Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

we're discussing tourney fairness here

Hyrule Temple is obviously not a good level for tournament play. Simply due to the ease of running. On any other stage, you'll make a mistake trying to run eventually and the fight will resume. Of course, if Items were off, running might be successful...but with items on, eventually you will get a legendary pokemon of some sort and I'll be ****ed if you can't catch somebody on a smaller stake when there's that bird that makes the flaming tornado blocking off a full half of the stage. Honestly you should catch someone here. And it would be hard for them to disable mines as easily what with having less room to get a good distance between them and their enemies to give them time to fire at it. Thus, a match with items on on a small stage will end if a player runs away (Except on a crappy non-tourney-worthy stage like Hyrule, where ***** tactics are quite easy to pull off against slow characters). A match with no items on a small stage can easily become a stalemate, and the solution of forcing the players to end the match is ridiculous. Yes, it makes sense in your example of a player running forever and never fighting...but it doesn't make sense when the players are simply camping because it is strategically more viable. You keep bringing up that items on would not solve this. The players COULD still camp. (Yeah, capitalization is fun). The thing is, it is no longer strategically beneficial to them. So yeah, they COULD camp and then you'd be forced to do an unorthodox solution like disqualification...but they won't ever do that. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to camp when it is advantageous to do so....it's not reasonable to do it when it is disadvantageous. Thus the former will happen many times while the latter would not. And I don't know about you, but arguing about hypothetical situations that will never occur just doesn't seem relevant to me.

Thus: Items on breaks stalemates among reasonable players (a.k.a. the only players we care about).

Another point I just don't understand. You keep talking about item skill overriding hand-to-hand fighting skill. The question that comes to my mind first is what makes hand-to-hand fighting superior as a measure to skill. Items obviously don't render it useless, they just complement it. So I don't see why it is necessarily "bad" if a guy can beat someone more frequently with items on and lose more frequently with them off. What makes items not recognized as a valid skill set? The analogy even though we hate those is if you decide to ban throws. One guy is more skilled than another with his throwing game, but less skilled without it. As such you have a match spread exactly like the one you mentioned with Sean and Mickey. What makes throws different from items, as a skillset? (Aside from the fact that items is an easier thing to ban due to the built in setting). Your point about items becoming more important that regular play only makes sense if for some reason item skill was not a valid skill to measure...I just don't see why it isn't. It's definitely a part of the game.

I guess I'll let Matt respond to the points made to him, though if he continues with the minimal arguing I may be forced to argue on his behalf.

-B

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by 1psemet
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).

My lack of conviction to read the previous pages is that I do not have the time. I dont even have internet access at my place. Also reading your posts bug me. Because I think just cause you think you know how to use big words you think you bring good points. I dont think your points are good, and I dont think you know how to play the game. I think if you played with someone from our area they would rip you a new one. Basically each time I sit down to point, I get frustrated cause I feel like Im debating with a moron. (No I am not using insults to dodge your "points", Im telling how I feel. Yes I think you are a moron.)

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.

First off I play medium items cause thats what my group likes. I think it is a good balance. If they are on low, or very low, it doesnt bother me. Just that they are on, to add teh third element, and to keep the match moving. I do think that above medium items become more dominating to gameplay, so I reccomend using medium to very low.

Now I dont know how you can possibly say that items dont integrate well. I think its pretty much a perfect system. Each character has their own unique ways of using items. There is an intricate system of how to catch them, dodge them, or reflect them. They even made certain items be un-reflectable to make it that the characters with reflectors dont have an extreme advantage. Its not like when items are on the screen the game is that much changed. It blends in my opinion perfectly. You can even play no items with items on. You just throw the items away. You choose to use your hand to hand combat, yet the third element is still intact.

As for insulting my lack of effort, yes Im lazy. Why? Cause I have like 3 days worth of effing match vids I gotta go through to make a DVD, and I have homework cause I go to college. On top of this, Im trying to have at least a little of a social life. Frankly sitting down for an hour and debating with a person I dont respect, and think he is a moron doesnt get to the top of my list.

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.

I dont think its a tiny percentage. Like I said I see it happen all the time. Its one of the reasons I love items.

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.

"Its about the combined effect of the various reasons"

How about you make a post that just lists these "combined effects." It will simplify it for everyone, that way no one has to go through and read 5 pages of long posts. From what I have read, I didnt see any good various reasons, maybe if you put them all on one page, perhaps a pros/cons like thingy, I might gain a bit of respect for you.

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.

Oh man, try to think for a second. You really think I said pokeballs and landmines so you can just throw them at people. There is something that comes out of a pokeball, its called a pokemon. And often they take up an area of the screen, which therefore allows you to break someone out of their camping spot, or move them into an even postition where they can fight.

Landmines can prevent running, because you can stick one in an area, and then flush him out. Granted yes he can disarm it, but then that takes time, which generally will allow you to either catch up or trap the person. Ex. Hyrule running game takes place in the circle on the level. Someone goes to the top, the other goes to the bottom. You stick a landmine in either of the passages to the top or bottom, and you are able to catch up to the person. If it is on the left passage, it is pretty hard to disarm. Then the person cant run down or up, and you can trap them.

 

[Mattdeezie]

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.

B explained the item flushing thing very well, but Ill do my version too so you can have two things to look at.

A stalemate isnt just cause you have two a$$holes trying to ruin a tournament. In that case where you have TWO people who do nothing, you disqualify them. However, if their motive is to win, that is different. They can run all they want.

The reason a stalemate exists is (like i said before) because a person has an advantage and they do not want to give it up.

Im going to use an example on Termina Bay.

You have one person, Mario, who is camping at the middle ledge, next to the turtle. He is playing Doc. Mario doesnt want to move from that ledge, cause he knows that he can block-a throw any attack Doc comes down with, or he has a distinct advantage to get that throw, which can allow him to get an easy KO. The other Mario doesnt want to take the risk to come and get him, cause he is disadvantaged. You cant make the Mario move, because he is implying a strategy that will make him win. You can make the Doc move, because you cant force him to attack when he is disadvantaged.

How items solve this problem.

The camping Mario is at a DISADVANTAGE now. Why? Because if he camps, Doc has access to around 70% of the stage, and therefore around 70% of the items. A simple item can add the third element, in this case the throwing aspect, to allow doc to take that position over easier. He can also gain something like a star rod to attack from the other lower platform. He can choose to do this if he would like. If he still thinks its not worth it, he can wait it out for better items.

At an extreme camping game, he can wait for pokeballs. If you have a free pokeball, there is no reason you wouldnt throw one down. It will release a pokemon, which may affect the area that Mario is camping at. This will flush Mario out of his position, and even the playing ground. Now both people can fight and not be advantaged or disadvantaged.

Without items there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to get that Mario to move.

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?

The reason you do not add a time limit, is whack *** sudden death. They ruined this aspect of the game. Why? Cause of the dropping bomb'ombs. Then you can have a person run away all day, just to get the sudden death, and then runaway more, and try to win by the random bombombs.

Its not flawed just cause someone can runaway forever. Its flawed more by the fact that there is nothing to even the playing feild when someone puts themselves in an advantagous postition. Thats why I said that no items only works on stages with no advantageous positioning, and moving levels. You have nowhere to camp, nowhere to run. No item play does work then, I just still think its lame.

 

[Pgreg]

My lord these are some long posts ! ! ! So im going to make mine short and simple. Yes, weapons do add randomness, but is that necessarily a good thing?

I think that the best setting is: Have weapons, but nothing that can instantly change the outcome of the match(homerun bat, heart, and even the star rod and the bob-bomb*sp?).

But I will also say that matches with no weapons are boring...so to keep my "short and simple" promise, i will say that certain weapons make the matches more interesting, and others are just too overpowered

 

[m1nds]

just quit it matt its not worth it

i'm telling you matt just screw it, this guy doesn't know jack. he's been talking and talking, and posting long *** replies just for the sake of arguing, many times already he has acknowledged that items do add something to the game; even if it is 1% as he believes it to be, but its more than worth it, compare it to the chances of winning the lottery, if the prize is big enough, then someone will actually play the odds of that 1%. since he already admitted that; the pro-items argument has already proven to be superior. I've never seen someone post so much just so they can have something to do and try to be known for something that is related to smash, he's just trying to make a name for himself its soo obvious.
As for you 1pesemet, how many matches have you actually played, and not just lvl1 comp, i'm talking legitimate tourny winners, legitimate top tier players. if you have you will see that a match is not a match without items and i mean that in symbolic way, so don't post a five page rebuttal, ***. It adds more than you can seem to comprehend. And if you reply to this, make it short...so to you that probably means 2 pages instead of 10. "Don't use seven words when four will do"

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

now now, he's not a moron

he isn't a moron. He does argue his points well. Granted some of it is just big words but he also makes good points with backup.

We just make better ones.

No, I'm serious, I honestly feel like we have refuted each point made quite nicely. But there really is no need to resort to all-out flaming. M1nds, your contribution was silly- of course items add something to the game. 1psemet just believes they take away even more. So yeah, I don't think he's stupid for thinking that, just misinformed. Which is why I'm trying unsuccessfully to change his mind. I mean, I just don't see a viable defense to the whole problem of stalemates in no item play, unless he also proposes only playing on non-campable stages. I don't think he does, so...I just don't see his point on this particular issue, which is a big one.
All I see is that to solve stalemates is that you force through disqualification people to attack each other. As this is grossly unfair because the guys are just using the game mechanics to get the best advantage possible, it seems like an invalid point to me. What's next? They're only taking advantage of a valid part of the game. We've already heard the argument of people who just refuse to fight...but that has nothing to do with items.

-B

 

[Scamp]

I dunno...

A SLIGHT difference in skill with items leads to a 4-6 point difference, that doesn't sound slight to me. Also, which characters were they using, and what stages were they on? This is important stuff. Overall, I'd say Sean needs to practice his item defense, as he seems to be lacking in that department.

In any event, overall I'm also getting the opinion that you guys don't know how to use items that well. Sure, it's easy to shield and let items bounce off you and into oblivion if you're standing on that platform in the lower right of hyrule temple. But this will only happen if your opponent is stupid enough to throw things AT you, instead of near you. (Playing against Fox/Falco/Mario/Dr.Mario/Zelda/Ness really helps with this, especially if you're throwing pokeballs.)

And seriously, if you didn't know how to prevent people from running with mines then you haven't played with them very much.

But, the thing I'm mostly curious about these "combined effects of the various reasons that items are negative". A simple pros and cons list would be helpful, and handy. After pages of really long debates you lose sight of certain points, and other points you think are resolved or disproven turn out to be not so. Lists are also much easier to nit-pick, because everything will be straight to the point.

And, of course, if you want more analogies for something, I'd be happy to try some out. Even if it's an analogy for something I don't agree with. I'm very flexible.


Oh, and Matt, what do you mean when you say you have 3 days worth of match vids to go through. Are you compiling footage from all three TGs?


Pgreg: I put your name in bold so you'd see this. Anyway, the heart I agree with, and the HRB and bob-omb I won't argue against, but why is the star-rod overpowered? (I assume you think it's overpowered by the way you said it instantly changes the outcome of the match.)

 

[ECVlion]

The way I see it, items are just as third element. I don't care whether they're on or not, they just make the game more complicated. It adds more projectile into the game. I don't see how it would be any better or worse than no items. With items, you have to be skilled at reflecting items, throwing a lot, D&D, and a lot more things. Without items, you don't have to be as skilled. I don't see how its so random; every single component adds both randomness and skill to a game. I don't see how items are so much better/worse than no items.

About the stalemates, it's possible to keep somebody at bay, and its possible for both people to camp. But how often does that happen?

 

[m1nds]

you know whats silly?

whats silly is that you let this **** keep on posting his bullsht. Listen my contribution is my contribution, either it be small or as thick as a book; its still a valid opinion. if you don't like my contribution fine, why don't you just **** ban me just like all you guys do when someone says something that rubs all of you guys the wrong fcking way. 1pesemet's opinion is just stupid, i totally see what he's trying to do and people are falling for his sht, in any case we know he has less experience than most people on these boards...he's too close minded to argue with anyways, if my post seem to generate too much heat then to dmn bad.

Wheres 'theend' when you need him...heh

 

[Pgreg]

Scamp:
I think that the star rod is so good because of its versatility; it can be used as a projectile or a close range weapon. It is also the best throwing weapon in the game(only compared to weapons that can be used hand-to-hand). And if you use do non-smash attacks with it, it is VERY quick, and does great damage. I just dont think that there should be weapons that give someone such a big advantage. These weapons leave the losers with exuses, and nobody wants to hear someone do that, eh?

 

[1psemet]

Eoraptor was kind enough to make the list that you people desired, so we could move over there for a more concise debate, as this one has, inevitably, veered from it's intended goal. There are still quite a few points raised since my last post that must be addressed, however, and I will now do so. I'll address each of you individually, as that's simply the easiest and least confusing way to do it. Well then:

Bumble Bee Tuna, we meet again. We all agree that Hyrule is the extreme as far as examples concerning stage imbalance is concerned, and I admit that even there you couln't run away FOREVER. Eventually you would slip up, or get screwed by some item combination. But eventually is the key word. How long in a tournament environment can you afford to wait? An hour? What are the frequency of the legendary pokemon on medium items? I did a quick measurement of how frequently items fall, and it's usually ~9 seconds. I don't have figures for how often Pokeballs appear (it varies with the stage, furthermore), nor what percentage of those are legendary Pokemon, but if this is your primary offense it could take a long, long time. Also you have to keep in mind that prox-mines are a hazard to you as well. If you put it in a sutuation where he can't disarm it easily (though on almost any stage Pikachu can do so, and while in the air to boot), then you have to worry about getting blown up just as much as he (actually more or less depending on the characters, but it's too complicated to go into). And though Hyrule is the most blatant of abusable stages, it's not the only one. Fourside is rather large and sprawling with many a camp-ground, and the old Yoshi's Island has the cloud on the far right that is the perfect camping ground, and items don't help much in the way of preventing it. Many of the stages simply aren't perfectly designed to be tournament worthy one on one environments.

And though I agree that this isn't directly pertinent, as it only comes into play when someone is being an *******, it still must be said. The solution to ending stalemates in matches which I suggested is, contrary to seeming belief around here, is one of the only possible solutions. Either you make it so that the aggressor has quite a large advantage, or you place a time limit in place. The former isn't sufficiently blatant in SSBM, and I would like to note that you CAN indeed place a time limit in SSBM. I don't recall ever saying that you shouldn't, and if I did I was wrong. Putting a time limit of, say, 20 minutes on the matches prevents a stalemate in a much more fundamental way then items, and is perfectly reasonable. Someone could always decide that it was beneficial to try to cause a stalemate with items on and no time. If it's the last match of the tournament, and they have only one life left, they can decide that they'll just run away until their opponent gets bored and quits. Perfectly logical.

In conclusion: Time limit (whether in-game {preferable} or arbitrary) breaks stalemates. Items help dissuade people from stalemates, but don't completely prevent them from occurring as a time limit does.

For my statements on item skill and their importance... I never said that it wasn't a valid skill set. Items do indeed require a deal of skill. What I was saying was that the item's skill importance, especially on higher item frequency, takes on absurd proportions in relation to the other skills. The problem with your analogy, according to my experience, is that the throwing skill set isn't even remotely as important. I will use an example from my play history that is pertinent. Back in the day (Several months ago, that is), I simply didn't throw. I play Samus, and I never got good with her throw in the first game, and I didn't have any throwing reflex for this one. The vast majority of my playtime with SSBM has been with me using throws only by accident and usually getting punished for it. As mentioned before, I generally beat my brother, who regularly snatches people out of the air with his throws and uses them as a big part of his game. This is very consistent. When I didn't use throws, he punished me as much as you could for not doing so, but I found ways around such tactics and still beat him about 80% of the time. I then decided to expand my repertoire and integrated throws. Though arguably one of the worst in the game, Samus's throw has several uses, and opens up a couple of combos. When I'd firmly integrated them and utilize it effectively it sure as **** didn't give me a 4-6 point increase in the average match outcome. I still beat him about 80% of the time, the play has simply evolved. For characters that aren't Samus, admittedly, throws play more of a part... not to the extent that items do. Why I think they should be taken out of tournament play (or at least separated into a different tournament standard, ala CORY's idea) is that they play such a huge factor that this particular set basically replaces many of the others, not simply complementing them.

Over to Mattdeezie we switch for a while. Not having internet access one of the best reasons possible, but your next ones are sub-par I’m afraid. Simply for the shear lack of justification. You say that you think that A: I don’t know how to play the game, B: that I am in actuality a moron and merely try to obfuscate this fact by supplementing my points with useless verbiage, and C: that this being the case, I persist in some sort of delusion of grandeur, thinking myself superior solely on grounds of word usage. Let’s go over the possible reasoning that you have for each of these, shall we? You’ve never met me, nor seen me play. You know nothing at all of my play style, tactics, or general level of competence. Egotism is understandable, but only to a certain extent. Believing everyone else (or at least those that you dislike for completely unrelated reasons) to be vastly more incompetent than your playgroup goes overboard. As for B, this is also unprovable with the information that you possibly have. Assuming that you can indeed understand what I say (you must not read very much if that’s not the case, I make a point not to be overtly verbose), you will realize that the statements that I make use these “big words” as they were intended to. You will note that there is always clearly stated reasoning in each and every one of my posts, all of which are backed up with some sort of evidence or logic. You may not agree with them, but as everyone else (besides your buddies theend and m1nds) will tell you if you are unable to follow along, they are coherent. That leaves C which, unsurprisingly, is completely untenable as well. I think that I bring up good points because they are internally consistent and founded on or backed up with experience, not because I regularly use a larger number of words than most people. I can cite examples of some who do use “big words” to hide the fact that they are idiots if you wish, and you will note the clear differences if you have even the slightest inkling as to what those “big words” mean.

Attacking someone for their utilizing the language they speak to a fuller potential then yourself doesn’t strike you as puerile and ignorant in the least? Either way, the above being the case, and glancing over the comparative nature of our posts in this thread, who has the better case for the other being a moron?

Your next few paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. You admit that items on a frequency above medium become “dominating to gameplay”. I disagree on medium being optimal, but that’s a minor point, and otherwise we would be in agreement. However, in your next paragraph you state that they integrate well, despite the fact that they can, admittedly, become dominant in gameplay. This furthermore contradicts your next statement that play doesn’t really change all that much when items are on the screen. When an item appears, it distinctly changes gameplay, depending on what it is. If it’s a Heart or Star, then gameplay becomes momentarily centered on getting it before your opponent does, or ambushing him as he does. Some items grantedly have little impact on play (Mr. Saturn, a singly piece of food, etc.), but quite often they radically change what happens next.

As a side note, it’s difficult to argue about something so nebulous as “the third element”. What are the first two? Also, clearly defining what this one is is in order as well. Otherwise it has no real place in any logical argument.

I would have made a list, but Eoraptor has done so before I could. It’s rather well done, and concise. I will discuss aspects of such in that thread.

I am perfectly aware of the workings of the Pokeball. Obviously I meant that the subsequent Pokemon, barring a couple exceptions, are easy to avoid. They are undisputedly advantageous, of course, but quite often end up not damaging your opponent in the least. Not to mention that they are generally of a very limited duration, making it so they can’t inhabit any given area for a few seconds only. As for prox-mines, if you place them perfectly then they are indeed difficult to disarm (note that Pikachu, for instance, can do this while still evading the opponent, however, by thunderjolting in midair). But on Hyrule, if you place it anywhere in the rightmost passage, it can be easily avoided or disarmed. The leftmost passage, you have a point. If he is completely unable to disarm it or slip through, then he would have to move his running game from the safe circle to running to one extreme, waiting for you to chase, and passing you to repeat. He might get hit every once and a while, but he could still evade you for long enough that it can’t be allowed within a tournament.

Your example is good. Mario’s camping puts him at a slight advantage, which is merely optimizing his chances of winning and so can’t be faulted. I’ll give an alternative to having items on to solve the problem.

 

[1psemet]

How time limits solve this problem.

The players know there is a 20 minute time limit. If Doc is currently winning, then if Mario continues to camp he’s basically forfeiting the match, as he’ll lose when the time expires. If Mario is winning, then Doc has to attack in order to even it out lest he lose at the end. If they are tied, it goes to sudden death. If they still try to camp, then it boils down to who has the best bomb dodging and shielding skill. This gives whoever is winning some advantage as they can to some extent dictate how the match goes, but you’ll find that this is the way that almost every fighter in existence is. It adds another element of stratagy.

As you say, certain of the stages are in general fairer, and more tournament worthy then others. Saying that the inherent fighting mechanics are flawed because some stages are poorly designed for one on one fighting isn’t a strong reason against it. It’s a reason against those levels.

For sudden death, it’s done rather well, I think. If they can avoid you without getting killed once for twenty minutes or more (they certainly can on some stages, without items, but not on others), then they could avoid you in sudden death as well. The bomb’ombs prevent any sort of fundamental stalemate from occurring. How would the lack of bomb-ombs make it better? If they can avoid you for that long (on a fair stage), they are obviously immensely skilled, they simply couldn‘t do so if they weren‘t competent. Without bomb’ombs they could stalemate it, and even if they don’t it’s not the most accurate judge of skill whoever happens to get the first hit. There is still the skill required to avoid bomb-ombs that you have to take into account as well. It may not be the BEST system, but there are no glaring flaws.


Note: I won’t deign to respond to m1nds reply, as, much like theend, he quite obviously doesn’t deserve one. Simply let it be said that all of his “points” (meant in the loosest sense possible) are completely unfounded and undefendable.

Bumble Bee Tuna again, I thank you for your kind words, but despair at some of your other statements. First of all I would like to mention that I have kept an open mind in this discussion, and several of the points raised in defense of items have indeed adjusted my views. I certainly have more respect for item play then I started with. It still seems to me though that items take away far more than they add. My defense for stalemates, as I’ve stated in reply to Matdeezie is simply to put a time limit on. This solves all the problems, and leaves the decisions of how much to try and abuse their advantages completely up to them. This works on any stage, not simply the non-campable ones. If any of you could point out any problems with this I’d be glad to hear them.

And finally down to Scamp. The difference in their item skill is not a huge one. The have almost the exact same play time, on the exact same settings (almost all of which is with items on mind you, they don‘t share my distaste for such. Mickey has maxed out his playtime doing with this, and Sean is only a few hundred minutes away), as they play together almost solely. And when they have their usual matches vs. the computer, the difference isn’t very glaring at all. In these matches, Mickey was playing Pikachu, and Sean was playing Sheik (the results are similar if is playing Zelda), and they are on a wide spread of stages. If you really wish I can list all the actual data, though I was waiting until we had more, and put it into graphs. As you can see from the outcome without items, Sean is considerably better. Whether it’s because Mickey has let his basic skills atrophy or Sean is just far better is unknowable, but the fact remains that it’s a blatant trend. The fact that the difference in their items skill so drastically alters things demonstrates how comparatively important it is.

As for your saying that I don’t understand items... No, this doesn’t only work if they throw it AT you. The platform is sufficiently small that with the most minor of adjustments you cover the area that his trajectory is aiming for. That platform is barely bigger than your shield my friend, and it’s nearly impossible to land something there if there is a competent person guarding it. Not to mention that they can also grab it out of mid-air. Perhaps, on the contrary, you don’t have sufficient experience with people who are rather good at item defense.

It is conceivable that we are all remarkably and horrendously inefficient with items, only varying in the extent of such. I really see no evidence for this being the case, however, and think that it's an unanswerable question until one of our playgroup plays someone recognised. We can only hope.

Heh I’m finally done. Until next time.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by 1psemet
Over to Mattdeezie we switch for a while. Not having internet access one of the best reasons possible, but your next ones are sub-par I’m afraid. Simply for the shear lack of justification. You say that you think that A: I don’t know how to play the game, B: that I am in actuality a moron and merely try to obfuscate this fact by supplementing my points with useless verbiage, and C: that this being the case, I persist in some sort of delusion of grandeur, thinking myself superior solely on grounds of word usage. Let’s go over the possible reasoning that you have for each of these, shall we? You’ve never met me, nor seen me play. You know nothing at all of my play style, tactics, or general level of competence. Egotism is understandable, but only to a certain extent. Believing everyone else (or at least those that you dislike for completely unrelated reasons) to be vastly more incompetent than your playgroup goes overboard. As for B, this is also unprovable with the information that you possibly have. Assuming that you can indeed understand what I say (you must not read very much if that’s not the case, I make a point not to be overtly verbose), you will realize that the statements that I make use these “big words” as they were intended to. You will note that there is always clearly stated reasoning in each and every one of my posts, all of which are backed up with some sort of evidence or logic. You may not agree with them, but as everyone else (besides your buddies theend and m1nds) will tell you if you are unable to follow along, they are coherent. That leaves C which, unsurprisingly, is completely untenable as well. I think that I bring up good points because they are internally consistent and founded on or backed up with experience, not because I regularly use a larger number of words than most people. I can cite examples of some who do use “big words” to hide the fact that they are idiots if you wish, and you will note the clear differences if you have even the slightest inkling as to what those “big words” mean.

First of all, you can tell a lot by the way a person plays by the way they post and what they post. From certain aspects of what you think about item play, which may be minor, lead me to belive you do not know how to play the game well comparatively to the group I play with. I feel like I am debating with a scrub. You might not actually be a scrub, but I definately dont think you would be top notch calibur. As for you usage of big words, I still think you just use all those to make yourself seem like you are making a point.

Eropter did a good job at explaining everything. Your "combined various elements" turned out to be 5 ways of saying items add randomness. Congratulations, your big words did something. They made it seem like you made numerous points, when in fact you didn't. (Gee arent I glad I didnt read the earlier pages.)

Attacking someone for their utilizing the language they speak to a fuller potential then yourself doesn’t strike you as puerile and ignorant in the least? Either way, the above being the case, and glancing over the comparative nature of our posts in this thread, who has the better case for the other being a moron?

First off, there was a reason I insulted your language. I think I showed that above. Second, Im pretty sure people around here know Im not a moron. Why? Cause I have actually showed that I know how to play the game on numerous occasions. Just playing with your friends, and doing tests doesnt mean jack about how you play.

Your next few paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. You admit that items on a frequency above medium become “dominating to gameplay”. I disagree on medium being optimal, but that’s a minor point, and otherwise we would be in agreement. However, in your next paragraph you state that they integrate well, despite the fact that they can, admittedly, become dominant in gameplay. This furthermore contradicts your next statement that play doesn’t really change all that much when items are on the screen. When an item appears, it distinctly changes gameplay, depending on what it is. If it’s a Heart or Star, then gameplay becomes momentarily centered on getting it before your opponent does, or ambushing him as he does. Some items grantedly have little impact on play (Mr. Saturn, a singly piece of food, etc.), but quite often they radically change what happens next.

Yes this is awesome. When an item appears, is distinctly changes gameplay depending on what it is. That is the essence of items.

I was playing Vien today. We were playing Mario vs Doc. We were having a quite boring pill vs fireball match. Then an item dropped over by Vien. Vien went for the item, me knowing that I couldnt do anything about him getting it, backed off to a safer distance. He then used to item to throw at me, to gain in distance on me and we started having a close in battle. If the item didnt drop, the game wouldnt have progressed in the way it did. We would have been sitting there throwing fireballs/pills. That is a reason why items are dope. It did integrate well, it helped progress the match.

Yes every so often an item appears that makes a dramatic change in the progression of the match. But 95% of the time it is because of user error. And even then the remaining 5% is usually divided amongst the players, so its not like someone always gets screwed. Vien and my results are quite consistent whether we play no items or with items. Its just that when we play with items there are much larger elaborate set-ups and tactics used to defeat the opponent than with items off. There are more mind games, more thinking, and overall I think it takes more skill. For the amount of greatness we get out of the game due to items, to turn them off cause I might beat him at a time I wouldnt have with items off, perhaps even at an extreme case 1 out of 10 times, is (you are gonna like this big word) ludicrious.

As a side note, it’s difficult to argue about something so nebulous as “the third element”. What are the first two? Also, clearly defining what this one is is in order as well. Otherwise it has no real place in any logical argument.

element one-opponent
element two-stage
element three-items

An example of the greatness of the third element. Lets say there is a person on the ground, and you are in the air with a Mr. Saturn. You throw the Mr Saturn down at your opponent. The opponent rolls to the left to avoid, and on your way down you hit him at the end of his roll with your air back-a.

A simple example of a set-up that couldnt have been done in no item play. Its an example of the third element. This happens all the time throughout the match.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by 1psemet
How time limits solve this problem.

The players know there is a 20 minute time limit. If Doc is currently winning, then if Mario continues to camp he’s basically forfeiting the match, as he’ll lose when the time expires. If Mario is winning, then Doc has to attack in order to even it out lest he lose at the end. If they are tied, it goes to sudden death. If they still try to camp, then it boils down to who has the best bomb dodging and shielding skill. This gives whoever is winning some advantage as they can to some extent dictate how the match goes, but you’ll find that this is the way that almost every fighter in existence is. It adds another element of stratagy.

Then you have people who turtle just to get the SD. If you are both at the last life, one person at 150% one at 0%, the the guy at 150% turtles to get the sudden death and even the odds. Its an element of strategy, I just dont like it.

As you say, certain of the stages are in general fairer, and more tournament worthy then others. Saying that the inherent fighting mechanics are flawed because some stages are poorly designed for one on one fighting isn’t a strong reason against it. It’s a reason against those levels.

I think more along the lines of that no item gameplay isnt suited for the ssbm gameplay engine. All the stages work fine with items, with the exception of hyrule. I think that is the only problem stage in the game.

For sudden death, it’s done rather well, I think. If they can avoid you without getting killed once for twenty minutes or more (they certainly can on some stages, without items, but not on others), then they could avoid you in sudden death as well. The bomb’ombs prevent any sort of fundamental stalemate from occurring. How would the lack of bomb-ombs make it better? If they can avoid you for that long (on a fair stage), they are obviously immensely skilled, they simply couldn‘t do so if they weren‘t competent. Without bomb’ombs they could stalemate it, and even if they don’t it’s not the most accurate judge of skill whoever happens to get the first hit. There is still the skill required to avoid bomb-ombs that you have to take into account as well. It may not be the BEST system, but there are no glaring flaws.

im quite partial to this, because my group played extensive SD gameplay in the first ssbm.

problem one-no items drop
problem 2-bombombs

no items drop which would allow someone to camp, which is a problem they tried to solve by throwing in bombombs.

bombombs dropping from the sky is complete crap. It happens after 30 effing seconds. So basically you could have an intense SD match going on, and then a stupid bombomb drops and ruins everything. you can also get a person to stall for a SD, then wait purposely for the bomboms to get a random result. ( I would think you would understand this, mr I have 5 different ways to say items add randomness)

you think occasional items dropping is gambreaking and random, however a screen that has like 30 bombombs falling at the same time is acceptable to prevent a stalemate?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

The problem with no-items/time limit as a stalemate-breaker

Time limit is not a viable option. Use this example:

Bumble Bee Tuna, through some sort of crazy luck involving good brackets and joystick-slip-ups of his opponents, is in the finals of TG4 against Recipherus. He knows **** well Recipherus can kick his *** and has the advantage here. BUT, he has practiced some badass camping skills on the Japes platform (with Link, I'll say, as that seems to be accepted as a good camping spot...like I know anythung about it). Now, BBT has a chance. He can even the scales with his camping zone, and maybe even win the title. Recipherus is stuck with a choice: possibly lose to a player far less skilled due to camping (not really judging "comparative skill" as your original topic was about), OR, he can wait for time to run out and go to Sudden Death. Now it is up to the randomness of the Bob-omb drop to decide the winner. Whoever gets lucky when 50 bombs rain from the sky becomes the tournament champion. Bad deal for Recipherus, obviously, because he is the better player...but for me, it's great! I go from 1% chance of victory to maybe 60-40? whatever it is it's a LOT better than his real chances based on skill. Knowing how opposed you are to randomness, I would imagine you'd want this not to happen. But aside from telling me to stop doing something advantageous to me within the mechanics (which you cannot legitimately do), spamming projectiles, you don't have any options. With no items and a time limit, this will eff up your tourney. BTW, it doesn't have to be the same situation I mentioned, so please don't just say some specific is stupid (like the prospect of me in the finals). It could just as easily be the first match of the tourney and Reciph gets unfairly eliminated.

Of course, with items on, Reciph would be dominating 4/5 of the stage, thus getting the vast majority of items, eventually getting good projectiles to force me off my wonderful ledge or possibly a pokeball to throw directly at the edge of the central platform. I rightfully lose. Very simple...

This is actually my big problem with items off. The stalemate factor is just too major to ignore. For this reason, items on low wouldn't be such a bad compromise. But there's no reasonable solution except items.

-B

 

[Scamp]

Chiming in.

I would just like to add that I don't think Hyrule Temple is unacceptable for tournament play. On the contrary, many people picked that stage at the TGs I've been to, it's very popular. The only problem with it is the ability to run away, which doesn't occur on any other stage. If this is the only reason why it's unacceptable (and it seems that it is, IMO) then that's a shame, but I understand.

As is, I'd like to put Yoshi's Island 64 on my list for unacceptable stages. Not only in tournaments, but unacceptable in general. There's no excuse for the inability to see yourself on the lower platform, as well as blatant and extremely easy camping on the far cloud. Was this stage really that popular in the first Smash Brothers? Wasn't one game tester able to recognize that his character was behind the damage counter? Also, didn't someone realize that some characters have huge problems returning from the cloud on the far right?

WHAT THE **** WERE THEY THINKING???????

Oh, and I said ****, not ****. I don't usually swear when I type, but I swear a lot when I speak. Interesting, no?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Hyrule

Are you serious? How could Hyrule be viable? I see more than one ***** tactic possible.

When one person's damage is high, and one's is low, the low guy sits on top and the high guy sits in the cave. It would be stupid for either of them to go to the other one. This results in way too much stalemating (or at least it should! why the heck would you not do this?)
There's also the tactic, if you have a fast character, of just going in circles and waiting for items to hand you the victory. Not so good of a tactic, but it still makes the match much more random. It's not like one player will really control the stage, so running doesn't limit the item possibilities.
So yeah, those are two tactics I know I would exploit in a no-holds-barred tourney situation...I'm surprised the TG crowd didn't do so.

EDIT: I do agree that Yoshi 64 sucks too. The cloud thing where some characters can't make it is the main reason why. How lame. Also, cloud camping can be lame.

-B

 

[m1nds]

hehe

Bout fckin time, anyone who attempts to use big words to exhibit how much more intelligent they are, come off as snobs who don't really know much and just use those words to dance around the point their making to make it sound as if their point is much more important than it really is. A closer look will show how shallow 1pesemet's side of the pool is.

Then he comes off and says that he uses the english language to the fullest effect that he can and then says its not his fault that everyone else can't do the same, goes to show what he actually thinks of everyone else on the boards. Suddenly he has coronated himself as the smartest and most intelligent one on the boards; not realizing that he's just a noob looking for recognition, cuz he can't hold a candle to someone such as Matt or Vien or anyone else at that matter. Why is it that no else sees this...

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

uh....m1nds? shut it

Where's "theend" you ask? simple, you and he are one and the same. Or at least, you post with the same level of stupidity. Clever that you got around the ban. yippee. Not too hard to change IPs...but, it won't be hard to ban you again, either. The only shallow argument here is yours as it lacks any substance.

-B

 

[Pgreg]

A lil off topic :C)

I like the Hyrule on SSB. We never played anything but hyrule, but now we play corneria*, and we call it "the new hyrule". Anyone else do this?

Oh ya, the new hyrule is a bit too big. With a couple characters, you can jump off the right side, and land on the cylinder below(peach, Jigglypuff, kirby). And of course all characters can do this on the left side of the stage :C)

 

[m1nds]

holy **** he figured it out

omg, he found me out, i'm theend. suddenly you just showed me how stupid you are, yeah i'm theend, why am i the end? are you gonna lay out a whole new argument? no, cuz suddenly you have no argument. comparing my post to his, geeezus christ man; i don't like one person and you jump to conclusions. whatever man, you have all this power or whatever and all you do is abuse it; what have i done that is soo horrible that i deserved to be banned? act like a killed a guy, i'm just pointing out simple things that are more than apparent in 1pesemet's post. You on the other hand just go around looking for some thread that you can find someone to ban; what is it that you bring to the discussion? just because i lay out a simple statement instead of thirteen pages of text? why not ban matt? he called 1pesemet a moron, a direct flame if you ask me. well, do whatever you fckin want i don't give a ****, you guys just can't stand conflict amazingly enough your still alive considering that the real world is full of conflict; cuz its not all porn and cotton candy out here son. theres conflict in the real world and so some of it leaks into your boards, so what? there are worse things than what i do anyways..so you go ahead and ban me and you and 1pesement can continue your intimate relationship on the boards.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Matt made points, you did not.

I know there's conflict in the real world...and when there's a conflict, I solve it. In this case the solution is banning you. You contribute nothing to the boards. In the process, you break most of the rules and act like a **** in general. Not a difficult decision to make. Banning you isn't avoiding conflict, it's winning one. As you can tell, we're actually debating here. You know, making actual points. Try it sometime.

-B

 

[m1nds]

here ya go

heres an effing point; or atleast a question. what am i doing that atleast half the people on the boards are not doing? is it cussing cuz those asterixes in your post probably aren't compliments. is it flaming? cuz nothing changes the fact that a crapload of your members insult eachother, heck, your doing it right now. as for avoiding conflict? "Banning you isn't avoiding conflict, it's winning one." no, banning is just another way to avoid someone, heck, some might even say run away like a coward with your tail between your legs. and what exactly is your definition of a "point"? because it seems that you haven't been making any legitimate ones against me at all. well look at that no cussing, look at my regard for your precious rules. plus, i'm sure 1pesement can defend himself, and doesn't need a herald found in you. he chooses not to cuz he can't, thats why he'll always say something along the lines of "m1nds is wasting my time, obvious i'm really smart and don't need to bother with his post, i'm sure that you can see it for yourself and do not need me doing so" something like that, but except it'll be alot more flamboyant (means gay) or ostentatious (means gay).

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Simply put

You are wasting our time, and we don't need 1psemet to respond and point it out because we're all smart enough to see the worthlessness of your posts.

You will be banned because you don't contribute anything to the boards, and you flame mindlessly (ironic, what with your username and all). Insulting someone when they do something stupid, while not particularly a good thing, is not particularly bad either. You'll notice I insult you pretty frequently- that's because nobody cares about assholes, and so nobody cares about you.

The cussing, yeah, it's a lenient policy. You can cuss infrequently if you let the censor block it...dodging the censor gets you banned. There are small children that come here and that's what the webmaster wants.

Basically we have no qualms about banning people who add no value to the forums and just waste bandwith. It costs money every time you mindlessly post here, so we try to minimize that.

Surprisingly, in this last post, when you dropped somewhat of your swearing and your attitude, you almost passed off as someone with a semblance of intelligence. As you're obviously capable of switching IPs, perhaps you should come back with a new username after we ban you and with that name you could not be such a ****. ****, MattDeezie started out almost getting banned, I think, so maybe there's hope for you.

-B

 

[raul]

Sorry to have to do this put im kind of lost after reading the posts and readinbg about 1psemest getting yelled at and all, I kind of lost track of what has happened? could some one recap the arguement real fast ?

 

[1psemet]

Matdeezie: Indeed, you can tell a lot about people by the way that they speak and what they speak of. You could even reasonably conclude, in some instances, that someone uses their high vocabulary for obfuscation. You have no possible justification for thinking that I fall into this category, as any of the telltale clues that could lead you to this belief don't exist, because it simply isn't the case. Do you read any nonfiction at all, or even well written fiction for that matter? Do you read any intellectual magazines or watch any TV that isn't comprised of mind-numbing sitcoms? Because if you do, you will realize that people use these big words, not to show off, or demonstrate their superiority, but to clearly express subtleties and nuances that geveryday speechh leaves out.

About how Eoraptor's post explained everything to you, from what you say, I have to disagree and say that it obviously explained nothing. The way that he set up his argument/counter-argument system makes it so that several anti-item arguments are placed within the top. Furthermore, arguments 2, 3, 5, and 7 for pro items aren't relevant, but were listed there for completionfs sake. "Items add fun" for instance, doesn't pertain to whether they should be used in tournaments very much, does it? Arguments 4 and 6 are heavily disputed, and if he had listed anti-arguments first, they would have been listed there. Number 8 is valid, but there is a solution that can be brought about without items that is more effective. This leaves you with 1, 9, 10, and 11 that are valid and largely undisputed reasons that could not also be used for the opposite side of the debate. So please actually try reading the posts that you insist on commenting on, I would like to say once again.

So yes, the main anti-item arguments include the five or so distinct ways in which randomness is bad. It is utterly at odds with the tenants of tournament play, and thus takes on a very important role for purposes of this debate. They also include other important things such as "Items make character effectiveness potential more disparate." (Read: decrease balance by making the best characters comparatively better and the worst comparatively worse. This is inherently bad, as balance one of the primary goals in fighters). As well as that items decrease complexity in some meaningful ways, largely due to the skill sets associated with them being overwhelmingly important compared to all but only a couple of the others. This leaves the anti-item arguments with A1-A5 (the many ways in which randomness is bad, except for the belief of mine that items bring the winning % closer to 50 among people of near, but not quite, equal skill, which was mentioned extensively but ignored. I will call this A6. This will be tested by the results of the experiment that Eoraptor is performing.), and a modified version of 4 and 6.

Well, first off the reasons that you insulted my language usage don't really exist and aren't meaningful. I know it's a harsh reality, but not everyone speaks like an ignorant gangsta. You'll have to expand your horizons unless you plan on being uselessly angry at a good percentage of the population who speak on a different level. Then you state that you're pretty sure that people know you aren't a moron because you've demonstrated that you know how to play the game. How does this demonstrate that you aren't a moron? Play-skill and knowledge isn't directly correlated with this at all. Making numerous idiotic statements and drawing false conclusions along illogical lines of reasoning is, by all accounts, much more indicative. The ratio of these is what you would go about comparing in our various posts, if you wished to draw a conclusion about such.

This is in regards to your many unfounded statements regarding the probable level of ability of my playgroup and me. "Just playing among your friends" isn't, granted, meaningful in the grand scheme of things. However, if you are intelligent, you can come to conclusions about what is possible, and compare your level of play to this for an objective method of recognizing skill. The best possible player would powershield instead of shielding almost all of the time. Do I do this? No, but I do usually do so a couple times within a stock ten match. From all accounts not many on this board can boast more. You can look (and have others look) at your playing and recognize areas where you didn't shield or dodge when you could have, or could have recovered faster. You can tell if you tech whenever possible. You can look at the videos of people who are supposedly very skilled, and see how you match up. From these and many other clues you can determine whether you are fundamentally good or not. Also comparisons to all others that wefve met. Wefve recently met another big playgroup, and the best of them were comparable to the best of us. Wefve never met anyone significantly better, but many significantly worse. This is how I've come to my determinations about the general level of skill of my playgroup to others, and that we, and especially I, am near the top. There are doubtless others better, and there is room for improvement in our play, but from all indications wefre pretty **** good. I would appreciate hearing you state what contextual clues you could possibly use to determine otherwise.

Your example of how items change the match works well. If items werenft on, what would have happened? Eventually one of you would have gotten sufficiently damaged by the others pill/fireball and the other would have gone in for the kill. Who got more damaged would depend on who was more skilled at the timing of throwing the pills/fireballs, and who was more skilled at blocking/dodging/reflecting said pills/fireballs. Thus the more skilled person would eventually draw ahead and in all probability get the kill. If one of you was in a more disadvantageous position than the other and would thusly get hit considerably more often, then you should realize this and rectify the situation. The match would have progressed eventually anyway. Note also that if you both decided to sit there indefinitely (which wouldnft be optimal for one of you, at least), once again I would have to state that time is a better solution than items. No randomness here, it would all be dependent on skill.

You say that gevery so oftenh an item appears to make a huge difference in the progression of the match. I say that gbasically whenever an item appears, it makes a huge difference in the progression of the match.h, and in general not due to player error. If, in the match that you mentioned, a star had appeared by him insteadc It wouldnft have by any means guaranteed his victory, but it would have given him a huge advantage, and you a disadvantage that wasnft due to player error. It goes for the hammer as well, and a good percentage of the items. And these elaborate set-ups and tactics that are used to defeat the opponent that you speak of, by definition not occurring when items arenft on, obviously all relate to how to get the item, thus giving you an advantage, and how to abuse that unfair advantage to itfs fullest. The fact that it often requires thinking to do this is meaningless. Just because you have a hammer doesnft mean that youfll hit your opponent, as it requires you to anticipate where exactly hefll try to dodge to which requires some amount of thinking. And further thinking on his part on how to dodge and/or otherwise thwart you when you have it. This doesnft change the basic fact that one person has to try to overcome a blatant disadvantage that was, in all probability, conferred to him by him happening to be closer to the hammer when it appeared. And when you say an gextreme caseh of one out of tenc this is where we come into another disagreement. I believe that this is near the smallest amount that items will effect the odds, as seen from my experience.

Well, now that itfs explained clearly, it is rather apparent that your gelementh system is seriously flawed and lacking in the appropriate complexity. It confers an importance to items by virtue of their seeming lack of competition for elements. If you are listing the elements integral to a good fighting game, then you should list tens of others before items. gOpponenth and gstageh are rather ambiguous and meaningless. You should be saying something more akin to: 1, character variation. 2, an appropriately large number of characters. 3, character balance. 4, stage variation. 5, stages that complement play and are conducive to a fighting game environment. 6, amount of moves. 7, balance of moves and within each characterfs repertoire so as to make them each preferable in at least some specific situations, etc. The list of factors that are important to fighting games, if comprehensive would more clearly illustrate the place of items. The example you give to is unrepresentative. It involves a set-up using arguably the least extreme of the items in terms of skill to use vs. advantage conferred. What set-ups are there involved when your opponent gets a star, or a heart? With all but a few exceptions a hammer? It can indeed add some skill in the way of setting up your opponent. In most situations, especially with grabNgo items, there arenft any set-ups, or if there are they are blatant on the person with the itemfs part and well nigh unavoidable on the others.

 

[1psemet]

As for your attack on time limit, turtling is, as pointed out, very difficult on all but a couple stages. If you and your opponent both have one stock left, and one of them is at 150% while the other is at zero, then the man at 150 would have to be immensely skilled to avoid the other for any length of time, on the majority of stages. Assuming that they arenft playing on Hyrule, and they arenft playing Bowser vs. Sheikc this isnft a viable tactic. You can feel free to try, and if you manage to pull it off then mad props to you.

For sudden deathc The bomb-ombs are there, it would seem to me, to prevent any fundamental stalemate. Even with items on, both of them could simply camp forever if they wished, with bomb-ombs they canft for more than thirty seconds or so (donft have an accurate figure). Thus there is simply no way to be asinine to the extent otherwise possible. If both players refuse to fight with items, and no time limit, nothing stops them. The match would literally last forever. With a time limit, and the way that they set up SD, this simply canft be done. The onset after only thirty seconds is a bit extreme, granted, but how long does it take for a single hit to land? If nothing happens after thirty seconds then something is wrong. And they would have to stall for 20! (Less or more, depending on which settings you have it on) minutes, and then the thirty seconds in SD to make this grandom resulth happen. Anywhere but Hyrule and the old Yoshi stage this is all but impossible to do and make sure that there is an even score at the end of the match. Furthermore, this wouldnft be very grandomh at all. First of all it takes a certain skill to avoid someone such, and a certain lack of such to not be able to do so (unless one person, as noted above, happens to be playing someone like Bowser for some reason). Secondly it takes even more so to avoid in SD where basically one hit kills. Ifd be happy if my opponent happened to take this tactic, as it simply isnft a good one.

Well then, on to Bumble Bee Tuna: Okay, your example has several problems. First of all, itfs best two of three, and you depend on randomly getting Jungle Japes as the stage for the first one. Secondly, Sheik/Zelda (who Recipherus would seem to play) both have projectiles that he could continually peg you with. You do as link as well, but since apparently he is vastly better, he will damage you much more with them and then move in for the kill. Furthermore your being able to camp there depends on his not being able to get you out of the spot. Itfs basically impossible to camp in an area such as that and somehow prevent him from storming it. Exactly how would you do this? Are you saying that there is nothing he can do, despite the fact that he is grantedly much better than you, to damage you and get you out? There is always some method of storming it that would thwart your attempt to cheese it up. In my experience there is simply no unassailable camping areas, including that one. So what I believe would happen would be Recipherus storming over there and kicking your *** (youfre the one who said he was better, and I can only use that as my example), with or without the help of items. Furthermore, even if it was impossible to do so (which I very much doubt, especially with the projectiles involved), in SD you donft start on that platform, nor are you invincible for a time, so he could simply kill you then.

In conclusion, this argument against items depends on how much of an advantage camping in this fashion confers to you. Assuming he was considerably better, I believe that there would be nothing you could do that would possibly draw the match out that long. The only way to test this would be to perform this test, and see just how much it threw off the results. This is indeed a big issue, so who is right on this is important.

As for stage, just because people pick Hyrule doesnft mean that they should be able to, from a standpoint of which stages are appropriate. And, of course, I agree with the old Yoshifs being horrible for the reasons mentioned. I believe that I already said that in a prior post, but it should be stressed. What stages are fairest is a completely different issue that doesnft really relate, though.

Letfs seec m1nds rears his head again at this point and says several meaningless things. Hefs promptly thwarted by Bumble Bee Tuna for a while (good job doing so, by the way). I will once again refrain from responding to him specifically, as he doesnft deserve it and I donft have the energy.

Raul: This is quite understandable with this thread, as itfs very rambling and veers from the main point all too frequently. I donft know how much you would want recapped, so I canft do so easily. Read Eoraptorfs thread for a concise list of most of the arguments, but if you need me to do something I would be glad to if you are simply slightly more specific.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

it has happened before, it will happen again

The exact scenarion of 150% vs. 0% turtling came up in TG...1, I believe. Maybe TG2. In can happen and it will happen. Deezie Mario vs. Justin Falco on Onett. Deezie is near death. Deezie camps on the left edge of the map. He won't fight Justin in the rest of the level because his only chance is getting a quick throw-kill on the edge. They camp for 19 long minutes. Justin finally gets a useful Pokemon, flushes Deezie out, and wins. What would have happened in no-item time limit play? Justin would have been forced to come to the edge and possibly lose a match he would be nigh guaranteed to win otherwise, or else wait for SD, where the balance would suddenly be even and he'd have more like a 60-40 chance of winning. With items on, of course, his victory is sealed, as it should be.

This same situation could happen on Flatzone. It could happen on Subcon. it could happen on Mushroom Kingdom. (He does have lasers as an option on those levels, but those can just be reflected.

Moving on to my example which of course you picked apart at specifics instead of getting to the meat of it. I used myself as the combatant for humor value, and specifically said you should not pick apart specifics like that that are easy to change. We can just as easily have it be one of the good players from TG, who isn't as good as Jeremey:

OK, how about we change the argument to LordLocke vs. Recipherus. LordLocke is good, but AFAIK not going to beat Recipherus in most situations. A much less skilled player, but still good. Link has much better projectiles than Sheik. Sheik has projectiles that go in a straight line or downward diagonally. On Japes, that gives him one option: jump on the center platform and fire the needles diagonally at Link. Link, of course, can simply chuck boomerangs at Sheik's only point of attack...I don't even know how you could think Reciph would damage even a poor player like me with them. The have to be charged before he can use them, so first he has to get away from my barrage of projectiles. Once they are charged, he finally can jump on the center platform and fire. Of course, it's not too hard to evade that. I jump. I roll. I dodge. They don't hit, he backs off and charges again. Rinse, repeat. It doesn't even take much timing. The match would go to Sudden death, where Locke has a much better chance than his typical one. It's a lot easier to land a single hit than actually kill a person. He wouldn't even have to wait for the Bob-ombs- SD is pretty random in itself. Just landing a single hit isn't so tough.
BTW, LordLocke, since I'm aware this will piss you off because I picked you as the lesser-skilled player- I only picked you because I'm pretty sure you're good with Link. Also, I don't know jack about the competitors at TG aside from the top placers, so I have no idea whether the choice of you is ideal. It fit because you use Link. Please don't be too angry.

No camping spot is unassailable...the point is though that Locke could give himself a huge advantage by forcing Reciph to come to him.

So that takes care of all your points about it except for your idea that it relies on Japes coming up. What about all the stages I mentioned eariler with edge-camping? New Congo Jungle (the rock)? Hyrule (the lower right, or running in circles)? Yoshi's Story can be pretty cheap with edge-camping...I'd say there are quite a few stages that this could happen on...and no item play with a time limit would be a terrible solution.

Edit: Edited as per Eoraptor's request, and also a disclaimer added for LordLocke.

-B

 

[Eoraptor]

Bumble Bee Tuna- I'll let 1psemet defend most of his points, but just had to say something about your post. You say that Sheik would have to be across Jungle Japes to hit someone with her darts if they are camping on a side platform. And you say that because 1psemet "doesn't realize this", it shows a lack of knowledge, which helps support Mattdeezie's opinion of him.

LOL!

I conclude that if anyone's guilty of not knowing what they're talking about in this example, it's you.
First, Sheik's projectiles lack the range to hit someone on the far platform of Jungle Japes, if Sheik is standing on the opposite far platform. They just disappear before they would reach the opponent. And even IF her darts did reach that far, Link could just stand and let his auto-shield block them. So you wouldn't even have to dodge in that case, Sheik's efforts would be futile.
More importantly, Sheik fires her darts diagonally down while jumping. The trajectory will impact an opponent standing on a far platform if Sheik is jumping from the top platform. Her darts are fast and hard to see on Jungle Japes, and therefore hard to dodge. Especially considering Sheik jumps faster and higher than Link. Because of their angle (hitting Link in the face, legs, or while jumping), they would not impact Link's auto-shield, so that defense would fail. They would damage Link until he was pushed off the platform by them, at which point Sheik could edge guard. But that's not the best part....
If Recipherus changed to Zelda, her projectile is so strong and has such a large explosive radius, it would hit Link regardless of where he was on the tiny platform. Even if he shielded, a few hits from Din's fire would break the shield, or push him off the platform.
I know 1psemet was aware of at least the last two points (Sheik's diagonal darts hitting you, Zelda's Din's fire being better), as we discussed it before he posted this last reply.
Even if arguing specifics to decide the main "camping potential to stalemate matches" debate is not a good tactic, I think you owe 1psemet an apology for insulting his intelligence in this case.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

you got me

ok you got me...though on further consideration, I fail to see how being able to do the needles downward at link will help. Can he not just keep throwing boomerangs up there and dodge/roll the needles if sheik does manage to get past the boomerang? Doesn't seem hard to me. I am inexperienced, I won't deny that. All my posts are merely logic and based on the experience of others. I do make mistakes. If I was Deezie, it might be hypocritical...but I've always claimed to suck and haven't stopped now. But, my experience with the needles is that the spot to launch them from would be in ideal boomer range.
That leaves Din's fire, which blows as a projectile compared to any of Link's... and is EASILY dodgable. So yeah, while I did miss something, I don't see how it changes to situation.

-B

 

[Yoshi]

Delete

 

[Mattdeezie]

First off I didnt read the pro items side. Why? Cause thats what Im arguing for, not against. I went to look for the arguements against items, cause that is what i was interested with.

So now you say that I should look at everything...

counter
XXX. Counter- some items (eg. starman, heart, tomato) require very little skill to get and are greatly beneficial, so increase randomness at the expense of a minor skill increase. (1psemet)

2XXX. Counter- items favor fast/agile characters that can get to them first, and other character-related biases. (1psemet)

XX. Counter- Items make character effectiveness potential more disparate. (1psemet)

XXXX. Counter- hazard randomness has less effect than item randomness. (1psemet)

9. Supposed increased randomness when playing with items is only due to player incompetence with them. (Recipherus)
XX. Counter- This only works at skill levels far below tournament level, and only when item skill levels are equal (and very low). If it were the true reason for randomization of item-on results, everyone whose results were randomized with each other would have equal item incompetance. This can be effectively disproven with enough tests. (new)

Alright, now that I have picked out the other options, like you told me to. EVERYTHING IS STILL BASED AROUND RANDOMNESS YOU PRETENTIOUS TWIT!

The only thing up there that isnt, is 2. Which says in a nutshell that the top tier characters are better than the lower tier characters with items. Well thats subjective. Cause I think that items are more beneficial to the lower tier characters. Granted top tier characters use them really well, but I dont think they need them, because they have a better well rounded game. THe middle tier characters may not use items as well, but they add to their sub par in a way that helps them compete better. You say top tier characters get more of a benefit, I disagree. Therefore its null.

I also back up the #9 by recipherous.

Why items may seem random, but in reality it all boils down to skill.

Yes there are times when an item can be gotten by only one character. This happens all the time. However, when a person gets that item, they are not invincible. They have a added set of features, along with having some of their features taken away. Nothing that an item gives you is undefeatable. There are powerful items, but that just makes you employ your anti item strats. If there was an item that was invincible, whereas you get the item and then an unavoidable lightning bolt fries the other character, that is not acceptable. Why? Its unavoidable.

The character with the best overall defense and offense with items is going to be the character that wins. They know how to handle themselves when a person has a better item, they know how to use their items to their benefit. Items will be collected by both characters, and both characters have ways to get around them.

Thus the only random thing, is the UNAVOIDABLE STUFF. Which constitutes around 5% of all item related deaths. A factor so low that it cant compete with all the added benefits of item play.

for example that you might call random results. I was playing vien yesterday. I was up one stock, and had very small percentage on myself. (around 30) I have a Mr Freezie. I throw it at vien, he capes it in my face, i get frozen, and he pushed me off the ledge before i could escape.

Now that is harsh. I made one mistake, and lost a huge advantage. But is it random? No. I made a mistake. Its also a mistake when I air dodge off the ledge. I should not have taken to risk to throw it at vien when it was unsafe. I paid dearly for it. But it was my own fault.

There is no un-dodgable move, there is no unescapable item strat. Everything has counters to it, and everything can be defeated. It might be more difficult than no item play, but hey, difficulty adds to the game.


As for your comment on my third element concept. You are a moron. You think I am actually going to sit down for an hour and contemplate all the elements in the game and call it like the 11th element or some crap like that. Give me an effing break. 3rd element is simple, it makes a point, and it sounds cool. (Heh heh) Just cause there are more, minor elements of gameplay effecting the outcome, doesnt mean the point is void. The third element is a huge factor in item play. It happens constantly during a game, and adds to numerous set ups and attacks. And you are gonna null that cause you want to call it the 57th and a half element?

Play-skill and knowledge isn't directly correlated with this at all.

I agree. Play-skill is greater than knowledge. You can know everything in the game, and if you cant put it together you are nothing. (This is also an argument as to why no item players can still be good at the game. I think they lack a great deal of knowledge of the game, but they still might very well be good.)

Your example of how items change the match works well. If items werenft on, what would have happened? Eventually one of you would have gotten sufficiently damaged by the others pill/fireball and the other would have gone in for the kill. Who got more damaged would depend on who was more skilled at the timing of throwing the pills/fireballs, and who was more skilled at blocking/dodging/reflecting said pills/fireballs. Thus the more skilled person would eventually draw ahead and in all probability get the kill. If one of you was in a more disadvantageous position than the other and would thusly get hit considerably more often, then you should realize this and rectify the situation. The match would have progressed eventually anyway. Note also that if you both decided to sit there indefinitely (which wouldnft be optimal for one of you, at least), once again I would have to state that time is a better solution than items. No randomness here, it would all be dependent on skill.

What probably would have happened is that I would have lost because pills are way better than fireballs. Some characters, especially those without projectiles or relflectors have a VERY VERY hard time getting around the situation. However, an item drops and they can get it, and all of a sudden the playing feild is more even, and the person has a new means of fighting rather than eating consistent pills in the face. (hint hint, this is a reason why lower tier characters benefit from items) I dont see any randomness here? A person picks up an item and uses an effective counter strat against an effective projectile game.

You say that gevery so oftenh an item appears to make a huge difference in the progression of the match. I say that gbasically whenever an item appears, it makes a huge difference in the progression of the match.h, and in general not due to player error. If, in the match that you mentioned, a star had appeared by him insteadc It wouldnft have by any means guaranteed his victory, but it would have given him a huge advantage, and you a disadvantage that wasnft due to player error. It goes for the hammer as well, and a good percentage of the items. And these elaborate set-ups and tactics that are used to defeat the opponent that you speak of, by definition not occurring when items arenft on, obviously all relate to how to get the item, thus giving you an advantage, and how to abuse that unfair advantage to itfs fullest. The fact that it often requires thinking to do this is meaningless. Just because you have a hammer doesnft mean that youfll hit your opponent, as it requires you to anticipate where exactly hefll try to dodge to which requires some amount of thinking. And further thinking on his part on how to dodge and/or otherwise thwart you when you have it. This doesnft change the basic fact that one person has to try to overcome a blatant disadvantage that was, in all probability, conferred to him by him happening to be closer to the hammer when it appeared. And when you say an gextreme caseh of one out of tenc this is where we come into another disagreement. I believe that this is near the smallest amount that items will effect the odds, as seen from my experience.

This looks like the counter arguement to my previous statements. I dont think that a person is at a extreme disadvantage. I see people beat down people with hammers all the time, and avoid stars and cloaking devices. Like I said, nothing is garunteed. You just have to have a solid anti item game. ( I dont just say this to sound interesting, but usually when we play the person with the hammer is the one who is scared to attack.)

Stars, hearts, hammers dont have set ups. However, avoiding is a strategy, and its usually rather easy to avoid these items. (Hearts/tomatoes are always off. So you dont need to keep bringing them up.)

 

[Eoraptor]

Here's the thing with the Link-Sheik/Zelda projectile wars in these spots-
Sheik's darts will only reach Link when thrown from a height above his arrows', bombs' and ground boomerang's reach. He could hit Sheik if he were jumping and throwing the smash boomerang though. So the two could have an aerial smash boomerang vs. darts battle, but then it wouldn't be a stalemate. It would be a dynamic, though defensive, battle. Sheik would have the advantage because she has more movement choices on the larger platform, is further from the edge, has a faster and harder to see projectile, and is more agile in general.
Although Din's fire is easy to dodge if you have enough room, the side platforms of Jungle Japes will not suffice. If she explodes it in the center, it will hit Link no matter where he's standing. If he blocks, his shield will go down and he will be pushed back. If he jumps, Zelda can always explode it higher up. Moreover, Din's fire can hit Link from a range that only Link's aerial smash boomerang can reach. And only then if he manuvers correctly in the air to curve the boomerang's path. Something hard to do when trying to be unpredictable so that Zelda doesn't hit you with Din's fire. Zelda has the same advanatges this time, except perhaps the projectile visibility one.
So camping is not giving Link an advantage. It ties in to the point I was making in my thread that camping is not usually very advantageous. I know I (as Pikachu) never camp versus Zelda or Sheik in most spots because of this. Their projectiles are just too effective.
Finally, I'd like to say your argument is good if you change the details around. Camping will still be preventable, but much more difficult to stop with certain positions (left side of Onett) and/or character combinations (Falcon vs. Pikachu).

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

First, Zelda

We'll start with Zelda because I'm 99% sure you're utterly wrong with her. I just tested both Link and Zelda on Japes. Din's fire goes seemingly exactly as far as Link's boomerang. And since the boomerang is faster and Zelda is immobile while firing Din's...She cannot touch Link. For her to have any sort of aim vertically (so Link can't just jump easily away), she has to be well within the range of the boomerangs...****, practically within bomb range. Never mind that the arrows are even longer ranged than that...Zelda has no chance. I wouldn't be "trying to be unpredictable to avoid Din's Fire"...I would be littering the stage with projectiles so Din's Fire would never even threaten me.

As for sheik...I am assuming you're wrong here since you were wrong with Zelda, but I'm less sure, I'll admit it...but I just tested firing darts with sheik on japes at a platform camper....and it appears that if the platform camper stays at the outer edge, the only way to hit him is to double jump from the outer edge of the upper middle platform and fire at the apex...Now, I don't know the dynamic of sheik's needles fully, but it seems to me that this wouldn't be hard to dodge. I will leave it for a player who has an opponent to test it with to determine.

Now, I intentionally picked an example with a character widely perceived to be one of the three best, if not the best, to most closely resemble the most likely tourney scenarios. But how exactly do you hold that camping is preventable with a Falcon vs. Pikachu matchup? Falcon's only option is to jump into the fray...and a good camping player will make that very disadvantageous for him.

-B

 

[Eoraptor]

Yes, Din's fire and the boomerang have about equal ranges. But the placement of players is the key. I was assuming the Zelda player would be at the far left edge of the top platform. There, Link has a hard time hitting her with a boomerang. If it goes straight while Link is standing on a side platform, it will go below Zelda. If it curves upward, it will go above Zelda. Link has to jump and smash throw it from just the right height to hit Zelda. Bombs and aerial arrows certainly won't reach her, and ground arrows go below her. Personally, I find it much more difficult to connect with Link in this situation than with Zelda. I don't understand your statement "For her to have any sort of aim vertically (so Link can't just jump easily away), she has to be well within the range of the boomerangs...****, practically within bomb range." Zelda's possible vertical range is increased with distance, not decreased. Also, Zelda is not immobile while firing Din's fire- in the air. She can move forward/downward or backward/downward depending on which way you were jumping while firing it.
Regarding Sheik, yes I was assuming she was firing darts at her second jump's apex as you said. One dart may be easy to avoid, but if she charges her move and fires many down diagonally, the extended time they hit will make it more difficult.
My Pikachu/Falcon example was of Falcon trying to dislodge a Pikachu camper without items. I think it's more valid than your Sheik/Link example, because Falcon would have a more difficult time doing it. He has no projectiles, so would have to try to jump in against Pikachu's shield, ^Asmash or priority-full vAsmash.

 

[snap pop]

uh...BumbleBeeTuna? can it.

Get it? HAHAHAHAHa
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But seriously, you post way too much crap. At least theend is funny. I see more "useless posts" by you, in semi-intelligent threads, than by any other single member on these boards.

p.s. Scamp, nothing beats two vs. two, Stack, Golden Gun.

 

[Razor Leaf]

I realise that many of you have posted indepth, detailed reasons why items should not be used. Since I feel theer is little I can add to your argument, I will summarise.
I think most people will admit that items are unfair. Because each player cannot recieve the same item at the same time, this makes it unbalanced as at any time an item could appear and give one player an advantage. No matter what you say about skill, this makes it a frustrating and unfair game.
Remove items and the game becomes more balanced (not that I am suggesting the characters are balanced). The players will have to rely on pure skill and not blind luck to win. Sure, I play with items frequently, but think they should not be played in a tournament environment.
Take, for example, you are on your last life, no damage, and the opponent has quite a bit of damage on them. You are about to smash attack the opponent when a Hammer drops down in front of them. They grab it before you have time to stop attacking. You get hit with the Hammer, and then are sent into the air, unable to regain control. They hit you again as you fall back down, and again until you lose a life. A little unfair, isn't it?
Or you are both on a high amount of damage, and a Bob-omb drops right on top of you. Owch.
Therefore I think items are not suitable for a tournament environment. This is just my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear more arguments for both sides.

 

[Scamp]

"Summarise?"

Razor Leaf, I can summarize too.

HAVING ITEMS ON DOES NOT MEAN IT TAKES BLIND LUCK TO WIN. Even people who don't like items will say this.

Seriously, there's even a seperate topic that's basically a summary of this one. You should look at that one.

And I can't resist commenting on your comment about pure skill. I've tried to get my skill pure, but every time I find some good skill it's always diluted so the dealers can sell more for more profit. It's still good stuff, just not pure...

Seriously, though, if you want to hear more arguments on both sides, I know where you can get 8 pages worth of this stuff... it's a little filtered, though. There's a little bit of "theend" mixed in there that fluffs it up a bit.

It's a little pointless to reply to something that I've already replied to many, many times in the same topic.

Eoraptor - Please stop arguing with the Din's flare. Just stop it. It's a really, really crappy move. And don't you realize that while Shiek may be above Link's projectiles when she fires hers, she has to get up there first? And then she has to come back down? Anyway, I've got a better argument...

Eoraptor vs. Orochi Eoraptor.

So, Eoraptor plays Orochi Eoraptor (now known as E and OE) in a tournament that's got 5 stock. (The other rules aren't important, except that there are no items.) E is pretty good (I think) but OE is simply better overall. Not too much better, but better. E plays DK and OE loves the evil Ganondorf. They're on Onett. E knows he has no real shot at beating OE so he decides to camp out on the left side of the stage, where he can hopefully get some cheap throw-KOs. (With DK, this works at any percentage.) OE does not want to put himself in the position where he could get KOed by one throw, especially since he should win this match. So what happens?
Well, if you kick both players out of the tourney, this is extremely unfair to OE as he should win.
If you had a time limit set, this is greatly in favor of E, as he was probably going to lose anyway so he fares a much, much better chance in sudden death, especially when the bob-ombs start dropping.

People will do ANYTHING to win. If they can't win, people will do ANYTHING to piss off their opponent. Especially online.

P.S. Snap Pop, I am a huge flag tag fan. I've found out that I'm pretty much the only person in the whole world that likes to play flag tag. I sure hope Metroid Prime has flag tag. And the stack, that'd be pretty cool. I just hope they do something about armor-camping whores, other than the golden gun.

 

[falcofan]

I think that overall knowledge of your opponent and skill will always defeat the items in the end.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

There now, snap pop, don't be upset

Aww, poor snap pop. You're STILL upset? Give it a rest. We know you're still bitter about choking harder than Mama Cass at TG3. It must hurt a lot to claim to be better than everyone at a tournament only to be knocked out in two matches. You don't have to be bitter for the rest of your life, though. Get over it. Seeing as I haven't seen you make a single post on these boards except bragging about skills that you do not possess, I don't think you should be talking about useless posts. Maybe if you have a problem with my posts you should respond to them? I guess that would be a lot harder than just whining, but there's that slight off-chance that you would finally make a post where you don't look like an absolute moron.

BTW, your post was hilarious. Both the joke itself and the irony of you posting it.

-B