have on and how often they fall.

It blends just fine. Other than that everything you said is true. Thats why we play items on medium. Very High is all item play, no items is all hand to hand.

About your spin on the balance issue relating to speed... I disagree completely. You say that you see the speedier characters simply throwing away items, as they don't need them? This could very well be true... for some items. The melee weapons and whatnot, sure, but this is never the case for pokeballs, stars, cloaks, hearts, food, warp stars and whatnot. Many of the items blatantly confer an advantage to whoever grabs them, and it would be simple insanity to throw them away, therefore no-one ever does. And since these speedier "top-tier" characters get them at least as often as others, their innate advantages are only magnified by this. Therefore I draw the opposite conclusion: if item gameplay is in effect, the good characters have even more of an advantage. As to your final couple sentances in the paragraph I'm referring to, they strike me as unnecessarily defensive and personal. Please don't take it that way, it's both not intended and souring of the objective nature of the discourse. Though this may be a minor point, I am still obligated to give my view on it, as it radically differs from yours and this is, after all, a debate.

Good players dont always throw items away. But I see it happen often. In theory what you say sounds like it would be true. However, having played the game, I find it not to be. So to each his own, I still think this is a minor issue, and really doesnt matter enough to say they should be on or off.

In regards to your next paragraph, I agree. This is one of the aspects in which items increase stratagy. It is, however, rarer than not. Most of the time when an item appears, one person can get there and grab it without the other having the slightest possibility of touching them. It is generally only applicable if there is only one item on the stage, or an obviously superior one, and furthermore if the characters are both a distance away that they could both reach it at the same time, taking into account their differing running and jumping speeds. This is a rarity.

You probably dont see it much cause you play items off. I see it all the time.

Even if the random item related deaths were only about 5% (a reasonable figure indeed), that is still far too much. Espescially in a stock three environment, if you get unlucky and it happens to you once it could very likely cost you the match. Most of the ones that whinners blame on items are certainly avoidable. Those 5% that aren't though, could easily be done without.

It goes like this. If something adds more to the game than it takes away, you keep it. If it takes away more from the game than it adds, you take it away. I think items add much more to the game, in comparison to the really really really small chance there is an item related upset. I could go on for days from watching matches and seeing the mind games that happen from items. And Im gonna throw that all away cause some person loses one match out of 100?

[your analogy didnt make sense at all, so I didnt say anything about it. ]

The examples that you give for what telling them that they must break the stalemate is like aren't apropriate. They aren't remotely similar, in fact. First of all, you CAN tell people how to play, and you should if they don't understand tacitly what should happen. Even with items on, without a time limit, both people could simply decide that it's too risky to move, and sit there forever. Nothing would prevent this from happening. It's not like items majically make people move. They could sit there just as well as without items, though they would be slightly more stupid to do so. Should they be allowed, in a tournament, to do this? What would you do if a couple people at TG3 just refused to go at it and sat there with the controller in there hands? Wait until one of them fell asleep and the other took advantage of it? No, what you would do is something very similar to what I suggested, because it's really the only possible solution. If neither one of them is brave or competent enough to do something about it, it's the only thing you can do. There are other situations where you have the obligation to tell people what to do. If one player picks the fastest character and simply runs around and dodges someone who's playing a slower character, and obviously intends to just keep on doing so forever, you don't simply let him do so. This is called stalling, and being a ****er. The penalty for this in tournaments is generally to disqualify the person.

THis is where I think you are a choad, and basically lose all respect for your arguements. It makes me think that you dont know how to play the game.

Pokeballs and landmines will make a runaway match end.

Items give incentive to attack which therefore does magically make people move.

so you SHOULD tell people how to play the game if they dont understand what tactially SHOULD happen. Who are you to decide what SHOULD happen in a match. If a person wants to camp to give themselves an advantage, they sure as he!l should do so. And if the person doesnt want to attack the other person because they know they would be disadvantaged they sure as he!l shouldnt. What SHOULD happen in this situation?

As for your "breaking the tournament" statement, it is simply ludicrous and wrong. I am willing to retract my statement if you manage to explain it, but I rather don't think that you can. If you are fox on hyrule you can become magically untouchable, eh? What if your opponent is playing Fox? What if he's a faster character yet? What if he is a comparable character, and simply better than you? Or camps somewhere forever? If you are saying that you could simply avoid them forever, you could do this with items on just as easily. If you were facing Bowser, you could stall forever. Refer to the above paragraph for the solution.

Can and will are two different things. I could have killed Tavos tournament on Sunday. But I didnt. Why? Cause I didnt feel like it. Me and Rob had a 6 minute match rather than a stalemate, cause I chose to take the disadvantage. (the match was on termina bay mario vs marth) You cant do it with items on, cause of pokeballs and landmines. The camper does not get a good chance to get items, which discourages him to camp.

Again I think no item play is crap. It only works on stages without tactical advantages. Other than that it is a FLAWED system of gameplay.

Scamp · Sep 16, 2002

Analogies can be fun!

I'm just gonna comment on analogies, because I like them.

Your analogy is very weird, but there's one key flaw to the issue at hand. Randomness. Your main argument is anti-randomness, and there's nothing random at all about chess, checkers, and tic-tac-toe, other than deciding who goes first, perhaps. The only thing random about the whole analogy is that you say they'll randomly take breaks to play the other games. (And, as pointed out earlier, someone did a study that showed that items fall at regular intervals, and Recipherus has pointed out many times that they fall in certain spots only. And I'm not even sure that the items that appear are completely random. I sure see a lot more poke balls in Pokemon Stadium than I do other maps.) I think a better analogy would be if they went and played Shogi or Go, instead of Checkers or Tic-tac-toe. Personally, I'd go play some Settlers of Cattan or Puerto Rico.

In any event, about item fighting. You make it seem like hand-to-hand fighting has no place when items are around. Maybe this is because you need a better sense of your surroundings when the items are on. (i.e. You're not focused on your opponents, you're focused on what items are appearing and where.) Even with the items on very high, you should be able to win if you are much better at hand-to-hand and your opponent is only good with items. If your opponent neglects things such as throwing and generally attacking then I am to assume that your opponent simply threw a bunch of things at you for offense. If this is the case, and you lost, you did NOT put up a good fight. (Possible exceptions on Jungle Japes and Hyrule Temple. Mostly Hyrule Temple but I threw Jungle Japes in there because it's dangerous to move on that stage, so having a buttload of items to throw is extremely helpful.)

So, superiority with items on is debatable, but complexity is definitely increased IMO. And forget about items themselves, I'd like to point out that the stages play more of a factor as well. You have to be aware of where proximity mines are, as well as all the spots where the items appear. On top of that, the stage hazards come into play more as well, due to the fact that you'll have more reasons to move into those areas. Even camping spots have to be more thought-out, as your opponent can simply wait for some mines and pokeballs to flush you out. (This means YOU, Mr. bottom-right platform of Hyrule Temple.)

Simple analogy: You can play Goldeneye 007 with only slapping, or you can play with the items on. Slapping is all about skill, whereas items......actually, this analogy kinda stinks too. There are some nice tie-ins such as guarding certain spots for the items and such, but overall it's not turning out so well. Oh well.

BTW slappers only with license to kill on is fun! Also throwing knives with license to kill is fun too!

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot about the SHOULDS. No way you can force people to do something, that's lame. *****-*** lame strategies have been a part of fighting games since Street Fighter 2, and therefore fighting game designers have done numerous things to make such tactics less appealing. (Guard crushing, teching throws, parrying, air blocking, no super meter for defending, inability to charge while rolling, (which needs to be in CvS2) and so on.) Now, for a better example, Justin Wong plays a very annoying and boring runaway game with Storm in MvC2. In fact, a lot of his strategy involves runnning away until the time runs out. This is considered by many to be extremely lame, and boring to watch and play against. Are you going to tell Justin Wong, the 2-time national MvC2 champion, what he SHOULD do and how he SHOULD play?

1psemet · Sep 17, 2002

Your conviction to not read the prior posts is confusing. Not only does it go against your signature, but your statements about it aren't true. You can't possibly simply decree something "useless" without first reading it, or at least reading part of it to note the general vein. Though I suppose that this could logically be your conclusion if by "prosed" you mean perused or sumesuch. If it is indeed the case of a simple typo, then I can't argue with your opinion, merely on the possible justification for it. The discourse thus far in this thread has not been unproductive or useless in almost any sense. If you wish to basically start fresh and respond to only what is currently being discussed, tis perfectly fine with me, but you can expect me to be copying what I had said earlier in the thread to points that you will doubtless bring up (if the discourse continues).

Hmm... your lack of justification for your statement "it blends just fine" rather leaves me at a loss for how to counter it. I obviously disagree, have stated my reasoning, and simply await yours. Assuming that you will be too lazy to do so (judging from your seeming lack of effort), I suppose that I'll have to take it for a given that you do so. That being the case, what proof do you have that medium is the setting that balances out perfectly? Assuming that it was sufficiently gradual steps (as it seems to be), then it would have to balance out somewhere, but I see no evidence for it being medium. Medium is sufficiently high that there is basically always an item or two on the stage after the initial few seconds. This makes it so that there is constant and shifting advantage to someone on the stage, and the item using skill plays a tremendous role. Not quite out-shadowing fighting skill at this point, but nearing so. As an example I will cite a trend that we are noticing as we collect data for some of the experiments that I spoke of earlier. It has become apparent that one member of my playgroup (Mickey) is better with items than another (Sean). However, Sean is much better at basic fighting skills. We are playing stock ten matches alternating with/without items to collect data. The average outcome without items is Sean winning by 3-4 points. A considerable margin, so it's undisputed that he's better without items (with that character match-up). On the other hand, when items are turned on (medium), with the same characters the outcome shifts, making it so that Mickey usually wins by 1-2 points. It is very noticeable the PRIME roll that items start to take at this point, and it gets worse at higher frequencies for item fall. A slight difference in skill with items on this setting results in a 4-6 point difference. Therefore I propose that the optimal item frequency in terms of it "equaling out" is in-stead low, or perhaps very low. This would make it so that when the items do pop up all of the item skill comes into play, but that it does not dominate play.

Your evasive debate strategies once again make it difficult to respond extensively. The theory is admittedly sound (sounding), and in my experience it is confirmed by the evidence at hand. I would be interested in hearing how it would be the opposite more extensively, with perhaps some examples. Until then though, all I can say is that I disagree, and that while I think it minor in the way that it shouldn't solely (or even largely) be a deciding factor in whether items should be on, it is still a telling point for no-item play.

Perhaps it does happen more often than I would seemingly give it credit for... but however often that may be, it's still a rather tiny percentage and thus not a major point.

First of all, I couldn't agree with you more. "If something adds more to the game than it takes away, you keep it. If it takes away more from the game than it adds, you take it away." you say. Indeed. I believe that items take away more than they add. Did I ever say anywhere that the primary reason for taking items off was the odd fluke kill? The answer is no, no I didn't. It's from the combined effect of the various reasons that items are negative that makes it balance out to be detrimental to play. Several of these arguments, of course, you aren't privy to because you are too apathetic to read my prior posts, so I would appreciate it if you didn't presume to understand my reasoning fully until you have done so.

For your lack of reply to my analogy, I respect that. Some things must be said though. My analogy did indeed make some sense, though I didn't chose the specifics of it particularly well (Scamp's suggestion would make it far more apt)... But that wasn't really the point of it. It was, admittedly, flawed. All analogies fundamentally are. I was reinforcing this truism. As Scamp (I believe) said, analogies have no fundamental place in an argument between two informed and well reasoned persons. Their utility in discussion lie in their power to present subtle and esoteric points to those who would seem to lack an intuitive understanding of the subject.

Conversely, THIS is where I lose respect for your ability to reason and grasp abstract concepts. Pokeballs and land mines do absolutely nothing to make a runaway match end. Pokeballs, first of all, are ludicrously easy to dodge, especially on a big stage (such as Hyrule, which we were discussing when this came up). Explain to me how you expect to stop me from running away from you and dodging forever with a Pokeball. You throw it, I dodge and consequently leave the premises. If I am certain characters, I don't even have to go past you and leave myself open for attack. If you corner me by either the left or right top edges, I can leap off and get directly to the bottom one. If you chase me down to the bottom, I continue along and go back up top through the other opening. Pokeballs, once again, do nothing. Landmines equally do nothing. First of all, they are ridiculously easy to avoid. On smaller stages they'll be blown up by crap falling on or near them, and on the bigger ones (namely Hyrule), there is simply so much area that they cover a tiny fraction of a percent, and are easily avoided. NOT TO MENTION that, as certain characters (lets once again say Pikachu) can simply use their projectile to disarm them. Secondly, items give people incentive to attack, as you say. This is because they realize that if they grab the item then they are at an advantage, and should probably press it. They can always simply decide that the advantage conferred doesn't equal out the risk taken. No magic as of yet, you see.

What SHOULD happen in a match is that the players kill each other until one of them runs out of lives and thus loses. If, for any reason, one of the players decides to postpone the end of the match INDEFINITELY by being sufficiently evasive, then you HAVE to provide some external end. Otherwise it will simply continue until one of the players falls asleep. Camping on a small scale is a viable tactic. Both players camping, and willing to do so forever, cannot be allowed within the confines of a tournament. You never answered my question. Taking into account that items do not, indeed, MAKE players do squat, if one or both of them decide to evade forever, what would you do? Thinking upon the situation, you would realize that the match is over once this happens. You can't have them sit there for 20+ hours with no intention of doing anything, now can you? The only possible solution is to end the match right there, or tell them that if they don't end it shortly then it will be. Both of them forfeit. Actually think this time. Try to come up with a different method of handling it. You won't be able to come up with anything vastly different.

Once again, you CAN do it with items on, you are simply less justified in doing so. The camper doesn't get as many good items, but then again that doesn't matter. As for your saying that no-item play is flawed, I must contend that no, it's simply your reasoning that is so. It is only "flawed" as you say, because one person could decide to run away forever (which he can also do with items). The obvious, and only solution to this minor problem that only comes into play when you are with someone who is deliberately trying to break the game, is to install a time limit as well. Say that if he does so, he forfeits. Conversely, simply set, say, a twenty or thirty minute time limit to the match. On a low stock this will never be reached unless someone is being asinine, but it prevents them from being asinine to the extent that it breaks the game. Rather pathetic and easily rectified as far as flaws go, eh?

1psemet · Sep 17, 2002

Well then, that was all in response of Matdeezie (obviously). Some of it may have sounded a tad heated, but I'm sure that you all understand. I'll now give Scamp's post the space it deserves (I have to do so in a new post as I hit the character limit shortly after the end of the prior one, hehe).

As I said above Scamp, I agree with you on your assessment of my analogy. I bow, as it were, to your superior analogy making skills. I am not as adept at them because I generally avoid them at all costs, because unlike you I dislike them. I've never played Shogi, but am familiar with Go and Settlers of Catan (very random, that {though fun}, and thus apt) both would have served better.

And as for my thoughts on items that you disagree with... My statements were made for the extreme possibilities to more clearly demonstrate my point. Obviously if someone completely neglects general fighting skills they should lose. What I was alluding to was situations like the one that I mentioned above: where the difference in fighting skills is low or distinct but not overwhelming, and the item skill difference is used as the other factor. I would like to note that Sean, who I used, is by no way incompetent with items. He is simply not as good as Mickey. The skill with items overwhelms the basic fighting skill on certain settings, at certain times.

For complexity... I once again have to state that I disagree, as it isn't simply additive. Ignoring that disagreement though, I concur with you about stages. On certain stages items do certainly increase the necessity of being aware of your surroundings. Even on the simplest (FD), you have to be aware of where and when the items appear. I concede that in that minor way, complexity is increased, and appreciate your reasoning. It is one of the definitive pro's for items, but isn't single-handedly (even though it isn't the only pro, of course. Simply a figure of speech) enough to outweigh the cons. Though I would once again note that items do not in any way preclude camping. Take the bottom right of Hyrule, which you mention. They can't possibly flush you out with Pokeballs and mines. Why? Because it's a rather simple matter to shield, which makes the Pokeballs and mines bounce off right into oblivion. You could of course fail to do so properly... but all that would mean is that you would have to flee your haven for a while which in no way guarantees them hitting you as you do so.

And finally, about what you say on SHOULDS (I find it amusing that it is now always capitalized, though in many cases, such as this, it isn't invoked with enough vehemence to warrant it). Lame strategies may indeed be some of the heritage of fighters, but, as you say, designers do what they can to minimalise them when they become a problem. Thus you have to understand the difference between your example and the current situation. The reason why you shouldn’t be able to tell this man what to do is because there IS a time limit. Running away until it expires is always one of the tactics that can be used when this is the case, if at the end of such the person who is currently winning wins the match. This is by no means even remotely as lame as running away FOREVER simply so that you don’t lose. If you have given up on winning and simply run away to stall the match forever... they aren’t the same. Note that this is only a problem in SSBM if you chose not to have a time on your stock matches (it also goes away if you simply play time). You can easily make it so that this isn’t possible by making a time limit. You could still be lame if you wish, but you couldn’t destroy the point of the game. That is where the line is drawn. Working within the confines of the rules to maximize your advantage and win is fundamentally dissimilar to taking advantage of an oversight to tie. I’ll use an analogy, because it would seem oh so appropriate. Say that in MvC there was a glitch, a certain button combination that could be performed by most characters, that froze the game. The machine has to be restarted, the match started over again. Whenever you were about to lose, you could simply freeze the machine and make it a tie. This is the same thing as running away forever. This tactic certainly would, and SHOULD, get banned from tournament play. Nothing would ever get done, and it would obviate the entirety of it. This is one of the few extenuating circumstances where there SHOULD be steps taken to prevent certain tactics.

Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

Smash Master

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

BRoomer

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

BRoomer

wut

Smash Rookie

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Rookie

BRoomer

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Rookie

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Journeyman

Information

Network