A new idea for items in competitive play

[smashbrolink]

Can't you catch grounded items from the air by pressing Z?

Yes, but what stops an opponent from catching you on landing when you try to roll away, if you catch it on the way down, or catching it after you throw it at them?
Like I said, the opportunity is there. It's how you deal with the opportunity that matters.

 

[Aidebit]

Yes, but what stops an opponent from catching you on landing when you try to roll away, if you catch it on the way down, or catching it after you throw it at them?
Like I said, the opportunity is there. It's how you deal with the opportunity that matters.

If the item can hurt your opponent, you can instatoss, shield, then grab, of course, tether grabbers can't do this, but I believe this could solve the problem.

 

[[Corn]]

It doesn't HAVE to detract from skill, and in this case it doesn't, since it's not the random effect that is hitting the opponent, but the skill of the player using whatever said randomness spawned.

You can't control the spawn, but you CAN control how whatever spawned is used, and that figures into skill.

Dealing with new variables in an opponent's abilities is no different than dealing with a player who switches playstyles in the middle of the match; you've got to have the skill to cope with that sudden variable, that unexpected randomness to the way the match is playing out, or you likely won't survive.

There's no issue with having those items on. If you can't dodge a tossed banana, then you have just as big a chance of not being able to dodge one of the projectiles that other characters throw at you straight out of their own movesets, let alone a quick physical strike.

I dont have an issue with the player using the item skillfully, I have an issue with how they were given the item in the first place. You cannot argue that adding randomness will keep skill the exact same, it is an established law gameplay and every single game ever created.

Dealing with new variables in an opponent's abilities is no different than dealing with a player who switches playstyles in the middle of the match; you've got to have the skill to cope with that sudden variable, that unexpected randomness to the way the match is playing out, or you likely won't survive.

Having benficial options gives you the advantage, having the opponent have more beneficial options then you gives you the disadvantage. Having the opponent gain an beneficial option and thus the advantage based on luck reduces the skill level of their gameplay whilst making you increase your skill level to compensate for something neither of you had control of.
This is what you said translated into technical terms.

This is my point

 

[Sucumbio]

<,<

just wanted to point out that the NFL uses a coin toss at the beginning of the game. random.

or say, in baseball, when a cloud in the sky passes and the sun shines bright as balls right in the eyes of an outfielder who's about to catch a pop fly.

or when the wind changes direction during a sailboat race.

or when the puck bounces on the ice in just such a way that it's uncontrollable

or when sweat beads run into the eyes of an NBA player as they're attempting the 3 from downtown.

or any other number of -random- things that players have to deal with in a split second decision - who have to train day in and day out to learn how to deal with.

randomness does not preclude competitive play and it never has.

what items in smash do is make the game less about traditional fighting game skill, and more about smash fighting game skill. their elimination in competition is a decision based on the desires of the majority of participants who willingly pay to play and who play to get paid.

personally, I'm glad for no items in competitive play. if all told I drop 100 bucks on a weekend tourney and I get knocked out due to a bob-omb materializing right as my forward smash is coming out and it cost me my final stock... yeah... ****'s gay.

 

[Aidebit]

Sorry, misread the post.

 

[smashbrolink]

I dont have an issue with the player using the item skillfully, I have an issue with how they were given the item in the first place. You cannot argue that adding randomness will keep skill the exact same, it is an established law gameplay and every single game ever created.



Having benficial options gives you the advantage, having the opponent have more beneficial options then you gives you the disadvantage. Having the opponent gain an beneficial option and thus the advantage based on luck reduces the skill level of their gameplay whilst making you increase your skill level to compensate for something neither of you had control of.
This is what you said translated into technical terms.

This is my point

The item does no such thing.
There is no lack of skill present in the use of items when it takes those very same-said skills to even HIT with the items.
Just like it does with anyone using projectile weapons out of their own move-set, or even trying to time a physical strike appropriately.
No one suddenly plays worse due to, as a base example, a single banana, or any other item present on the fair-use list.
An opponent having a banana in their hands does not detract, at all, from your ability to fight against them. It does not present an advantage that is worth killing off said item's usage over.
And, as I have stated before, the fact that the chances are no less or greater than 50/50 of an item landing close or far from a player, means it is not treating either player any more or less fair than the other.

The luck present here has no exponentially detrimental effect on player skill or the fair factor of the match when matched to the fair items list.

 

[Aidebit]

The item does no such thing.
There is no lack of skill present in the use of items. An opponent having a banana in their hands does not detract, at all, from your ability to fight against them. It does not present an advantage that is worth killing off said item's usage over.
And, as I have stated before, the fact that the chances are no less or greater than 50/50 of an item landing close or far from a player, means it is not treating either player any more or less fair than the other.

The luck present here has no exponentially detrimental effect on player skill or the fair factor of the match when matched to the fair items list.

Handling items is a skill, but getting them because they dropped close to you isn't.
It will still be randomly decided, take the case of like two items landing close to a player, that player gets an advantage for no good reason.

 

[smashbrolink]

<,<

just wanted to point out that the NFL uses a coin toss at the beginning of the game. random.

or say, in baseball, when a cloud in the sky passes and the sun shines bright as balls right in the eyes of an outfielder who's about to catch a pop fly.

or when the wind changes direction during a sailboat race.

or when the puck bounces on the ice in just such a way that it's uncontrollable

or when sweat beads run into the eyes of an NBA player as they're attempting the 3 from downtown.

or any other number of -random- things that players have to deal with in a split second decision - who have to train day in and day out to learn how to deal with.

randomness does not preclude competitive play and it never has.

what items in smash do is make the game less about traditional fighting game skill, and more about smash fighting game skill. their elimination in competition is a decision based on the desires of the majority of participants who willingly pay to play and who play to get paid.

personally, I'm glad for no items in competitive play. if all told I drop 100 bucks on a weekend tourney and I get knocked out due to a bob-omb materializing right as my forward smash is coming out and it cost me my final stock... yeah... ****'s gay.

Pretty sure that's why the fair use item list doesn't allow bob-ombs.

 

[smashbrolink]

Handling items is a skill, but getting them because they dropped close to you isn't.
It will still be randomly decided, take the case of like two items landing close to a player, that player gets an advantage for no good reason.

Not a big enough one to complain over. That's the gist of it; you're not being guaranteed any wins when an item falls near you, yet that's how people are trying to treat them by pointing out the small advantages and blowing them out of proportion.

It just is not true, not now, not ever, that fair-use items detract from skill and drastically change an opponent's ability to fight their foe.
The randomness of their appearance is a non-issue.

 

[Aidebit]

Not a big enough one to complain over. That's the gist of it; you're not being guaranteed any wins when an item falls near you, yet that's how people are trying to treat them by pointing out the small advantages and blowing them out of proportion.

It just is not true, not now, not ever, that fair-use items detract from skill and drastically change an opponent's ability to fight their foe.
The randomness of their appearance is a non-issue.

For reference, could you link to the fair play items thread?
Also, stage control and momentum, imagine if you got stage control from your opponent, then your opponent gets an item close to him, and he got stage control back and the momentum, allowing him to win.

 

[[Corn]]

The item does no such thing.
There is no lack of skill present in the use of items when it takes those very same-said skills to even HIT with the items.
Just like it does with anyone using projectile weapons out of their own move-set, or even trying to time a physical strike appropriately.
No one suddenly plays worse due to, as a base example, a single banana, or any other item present on the fair-use list.
An opponent having a banana in their hands does not detract, at all, from your ability to fight against them. It does not present an advantage that is worth killing off said item's usage over.
And, as I have stated before, the fact that the chances are no less or greater than 50/50 of an item landing close or far from a player, means it is not treating either player any more or less fair than the other.

The luck present here has no exponentially detrimental effect on player skill or the fair factor of the match when matched to the fair items list.

Youve missed my point. You dont play worse because your opponent has the item, you have to play BETTER.

The item does no such thing.
An opponent having a banana in their hands does not detract, at all, from your ability to fight against them. It does not present an advantage that is worth killing off said item's usage over.

I doubt you have ever played a decent diddy who can glide toss and knows all the Naner setups and traps.

And, as I have stated before, the fact that the chances are no less or greater than 50/50 of an item landing close or far from a player, means it is not treating either player any more or less fair than the other. The luck present here has no exponentially detrimental effect on player skill or the fair factor of the match when matched to the fair items list.

I advise that you understand the faulty assumptions of 50/50 chance being fair in a game such as this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

[smashbrolink]

For reference, could you link to the fair play items thread?
Also, stage control and momentum, imagine if you got stage control from your opponent, then your opponent gets an item close to him, and he got stage control back and the momentum, allowing him to win.

When I find the link again, I'll post it. It was a thread on item-on tournaments and the items that could be not over-powered enough to make it in, including counterpicks and everything.

As to stage control and momentum, it's how the item that appears is used that matters, not the fact that it appeared near the person who was in control at the time.
Items don't use themselves.

 

[Aidebit]

When I find the link again, I'll post it. It was a thread on item-on tournaments and the items that could be not over-powered enough to make it in, including counterpicks and everything.

As to stage control and momentum, it's how the item that appears is used that matters, not the fact that it appeared near the person who was in control at the time.
Items don't use themselves.

No, I meant that in a disadvantaged situation, an item came to save you, and you got back on your feet and reset the situation because of that item.

 

[smashbrolink]

Youve missed my point. You dont play worse because your opponent has the item, you have to play BETTER.



I doubt you have ever played a decent diddy who can glide toss and knows all the Naner setups and traps.



I advise that you understand the faulty assumptions of 50/50 chance being fair in a game such as this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

I don't need to do any more improvements to my playstyle than I would need to do if my opponent had suddenly switched up their own playstyle mid-match to catch me off-guard, forcing me to adapt.
There's literally nothing unfair about that.

Diddy Kong nanner set-ups usually incorporate more than one banana and are dependent upon skillful use of said item. It's also dependent upon the opponent not getting caught up in the assault.
These things can be avoided with skill.
If they could not, then Diddy would be as banned as Meta is for being overpowered due to the bananas.
A single banana dropping from the sky does not turn you into Diddy Kong with all the banana-spawning perks he comes with.

As to the fallacies, I don't do well in math, so both of those made little sense to me.
What I DO understand, however, is that half-chance fits here perfectly well. It has just as much of a chance of landing near one of the players as it does of landing far away from both of them.

 

[smashbrolink]

No, I meant that in a disadvantaged situation, an item came to save you, and you got back on your feet and reset the situation because of that item.

The items on the list, from what I saw of it, don't have any more of a chance of doing that than a projectile like Link's bombs do.
If we're going to ban fair items, then we should be banning characters that can pull out items from their move-set to save their asses in a disadvantageous situation.

 

[Aidebit]

The items on the list, from what I saw of it, don't have any more of a chance of doing that than a projectile like Link's bombs do.
If we're going to ban fair items, then we should be banning characters that can pull out items from their move-set to save their ***** in a disadvantageous situation.

I haven't seen the list, so I can't argue, but if they were on the list, bananas and assist trophies would save you. Also, Link's item is a part of his moveset. It isn't random, the other player has control over it.

 

[smashbrolink]

I haven't seen the list, so I can't argue, but if they were on the list, bananas and assist trophies would save you. Also, Link's item is a part of his moveset. It isn't random, the other player has control over it.

Aside from being a controlled spawn, it is literally no different than if you had picked up the small explosive ball off of the ground to use against an oncoming opponent.
It not being random doesn't change the fact that wise use of it can save you and turn the match around, if the opponent doesn't catch and use it against you.

There's literally no difference save the fact that whoever is playing as Link has an unlimited supply of them and can call them on-command. Which, if I were going by the same logic as others in here, would be unfair to the other player in and of itself if they didn't have a similar ability, because it's gaining the Link player a slight advantage when used right.

The randomness isn't a big enough issue to ban the items over.

 

[Aidebit]

Aside from being a controlled spawn, it is literally no different than if you had picked up the small explosive ball off of the ground to use against an oncoming opponent.
It not being random doesn't change the fact that wise use of it can save you and turn the match around, if the opponent doesn't catch and use it against you.

There's literally no difference save the fact that whoever is playing as Link has an unlimited supply of them and can call them on-command. Which, if I were going by the same logic as others in here, would be unfair to the other player in and of itself if they didn't have a similar ability, because it's gaining the Link player a slight advantage when used right.

The randomness isn't a big enough issue to ban the items over.

But the mere fact that it is random makes it diminish the skill required.
Link's bombs aren't strong even if you spam them.

 

[smashbrolink]

But the mere fact that it is random makes it diminish the skill required.
Link's bombs aren't strong even if you spam them.

Neither are bananas or Mr. Saturns.
There's no less skill required in hitting with those than there is in using Link's bombs.
The only difference is that you can pull them out on demand. That's literally the only difference. It doesn't decrease skill, at all.

 

[[Corn]]

I don't need to do any more improvements to my playstyle than if my opponent had suddenly switched up their own playstyle mid-match to catch me off-guard, forcing me to adapt.
There's literally nothing unfair about that.

Diddy Kong nanner set-ups usually incorporate more than one banana and are dependent upon skillful use of said item. It's also dependent upon the opponent not getting caught up in the assault.
These things can be avoided with skill.
If they could not, then Diddy would be as banned as Meta is for being overpowered due to the bananas.

As to the fallacies, I don't do well in math, so both of those made little sense to me.
What I DO understand, however, is that half-chance fits here perfectly well. It has just as much of a chance of landing near one of the players as it does of landing far away from both of them.

Missed the point on the banana bit. Diddy always has the option to pull out a Banana, thus making it part of his original sets of advantages....honestly people have tried to get his nanas banned actually because they are a large advantage. If an opposing Marth suddenly got a banana in his hand for no reason, you bet your ass I would have to improve my play against that character simply because that character doesnt have a banana in his default move set.


If you dont understand a fallacy then ill simply them.

Gamblers Fallacy- If something keeps happening to uneven the odds, the chances it will rebalance itself increase.
Ludic Fallacy- If a random occurance is divided into its probabilty ratio, that ratio is an accurate representation of a real life scenario.

Both of the above should never be used in logical reasoning ever, as they are lapses in thinking and proven incorrect.

Until you can understand the above, you are literally spouting proven false information.

 

[smashbrolink]

Missed the point on the banana bit. Diddy always has the option to pull out a Banana, thus making it part of his original sets of advantages....honestly people have tried to get his nanas banned actually because they are a large advantage. If an opposing Marth suddenly got a banana in his hand for no reason, you bet your *** I would have to improve my play against that character simply because that character doesnt have a banana in his default move set.


If you dont understand a fallacy then ill simply them.

Gamblers Fallacy- If something keeps happening to uneven the odds, the chances it will rebalance itself increase.
Ludic Fallacy- If a random occurance is divided into its probabilty ratio, that ratio is an accurate representation of a real life scenario.

Both of the above should never be used in logical reasoning ever, as they are lapses in thinking and proven incorrect.

Until you can understand the above, you are literally spouting proven false information.

Fighting against a single banana does not a Diddy match make, especially when you can catch that banana and turn it against them, and again, it requires no more of an increase than if you were suddenly dealing with an opponent who switched tactics mid-match to throw you off-guard.

It's learning to expect, and cope with, the unexpected.
There's nothing unfair about that, and it only improves your critical thinking abilities as a player.

I do not see how either of those fallacies apply to my argument here; the randomness doesn't break the game, or the player's ability to rely upon their own skill with said items, and their chances of appearing anywhere on the field doesn't actively try to benefit any one player.
If the game were designed to spawn items solely near the opponent in the lead, you'd have a point, but it doesn't do that.

The point is, these items do not inherently destroy any player's ability to fight skillfully or to counter said items. The advantages gained are even less so than when a player is capable of pulling out said items on command.

I truly do not see any issue with the fair items list in competitive play. There's nothing unfair about them, they improve the entertainment quality of the match, and there's literally no fair reason to exclude them in their entirety, outside of the preference of those who have already made the rules and do not want any change.

 

[Aidebit]

I truly do not see any issue with the fair items list in competitive play. There's nothing unfair about them, they improve the entertainment quality of the match, and there's literally no fair reason to exclude them in their entirety, outside of the preference of those who have already made the rules and do not want any change.

Could you list what you remember of the list?

 

[smashbrolink]

Could you list what you remember of the list?

Of the fair items, I remember Mr. Saturn and Bananas being in, and all explosives except, I think the motion sensor bomb, and containers being gone.
Also absent were Pokeballs, Final Smashes, and Star Men, alongside all recovery items save the team healer in team battles and food.
Like I said, I'm still searching for the thread in question, but once I have it, I'll link to it here without delay.


Edit: Found it.
http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

List:
NEUTRAL ITEMS:

(Sandbag) (Food) (Warp Star) (Bunny Hood) (Beam Sword) (Lip’s Stick) (Star Rod) (Super Scope) (Fire Flower) (Motion Sensor Bomb) (Freezie) (Smoke Ball) (Pitfall) (Mr. Saturn) (Banana Peel) (Franklin Badge) (Screw Attack)

COUNTERPICK ITEMS:

(Assist Trophy) (Dragoon) (Metal Box) (Home-Run Bat) (Hammer) (Ray Gun) (Cracker Launcher) (Gooey Bomb) (Hothead) (Unira)

BANNED ITEMS:

(Smash Ball) (Pokeball) (Containers) (Blast Box) (Maxim Tomato) (Heart Container) (Super Mushroom) (Poison Mushroom) (Starman) (Superspicy Curry) (Lightning) (Fan) (Golden Hammer) (Bob-Omb) (Smart Bomb) (Deku Nut) (Green Shell) (Bumper) (Soccer Ball) (Spring)

CHANGES FOR 2v2 PLAY:

Item Spawn Rate – Changed to ‘Medium’
(Team Healer) - Neutral
(Smash Ball) – Moved to Counterpick
(Superspicy Curry) – Moved to Counterpick
(Cracker Launcher) – Moved to Neutral


GENERAL GAMEPLAY RULES:

1. 3 Stocks
2. 8 Minute Time Limit
3. Items set to "Low"
4. Pause set to "Off"
5. All infinites and chain grabs are legal.
6. The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites, chain grabs, or uninterruptible moves past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
7. Any action that can prevent the game from continuing (i.e., freezing, disappearing characters, game reset, etc.) will result in a forfeit of that match for the player that initiated the action. You are responsible for knowing your own character, and must be wary about accidentally triggering one of these effects.
8. The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death:
o In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has less percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
o If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.


MODIFIED RULES FOR DOUBLES:

1. Team Attack set to "On"
2. Life stealing is allowed.
3. In the event of a game going to time, if both teams have an equal amount of combined stocks, then whichever team has a lower combined percent is declared the winner.
4. If a player is using the character Pokemon Trainer, Lucario, or Sonic, either team may request that team colors be changed to make it easier to tell the difference between team players.

 

[Aidebit]

Of the fair items, I remember Mr. Saturn and Bananas being in, and all explosives and containers being gone.
Also absent were Pokeballs, Final Smashes, and Star Men, alongside all recovery items save the team healer in team battles.
Like I said, I'm still searching for the thread in question, but once I have it, I'll link to it here without delay.

Okay, thanks a lot.

 

[[Corn]]

Fighting against a single banana does not a Diddy match make, especially when you can catch that banana and turn it against them, and again, it requires no more of an increase than if you were suddenly dealing with an opponent who switched tactics mid-match to throw you off-guard.

It's learning to expect, and cope with, the unexpected.
There's nothing unfair about that, and it only improves your critical thinking abilities as a player.

I do not see how either of those fallacies apply to my argument here; the randomness doesn't break the game, or the player's ability to rely upon their own skill with said items, and their chances of appearing anywhere on the field doesn't actively try to benefit any one player.
If the game were designed to spawn items solely near the opponent in the lead, you'd have a point, but it doesn't do that.

The point is, these items do not inherently destroy any player's ability to fight skillfully or to counter said items. The advantages gained are even less so than when a player is capable of pulling out said items on command.

I truly do not see any issue with the fair items list in competitive play. There's nothing unfair about them, they improve the entertainment quality of the match, and there's literally no fair reason to exclude them in their entirety, outside of the preference of those who have already made the rules and do not want any change.

Lol at your response being "Expect the unexpected". This shows a complete lack of understanding of the competitive game base.
This isnt war, the opponent wont call in backup if they lose or pull out a secret weapon. In a competitive game you know exactly what the opponents move set is at all times.

You dont even understand the Fair use items thread, THE ONLY REASON HE COULDNT MAKE ITEMS SPAWN IN THE SAME PLACE AT SET INTERVALS WAS BECAUSE THE GAME EVEN WHEN HACKED DIDNT ALLOW IT. IT SAYS THAT IN THE FIRST POST WHICH ALSO STATES HE WAS TRYING TO DO THAT TO REDUCE THE RANDOMNESS AND SKILL LOST. Please reread the thread if you dont believe me.

You have not yet understood the Ludic Fallacy at all, you do not understand the Fair use items thread, and you do not understand how randomness detracts from skill.

This is one of the worst stereotypes to live up to when discussing competetive gameplay. Until you can understand information handfed to you proving that half of what you said is incorrect, its no different then my talking to a brick wall.

I was agreeing with you this whole time on item use takes skill, understand this.
I was disagreeing with you on that random item spawn doesnt remove any skill, when by law of nature and definition it does.

 

[smashbrolink]

Lol at your response being "Expect the unexpected". This shows a complete lack of understanding of the competitive game base.
This isnt war, the opponent wont call in backup if they lose or pull out a secret weapon. In a competitive game you know exactly what the opponents move set is at all times.

You dont even understand the Fair use items thread, THE ONLY REASON HE COULDNT MAKE ITEMS SPAWN IN THE SAME PLACE AT SET INTERVALS WAS BECAUSE THE GAME EVEN WHEN HACKED DIDNT ALLOW IT. IT SAYS THAT IN THE FIRST POST WHICH ALSO STATES HE WAS TRYING TO DO THAT TO REDUCE THE RANDOMNESS AND SKILL LOST. Please reread the thread if you dont believe me.

You have not yet understood the Ludic Fallacy at all, you do not understand the Fair use items thread, and you do not understand how randomness detracts from skill.

This is one of the worst stereotypes to live up to when discussing competetive gameplay. Until you can understand information handfed to you proving that half of what you said is incorrect, its no different then my talking to a brick wall.

I was agreeing with you this whole time on item use takes skill, understand this.
I was disagreeing with you on that random item spawn doesnt remove any skill, when by law of nature and definition it does.

The reason I say it does not, is because I have not once, ever, played worse because of a player getting an item.
Not. Once.
That's why I say the definition is being used incorrectly here and that the randomness doesn't matter.
In fact out of that entire thread, the supposed point that items decrease my skill is the one thing I did not agree with. I've never lost any skill by playing with items.

Knowing the opponent's move-set doesn't define how they will use it to combat you, nor how varied they can make their own playstyle in order to combat you.
I don't feel that I need to understand a pair of fallacies to understand that I've never once seen anyone pull out of a losing situation, due to a single small-time item, that they could not have pulled out of without said item.
The only thing I don't understand about the competitive play base is how some of them can get so incredibly defensive over something as inconsequential as where an item spawns, and use that as a reason to attack people.

 

[[Corn]]

The reason I say it does not, is because I have not once, ever, played worse because of a player getting an item.
Not. Once.
That's why I say the definition is being used incorrectly here and that the randomness doesn't matter.
Knowing the opponent's move-set doesn't define how they will use it to combat you, nor how varied they can make their own playstyle in order to combat you.
I don't feel that I need to understand a pair of fallacies to understand that I've never once seen anyone pull out of a losing situation, due to a single small-time item, that they could not have pulled out of without said item.

You are using a Logical Fallacy to counteract something that has already been proven true whilst at the same time not understanding what a Logical Fallacy is.

I have met my brick wall, I tried to help you understand, I really did.

 

[smashbrolink]

You are using a Logical Fallacy to counteract something that has already been proven true whilst at the same time not understanding what a Logical Fallacy is.

I have met my brick wall, I tried to help you understand, I really did.

If shouting at me mid-message is what you call helping me, then It'd have been better if you had simply agreed to disagree.
I don't see the logic in banning items over how random they are, nor do I see how they detract from my own skill level, and therefore see no reason to ban them from play entirely.

If you're going to try and "help" me in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from shouting. I tried my best to give you that same courtesy so I don't think I'm asking for too much here.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

The reason I say it does not, is because I have not once, ever, played worse because of a player getting an item.
Not. Once.

Then the people you are playing with are horrifically incompetent if they can't capitalize on getting an item to the point of you even being affected at all.

Here's the thing - items are random. You agree with this, right?

You agree with the sentiment that items are a matter of luck, right?

If so, are you arguing that having random items do not detract from skill?

If so, you are literally objectively wrong. If you agree with the above sentences then you are just plain wrong. I'm not trying to even be offensive here; your line of thinking is fallacious. By definition of luck, items detract from skill. This is not even a matter of opinion.

I'd recommend reading up on probability theory and specifically those two links [Corn] provided, as those apply directly to this thread. You are not the first person to argue that a 50/50 probability is fair, and you won't be the last, but that line of thinking is simply, truly, and objectively false. Your anecdotal evidence that it hasn't affected you personally is irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

You are using a Logical Fallacy to counteract something that has already been proven true whilst at the same time not understanding what a Logical Fallacy is.

I have met my brick wall, I tried to help you understand, I really did.

I'd go through and like every post you made here if this thread weren't so long, [Corn]. I thank you for arguing so long on this thread's behalf, since you saved me a whole lot of time. I would have surely done the same thing if I hadn't been asleep.

 

[[Corn]]

I'd go through and like every post you made here if this thread weren't so long, [Corn]. I thank you for arguing so long on this thread's behalf, since you saved me a whole lot of time. I would have surely done the same thing if I hadn't been asleep.

I have no issue with someone suggesting something new or wanting to understand why something is in place. In fact I encourage it, not addressing stuff like that without a factual and formal response leads to the community to become divided on false information and the distrust that stems from it.

What I do have an issue with, is people who have facts infront of them that they refuse to acknowledge or opinions that have no relevance in furthering the discussion. That is the cancer of any kind of logical mindset, especially when discussing the creation or modification for a ruleset in a competetive game.

I thank you for the encouraging words and post though. Cant believe I didnt mention the Probabality theory, though I suppose the Ludic and Gamblers covered it nicely.

 

[Banjodorf]

Honestly if this were ever possible, I'd prefer it stay in it's own corner of the competitive scene and not attempt to push itself into the wider scene. I can't be the only one who feels like items would make me undeserving of a win at all, even if they spawn at pre-determined intervals at regular locations. For example, it becomes not a "skill" game, but a "coin flip".

There might not be any favorites in 50-50 chance, but there's no skill in it either.

 

[[Corn]]

Honestly if this were ever possible, I'd prefer it stay in it's own corner of the competitive scene and not attempt to push itself into the wider scene. I can't be the only one who feels like items would make me undeserving of a win at all, even if they spawn at pre-determined intervals at regular locations. For example, it becomes not a "skill" game, but a "coin flip".

There might not be any favorites in 50-50 chance, but there's no skill in it either.

Well yes, Its being suggested as an alternative ruleset, something of which I have no issue with.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I have no issue with someone suggesting something new or wanting to understand why something is in place. In fact I encourage it, not addressing stuff like that without a factual and formal response leads to the community to become divided on false information and the distrust that stems from it.

What I do have an issue with, is people who have facts infront of them that they refuse to acknowledge or opinions that have no relevance in furthering the discussion. That is the cancer of any kind of logical mindset, especially when discussing the creation or modification for a ruleset in a competetive game.

I thank you for the encouraging words and post though. Cant believe I didnt mention the Probabality theory, though I suppose the Ludic and Gamblers covered it nicely.

Those words are excellent and very true. Both sides may have points but people gotta listen to BOTH sides in any given argument to come up with a solution, while it seems this argument the sides that have been debating aren't reaching each other.

In all honesty when it comes to items play, there will just need to be a separate tournament scene for them. Which could easily be arranged, and if people want items on they should come and support those events, or maybe some people really will play on both which would be excellent! But at least that way, both people could have what they want, and as long as we manage to respect one another's opinions and not be mean to each other, we would be able to have the game thrive for both sides of people.

 

[[Corn]]

Those words are excellent and very true. Both sides may have points but people gotta listen to BOTH sides in any given argument to come up with a solution, while it seems this argument the sides that have been debating aren't reaching each other.

In all honesty when it comes to items play, there will just need to be a separate tournament scene for them. Which could easily be arranged, and if people want items on they should come and support those events, or maybe some people really will play on both which would be excellent! But at least that way, both people could have what they want, and as long as we manage to respect one another's opinions and not be mean to each other, we would be able to have the game thrive for both sides of people.

And suddenly this thread gets back on stable ground in like 4 posts.

This is very good.

 

[SmashChu]

1.) I don't want random things to help me win a match, that makes me feel undeserving of the win.

How so? You got an item and used it to it's fullest advantage. Your opponent wasn't able to deal with the item your using. Sound like you deserved to win.

2.) and 3.) Imagine you have stage control, then a starman appears where your opponent is, and he gets stage control, and he wins. He won because he got stage control back with the starman.

When the Starman is gone, take it back. Or grab another item, wait for his assault to be over, and counter attack.

 

[[Corn]]

How so? You got an item and used it to it's fullest advantage. Your opponent wasn't able to deal with the item your using. Sound like you deserved to win.
When the Starman is gone, take it back. Or grab another item, wait for his assault to be over, and counter attack.

We have already discussed how the item spawns being random detracts from skill, noone has any issue with the actual item usage. Dont put yourself in a stupid position.

 

[SmashChu]

We have already discussed how the item spawns being random detracts from skill, noone has any issue with the actual item usage. Dont put yourself in a stupid position.

Touchy touchy. Like I said, Dota 2 is a bigger competitive game and has more random elements than Smash. The issue has nothing to do with randomness. It has to do with the community.

It's like talking to a brick wall I swear.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Okay, as a fair point we wanna try to make examples with the "fair items" set in mind. I do keep noticing things like bombombs mentioned, which I don't think even most pro items users are for.

Second, we had just gotten the conversation into civil grounds, can we try to keep them there?

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Of the fair items, I remember Mr. Saturn and Bananas being in, and all explosives except, I think the motion sensor bomb, and containers being gone.
Also absent were Pokeballs, Final Smashes, and Star Men, alongside all recovery items save the team healer in team battles and food.
Like I said, I'm still searching for the thread in question, but once I have it, I'll link to it here without delay.


Edit: Found it.
http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

List:
NEUTRAL ITEMS:

(Sandbag) (Food) (Warp Star) (Bunny Hood) (Beam Sword) (Lip’s Stick) (Star Rod) (Super Scope) (Fire Flower) (Motion Sensor Bomb) (Freezie) (Smoke Ball) (Pitfall) (Mr. Saturn) (Banana Peel) (Franklin Badge) (Screw Attack)

COUNTERPICK ITEMS:

(Assist Trophy) (Dragoon) (Metal Box) (Home-Run Bat) (Hammer) (Ray Gun) (Cracker Launcher) (Gooey Bomb) (Hothead) (Unira)

BANNED ITEMS:

(Smash Ball) (Pokeball) (Containers) (Blast Box) (Maxim Tomato) (Heart Container) (Super Mushroom) (Poison Mushroom) (Starman) (Superspicy Curry) (Lightning) (Fan) (Golden Hammer) (Bob-Omb) (Smart Bomb) (Deku Nut) (Green Shell) (Bumper) (Soccer Ball) (Spring)

CHANGES FOR 2v2 PLAY:

Item Spawn Rate – Changed to ‘Medium’
(Team Healer) - Neutral
(Smash Ball) – Moved to Counterpick
(Superspicy Curry) – Moved to Counterpick
(Cracker Launcher) – Moved to Neutral


GENERAL GAMEPLAY RULES:

1. 3 Stocks
2. 8 Minute Time Limit
3. Items set to "Low"
4. Pause set to "Off"
5. All infinites and chain grabs are legal.
6. The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites, chain grabs, or uninterruptible moves past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
7. Any action that can prevent the game from continuing (i.e., freezing, disappearing characters, game reset, etc.) will result in a forfeit of that match for the player that initiated the action. You are responsible for knowing your own character, and must be wary about accidentally triggering one of these effects.
8. The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death:
o In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has less percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
o If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.


MODIFIED RULES FOR DOUBLES:

1. Team Attack set to "On"
2. Life stealing is allowed.
3. In the event of a game going to time, if both teams have an equal amount of combined stocks, then whichever team has a lower combined percent is declared the winner.
4. If a player is using the character Pokemon Trainer, Lucario, or Sonic, either team may request that team colors be changed to make it easier to tell the difference between team players.

Sorry but I do not see these items being fair. The only items I see here that are fair are the Mr.Saturn and Banana Peel. This turns the game into how a simple FPS plays (like Halo). "Oh I know that the Battle Rifle is going to spawn in the right hand corner, and I know the Shotgun spawns at this location, I just have to be here at the right time to have an advantage over my opponent."

These items are still randomly placed. These items still have randomness. These items can impact the game, majorly.

Food - Recovers health. Why should someone be able to recover health because a piece of food randomly landed next to them?
Bunny Hood - Increase of speed for one character can heavily impact the match.
Beam Sword - .....what? How is this a fair item? Increased range, increased damage, etc.

I can go on and on, but it would seem redundant. Now....I do not mind if these things were considered for noncompetitive play....but by no means should such crazy random features be allowed for competitive play that detracts from player skill.

 

[[Corn]]

Touchy touchy. Like I said, Dota 2 is a bigger competitive game and has more random elements than Smash. The issue has nothing to do with randomness. It has to do with the community.

It's like talking to a brick wall I swear.

Though this is clearly baiting at this point, I will still try to explain in detail the facts of this matter, things that are proven and cannot be discussed further.

-Spawn locations and variable items being random detracts from skill
-Using an item properly takes skill, but does not increase the overall skill level due to how the item is obtained in the system that cannot be controlled.(Banning or restricting items is a must)
-In the competitive mindset, adding any sort of randomness is discouraged if it can be removed entirely. (This point completely invalidates your Dota2 comparison)

In conclusion:
There is no issue with Items being on as long as spawn times/locations and such can be controlled. If spawn locations cannot be controlled and lack the ability to be turned off, they stay on. If spawn locations cannot be controlled and have the ability to be turned off, they will. There is no reason not to have a ruleset that has items as long as it realizes the above facts. I wouldnt support it as I prefer the least amount of luck in my games, but Im sure some people would.