A new idea for items in competitive play

[smashbrolink]

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.

How?
In what way whatsoever?
It's been said over and over again, but I've yet to see a gameplay example of someone's skill level literally going down and staying down because someone hit them with an item or because someone picked up an item in the first place.
I argue that the definition of luck only applies to the moment of appearance, not to the item itself thereafter.
That's where you guys are losing me in this discussion; you're saying a person who uses an item or who gets hit by one automatically experiences a detraction in skill, IE, becomes worse at the game, simply because there was an element of luck involved in its appearance.
I'm sure you've all used an item before.
Did you suddenly get worse at spacing because of it?
Did you have to retrain yourself afterwards to regain whatever skill that item took away?
No. I'd place bets that you didn't.
That's what I'm talking about on my side; I see nothing about fair-use items that could literally detract from your ability to think and fight strategically.
I do not believe that their method of appearance makes them somehow more detrimental than, as I used in examples earlier, a grabbable item from a character's inventory.
You argue further, if I'm reading you right, that the method of appearance makes all actions taken with said items nothing more than an extension of the luck present in the method of their appearance, in other words, the item literally detracts from player skill.
That is another point where we disagree, again, if I'm reading your post right.
I don't feel that the luck of an items appearance extends beyond said appearance, not enough to matter more than how the item is used afterwards, which is reliant entirely upon the skill of the user.

Skill earned and forged in battle is not so fickle a thing that a single item can somehow detract from an opponent's skill level when they are using or being hit by it.
There are always going to be more matches, and the player will always fight with the same level of skill, if not more due to experience gained over time, whether they're using items or not.
Skill may be the opposite of luck, but I have yet to see it proven that one can permanently detract from the other just by being present in the same instance.

 

[[Corn]]

How?
In what way whatsoever?
It's been said over and over again, but I've yet to see a gameplay example of someone's skill level literally going down and staying down because someone hit them with an item or because someone picked up an item in the first place.
I argue that the definition of luck only applies to the moment of appearance, not to the item itself thereafter.

You finally understand somewhat.

I argue that the definition of luck only applies to the moment of appearance, not to the item itself thereafter.

For a purely logical competitive ruleset, removing this is beneficial as any added luck is detrimental to skill.
This is what I and many other have been replying at you for all this time. We dont care about the item itself, we care about its randomness in spawning.

Im going to say it one more time, For a purely logical competitive ruleset, removing any added luck will allow for more skill. Do you understand this?

 

[XavierSylfaen]

That's where you guys are losing me in this discussion; you're saying a person who uses an item automatically becomes WORSE AT THE GAME by using an item just once.
Did you suddenly get worse at spacing because of it?
No. I'd place bets that you didn't.

I don't think anyone is arguing this. We (or at least I am) are arguing that items give an advantage to whoever picks them up. And I'm assuming you agree that items in the current system are random and luck-based.

Because of this, the inherent randomness of items spawns as they are now cannot be considered for competitive play unless you are okay with detracting from skill being the focus of said play.

 

[smashbrolink]

You finally understand somewhat.



For a purely logical competitive ruleset, removing this is beneficial as any added luck is detrimental to skill.
This is what I and many other have been replying at you for all this time. We dont care about the item itself, we care about its randomness in spawning.

Im going to say it one more time, For a purely logical competitive ruleset, removing any added luck will allow for more skill. Do you understand this?

From the way you're saying it, it makes it sound literally like you cannot play to the best of your ability the moment an item pops into existence on screen. That the existence of any sort of luck whatsoever, whether attached to something or not, is something that competitive play cannot exist around and that makes you a worse player merely by being in the vicinity of anything spawned by luck.
That's where you're confusing me; you're saying "detracts from skill" as if its mere existence is a blight to your ability to play effectively whether you make use of the item or not.
My stance is that the luck doesn't affect the player's ability to use their own skill.
If I saw a video of you playing in an item match, whether you picked up an item or not, I doubt I would see you dodging the item with worse timing or using the item with less accuracy in your throw or swing.

I'm trying to say that the randomness of the spawn point has no direct negative affect on your inherent level of skill.

I get the feeling that my position is being misunderstood here.

 

[smashbrolink]

I don't think anyone is arguing this. We (or at least I am) are arguing that items give an advantage to whoever picks them up. And I'm assuming you agree that items in the current system are random and luck-based.

Because of this, the inherent randomness of items spawns as they are now cannot be considered for competitive play unless you are okay with detracting from skill being the focus of said play.

See, this is where I'm feeling a disconnect.
I do not agree that the luck in items extends to being inherent to them, because it only applies to the area of their spawn.
Nor do I agree that the advantage gained from said items is a guaranteed one merely on virtue of picking it up.
Example: Bunny Hood. Yes, it lets you move faster.
But without practice, it can also throw off your spacing if you pick it up, as well as your attack timing, especially in the case of aerials, since it also increases your fall speed on top of your jump height.
Selecting the right item for the right moment, when it's available, is a part of the strategic side of competitive item play.
The advantage is only as big as the way you use it.
Just like Link's bombs; you won't get anywhere by tossing them randomly. They aren't something you can simply pull out and automatically gain a huge advantage from, and trying to do so with a spawned banana OR one of Link's bombs will likely only get it caught and used against you.
The method of appearance of an item doesn't matter in terms of detracting from a player's skill, in other words, because player skill overrides any luck present from the item's appearance.

Am I making myself understood now? Or am I still not making sense to you guys?

 

[LiteralGrill]

From the way you're saying it, it makes it sound literally like you cannot play to the best of your ability the moment an item pops into existence on screen. That the existence of any sort of luck whatsoever, whether attached to something or not, is something that competitive play cannot exist around and that makes you a worse player merely by being in the vicinity of anything spawned by luck.
That's where you're confusing me; you're saying "detracts from skill" as if its mere existence is a blight to your ability to play effectively whether you make use of the item or not.
My stance is that the luck doesn't affect the player's ability to use their own skill.
If I saw a video of you playing in an item match, whether you picked up an item or not, I doubt I would see you dodging the item with worse timing or using the item with less accuracy in your throw or swing.

I'm trying to say that the randomness of the spawn point has no direct negative affect on your inherent level of skill.

I get the feeling that my position is being misunderstood here.

That's what I thought was happening, see how awesome it is when while being civil we can get each other to understand our views?

But anyways, I doubt anyone here thinks your skill levels goes down when items enter play, maybe to try to word this differently.

People are playing for money. They don't want something they can't control changing the outcome of a match. To these people, items do this by being placed at random which could possibly change the outcome of a match. They choose to eliminate any factor that could possibly effect the outcome of a match minus player vs player so there is no player vs random vs player.

They wouldn't want something else to be in the way for proving which player if better, does this make better sense?

 

[smashbrolink]

That's what I thought was happening, see how awesome it is when while being civil we can get each other to understand our views?

But anyways, I doubt anyone here thinks your skill levels goes down when items enter play, maybe to try to word this differently.

People are playing for money. They don't want something they can't control changing the outcome of a match. To these people, items do this by being placed at random which could possibly change the outcome of a match. They choose to eliminate any factor that could possibly effect the outcome of a match minus player vs player so there is no player vs random vs player.

They wouldn't want something else to be in the way for proving which player if better, does this make better sense?

Much more so, yes, if they're playing for money.
My argument was more based around non-monetary competitive matches, so that might have affected perception here too.

 

[[Corn]]

Much more so, yes, if they're playing for money.
My argument was more based around non-monetary competitive matches, so that might have affected perception here too.

This entire thread was about competetive playing for money rules trying to add items into the mix....It even says competetive in the title...

 

[grizby2]

hmmmm..

dat sonic

 

[XavierSylfaen]

Much more so, yes, if they're playing for money.
My argument was more based around non-monetary competitive matches, so that might have affected perception here too.

But that's like the whole point of this thread. I don't think anyone is butthurt over items in a friendly game, even if both people are trying to win, no one will have any hard feelings over the outcome of the match.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your line of thinking is still fallacious but either way you're arguing against something that isn't even that related to this thread that much.

 

[Aidebit]

IMO, I can handle some of the items on the list. But what I have to ask is what they add to the game.

 

[LiteralGrill]

IMO, I can handle some of the items on the list. But what I have to ask is what they add to the game.

I'm guessing for some people, it adds a new layer of depth to the game, it makes matches take on new strategies, adds a little variety when watching certain matchups you may have seen a thousand times, keeps the game more "pure" to what it was made as by keeping items as they were intended for play... Multiple reasons I have heard, and all interesting ones that could spark debate.