Allowing No Fatigue/No Forced Switch PT Hacks in Tourney Play

[leafgreen386]

Did anyone see my post? It's possible to use a code that will not only leave regular PT alone, but will also prevent you from switching if you choose to go with a single pokemon.

I keep seeing people say this is somehow a buff to PT. I'd like to point out that there is a code that causes you to play only as an independent pokemon with no PT attached (so you can't switch) if you hold down shield when going from the character select to the stage select screen. This leaves PT exactly the same while essentially adding three new characters to the game.

^ That. If you try to CP with a pokemon, then you're stuck with that pokemon. If you choose an independent pokemon to use after you just won a match, your opponent can then CP your single pokemon, and you would be without the others to aid you should it be a bad matchup.

 

[Brinzy]

Because the natural side-effect to Squirtle is that he must switch out to Ivysaur, who then switches out to Charizard before Squirtle can be used again. This hack means Squirtle gets 100% play. I don't get why any of them deserve 100% play when they were built otherwise.

Besides, if my character hard-countered one Pokemon, why should I go from having a normal or disadvantageous fight with two Pokemon and having the advantage against one Pokemon to suddenly not given that easier fight that would be presented with PT? Most people will maximize their use of the best Pokemon for the situation - I shouldn't have to lose out on this because now my opponent can remove his two worst movesets and leave his best one there when he could pick an entirely different character for a similar effect. I don't think it's right for me to fight the best third of a character.

Did anyone see my post?

Yes, and you didn't say anything new.

 

[leafgreen386]

You just said it yourself. They could use a different character for an identical effect. This is essentially adding three distinct characters to the game. For those who like the whole PT, he remains as is. However, each of his pokemon become new characters that can be used. You act as if someone picking PT in a tournament can change their pokemon choice at the last minute after they've already been CP'd. They cannot. The player should have to declare whether he is playing a solo pokemon or PT as a whole when he selects his character in a CP situation, which would keep counterpicking fair.

 

[Tornadith]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the PT hack in Brawl+ tournaments. The real question here is whether hacking Pokemon Trainer should be allowed in standard tournaments. It would theoretically make PT stronger, but not significantly. I doubt this will be allowed. If the no trip hack isn't allowed in standard tournaments (a hack that has much more widespread support among the community) it's unlikely a hack that fixes a character flaw will be accepted either.

While I have no problem with tournaments allowing no-trip and PT hacked wiis alongside unhacked ones, a lot of people do. For them it has to be all or nothing. The logistics of getting everyone to implement the no-trip and PT hacks prevent it from happening.

Personally I'd love to main Charizard but it's not going to happen until the Brawl+ people standardize their hacks and organize tournaments.

I think this actually make PT ALOT stronger. PT has always suffered a bit because of fatigue if the player is only maining one pokemon and having to do the switch if you main PT, which gives the other player a free hit unless they are far away. That's what makes Pokemon Trainer that way. PT is very good because he has 3 movesets and can switch if a hard match-up comes his way, but he suffers from the things above and so that's what a PT mainer has to deal with and master. Removing that makes playing PT easy and buffs him a lot.

 

[Yuna]

They cannot. The player should have to declare whether he is playing a solo pokemon or PT as a whole when he selects his character in a CP situation, which would keep counterpicking fair.

But PT wasn't friggin' designed to be able to be played like that! Suffer the consequences of your poor character choice.

 

[Tornadith]

But PT wasn't friggin' designed to be able to be played like that! Suffer the consequences of your poor character choice.

Well said, Yuna. Well said.

 

[ShadowLink84]

What's next, hacking Samus/Zamus so you can switch between both at will? I mean, it'd just be like Zelda/Sheik, after all! I don't see why not!

You already can so I see no reason not to *shot*

 

[Brinzy]

You act as if someone picking PT in a tournament can change their pokemon choice at the last minute after they've already been CP'd. They cannot.

Totally not my main argument for why I'm against this.

You can now enjoy one of three movesets of PT without dealing with the other two. Clearly this idea was not conjured because of how crazy powerful PT is with his three movesets; this came up because most people see the whole unique part of PT as the main reason as to why he's "held back."

This hack allows one Pokemon to trade in a few pros in exchange for tons more cons. So Ivysaur can't fight Robot? Well I guess you now lose your farthest projectile... while also eliminating your worst match-up (for tons of reasons that I'm not going to go through) and being able to just use Squirtle. Why should we have the option to split up a character who was never designed that way in the first place?

 

[leafgreen386]

You're getting into developer intent, which is a losing argument every time. When we remove items from the game, set it to three stock, ban stages, and set up a counterpick system to play this game competitively, are we not going against developer intent? Sakurai did not want this game to be competitive. You can see the proof of that in his interviews. Even before using hacks, we're fighting against developer intent. Now, you're saying that we shouldn't use hacks just because it goes against the same concept that we have denied for so long, anyway? That's hypocrisy. Ultimately, the way a game was "meant to be played" makes no consequence. The only thing that really matters is how we play it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You're getting into developer intent, which is a losing argument every time. When we remove items from the game, set it to three stock, ban stages, and set up a counterpick system to play this game competitively, are we not going against developer intent? Sakurai did not want this game to be competitive. You can see the proof of that in his interviews. Even before using hacks, we're fighting against developer intent. Now, you're saying that we shouldn't use hacks just because it goes against the same concept that we have denied for so long, anyway? That's hypocrisy. Ultimately, the way a game was "meant to be played" makes no consequence. The only thing that really matters is how we play it.

No he isn't.
The very fact that we can turn items off, that we can play 1v1, is something that is the result of design.
Creator intent has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would use items.

 

[Brinzy]

You're getting into developer intent, which is a losing argument every time.

Don't even try to make it look like I'm going with that.

PT has three movesets. PT is not designed to be played with one moveset. Zelda/Sheik are. Samus/Zamus are. PT is not. If the reason you're even removing the stuff in the first place is, "We're adding three characters so they can be treated like everyone else", then you're basically splitting apart three movesets that are bound together anyway by a move WHILE removing the binding factor... for a reason that basically says, "**** you, PT, I only want one part of you, not the whole thing."

Sure, this would be fine if you were Zelda/Sheik, but you're not. You're PT. You can't accomplish any of this without a hack. You don't deserve a hack to make yourself any different and you certainly don't deserve a hack to have three characters resemble you but with quirks.

The burden of proof as to why this SHOULD be allowed rests in your hands, not mine, because as far as I know, hacking is not allowed in competitive Smash, and if you want it allowed, you should make tournaments that use it instead of trying to standardize it.

 

[Seanson]

if i could, i would main charizard-only in a heartbeat.

i also agree with leaf man above me.

sure the devs included some ways to change the rules, but the extent at which rules can be changed might not meet the demands of the competative players (hence this thread)

 

[Rockin]

You're getting into developer intent, which is a losing argument every time. When we remove items from the game, set it to three stock, ban stages, and set up a counterpick system to play this game competitively, are we not going against developer intent? Sakurai did not want this game to be competitive. You can see the proof of that in his interviews. Even before using hacks, we're fighting against developer intent. Now, you're saying that we shouldn't use hacks just because it goes against the same concept that we have denied for so long, anyway? That's hypocrisy. Ultimately, the way a game was "meant to be played" makes no consequence. The only thing that really matters is how we play it.

Ask yourself this. 'Why we play 3 stocks in the game, when we could play with 4 like in Melee?' It's because with camping and new physiques, it didn't make it fair and almost non-competitive.

This is the similar issue with PT. We can make a change to PT...it just wouldn't be fair, cause you're getting rid of a weakness that purposly effects that character only.

EDIT: If that was the case, then we may as well switch Bowser's Suicide bomb with the Melee's Koopa klaw. Or make Peach's turnips stay out when it hits a shield. Every character is made to be unique and different. each character has a weakness or a change. When we pick a character, all of us has to accept this.

 

[Brinzy]

sure the devs included some ways to change the rules, but the extent at which rules can be changed might not meet the demands of the competative players (hence this thread)

If what the developers put in the game isn't good enough for someone, they should not play the game and instead go play something else.

This is the similar issue with PT. We can make a change to PT...it just wouldn't be fair, cause you're getting rid of a weakness that purposly effects that character only.

This, and before you guys say "PT is still in the game", it still does not matter because you're still putting in the option of having just 1/3rd of his moveset, which is something that obviously was not implemented in Brawl in the first place and is just some little creation that people want.

 

[Seanson]

it isnt like MK is getting buffed. this is one of the worst characters in the game. isn't balance good? assuming any solo pokemon isnt better than metaknight (but better than PT) I think the game would be more balanced in the sense a bad character would be placed higher (aka better) in a list. this would mean the char that was previously above PT is better than his new rank might say. therefore a smaller range of quality fits in the same number of ranks on a list.

@raphael: if we have the power to make changes then why not consider it.

 

[Rockin]

This, and before you guys say "PT is still in the game", it still does not matter because you're still putting in the option of having just 1/3rd of his moveset, which is something that obviously was not implemented in Brawl in the first place and is just some little creation that people want.

You do know I'm against this hack, right?

 

[Brinzy]

Yes, everything after "This," addressed those who are asking, "Why not?"

 

[Revven]

Don't even try to make it look like I'm going with that.

PT has three movesets. PT is not designed to be played with one moveset. Zelda/Sheik are. Samus/Zamus are. PT is not. If the reason you're even removing the stuff in the first place is, "We're adding three characters so they can be treated like everyone else", then you're basically splitting apart three movesets that are bound together anyway by a move WHILE removing the binding factor... for a reason that basically says, "**** you, PT, I only want one part of you, not the whole thing.".

Not if we use the "Press R for Independent Pokemon" code. That keeps the original PT and has the three separate ones.

This is the similar issue with PT. We can make a change to PT...it just wouldn't be fair, cause you're getting rid of a weakness that purposly effects that character only.

Not if we use "Press R for Independent Pokemon", this way they are stuck with their one Pokemon.

I understand the reasons why this wouldn't be able to be standardized or anything. But, the one about "omgz it wasn't intended design" isn't very legitimate to me. I agree with that "we can't get it on every Wii" or "nobody likes hacking" **** but, the one about the design intent? No. Balancing issues? A few. Is it GAMEBREAKING? Hell no.

If it's not gamebreaking, I don't see why it can't be allowed other than the other common reasons mentioned before it.

And, don't give me that slippery slopes BS. Brawl+ is proof enough that we can keep a good agenda and not go overboard with codes. There's also a LIMIT to how many lines of codes you can have, so, we couldn't even HAVE slippery slopes happen even if people wanted it to.

The three characters remain unchanged, all that changes is no force switch with the Independent Pokemon. It's not like Charizard or Ivy or Squirtle aren't subjected to stale moves! Because they are! The stamina just makes them even worse off. They'd remain the same, what changes? Oh, yeah, the tier list and match-ups. Woo. Oh and a few of the other reasons mentioned above because people are simply against the idea.

/rant

Only post I'm making in here, don't particularly enjoy this type of discussion because most people are like "OMGZ HAX IS BAD FOR THIS MANY REASONS."

Edit: Dammit, people posted while I was making my post still! Now my points look like epic fail.

 

[Brinzy]

Double.

it isnt like MK is getting buffed. this is one of the worst characters in the game. isn't balance good?

It does not matter if he's the best or worst character in the game. The only difference this makes is how many people care. I mean, look at this thread and compare it to threads about DDD's infinite against DK and MK in general. Balance is one thing, but "rebalance" is an entirely different beast. It's not good to try and balance this game again if it was not meant to be that way. Patches take care of that; Brawl does not take patches.

@raphael: if we have the power to make changes then why not consider it.

Because that power comes at a very, very fine price that most of us are not willing to pay nor accommodate.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I should just C/P my big post to every page.

 

[Steeler]

well, you do suffer in the long run if you only use one part, not the whole thing.

as has been touched on, it is a LOT harder to CP PT than it is to CP any of the three Pokemon. you are more vulnerable if you play a single Pokemon. by the same token, i believe it's also been mentioned that PT himself can CP just one of the Pokemon. there are few matchups where one Pokemon does exceedingly better than PT but, it is an advantage nonetheless. as well as a disadvantage on the opponent's CP.

raphael, the underlying basis of your argument is developer intent.

adumbrodeous (adumbrodeus? a dumb rod eeeyus?) basically summed up the biggest problem, which is logistics. and at that point, it's up to the TO if they want to deal with that.

there are a few different POV's in this thread, all of which have their merits but this just boils down to the logistics of getting the hacks set up in tournament, players who don't have as much experience against the Pokemon as other characters (they should have SOME experience), etc. it's the biggest obstacle.

very surprised to see this earn 17 pages in, i think, a little over 2 days. i appreciate all of the posts, my main intent was to see what the community thought of the possibility.

 

[Rockin]

it isnt like MK is getting buffed. this is one of the worst characters in the game. isn't balance good? assuming any solo pokemon isnt better than metaknight (but better than PT) I think the game would be more balanced in the sense a bad character would be placed higher (aka better) in a list. this would mean the char that was previously above PT is better than his new rank might say. therefore a smaller range of quality fits in the same number of ranks on a list.

Even if the character is the worst, it doesn't mean we change that one thing to make him playable. Look at CF. He's worst to majority of people. Why don't we change his speed so he can run faster then sonic? It should be harmless, considering it's not gonna bother the others.

This is what I'm seeing in this arguement. we're getting rid of something that is a weakness. If we want to make something competitive, we have to get rid of something that is universal...>>

 

[Brinzy]

Not if we use the "Press R for Independent Pokemon" code. That keeps the original PT and has the three separate ones.



Not if we use "Press R for Independent Pokemon", this way they are stuck with their one Pokemon.

I understand the reasons why this wouldn't be able to be standardized or anything. But, the one about "omgz it wasn't intended design" isn't very legitimate to me. I agree with that "we can't get it on every Wii" or "nobody likes hacking" **** but, the one about the design intent? No. Balancing issues? A few. Is it GAMEBREAKING? Hell no.

I'm tired of people taking my argument and throwing it under "developer's intent" when it isn't that.

I already know about this code. I've repeated and repeated ad nauseum that there are three separate characters with this code. When I said

"you're basically splitting apart three movesets that are bound together anyway by a move WHILE removing the binding factor... "

I meant you're making the three Pokemon separate while removing their Down B or whatever you're removing that makes them "not-PT"

It isn't gamebreaking, but it doesn't matter because it's still a hack. (Will address again why this matters later in this post.)

If it's not gamebreaking, I don't see why it can't be allowed other than the other common reasons mentioned before it.

Those other common reasons are probably why it's not allowed. It's not gamebreaking, but it's not even necessary. Why do you guys need to do this?

And, don't give me that slippery slopes BS. Brawl+ is proof enough that we can keep a good agenda and not go overboard with codes. There's also a LIMIT to how many lines of codes you can have, so, we couldn't even HAVE slippery slopes happen even if people wanted it to.

Are you ****ing kidding me? You all need to stop throwing around "slippery slope BS" when you're playing a game that was designed because people were too ****ing unhappy with Brawl.

Yes, I just disregarded that point you were making because you said that. I don't really care.

The three characters remain unchanged, all that changes is no force switch with the Independent Pokemon. It's not like Charizard or Ivy or Squirtle aren't subjected to stale moves! Because they are! The stamina just makes them even worse off. They'd remain the same, what changes? Oh, yeah, the tier list and match-ups. Woo. Oh and a few of the other reasons mentioned above because people are simply against the idea.

The change is that they don't have to use the other two movesets which are their weaknesses! Why on earth do you get to disregard the reasons for those who are against the idea while you get to regurgitate the same thing over and over again? The change is that you're splitting up movesets that were NOT made that way. Would it hurt the metagame or whatever? Probably not, but you're still trying to take something that is not one way because that's how the ****ing character is and make pieces out of it. I don't care if you're leaving the old PT in... well actually, I do care, because now PT can play normally AND have the option of removing his bad fights!

Only post I'm making in here, don't particularly enjoy this type of discussion because most people are like "OMGZ HAX IS BAD FOR THIS MANY REASONS."

So you're not going to post because people don't agree with you and because you think their arguments are full of nothing while your little rhetoric is something new that nobody can see because we haven't figured out what you wanted yet? Get real.

raphael, the underlying basis of your argument is developer intent.

No it is not. My argument is that it's stupid to split apart three movesets when the character is supposed to have three movesets. There is no option to play with one moveset in the game already, unlike things for items, stages, etc. Why the hell does PT even warrant this? Nobody has answered why PT is warranted this.

And, I don't really care if you guys hack this into Brawl+ or whatever, but again, do not try to make it a standard and I won't bite.

 

[metaXzero]

well, you do suffer in the long run if you only use one part, not the whole thing.

as has been touched on, it is a LOT harder to CP PT than it is to CP any of the three Pokemon. you are more vulnerable if you play a single Pokemon. by the same token, i believe it's also been mentioned that PT himself can CP just one of the Pokemon. there are few matchups where one Pokemon does exceedingly better than PT but, it is an advantage nonetheless. as well as a disadvantage on the opponent's CP.

raphael, the underlying basis of your argument is developer intent.

adumbrodeous (adumbrodeus? a dumb rod eeeyus?) basically summed up the biggest problem, which is logistics. and at that point, it's up to the TO if they want to deal with that.

there are a few different POV's in this thread, all of which have their merits but this just boils down to the logistics of getting the hacks set up in tournament, players who don't have as much experience against the Pokemon as other characters (they should have SOME experience), etc. it's the biggest obstacle.

very surprised to see this earn 17 pages in, i think, a little over 2 days. i appreciate all of the posts, my main intent was to see what the community thought of the possibility.

Kinda my thoughts to this as well.

I really don't like the "the game wasn't designed to play this way" argument. I know it's not quite "developer intent" but it's still kinda close IMO. I'd understand if the hack were to change the gameplay, but if its like this, I still don't see the harm.

My nets failing right now, so I'm to respond alot less. Though really, I think this thread is done and will now go around in circles.

Bottom line; it's up to the TOs (like no-tripping is).

 

[Seanson]

If we want to make something competitive, we have to get rid of something that is universal...>>

that reminds me of someone...

 

[PassWurD]

I should just C/P my big post to every page.

Do eet.

 

[Rockin]

that reminds me of someone...

Well...competitive and fair. I mean, I enjoy things that are default (as in, not touched at all). But if we was to make changes, it'd had to be something fair to everyone else at least. >>

who does it remind you of?

 

[Steeler]

No it is not. My argument is that it's stupid to split apart three movesets when the character is supposed to have three movesets. There is no option to play with one moveset in the game already, unlike things for items, stages, etc. Why the hell does PT even warrant this? Nobody has answered why PT is warranted this.

your argument is that it is stupid to split the movesets when the character is supposed to have those three linked together. why is he supposed to work like that? your argument is the same as developer's intent.

 

[Brinzy]

Because there's no option already in Brawl to "use just this Pokemon" and he switches when he loses a stock. If the option was already in Brawl, I would never argue this point, but that's how it is. PT is an amalgam of three characters and the game forces you to use all three of them. That's not even the same thing as "developer's intent" - that's just a flat out development, period.

 

[Steeler]

raphael...lol. it's the same argument with a different name.

 

[ShadowLink84]

your argument is that it is stupid to split the movesets when the character is supposed to have those three linked together. why is he supposed to work like that? your argument is the same as developer's intent.

Wrong, this is a result of how the game is originally designed.
This is how the characters had been designed, that is how they work.

Designer intent doesn't mean anything considering the fact we can turn off items, choose what stages we want in spite of the fact that Sakurai wanted a party game.

There is a major difference because he is discussing the characters design, their making, not the intent.
I can understand the confusion bu there is a difference.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Even beyond the simple logistics of informing and distributing the hack, hacks like this are a bad idea. The other big problem is that it creates major divisions in the community. For instance, let's say your proposed hack could be easily distributed to anyone (wholly unrealistic), but obviously not every TO is going to WANT to use it. Some people are going to prefer the game without it. Let's say 30% of tournaments don't use it while 70% do. There are numerous other small "obviously good" hacks we could make too, and if you want to allow yours I don't see what argument could exclude them in general. Let's say we have "no tripping" adopted at 90% of tournaments, "no rewards on WarioWare" at 60% of tournaments, "Ganon's up special actually inflicts hitstun" at 30% of tournaments, "Ness and Lucas ground break in 30 frames like most characters" at 80% of tournaments, and "Wario's jump break goes higher" at 85% of tournaments. Those are essentially random numbers, but they are probably optimistic numbers so I'm going to say it's biased in your favor. Since we did remove the logistics argument, let's model all of these "improvements" as independently likely events. Do you know what the odds of any two random tournaments having the same game mechanics are with just these hacks existing are?

7.7%. That degree of non-uniformity at high levels of play is obviously unacceptable, and it's in a far more insidious way than allowing usually banned stages since everyone always has constant access to those stages when playing, and honestly every player should understand how to play on all 42 stages (it's not much work to figure out how to pick Sonic and run away on loop levels). This is getting to the point where you have to understand how to handle very broad types of circumstances with several sets of game mechanics that are competing to be the standard; it's just too much to ask of players. I have to learn to counter Squirtle when he has fatigue and when he doesn't, when he can and can't trip (and the same for my side!), when I may or may not be able to use Ganon's up special against him, when as Ness or Lucas I may have to worry about him getting ftilt or whatever he gets out of grab release on them, when on slopes as Wario he may or may not be able to force me to eat an up smash out of grab release... That's just Squirtle; it's only the beginning! It's the same reason heavy brawl couldn't catch on (other than heavy brawl not actually being very good). Most people realized, intuitively, that the community simply cannot afford a division like that.

Don't interpret this argument as "it would be a good idea but it's impractical". It is indeed impractical, but it's a bad idea on a far more fundamental level. It relies on the premise of everyone not only having access to everything but everyone agreeing about everything, and if everyone has access to everything and will agree with it, literally anything would be okay since rules for games (even rules of mechanics) are only important in allowing disagreements between players to resolve easily (including the simple disagreement about who is going to win the game).

 

[Brinzy]

raphael...lol. it's the same argument with a different name.

Really? It's developer's intent either way? So putting items in Brawl with options as to whether or not they should be in and what items are allowed = PT is bound together and will switch when he's KO'd?

You have an in-game choice with one. You do not with the other, and you guys want to put this in. It's not the same thing, and my argument is that you've gone from just using certain options in the game to adding options in that affect a character (and no matter how you slice it, it affects PT).

stuff

Was not my argument, but I agree with it anyway.

 

[Steeler]

Wrong, this is a result of how the game is originally designed.
This is how the characters had been designed, that is how they work.

Designer intent doesn't mean anything considering the fact we can turn off items, choose what stages we want in spite of the fact that Sakurai wanted a party game.

There is a major difference because he is discussing the characters design, their making, not the intent.
I can understand the confusion bu there is a difference.

you can just argue that the designer intended that you can turn off items, choose stages, etc.

there's a reeeeeeeeeally fine line there. for all intents and purposes, it's basically the same argument, the counterargument is the same.

but i do see your point, thanks.

edit: your example makes a lot of sense AA. i think if the "barrier" so to speak for hacks allowed in tourneys were to be torn down so that your situation could happen, i think the SBR could release a ruleset for tourney hacks to provide some kind of uniformity...but yeah, it is ultimately up to the TO. it also has to do with the so called slippery slope but it's possible.

 

[metaXzero]

NVM. My Internet's just freaking random -__-

@Amazing Ampharos

Your examples. One problem (excluding the stage freeze one). They change the gameplay of the original match-ups. While this one hack adds 3 semi-new match-ups, those examples change the the match-ups of current characters.

And please assume that "no Fatigue" isn't used.

 

[Brinzy]

you can just argue that the designer intended that you can turn off items, choose stages, etc.

there's a reeeeeeeeeally fine line there. for all intents and purposes, it's basically the same argument, the counterargument is the same.

Again, it is not the same argument and it is not even close. Just because "designer" is used with both doesn't make it close. It is one thing to play with certain options in the game that a designer placed in the game - it is an entirely different thing to change/add characters that a designer created not so you could have a "choice", but so you had to use the mechanisms of that character. If PT did not switch out on his own, I would not argue this point because Down B would still be here and it'd be the intention to use all three Pokemon, but PT switches out, so you pretty much have to deal with that.

 

[Rockin]

Ralph- the reason why they keep saying designing cause your arguement only SOUNDS like it's from the Designer's POV.

I bet if PT was originally designed without fatigue, things would look at it like it's no problem. But unfortunatly, things are viewed differently. We shouldn't try to get rid/add something that focuses on one or two characters. This is all I'm saying.

Yes, PT's matchups may change, but for the good or worst is depending. You would still have to use the other two to help against that possible worst matchup. Having switchups on the fly is rewarding cause you can switch up your playstyle. IMO, revolving around with just one pokemon out of three throughout the match may hurt the player, because if you just play through one of their strength, it just leaves the opponent to focus on the weakness.

Squirtle would have his speed, but lacked the strenth for a reliable KO. Plus he's easy to gimp.

Ivy is fairly balanced. with range and such, it takes a special touch to really him. He's also easy to gimp.

Charizard is possibly the best out of the three, since he has strength and fair mobility. But he's heavy and a big target.

Again, this is how I see it, so don't bite my head off >>

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm fine with hacks used in Brawl+ or at home, but not in tourneys. For the following reasons.

1. Not everyone will have the hack. So that means certain people will be surprised with the change of matchup and as AA pointed out no two Tourneys will be exactly the same.

2." Once we start buffing PT, why the hell can't we buff whoever I feel like?" so this means that hacks will get more and more extreme, as the hacker thinks they become acceptable. So we could in the end see, new characters, stupid new rules and move set mods eg. Mach Tornado becomes something else. I'm worried that if this is adopted by SBR, then it will slowly become acceptable to change the way the game is played.

3. What happens when the hack doesn't work or has undesired outcomes? eg. We bring in a no tripping hack, and it is accepted by TOs everywhere, what would happen if that, say by accident change characters move set. In Tourney for the first time, it would completely mess up the tourney.

4. What is wrong with PT? It is not impossible to play as him competitively. So why do we need an unnecessary change, that would screw up the game balance. It would mean that all the old tourney results would be invalid, because if this hack is used competitively.

5. Where is the standard now, if this gets accepted in tourneys? Is it hacked Brawl or normal Brawl? If we hack Brawl TOs will not know which "Brawl to chose", and when we talk about "Brawl" which one do we mean. And who is going to make sure people do not use hacks for advantages in Tourneys. If hacking becomes acceptable in Tourneys.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Number 3 is dumb. Hacks are intended to do one thing only and one thing, any side effects are noted.
Codes won't suddenly change a characters moveset when it is meant to mess with music.

 

[Tornadith]

See, I haven't had THAT much problem with hacks yet, people can do them and have hack-specific tournaments, but leave me out of it. Until now, hacks have helped the entire roster, not just 1 or 2 characters. Like no tripping. That affects all characters. Hit-stun and increased speed overall. It definitely benefits certain characters but it affects the entire cast. But character specific hacks? No. I am still very strongly against hacks. And people are just showing more and more reasons why.