So how then do casuals and elitist interact?

[MaximoSmasher]

For fun, i replace words like "casual" and "pro" and "elitist" and replace them with race types. Its hilarous how people can cast down a whole group of people because of their superiority complexes.

 

[Dreiko]

For fun, i replace words like "casual" and "pro" and "elitist" and replace them with race types. Its hilarous how people can cast down a whole group of people because of their superiority complexes.

That just proves that racists are correct dude >_>.

 

[fuuzball317]

Try participating in one of the tournaments then. These professionals have reached their high level of play through thousands of matches with people from all over. You can try bragging about how you're the best in your group of 6 friends or whatever, but until you've gone out there to prove your skill, you're nothing.

I'm not bragging about being good at all, your totally missing the point. I just don't think there is a solid line between pro's and players like me and you.

 

[Sliq]

Well duh. Casuals outnumber pros by a lot. However, from what I have seen on these boards and in general the balance is fairly frightening.

Are you high? I'm like the only established ******* competitive that comes to these boards.

Furthermore, just because casuals greatly outnumber competitives, doesn't mean the same holds true for users on this forum (considering before Brawl's inclusion on this forum, it was almost entirely tournament players).

Ugh. Either you are purposely misunderstanding me or you are very dim. I said that they are better players, however they are arrogant, wrong, pricks who need to be kicked in the face/die in a fire.

Yeah, THEY are pricks (as am I), but that doesn't change the fact that we are RIGHT for the most part. It seems that because I put some attitude into my posts, people ignore the content and just get indignant about me being an ***, which is stupid. Just because I am an ******* doesn't make my viewpoint automatically null and void; you have to ACTUALLY DEBATE WITH ME to prove I am wrong, which hardly anybody does.

Also, noobs whining about glitches and items should also need to be kicked in the face/die in a fire.

You are outnumbered because there are more of us. God. Casuals outnumber pros and therefore scrubs outnumber elitists. Experience has **** to do with it. The thing is we do not give a crap whether or not you can randomly die. It has happened to me before. Three times today in fact. Honestly I'm happy none of my friends are competitive. If they were then I would have to actually restrict stages due to the brokeness of some stages.

We are outnumbered OUTSIDE THE FORUM. INSIDE THE FORUM IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME. I already addressed this before.

Also, I also don't give a crap whether or not you randomly die. I care if I randomly die.

Also, if your friend was competitive, he either 1.) wouldn't play with you or 2.) would play with your rules. Seriously, competitives do play on crazy stages and items on occasion. We just prefer to play with competitive rules in order to better our skill in the game. If your friend just wanted to hang out he probably wouldn't mind doing crazy ****, and if he wanted to get better he'd play good people.

Agreed. Why do pros come here and post things and get offended when we tell them it is a bad idea? Stop playing the victim and the hero at the same time.

Can I get some evidence of this occurring, because I very much doubt it did? For the most part, competitives don't make posts like, "lol use Link's down throw, then up b after it," or claim you can break out of wobbling by "DI'ing out of a throw."

Firstly, stop confusing scrubs with casuals. They aren't the same. Just like all pros aren't elitists we aren't all scrubby. Nextly, the items issue is not a right and wrong issue. Ever. It is about preference. Just because you dislike randomness does not make you right. Stages are slightly different as they actually do break the game in the right/wrong hands and if someone can exploit them then they can be banned in a rather right/wrong manner.

I don't think I said scrubs, but if I did, I'll clarify.

Scrubs = Noobs = Whiny Know-Knothing Knowitalls

Newbs = Newbies = Someone inexperienced

Sorry to say, but you ARE all "scrubby," (as if to imply lack of skill, not mentality). You are newbs (not a negative turn, as everyone starts off with less proficiency, and gains it overtime).

Sure, casual players have their own skill gap amongst themselves, but almost all seasoned competitive players will beat a casual. As I said before, it has occurred repeatedly throughout SWF's history when some noob talks **** and then gets a beat down from a competitive player. Sora Keyblade Master is the one that sticks out the most in my mind, but there are others.

This isn't arrogance, it is based off of history. I would be happy to money match any casual with almost any ruleset if that would help (I know someone wants to say the lack of items is what caused the noob to lose).

Furthermore, randomness is not conducive to competitiveness within a certain range. Eliminating all randomness is ideal, but reality is not ideal, so we try and get as close as possible

Also, no one is stopping casual players from holding their own tournaments with items. But they still don't do it on the scale that we do, so it must not be that big of a deal to them.

Oh please. You make the assumption that random spawnign and exploding **** are bad. They aren't. You just don't like them. Isn't it uncomfortable riding that high horse with such a heavy cross on your back?

It IS BAD...FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY. See my previous paragraph. I don't care how you like to play, what I'm saying is is that determining who has the most skill requires that the person winning wins based off of skill, and not luck.

Also, nice ad hominem argument. Circumvent my actual content by attacking my person. Touche, you are indeed a cunning debater.

But when a casual does it they represent all of us? That's fair

Not A casual, the countless casuals before you that have come, got wrecked, and gone.

If you would like to prove yourself, then do it, but as it stands, the record for competitives vs. casuals is staggeringly in our favor.

Agreed, however you seem to only hold this to casuals and not pros.

Incorrect assumption. I hold the notion that most casuals are ******* when it comes to adequately discussing gameplay mechanics (in comparison to a competitive). HOWEVER, I don't just look at Join Date and Post Count and then flame them. I read their words, and then I either laugh, cry, or am filled with rage.

Everyone holds notions about groups of people. It depends on whether or not you use these notions to judge them before they have a chance to present who they are.

Most of the time, I read a post, then look at the Join Date, and go, "Oh, THERE'S the problem," because newer members tend to be the most clueless (which is to be expected). However, they post like they are the bees knees; like they are an authority, while in fact, they are ******** and need to LURK MOAR.

tl;dr

No one wants to legitimately argue my points, and instead rely on ad hominem and strawman arguments.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I think a big problem with the current competitive mentality is how many tournament-savvy players say that 'items are bad for competitive play', which is entirely untrue. I've personally had MANY incredibly competitive battles with items on. What you SHOULD be saying is that items are bad for YOUR PARTICULAR STYLE of tournament play. There are many ways to be competitive, because competitive simply means:

1 : relating to, characterized by, or based on competition <competitive sports>
2 : inclined, desiring, or suited to compete <a competitive personality> <salary benefits must be competitive — M. S. Eisenhower>
3 : depending for effectiveness on the relative concentration of two or more substances <competitive inhibition of an enzyme>
— com·pet·i·tive·ly adverb
— com·pet·i·tive·ness noun

Nothing in that definition says anything about how competitive works. If I say, "You know, I can kick your *** at Smash Bros.", you can say to me, "Bring it on, c0ckf@g." Whether we use items or not says nothing about how much competition there will be in the resulting fight.

So, for your own sake, I hope you (read: anyone who thinks that, just because they have participated in a tournament, they are an authority on tournaments, playstyles, or Smash in general) stop saying that items are against the competitive mindset, because they aren't. That fact is NOT debatable. They may be against your particular tournament style's mindset, but no one has the right to say that a item-player (or even a casual) can be any less competitive than you in a fight.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Just a hint when seeing Sliq's posts for the first time: Look at his profile! It contains an important statement that helps a lot when you're debating with him.

Believe it or not, behind that rude, offensive, angry, ****ity barrier of bull**** and flame is sound and undefeatable logic. I agree with Sliq on everything he said in his previous posts here.

 

[Emblem Lord]

If I was a chick I would be having sliq's babies for all of eternity.

 

[DraginHikari]

Just a hint when seeing Sliq's posts for the first time: Look at his profile! It contains an important statement that helps a lot when you're debating with him.

Believe it or not, behind that rude, offensive, angry, ****ity barrier of bull**** and flame is sound and undefeatable logic. I agree with Sliq on everything he said in his previous posts here.

His logic is fine I'm not going to deny that, but the conquences of displaying in that manner is that alot of people then to ignore the points when something looks like a ranting, even if it's not a complete rant. Something I'm sure is kind of expected. Then again, I'm pretty sure he aware of that from what he posted so I suppose that's his handling on the whole thing

 

[Sliq]

I think a big problem with the current competitive mentality is how many tournament-savvy players say that 'items are bad for competitive play', which is entirely untrue. I've personally had MANY incredibly competitive battles with items on. What you SHOULD be saying is that items are bad for YOUR PARTICULAR STYLE of tournament play. There are many ways to be competitive, because competitive simply means:

1 : relating to, characterized by, or based on competition <competitive sports>
2 : inclined, desiring, or suited to compete <a competitive personality> <salary benefits must be competitive — M. S. Eisenhower>
3 : depending for effectiveness on the relative concentration of two or more substances <competitive inhibition of an enzyme>
— com·pet·i·tive·ly adverb
— com·pet·i·tive·ness noun

Nothing in that definition says anything about how competitive works. If I say, "You know, I can kick your *** at Smash Bros.", you can say to me, "Bring it on, c0ckf@g." Whether we use items or not says nothing about how much competition there will be in the resulting fight.

So, for your own sake, I hope you (read: anyone who thinks that, just because they have participated in a tournament, they are an authority on tournaments, playstyles, or Smash in general) stop saying that items are against the competitive mindset, because they aren't. That fact is NOT debatable. They may be against your particular tournament style's mindset, but no one has the right to say that a item-player (or even a casual) can be any less competitive than you in a fight.

I would be fine with items if:

1.) They did not spawn randomly

Not only do random items spawn, the spawn in random locations. If items spawned like weapons in FPS there wouldn't be a problem (other than banning certain items due to low effort, high reward). For example, weapon based items are awesome because they open up a whole new moveset for EVERY CHARACTER (star rod, beam sword, fan, homerun bat).

2.) Some **** didn't randomly explode.

I'm pretty sure you can disable exploding **** in Brawl so a crate doesn't spawn on your head, but I know you couldn't in Melee.

I mean, I don't really like items personally, but I wouldn't be able to argue against them if they weren't random. Then you could see the timer, and guard that area to get the item, as opposed to, O SHI A STARMAN!

Also, competitive is simply a moniker to refer to tournament players, just like casual means non-tournament player.

 

[Jack Kieser]

His logic is fine I'm not going to deny that, but the conquences of displaying in that manner is that alot of people then to ignore the points when something looks like a ranting, even if it's not a complete rant. Something I'm sure is kind of expected. Then again, I'm pretty sure he aware of that from what he posted so I suppose that's his handling on the whole thing

I think that people like Sliq, though, are just as much at fault and are just a stubborn as any scrub is. Take my above post, for instance. I'd be willing to bet money that, even though it is an argument based in semantics, no one could disprove the logic behind it. I'm also willing to bet money that almost none of the Sliq-level players on this forum will stop saying that items are against comeptition. When you are so convinced that your logic is infallible, whether its due to never being logically challenged (many cases) or simple pigheadedness (less often, but still pretty abundant), you tend not to revise your arguments much.

Case in point: I'm used to logical debates; I study philosophy. I made a comment about wobbling a while back, and it was erroneous. The fact that I was given said erroneous information in a conversation with someone I respected as a knowledgeable and the fact that I was basically fed inaccurate information is irrelevant. I made a flawed argument, and as a result of the flaw being pointed out, I have since never made that argument, nor will I ever in the future.

Now, on the other hand, I have before (and others before me) made very valid points for the current argument (such as my above post)... but I've never seen anyone, scrub or Sliq-style 'experienced Smasher', take anything away from them. I seriously doubt that, regardless of the validity of my statements on competition, ANYONE will stop making that flawed argument of 'items are bad for competition'. Thus, the majority of these so-called 'experienced Smashers' are JUST AS MUCH at fault as any scrub. Of course, no one sees it like that. Everyone is so busy arguing their point to see that the point should be the truth, not who is right or wrong.

The truth is that the whole argument is, ultimately, pointless. Still, people will argue and people will fail to learn anything. Maybe this is just the pessimist in me talking... but I doubt it.

EDIT: And Sliq... I respect your point and everything... but using 'competitive' to describe 'tournament player' is simply wrong. It's the wrong word. Simple as that. I know people aren't going to stop, but that doesn't make it any less right, and maybe I'd have MORE respect for everyone if they saw, recognized, and acted on that fact.

 

[Yuna]

I think a big problem with the current competitive mentality is how many tournament-savvy players say that 'items are bad for competitive play', which is entirely untrue. I've personally had MANY incredibly competitive battles with items on. What you SHOULD be saying is that items are bad for YOUR PARTICULAR STYLE of tournament play. There are many ways to be competitive, because competitive simply means.

For the love of puppies, find a counter-argument to the biggest argument against items:
They are random

If you can do that, then maybe we won't treat you like an idiot for calling us idiots for playing with items on and listen to what you have to say.

Just because we might have argued vehemently against certain less intelligent Casual Players or talked badly about certain kinds of Casual Players (most of which by definition are idiotic, much like how there are idiotic groups of Competitive Players as well) does not mean that we feel any enmity towards the entire Casual Community at large!

It's like saying that if anyone insults me, they're automatically racist and homophobic because I'm Asian and gay!

For fun, i replace words like "casual" and "pro" and "elitist" and replace them with race types. Its hilarous how people can cast down a whole group of people because of their superiority complexes.

"We" the Competitive Smashers do not cast down the entire Casual Smasher group as a whole or have some kind of superiority complex over them.

Competitive Smashers go to Tournaments. Casual Smashers are Casual because they do not go to tournaments.

Going to tournaments gives you more chances of playing good people and hence greater chances of improving.

Facts.

Never once have I or any other Competitive Smasher who isn't an a**hole talked down on Casual Smashers as if they were inferior to us in any way. This is just a ****ty myth some Casual Smashers have made up!

Why? I don't know, maybe they just want a "justified" reason to hate us "Competitives" because we ban their precious items and, I don't know, Icicle Mountain.

 

[MookieRah]

WTF at Jack Keiser.

I think a big problem with the current competitive mentality is how many tournament-savvy players say that 'items are bad for competitive play', which is entirely untrue.

OK man. We had this debate before, and you definitely didn't win it or beat any of the points people made to counter your item's tournament thing. We said it's alright if people had item tournaments, but we tried to explain to you how items tournaments aren't the best for truly competitive play. You even, somewhat, conceded to that in the thread, not saying you agreed, but the fact that you couldn't out debate us on the subject made you not voice the kind of crap you are saying now. Your opinion on items, is the only thing that is entirely untrue.

Also, how does the literal definition of "competition" prove anything you are saying? That's one of the dumbest arguments I have heard... All of this stuff about eliminating luck in favor of skill... it should be obvious to everyone!

I think that people like Sliq, though, are just as much at fault and are just a stubborn as any scrub is.

The difference between you and Sliq is that he is educated on the matter and you are not. In a debate between someone educated versus someone ignorant people would say that the ignorant person is being stubborn for not conceding in the argument. If you call Sliq stubborn, it's not out of him holding onto his views, it's just cause he chooses to keep telling the ignorant person is well... being ignorant.

Now, on the other hand, I have before (and others before me) made very valid points for the current argument (such as my above post)... but I've never seen anyone, scrub or Sliq-style 'experienced Smasher', take anything away from them.

That's because they aren't valid points. Nobody ever said that there isn't some skill involved with using items (although it's really not that much skill to be honest), and nobody said it was impossible to be competitive with items. We all know your arguments. You don't seem to realize that your points have been made by many others throughout the years. The thing is, everything you have said about items, everything you haven't said about items that other people have brought up in the past... they aren't worth the randomness they bring into the match.

Still, people will argue and people will fail to learn anything. Maybe this is just the pessimist in me talking... but I doubt it.

I agree, due to people like you that don't realize that they might be wrong and that the people who... I dunno, have tested items in the past for years and then deemed them as unacceptable for tournaments and has the entire experience documented are possibly right to feel the way they do about it.

 

[Maben]

E-Z Money makes me want to punch my monitor. His arguments don't even make sense against Sliq's. Sliq is only coming off as brash because people are making inane comments like this that hold no truth and using them as arguments against him.

Sliq is talking about items and rulesets in regards to COMPETITIVE PLAY. Some of people seem to be misinterpreting what competitive play is. It is NOT simply putting on the ruleset and saying "okay we're playing competitively now". Competitive play refers to tournaments; tournaments that are played to determine who is the best. Tournaments that are played with cash prizes.

You can sit back in your house playing casual games with your friends and debate items, but until you actually played in a tournament you can't argue against the competitive standpoint.

If you are a casual player who thinks items should be on in tournaments but you're never going to play in one then I really don't see why you would care. If you think they should be on so that you'd be willing to go to a tournament, then you really just aren't the person that should be at a tournament in the first place because items don't belong there.

 

[slikvik]

Sliq says everything i wanna say. I just dont have the patience to flame noobs on a daily basis. This is like Sliqs part time job

 

[Jack Kieser]

WTF at Jack Keiser.
OK man. We had this debate before, and you definitely didn't win it or beat any of the points people made to counter your item's tournament thing. We said it's alright if people had item tournaments, but we tried to explain to you how items tournaments aren't the best for truly competitive play. You even, somewhat, conceded to that in the thread, not saying you agreed, but the fact that you couldn't out debate us on the subject made you not voice the kind of crap you are saying now. Your opinion on items, is the only thing that is entirely untrue.

Also, how does the literal definition of "competition" prove anything you are saying? That's one of the dumbest arguments I have heard... All of this stuff about eliminating luck in favor of skill... it should be obvious to everyone!

The difference between you and Sliq is that he is educated on the matter and you are not. In a debate between someone educated versus someone ignorant people would say that the ignorant person is being stubborn for not conceding in the argument. If you call Sliq stubborn, it's not out of him holding onto his views, it's just cause he chooses to keep telling the ignorant person is well... being ignorant.

Mookie... with all due respect, I never once in my post tried saying that the current tournament scene needed or wanted items. I said that items matches can be just as competitive as any other style, which is entirely true. I'm sure everyone who is on this board right now has, at some point in their Smash lives, had a fight with items on that was engaging, compelling, and competitive. I'm also just as sure that nearly everyone on this board has had a fight with items OFF that was engaging, compelling, and competitive.

I don't see how I'm not educated on ANY matter; I've been playing Smash, in its various forms and incarnations, ever since Smash64 was released. I've seen, first hand, nearly every facet of Smash play. The only thing I haven't seen is a major tournament (in scale, not substance) the likes of MLG or most of the big stuff hosted here; I've even seen small-scale tournaments like what is regularly hosted here! I'm plenty educated, thank you very much.

Again, I've made a valid semantical point, one which, by the way, I haven't read a valid counter-point for (though one may have been posted while I wrote this). I guarantee you that no one will take that semantical point for what it is worth.

EDIT:

For the love of puppies, find a counter-argument to the biggest argument against items:
They are random

If you can do that, then maybe we won't treat you like an idiot for calling us idiots for playing with items on and listen to what you have to say.

Just because we might have argued vehemently against certain less intelligent Casual Players or talked badly about certain kinds of Casual Players (most of which by definition are idiotic, much like how there are idiotic groups of Competitive Players as well) does not mean that we feel any enmity towards the entire Casual Community at large!

It's like saying that if anyone insults me, they're automatically racist and homophobic because I'm Asian and gay!

Yuna, as I said above, I'm not arguing for or against items here... I'm arguing semantics. I don't need to give you any argument about item randomness because that has nothing to do with what I've said here. And, I do believe that my post said nothing about anyone being an idiot. YOU made that part up. And regardless of WHO you're aiming a flawed argument at, the flaw remains: competitive is the wrong word to use. You are tournament players. 'Competitive' does not equal 'tournament' for the very reasons I have laid out on the last page.

Now, I think its time you counter argue THAT.

 

[Maben]

Jack, I'm failing to see how adding extra randomness can be just as competitive. I'm not saying that matches with items can't be competitive, but they are certainly not on the same level in general.

 

[MookieRah]

I said that items matches can be just as competitive as any other style, which is entirely true. I'm sure everyone who is on this board right now has, at some point in their Smash lives, had a fight with items on that was engaging, compelling, and competitive.

With all due respect, why are you arguing about it in the context of referring to this competitive scene?

With all due respect, how can you make a claim that it could be just as competitive when you can't even counter our arguments.

I don't see how I'm not educated on ANY matter; I've been playing Smash, in its various forms and incarnations, ever since Smash64 was released.

So is pretty much everyone else on this site that was old enough to be around since the first installment. That doesn't make you a valid source for determining what is competitive and what is not. You haven't been to many tournaments, and I very much doubt you have been to a tournament that featured seasoned tournament players. You haven't seen how good players will abuse and exploit things to it's fullest, and how one slight unfair advantage (like a random item) could cost the unlucky person the entire match. If you haven't seen this, you will not understand it. I have. Others on this site have as well. We are telling you from first hand experience that is backed up by a plethora of evidence that items aren't good for any form of competitive play.

How can you even begin to say you are educated on the matter, at least in comparison to the current competitive scene? It boggles my mind how zealous you are on this matter considering. You are a smart person, I can tell from your posts... I don't see why you are so hung up on your beliefs like this.

Again, we aren't telling you that you can't hold these tournaments. We aren't telling you that it won't be competitive. We are merely telling you that items will make it less competitive than without. You can do what you want and host what you want. I'd like for you to make your own scene and work with it. We aren't against that. Do what you want, but just don't assume that you know what is more competitive/equally competitive/whatever when you don't have the experiences and knowledge that we do.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jack, I'm failing to see how adding extra randomness can be just as competitive. I'm not saying that matches with items can't be competitive, but they are certainly not on the same level in general.

Easy. Item matches are NOT as firmly rooted in the concept of 'non-luck' as the current tournament style of matches are. That has NOTHING to do with how competitive the two people in the match are. These two things are NOT equatable. As I said, there are item matches that I have personally had, and yourself as well I'm sure, that were just as engaging, compelling, and competitive as any item-less match you have had. Maybe those item matches had more random factors in them, but that didn't make you want to win any less, nor did it make you ACT less competitively.

Semantics, my friends. Words do mean something, believe it or not.

 

[Jack Kieser]

We are telling you from first hand experience that is backed up by a plethora of evidence that items aren't good for any form of competitive play.

Sir... you aren't listening to me. Not at all. I'm not saying that items are good for your form of tournament play. I willingly concede that fact, as I concede the fact that I don't know enough about YOUR tournament scene to make a judgment about whether items should be included or not.

But that's not what I'm arguing. Not at all.

I'm arguing that it is unfair and inaccurate for you to say that the tournament scene you are involved in somehow has the monopoly on 'competitiveness'. You don't. People can play another style from you and play with just as much fever, just as much will to win. How can YOU not see that? Every time the tournament scene refers to itself as the 'competitive' scene, it undermines all those people who play competitively in a differing style than yours.

Why is that so hard to understand?

And yes, sir: 'pretty much everyone else on this site that was old enough to be around since the first installment.'... but not everyone has PLAYED Smash ever since the first installment. There is, indeed, a difference.

 

[MookieRah]

Semantics, my friends. Words do mean something, believe it or not.

You know exactly what we are referring to. Stop hiding behind the definition you found online. That isn't relevant because the way we use the word competitive is deep routed into the jargon of every competitive game out there. Everyone within every competitive community would know what we are referring to, and unless you are a true idiot, you do too. If your argument is purely semantics, then it's a pretty garbage argument for the discussion of what is good or bad for a competition.

I'm arguing that it is unfair and inaccurate for you to say that the tournament scene you are involved in somehow has the monopoly on 'competitiveness'.

OK, we aren't. So where are the other tournament scenes? Oh wait, there aren't any, are there! All of the various groups that were separated in the past got together and formed this one! If you want to start your own, that's fine.

People can play another style from you and play with just as much fever, just as much will to win.

We aren't arguing that. Our argument is what is good for competitive play in general. Also... if we were arguing that, I would ask then why hasn't any other scene emerged so far? There aren't any others... it's because the people who get good at the game realize why we have the rules that we do. We have these rules because they cultivate an atmosphere that promotes skill above all else. That is what we mean by saying that our way is more competitive than your way, because it's more skill intensive and not as dependent on random outside sources such as items.

How can YOU not see that?

We see that, but you are the only one arguing this. Meanwhile everyone else is discussing what is better for competitive play. You are the only one arguing over the semantics of the word "competitive" which isn't the same thing that we are referring to when we refer to the competitiveness of a tournament scene. Again, this isn't a completely foreign way of looking at it, as it is shared by virtually every competitive community.

Every time the tournament scene refers to itself as the 'competitive' scene, it undermines all those people who play competitively in a differing style than yours.

We are the competitive scene, because there is no other competitive scene. What scene are we undermining? Are we undermining random casual players that play differently? How are we undermining them? We aren't telling them to play by our rules, and we definitely aren't discouraging them from joining us. How are they warranted to feel undermined when they don't take the game to the level we do? Why would they even care in the first place? This entire argument doesn't make any sense...

 

[ShadowLink84]

Last I saw luck had little to do with how competitive a game is based upon.

If Sonic is fighting another Sonic and a heart spawns in the middle and they rush it yeah it can be considered competitive.
Most of the time though people aren't using the same characters and even if they do the said item tends to appear at different distances.
Your own personal experiences are pretty much meaningless since it is a fact that luck ruins competitive play.
It is why certain moves in Pokemon are banned. Once you start adding luck into the game it removes any point in saying that it is truly competitive because it is supposed to measure skill.
Yes it takes skill to use items properly, but the fact that their appearance as well as what they are really does not promote competitive play and pushes towards luck.

One video shows Sheik fighitng Marth. Marth lays down a spy bomb. Sheik grabs him, down throws him. As he goes into the air a capsule whacks Marth on the head and hits himinto the mine. A star rod comes out of said capsule and the Sheik promptly tosses it at him and kills him.

That is the prime example of why luck based items are not allowed.
If it were capable of controlling where the item would appear or what would appear there would not be an issue.

It isn't that they affect how competitive things become or not, it is simply because luck is the complete opposite of what competition is based upon.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, as I said above, I'm not arguing for or against items here... I'm arguing semantics. I don't need to give you any argument about item randomness because that has nothing to do with what I've said here. And, I do believe that my post said nothing about anyone being an idiot. YOU made that part up. And regardless of WHO you're aiming a flawed argument at, the flaw remains: competitive is the wrong word to use. You are tournament players. 'Competitive' does not equal 'tournament' for the very reasons I have laid out on the last page.

Now, I think its time you counter argue THAT.

"I'm also willing to bet money that almost none of the Sliq-level players on this forum will stop saying that items are against comeptition. When you are so convinced that your logic is infallible, whether its due to never being logically challenged (many cases) or simple pigheadedness (less often, but still pretty abundant), you tend not to revise your arguments much."

You're insulting us here.

Also, Smash with items can never be as competitive as Smash without them. Their very random nature, overpoweredness (even if you ban them all, they'll be overpowered due to randomness, who do they favour?) destroys competitiveness.

Two players of equal skill can play and play well but one lucky item spawn and the player who wasn't so lucky will lose (if they're equal and neither does a major mistake). This is not as competitive as without such random elements of luck! When will you get that through your thick skull?!

What the XBOX 360 is so competitive about adding random elements of luck that might turn the tide of a game for absolutely no effort or due to no mistake?! I can play a brilliant game and lose because my opponent, while not totally useless, had lucky item spawns on his or her side! What great competition that fosters!

No, go away!

 

[Jack Kieser]

You know exactly what we are referring to. Stop hiding behind the definition you found online. That isn't relevant because the way we use the word competitive is deep routed into the jargon of every competitive game out there. Everyone within every competitive community would know what we are referring to, and unless you are a true idiot, you do too. If your argument is purely semantics, then it's a pretty garbage argument for the discussion of what is good or bad for a competition.

A ) That's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word 'competitive'. I'm pretty sure that makes it relevant. If the current use is inaccurate, if it is a perversion of context, then we should take that into account.

B ) What is good and bad for a competition is, indeed, subjective to the competition itself. In terms of YOUR tournament scene, yes, there are certain rules that need to be exhibited in order for you to act in what you deem to be a competitive manner... but that in no way means that the way you act is the only competitive manner there is.

 

[Yuna]

A ) That's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word 'competitive'. I'm pretty sure that makes it relevant. If the current use is inaccurate, if it is a perversion of context, then we should take that into account.

B ) What is good and bad for a competition is, indeed, subjective to the competition itself. In terms of YOUR tournament scene, yes, there are certain rules that need to be exhibited in order for you to act in what you deem to be a competitive manner... but that in no way means that the way you act is the only competitive manner there is.

A) This is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary has to say on "competitive":

1 : relating to, characterized by, or based on competition <competitive sports>
2 : inclined, desiring, or suited to compete <a competitive personality> <salary benefits must be competitive — M. S. Eisenhower>
3 : depending for effectiveness on the relative concentration of two or more substances <competitive inhibition of an enzyme>

It just so happens it suits "our" definition Next!

B) What makes your definition better than ours? Can you even argue properly? It's not good because "you say so" (which seems to be your only argument). We have presented valid and numerous examples and arguments on why items are bad for competition. You have presented none for why they're good or at least neutral for competition other than "I say you, you're wrong, you're stubborn and 'who are you to decide what's good and what's bad'"?

No really, just go away already.

 

[ShadowLink84]

A ) That's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word 'competitive'. I'm pretty sure that makes it relevant. If the current use is inaccurate, if it is a perversion of context, then we should take that into account.

B ) What is good and bad for a competition is, indeed, subjective to the competition itself. In terms of YOUR tournament scene, yes, there are certain rules that need to be exhibited in order for you to act in what you deem to be a competitive manner... but that in no way means that the way you act is the only competitive manner there is.

B)I disagree. There is nothing else in the competitive scene that is capalbe of being accepted. The competitive scene created by SSBM is not only the most fair but also prevents the most complaints. If we were to accept another type of tournament play it would usually result in the following.

He got a lucky, I was better skilled and shouldn't have lost etc etc.

People tend to get extremely pissed if they know they should have won said match but lost due to a capsule popping them on the head after they were thrown.
The main reason the current tournament scene is the way it is is not only cause it forces skill, but also because it is the most fair.

 

[slikvik]

is this guy seriously arguing about the definition of the word competitive. competitive on these forums and any other competitive game means you go to tournaments...

 

[ShadowLink84]

Meh forget it don't bother there really is no point.

 

[Jack Kieser]

"I'm also willing to bet money that almost none of the Sliq-level players on this forum will stop saying that items are against comeptition. When you are so convinced that your logic is infallible, whether its due to never being logically challenged (many cases) or simple pigheadedness (less often, but still pretty abundant), you tend not to revise your arguments much."

You're insulting us here.

Also, Smash with items can never be as competitive as Smash without them. Their very random nature, overpoweredness (even if you ban them all, they'll be overpowered due to randomness, who do they favour?) destroys competitiveness.

Two players of equal skill can play and play well but one lucky item spawn and the player who wasn't so lucky will lose (if they're equal and neither does a major mistake). This is not as competitive as without such random elements of luck! When will you get that through your thick skull?!

What the XBOX 360 is so competitive about adding random elements of luck that might turn the tide of a game for absolutely no effort or due to no mistake?! I can play a brilliant game and lose because my opponent, while not totally useless, had lucky item spawns on his or her side! What great competition that fosters!

No, go away!

No, I'm not insulting you. You said no one had challenged your arguments, so I took that into account. The part that says 'whether its due to never being logically challenged' applies to you, if you had taken the time to read into the post, you might have seen that, although I am sorry you misinterpreted my words.

And, I'm sorry, but competitiveness is based solely of the actions of the people in the competition. How can YOU not understand that? If an item spawns between myself as Link and Sonic... I can STILL fight like hell to get it. That is what competition is. Luck has nothing to do with how much tenacity I, or any other person, fights with. Competition is based solely off that tenacity, by its very definition.

And, I'm sorry, but I can't respect someone who tells, in a logical discussion mind you, his opponent to just 'go away.' That's... pretty immature by ANYONE'S standards.

 

[Samochan]

>_>

Everytime I get an item (be it just saturn or whatever) with peach, that usually results in opponent losing a stock even when I just plain throw it out randomly. Saturn has so much stun, beamsword travels soooo far so quickly you can't ever see it coming, bomb is super-destructive... actually there is a really funny story behind a bomb from my last tournament esa2.

So, I was playing against amsah's (best player in europe btw) C.Falcon, had him ko'ed just and then pulled out a bomb. Amsah decided to go into combo parade onto me and then went into a knee when I was off stage to finish me off. What happened instead was that bomb exploded on contact, sended me flying to right with 100% and didn't die, when Amsah got lol bombspiked against stage and plummeted down with about 0% and couldn't do nothing about it. Then I won with 2 stocks against the european best player (who beat captain jack again btw) and amsah could've certainly 3 stocked me had he played serious anyway, but the bombspike, while extremely funny would have also been extremely unfair had it been tournament match.

Item play is not competitive cause it requires no skill to use items in a way it becomes an unfair advantage. It only requires luck and pressing one or two buttons to completely own your opponents regardless of skill level. In being competitive skill is always a factor, but item play is not deemed competitive cause items require no actual skill to use effectively, unlike things like messing with your opponents mind, technical aspect of the game etc. Them being completely random abd deopendant of luck is not helping either.

 

[MookieRah]

A ) That's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word 'competitive'. I'm pretty sure that makes it relevant. If the current use is inaccurate, if it is a perversion of context, then we should take that into account.

The webster definition of competitive isn't referring to the same thing. That is a basic definition. The form of the word "competitive" we use is in reference to competitive gaming specifically. It's considered "jargon." Stop pretending that it's one and the same. It's a dumb argument to make in the first place, because we aren't meaning the same things and it's flipping obvious to everyone that is smart enough to infer things from their context.

B ) What is good and bad for a competition is, indeed, subjective to the competition itself. In terms of YOUR tournament scene, yes, there are certain rules that need to be exhibited in order for you to act in what you deem to be a competitive manner... but that in no way means that the way you act is the only competitive manner there is.

Then make your own scene and then create the rules and then go through the hardships of doing it. You are ignorant in the fact that you aren't taking into account that this scene was created on the foundation of the ideals of existing scenes, which had gotten onto that path through experience and trial and error. Prove me wrong, don't tell me it's possible and sit on your *** and debate with me if you are so adamant about it. As it stands there is no other scene, and we have had no problems with new people. The only problems we have had lately is due to scrubs that don't understand tournament rules and why they are in place, and that is overwhelmingly due to the fact that A: this site was not a definitive competitive community so thusly we are open to everyone, and B: the crowd this game churns out is much younger than most other competitive games. The amount of immature people far outnumber other scenes, and due to this rampant immaturity a division was created. Now people are indoctrinated into one side or another instead of just stumbling upon the site without any pre-existing feelings of this scene being composed of elitists and people out to remove as much stuff from smash as possible.

 

[Yuna]

If only stupidity was bannable. MookieRah, what say you we call this a day? Why even care about Jack Kaiser? He seems beyond help.

 

[Maben]

Mookie is right, Jack isn't even arguing with us...he's on a whole different topic and I really don't know where he's going with it. We should just stop trying to convince one person because it really isn't worth it. In his mind somehow items are random yet fair so just let him have his little fantasy.

 

[Thino]

Jack stop saying YOUR tournament scene like there is another tournament scene around that plays with other rules.

basically you're arguing about the term "competitive" being subjective right?

many before me told you that but your argument about items being competitive doesnt make any valid points not because of items themselves , but because of their randomness.

OUR tournament scene , which is actually THE tournament scene (that once played with items a long time before) decided that matches should be less luck-based

 

[Jack Kieser]

The webster definition of competitive isn't referring to the same thing. That is a basic definition. The form of the word "competitive" we use is in reference to competitive gaming specifically. It's considered "jargon." Stop pretending that it's one and the same. It's a dumb argument to make in the first place, because we aren't meaning the same things and it's flipping obvious to everyone that is smart enough to infer things from their context.

Then make your own scene and then create the rules and then go through the hardships of doing it. You are ignorant in the fact that you aren't taking into account that this scene was created on the foundation of the ideals of existing scenes, which had gotten onto that path through experience and trial and error. Prove me wrong, don't tell me it's possible and sit on your *** and debate with me if you are so adamant about it. As it stands there is no other scene, and we have had no problems with new people. The only problems we have had lately is due to scrubs that don't understand tournament rules and why they are in place, and that is overwhelmingly due to the fact that A: this site was not a definitive competitive community so thusly we are open to everyone, and B: the crowd this game churns out is much younger than most other competitive games. The amount of immature people far outnumber other scenes, and due to this rampant immaturity a division was created. Now people are indoctrinated into one side or another instead of just stumbling upon the site without any pre-existing feelings of this scene being composed of elitists and people out to remove as much stuff from smash as possible.

First of all (and I realize that this is personal: I'm merely explaining for the sake of argument, so I ask you bear with me), I've always known that jargon is used specifically FOR the purpose of alienation, which is why I'm so adamantly against it; for instance, NASA, an incredibly high-profile agency if there ever was one, has jargon so unintelligible and so unintuitive that it totally alienates anyone who hasn't dealt with NASA dealings for the majority of their lives. This is in an effort TO alienate people as a security measure... but I don't see what any gaming scene has to alienate people for. A good portion of Smash jargon IS intuitive. Directional Influence is pretty self-explanitory, for what it's worth, as are many Smash terms. I don't see why, if there is a term that blatantly alienates people (as I believe your meaning for 'competitive' does; it does, believe it or not, tick many people off, as it comes off as smugness), the community, for the sake of progress and making itself better, SHOULDN'T take things like this into account.

And, as a moderator, I'm sure you've been to the TD board... where people ARE making a concerted effort to broaden the scope of what is acceptable in a Smash tournament setting. That's expressly WHY I feel I can discuss matters like this in a open forum (as if I needed a reason to discuss ANYTHING in a open forum in the first place...).

Mookie is right, Jack isn't even arguing with us...he's on a whole different topic and I really don't know where he's going with it. We should just stop trying to convince one person because it really isn't worth it. In his mind somehow items are random yet fair so just let him have his little fantasy.

Maybe I am on a different topic... but at least I'm on the topic of interactions between 'casuals and elitists', which is at least the thread title, if nothing else. And, YET AGAIN... this has nothing to do with items. It has everything to do with people saying that there is only one way to be competitive, however. Item play is just the strawman that's been set up to be knocked down, just so people can say, "This is the only/best way to be a competitive player!" as if there WAS such a thing.

 

[MookieRah]

I've always known that jargon is used specifically FOR the purpose of alienation,

That is bull****. That is sooooo much BS that it hurts. You know the purpose of jargon? It's not to alienate... it's because the current definitions of words aren't enough to explain a concept, or the word simply doesn't exist. Jargon is created so people can communicate easier. Yes, it takes some time to learn jargon, but it's there for a reason. Think about it for a second... would this site be better without jargon? Do you think people should have to say "jump and air dodge diagonally towards the stage" instead of saying wavedash? Do you think we should always say short hopped fast fall l-cancel for shffls? Seriously... we aren't trying to alienate ANYONE, we are just trying to communicate with each other easier.

NASA, an incredibly high-profile agency if there ever was one, has jargon so unintelligible and so unintuitive that it totally alienates anyone who hasn't dealt with NASA dealings for the majority of their lives.

I'm sure that NASA just wants to alienate people, as opposed to using words that are more suited to discussing engineering and science terms that otherwise would require a 5 minute discussion to encapsulate.

I don't see why, if there is a term that blatantly alienates people (as I believe your meaning for 'competitive' does, as it does, believe it or not, tick many people off as it comes off as smugness), the community, for the sake of progress and making itself better, SHOULDN'T take things like this into account.

So instead of saying competitive should we use some other word? What is more intuitive, a made up word, or using an existing word that, by all means, doesn't contradict our meaning of the word, but just isn't as defined as ours is?

Really, after all of this arguing with you... I take back my statement about you being smart. Seriously guy, you are making false assumptions about a lot of things, and they are really ignorant.

That's expressly WHY I feel I can discuss matters like this in a open forum (as if I needed a reason to discuss ANYTHING in a open forum in the first place...).

You are free to discuss, which is what you have been doing, it's just that you are wrong about a lot of things, and when we try to debate with you... you tell us that we aren't allowing you to discuss it. Notice how I'm not giving you infractions for talking in this thread? You can't counter our arguments, yet you want us and others to believe that you are right? That doesn't make sense at all...

 

[Jack Kieser]

In some cases it is used to distinguish those belonging to a group from those who are not. This is sometimes called "guild" or "insider" jargon. Those unfamiliar with a subject can often be tagged by their incorrect use of jargon. The use of jargon by outsiders is considered by insiders to be audacious, since it constitutes a claim to membership of the insider group.

I know... wiki isn't exactly the most scholarly source, but it proves my point. Many times, as is just human nature, jargon is used in this manner. Yes, when jargon originated, this wasn't the case... but that's the way most people think and act now. Notice, I DID say that the majority of Smash terminology and jargon IS indeed intuitive and not intended to alienate... but the current usage of the word 'competitive' IS used to alienate; it is, after all, used to constitute a distinction, used to make a separation between those who play in your current tournament style, and those who don't.

...but if that's the case, why NOT just use the word 'tournament' in place of 'competitive'? It's been said, many times, that 'competitive' means 'tournament'... but have any of you ever thought WHY that's the case? They mean the same thing, they are roughly the same length... hell, 'tournament' even has less syllables! The only logical conclusion that I can come to is that the word 'competitive' is used to alienate, to make people think, 'Hey, THIS is how you play competitively!'

After all, put yourself in the shoes of ANY average person looking to get into the tournament scene. Chances are you'd be a competitive individual, or else why would you want to compete in a tournament? Now, ask why items aren't used, and gauge your own reaction to the possible answers.

"Items aren't used because you can't play competitively with items." Well, you used to play with items... but you thought you WERE a competitive person! That must not be the case. Alienation accomplished.

"Items aren't used because they make tournaments unfair." Ok, that makes logical sense. I want to be fair, don't I? Of course! No alienation.

(Again, items are just the easiest and most relate-able example; this could be used for any difference between 'tournament' play and... well, any other kind of play.)

Every logical line of reasoning says that there is simply NO reason to use the word 'competitive' in place of the word 'tournament'. But it is... now, as the 'outsider', I can't tell you for certain why that is... but I can tell you what the logical conclusion is. And the logical conclusion is that the words are interchangeable because a distinction is wanted where there wasn't before. At least, that's the only logical conclusion that can be gleaned from the evidence.

 

[Zankoku]

Wait, did you just spend four and a half paragraphs explaining why we shouldn't use the term "competitive"? Is "tournament" a higher-tier word or something?

 

[HugS]

Um, just to hurt or help certain people's arguments.

A year and a half ago a guy named Panda had a tournament where an "Items tournament" was an event. 50ish people entered and the results were:
1. Ken
2. HugS
3. DSF

While the results were very similar to what happens without items I had a much easier time in certain match ups. DSF, a player that usually gives me a LOT of problems, ended up being a pretty easy win based on random explosions and occurrences, and Manacloud was about 1 hit away from beating me for the very same reasons.

Proceed.

 

[Yuna]

Jack, are you trying to be a douchebag?

Wiki****ia:
In some cases it is used to distinguish those belonging to a group from those who are not. This is sometimes called "guild" or "insider" jargon. Those unfamiliar with a subject can often be tagged by their incorrect use of jargon. The use of jargon by outsiders is considered by insiders to be audacious, since it constitutes a claim to membership of the insider group.

For one thing, that part of the article is entirely ludicrous. A lot of **** happens. People kill people. Does that mean all humans are murderers? Hardly.

Some people use insider jargon to differentiate from others. The Smash Community does not. Now go away until such time you have anything of value to say!

 

[DarkShadowRage]

I think the fact concerning brawl is..people are scared of getting their *** kicked online >_>
That's why people ***** and moan about (STOP TRYING TO EXPLOIT TEH GAME!) Honestly I never really used 'advanced techs' in Melee, I didn't have any people to play with when my friends went off to college like I did after highschool. so Level 9's is all I have got to play with. Now with online I am happy to see how I'll stack up against other people. Sure i'm going to get beat hard, but that's the fun of it..get beat play again work harder get better. It's not the matter of using 'advanced techs' it's the matter of accepting that there will always be someone better than you reguardless of the situation..it applys to every game...but that's just my opinion.
i'm not casual or compeitive, i'll play with what was given if I lose I lose, atleast I had fun.