Balanced Brawl Public Preview *GENESIS UPDATE*

[xDD-Master]

So I'm back from my London Trip.

3 questions:
1) Is there any new codeset since the release ?
2) Does paprika_killer's version include other character changes ?
3) What do you mean with "GENESIS UPDATE* ?

 

[Deleted member]

So I'm back from my London Trip.

3 questions:
1) Is there any new codeset since the release ?
2) Does paprika_killer's version include other character changes ?
3) What do you mean with "GENESIS UPDATE* ?

1) yes, the genesis updates
2) see below
3) see 1

2) AA I think is a clear example of the confusing you are causing by not just fixing the actual problem, and that is correcting the credit and names. you also didn't actually put credit in the original codeset. and don't give me the "but the names get too long argument" that is just silly.

to answer the actual question, no.

 

[xDD-Master]

Thanks for your answer, would it be a big trouble for you to port the genesis update codeset (PAL...) ? (Or if there is already one could you pls post it here ^^ ?)

 

[Rouenne]

Umm where is the code? The one in media share is private locked. Btw do I just replace the Brawl+ code to make it work?

 

[adumbrodeus]

If you find the names confusing, put your personal name in parathenesis after the real name of the code, or better yet, a description of what it does.

 

[Rouenne]

Where do I get the code? The one in this thread is private locked

 

[MorpheusVGX]

Could you please add the name Tags on Replay hack to the BBrawl package? We all want this for our replays n_n . And yes, I also thing Genesis Update should be moved to the OP, I just saw it a while ago.

I would also like to state my humble opinion on a couple of things:

- I think flower on Zelda's jab is broken. Flower is a poison that deals a quite amount damage for a not so difficult to land jab.

- I think Yoshi recovering his second jump with Egg Roll is too much. He is somewhat heavy and Egg Toss can help him recover. I think it is ok that he does not go into special fall after Egg Roll and so he can use his second jump if not used yet, BUT having a big second jump, Egg Toss, and Egg Roll to recover that big second jump and still having the help of Egg Toss to return... isn't that too much??

 

[daisho]

Could you please add the name Tags on Replay hack to the BBrawl package? We all want this for our replays n_n . And yes, I also thing Genesis Update should be moved to the OP, I just saw it a while ago.

I would also like to state my humble opinion on a couple of things:

- I think flower on Zelda's jab is broken. Flower is a poison that deals a quite amount damage for a not so difficult to land a jab.

- I think Yoshi recovering his second jump with Egg Roll is too much. He is somewhat heavy and Egg Toss can help him recover. I think it is ok that he does not go into special fall after Egg Roll and so he can use his second jump if not used yet, BUT having a big second jump, Egg Toss, and Egg Roll to recover that big second jump and still having the help of Egg Toss to return... isn't that too much??

Yup, it makes yoshi one of the best recoverers in the game.

I personally have nothing against that. Yoshi mains have suffered far too long without having a decent recovery, give them something for a change.

So I'm back from my London Trip.

3 questions:
1) Is there any new codeset since the release ?
2) Does paprika_killer's version include other character changes ?
3) What do you mean with "GENESIS UPDATE* ?

Genesis update is on page 107 i believe.

 

[Rouenne]

How do I download the files?! THEY ARE PRIVATE LOCKED!!!!

 

[Thinkaman]

- I think flower on Zelda's jab is broken. Flower is a poison that deals a quite amount damage for a not so difficult to land a jab.

I think you misunderstand the flower element. Flower exists for a duration such that it would give double the original hit, minus frames for each input. A 1% flower will do 2% damage, a 250% flower will stick around for 500% more damage. Since Zelda's jab does 3% now, the flower will do 6% additionally if they don't press anything. Realistically, it will do about 6%, same as before. This is masking the bigger change, which is less knockback on the jab... allowing jab to f-tilt to u-smash. (Not a true combo, but something very realistic to do.)

- I think Yoshi recovering his second jump with Egg Roll is too much. He is somewhat heavy and Egg Toss can help him recover. I think it is ok that he does not go into special fall after Egg Roll and so he can use his second jump if not used yet, BUT having a big second jump, Egg Toss, and Egg Roll to recover that big second jump and still having the help of Egg Toss to return... isn't that too much??

First, Yoshi was a pretty bad character, and needed something.

Second, I think a lot of people who haven't played it have a vast misunderstanding of Egg Roll. Egg Roll is a really, really bad move to use off stage. The minimum time you must spend before breaking out of the egg is very long, falling a much greater distance than his double jump. Double jump to Egg Roll to double jump is a huge waste of time and space that is just asking to get gimped. (Remember, if Yoshi is hit out of Egg Roll, no new double jump...) The real use for this is the ability to Egg Brake, and always double jump afterwards.

How do I download the files?! THEY ARE PRIVATE LOCKED!!!!

Chill out, dude. I made the outdated files private, the new ones have always been public. I went ahead and deleted the old ones to reduce confusion.

 

[Rouenne]

Question: The lower part of Spear Pillar was removed?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

AA, I think you're misunderstanding Paprika_Killer and zxeon. They're not trying to get the titles changed out of spite or because of some sort of OCD. What they're trying to do is to provide proper credits to the people involved.

The same idea applies everytime someone posts bbrawl with "credits to AA and Thinkaman for an incredible job". Imagine if instead of mentioning you, all references to your work was removed and people just posted "Bbrawl, a new project by some random people". Would you be happy that they failed to credit you and your hard-earned hundreds of hours of work? By providing names of the creators, you serve to give proper credit where proper credit is due, and pay respect to the people who made this possible and their hard work in doing so. I can assure you that P.W. invested quite a bit of time into all the work he has done making both Brawl+ and Bbrawl possible, and to fail to credit him undermines all the work he has done. I respect you and Thinkaman for your great job in creating Bbrawl, but I also respect the coders for the great work they have done in making it possible, so I wish for them to be credited as well.

As for the name-change, the names of the codes are important because they help to unify the community and provide a universal set of guidelines that help to organize the codes. If someone referred to "Balanced Brawl" as "Tournament Brawl" or "New Brawl" or "Changed Brawl" or "Uncheap Brawl", imagine the chaos that could result when you have 20 different names flying around all referring to the same thing. People would be confused at whether "New Brawl" refers to Bbrawl or Brawl+ or EXBrawl. By using the names that the creators have, you make sure that people know exactly what each code does and that there is no chaos as far as naming is concerned. I know some of them may be complex or not easily understandable, but by using "Conditional Action Modifier", there is only one possible code that could refer to, whereas "Modifies certain actions depending on circumstances" could refer to two or three codes. While it may help you because you know that only CAM is in Bbrawl, an outsider looking into Bbrawl might not know of it is the CAM or AM or GSM. By calling it the same thing as it has always been called, any outsider will automatically understand the specific functions and applications of the code and exactly which one it is. This is particularly important concerning that there are hundreds of codes available for Brawl, and it is very hard to distinguish between similar ones.

Lastly, there is nothing particularly wrong with changing the names to be more easily understandable, but please do realize that by releasing this to the public, you are creating a project for use by the community. If the community uses it, there needs to be proper organization and understanding involved. There is absolutely nothing wrong at all if you choose to use differing names for your own build, but names in the public build should be organized and properly referenced. Other people won't understand particularly well unless you go by what is generally accepted as the proper naming.

This is getting silly, but let's address this head on.

I have denied no one credit, and your analogy is incorrect. It would be more parallel to this.

We do it something like this: Balanced Brawl created by AA and Thinkaman

They do it this way: Balanced Brawl is a project that seeks to rebalance Brawl. [Insert paragraph discussing Balanced Brawl here] This project was made by AA and Thinkaman.

See, this isn't about credit because we gave credit. There's no ambiguity at all at this point over what people did what. There's no disrespect for the coders behind all of this; we know exactly what they did. This is about formatting and nothing else.

I actually wouldn't care about that with the names. In the end that's unrealistic since 1-2 most popular names will end up being used. We put almost no work into making the name for this project and are completely unattached to it. We actually used a sarcastic, derogatory name for it for nearly the entire development (no, I'm not telling you what that is). In the case of names for things, a process of "natural selection" by which the names people actually want to use end up being used in the long run is perfectly reasonable.

Regardless, any confusion this creates is on my shoulders, is it not? If people don't understand what these codes are, they'll pester me about it since I'm the one who is deviating, right? I have patience for such inquiries so, if I choose to subject myself to them (though there have been none in 110 pages), I don't see the problem. Anyway, with the dual formatted versions posted, I see literally no possibility of confusion. If people find the version I had confusing, they can look to the other version. Could you explain how a reader might come to not understand things? Thinking those two version of codes are actually different is reasonable I suppose; I'll make it more clear that they are identical. I actually have included a further note that should relieve you of all burden of resolving confusion. I accept as my personal charge the task of clarifying all confusion. We were already committed to the interest of the community through a conscious decision to provide unlimited technical support up to the limits of SWF global rules (I have answered several PMs asking how to get this working with no limit to my patience for identical questions). This isn't a big deal.

To move to addressing Paprika here...

There is a real dispute here, but we've kinda been dancing around on it. The real question to this is whether the way I have posted the codes is in violation of either of the two standards posts on this forum are to be held to: SWF global rules and the standards of ethics. I am very sure it meets the first one (which is unintersting anyway) so we must approach the second one. I feel when you produce a work you have an ethical obligation to credit those who produced component works. I feel as though I have met this ethical obligation, and in general I hold myself to high ethical standards on not just this but principles such as openness (notice Thinkaman and I posted what resources we gathered during development, for the benefit of the community and no personal benefit to ourselves, and we have posted easily modified .txt files of all versions of our code). I feel as though an attack has been placed on my ethics, in public forum as opposed to private channels, which is seemingly not mitigated by me making gestures that accomplish the effective purpose of the complaints. I don't want to be floating conspiracy theories here, but it feels like the purpose is to make me appear unethical, and that leaves me feeling offended. Some other gestures are confusing to me, but in the interest of civil discourse I'm not going to get into that.

Honestly, let's get down to raw principles. What ethical principles do you feel I'm violating by my method of doing things? I don't understand your position, and I legitimately don't understand the theoretical basis on which my most recent posting could be interpreted as inappropriate. The reason I'm going this far is really because I take great pride in my ethics, ethics of open development for the community with proper credit attributed on component works, and because of this I would refrain from making implied confessions of ethical impropriety without a clear ethical principle being laid against me.

I hope you understand. Over something like this, this has been bordering on the absurd for how drawn out the dispute has been, but it is only because of a desire to present a development platform of the highest ethical standards that things have proceeded as they have.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

I think you misunderstand the flower element. Flower exists for a duration such that it would give double the original hit, minus frames for each input. A 1% flower will do 2% damage, a 250% flower will stick around for 500% more damage. Since Zelda's jab does 3% now, the flower will do 6% additionally if they don't press anything. Realistically, it will do about 6%, same as before. This is masking the bigger change, which is less knockback on the jab... allowing jab to f-tilt to u-smash. (Not a true combo, but something very realistic to do.)



First, Yoshi was a pretty bad character, and needed something.

Second, I think a lot of people who haven't played it have a vast misunderstanding of Egg Roll. Egg Roll is a really, really bad move to use off stage. The minimum time you must spend before breaking out of the egg is very long, falling a much greater distance than his double jump. Double jump to Egg Roll to double jump is a huge waste of time and space that is just asking to get gimped. (Remember, if Yoshi is hit out of Egg Roll, no new double jump...) The real use for this is the ability to Egg Brake, and always double jump afterwards.

Ok, your answer is satisfying. I appreciate your hard work.

 

[Arkaether]

This is getting silly, but let's address this head on.

Yessir.

I have denied no one credit, and your analogy is incorrect. It would be more parallel to this.

We do it something like this: Balanced Brawl created by AA and Thinkaman

They do it this way: Balanced Brawl is a project that seeks to rebalance Brawl. [Insert paragraph discussing Balanced Brawl here] This project was made by AA and Thinkaman.

Not at all. Take a closer look at the post. It would go more like this:

You do it:
Balanced Brawl created by AA and Thinkaman

They do it:
Bbrawl. Due specifically to a request by the creatores only because they asked, here is an alternate title you can use if you really feel like it:
Balanced Brawl created by AA and Thinkaman

See, this isn't about credit because we gave credit. There's no ambiguity at all at this point over what people did what. There's no disrespect for the coders behind all of this; we know exactly what they did. This is about formatting and nothing else.

And formatting is exactly the issue here. The formatting is the name of the code. If PW makes a code and he calls it "File Replacement 2.1a", people usually don't run off and call it "Code for replacing files from the SD". They call it "File Replacement 2.1a" because that is the name of the code.

I actually wouldn't care about that with the names. In the end that's unrealistic since 1-2 most popular names will end up being used. We put almost no work into making the name for this project and are completely unattached to it. We actually used a sarcastic, derogatory name for it for nearly the entire development (no, I'm not telling you what that is). In the case of names for things, a process of "natural selection" by which the names people actually want to use end up being used in the long run is perfectly reasonable.

But see, there's a difference between a nickname given by the community and an official name used to refer to it. Plenty of codes are referred to in different ways, like PW's file replacement code will be referred to as "the texture code", or the general super code will be referred to as the "general code". This is perfectly acceptable, because they are nicknames used in the community as nicknames. Nobody minds if you refer to the "Death Boundary Mod V2[spunit262]" as "Death zone mod engine" in normal talk. However, because you've changed it in an official project build, that's why everyone is so upset. People put their full names on their resumes, not their nicknames. Similarly, people expect you to use the official names for your official release, not nicknames.

Regardless, any confusion this creates is on my shoulders, is it not? If people don't understand what these codes are, they'll pester me about it since I'm the one who is deviating, right? I have patience for such inquiries so, if I choose to subject myself to them (though there have been none in 110 pages), I don't see the problem. Anyway, with the dual formatted versions posted, I see literally no possibility of confusion. If people find the version I had confusing, they can look to the other version. Could you explain how a reader might come to not understand things? Thinking those two version of codes are actually different is reasonable I suppose; I'll make it more clear that they are identical. I actually have included a further note that should relieve you of all burden of resolving confusion. I accept as my personal charge the task of clarifying all confusion. We were already committed to the interest of the community through a conscious decision to provide unlimited technical support up to the limits of SWF global rules (I have answered several PMs asking how to get this working with no limit to my patience for identical questions). This isn't a big deal.

Regardless of the confusion, one of the main issues people have is still the principle of the matter. People don't like what you're doing. Considering the ruckus it's been causing, I'm pretty sure it is a big deal.

To move to addressing Paprika here...

There is a real dispute here, but we've kinda been dancing around on it. The real question to this is whether the way I have posted the codes is in violation of either of the two standards posts on this forum are to be held to: SWF global rules and the standards of ethics. I am very sure it meets the first one (which is unintersting anyway) so we must approach the second one. I feel when you produce a work you have an ethical obligation to credit those who produced component works. I feel as though I have met this ethical obligation, and in general I hold myself to high ethical standards on not just this but principles such as openness (notice Thinkaman and I posted what resources we gathered during development, for the benefit of the community and no personal benefit to ourselves, and we have posted easily modified .txt files of all versions of our code). I feel as though an attack has been placed on my ethics, in public forum as opposed to private channels, which is seemingly not mitigated by me making gestures that accomplish the effective purpose of the complaints. I don't want to be floating conspiracy theories here, but it feels like the purpose is to make me appear unethical, and that leaves me feeling offended. Some other gestures are confusing to me, but in the interest of civil discourse I'm not going to get into that.

Honestly, let's get down to raw principles. What ethical principles do you feel I'm violating by my method of doing things? I don't understand your position, and I legitimately don't understand the theoretical basis on which my most recent posting could be interpreted as inappropriate. The reason I'm going this far is really because I take great pride in my ethics, ethics of open development for the community with proper credit attributed on component works, and because of this I would refrain from making implied confessions of ethical impropriety without a clear ethical principle being laid against me.

I hope you understand. Over something like this, this has been bordering on the absurd for how drawn out the dispute has been, but it is only because of a desire to present a development platform of the highest ethical standards that things have proceeded as they have.

As for your entire "ethical" argument, the entire problem lies in the fact that many people, especially those who are part of the Brawl+ project, believe that your "method" of doing things is blatantly stealing codes from other people and shamelessly using them in your set without giving due credit. In fact, one of the main reasons why the text for the newest Nightly Builds was withheld is solely because they do not want certain projects from stealing codes that they have worked for.

As Paprika_Killer has said, if you simply used the standard naming for codes, there would be no reason for Brawl+ to withhold codes. Despite what you may think of your "ethics", the fact remains that several members of the hacking community and a massive number of people who play Brawl+ believe that you are not only refusing to acknowledge the coders for their hard work, but in fact stealing their codes. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what your problem is, since changing the names would take a few minutes and pacify a huge number of people. You seem to be rigidly holding on to the idea that you are absolutely right, despite the bad image that Bbrawl has, merely for failing to acknowledge the coders.

Also, providing an "alternate version" grudgingly "specifically" because of the "request" of "paprika killer" isn't doing much for your reputation. Rather than having the version which properly gives credit and acknowledgement as the main version, you are attempting to put it off as the alternate version. Truthfully, your version should be the alternate with the description of "titles rewritten to be easily understood and credits removed to save space".

The very fact that you have bothered to write a massive wall of text explaining why you are justified in not properly crediting the coders, rather than taking a few minutes of your time to properly credit the coders, is just one illustration of exactly why many people think so little of you.

 

[Deleted member]

This is getting silly, but let's address this head on.

I have denied no one credit, and your analogy is incorrect. It would be more parallel to this.

We do it something like this: Balanced Brawl created by AA and Thinkaman

They do it this way: Balanced Brawl is a project that seeks to rebalance Brawl. [Insert paragraph discussing Balanced Brawl here] This project was made by AA and Thinkaman.

See, this isn't about credit because we gave credit. There's no ambiguity at all at this point over what people did what. There's no disrespect for the coders behind all of this; we know exactly what they did. This is about formatting and nothing else.

I actually wouldn't care about that with the names. In the end that's unrealistic since 1-2 most popular names will end up being used. We put almost no work into making the name for this project and are completely unattached to it. We actually used a sarcastic, derogatory name for it for nearly the entire development (no, I'm not telling you what that is). In the case of names for things, a process of "natural selection" by which the names people actually want to use end up being used in the long run is perfectly reasonable.

Regardless, any confusion this creates is on my shoulders, is it not? If people don't understand what these codes are, they'll pester me about it since I'm the one who is deviating, right? I have patience for such inquiries so, if I choose to subject myself to them (though there have been none in 110 pages), I don't see the problem. Anyway, with the dual formatted versions posted, I see literally no possibility of confusion. If people find the version I had confusing, they can look to the other version. Could you explain how a reader might come to not understand things? Thinking those two version of codes are actually different is reasonable I suppose; I'll make it more clear that they are identical. I actually have included a further note that should relieve you of all burden of resolving confusion. I accept as my personal charge the task of clarifying all confusion. We were already committed to the interest of the community through a conscious decision to provide unlimited technical support up to the limits of SWF global rules (I have answered several PMs asking how to get this working with no limit to my patience for identical questions). This isn't a big deal.

To move to addressing Paprika here...

There is a real dispute here, but we've kinda been dancing around on it. The real question to this is whether the way I have posted the codes is in violation of either of the two standards posts on this forum are to be held to: SWF global rules and the standards of ethics. I am very sure it meets the first one (which is unintersting anyway) so we must approach the second one. I feel when you produce a work you have an ethical obligation to credit those who produced component works. I feel as though I have met this ethical obligation, and in general I hold myself to high ethical standards on not just this but principles such as openness (notice Thinkaman and I posted what resources we gathered during development, for the benefit of the community and no personal benefit to ourselves, and we have posted easily modified .txt files of all versions of our code). I feel as though an attack has been placed on my ethics, in public forum as opposed to private channels, which is seemingly not mitigated by me making gestures that accomplish the effective purpose of the complaints. I don't want to be floating conspiracy theories here, but it feels like the purpose is to make me appear unethical, and that leaves me feeling offended. Some other gestures are confusing to me, but in the interest of civil discourse I'm not going to get into that.

Honestly, let's get down to raw principles. What ethical principles do you feel I'm violating by my method of doing things? I don't understand your position, and I legitimately don't understand the theoretical basis on which my most recent posting could be interpreted as inappropriate. The reason I'm going this far is really because I take great pride in my ethics, ethics of open development for the community with proper credit attributed on component works, and because of this I would refrain from making implied confessions of ethical impropriety without a clear ethical principle being laid against me.

I hope you understand. Over something like this, this has been bordering on the absurd for how drawn out the dispute has been, but it is only because of a desire to present a development platform of the highest ethical standards that things have proceeded as they have.

my guess would be BrokenBrawl.

Anyway time for the serious part.
I don't think you aren't giving credit, but you are causing confusion (see post by XDD-master) and you are going against the common format.
let's grab a specific quote from the post

I feel when you produce a work you have an ethical obligation to credit those who produced component works

and I think you should give the actual names of those credited parts. if you look at the sourcelist of a book, you aren't gonna see a different name for any of those books, just because the author (of the book with tha list in it) felt that that title fitted the other book better.

and you are the one making a big point out of this btw. I asked you guys to change it, you said "rather not, but if you want it, ok." but then you didn't do at all what I implied.
seriously just change the list to the format I requested and if it really is that confusing to you, keep a copy with different names on your PC, but not here in the public.

 

[zxeon]

Jesus what's so hard about using the proper names? Just change it. I guess you don't acquire the code of conduct when you lift the codes of of another project. If you got them from an actual coder you would realize why you need to use the actual names you flagitious cheat.

Learn your manners.

 

[daisho]

Jesus what's so hard about using the proper names? Just change it. I guess you don't acquire the code of conduct when you lift the codes of of another project. If you got them from an actual coder you would realize why you need to use the actual names you flagitious cheat.

Learn your manners.

And you think by talking angrily at them it will get them closer to changing it?

Just wondering.

 

[hotgarbage]

Samus is so fun now <3

 

[Renegade TX2000]

Lol if I was AA or Thinkaman by the way your expressing your details you don't even deserve being credited "Zxeon", pssh that's just me I wouldn't credit you.

 

[zxeon]

And you think by talking angrily at them it will get them closer to changing it?

Just wondering.

Who said I was trying to get him to change it? Paprika and Ark asked nicely and were going about it the right way to get it changed.

I'm just laying into laying into him for being such a dense simpleton and slapping them in the face when they made a very clear, polite, and logical case.

 

[Alphatron]

Conclusion: Names are a very important thing.

So the simplest course of action would be to use the original names.

 

[grim mouser]

Lol if I was AA or Thinkaman by the way your expressing your details you don't even deserve being credited "Zxeon", pssh that's just me I wouldn't credit you.

Ethically, you cannot intentionally exclude credit because said person is being rude or annoying.

In fact, one of the main reasons why the text for the newest Nightly Builds was withheld is solely because they do not want certain projects from stealing codes that they have worked for.

.-. Is that really the reason? Unfortunately, I can't think of a solution that would keep that in check while allowing people like me to modify the set for their personal use.

I almost thought of asking someone from WBR of compiling a GCT with my fun/personal changes via their access to the files simply because of how irritating it is to be restricted to the official codes. Then, of course, I remembered what a pain that would be.

 

[Crescens]

Sirs, Paprika and Arkaether:

By accepting the EULA for the Wii when you powered it on for the first time, you agreed:

1. To not modify intellectual property of Nintendo.

2. To not use the Wii for unlicensed or unauthorized purposes.

3. That any modifications you make of Nintendo's intellectual property belongs to Nintendo, not you.

On the first account, you are stealing from Nintendo, as they explicitly forbade the alteration of their intellectual property. You are crusading against 'stealing' material that you stole in the first place.

On the second account, you are breaking the law.

On the third account, the code that you're demanding credit for does not legally belong to you. It belongs to Nintendo. You have no right to demand recognition for something that you stole, and does not belong to you.

 

[Alphatron]

Sirs, Paprika and Arkaether:

By accepting the EULA for the Wii when you powered it on for the first time, you agreed:

1. To not modify intellectual property of Nintendo.

2. To not use the Wii for unlicensed or unauthorized purposes.

3. That any modifications you make of Nintendo's intellectual property belongs to Nintendo, not you.

On the first account, you are stealing from Nintendo, as they explicitly forbade the alteration of their intellectual property. You are crusading against 'stealing' material that you stole in the first place.

On the second account, you are breaking the law.

On the third account, the code that you're demanding credit for does not legally belong to you. It belongs to Nintendo. You have no right to demand recognition for something that you stole, and does not belong to you.

Wouldn't this mean that only the modifications made don't belong to them? BBrawl and anything done to brawl is still property of Nintendo.

The codes used to change things would still have been made by them. No, there is no copyright. But common courtesy has room, no?

 

[Sterowent]

they created these codes. therefore, it's their property. it wasn't part of nintendo's work but the author's.

while the codes Directly Relate to nintendo's work, that doesn't mean nintendo owns them. PK, PW, spunit, the code authors do. it's like creating an unofficial fansite. not like nintendo owns those.

anyhow, law has nothing to do with organization in this situation. i mean, what PK and ark are asking for is the correct citations. for an organization to be successful, you need the right documentation, and BB is going against the grain here.

edit: felt bad for continuing this non-feedback thing. still stand by this, but i'm going to try and construct some feedback. that should set things right! (note: slow on feedback)

 

[Bladefist137]

Sirs, Paprika and Arkaether:

By accepting the EULA for the Wii when you powered it on for the first time, you agreed:

1. To not modify intellectual property of Nintendo.

2. To not use the Wii for unlicensed or unauthorized purposes.

3. That any modifications you make of Nintendo's intellectual property belongs to Nintendo, not you.

On the first account, you are stealing from Nintendo, as they explicitly forbade the alteration of their intellectual property. You are crusading against 'stealing' material that you stole in the first place.

On the second account, you are breaking the law.

On the third account, the code that you're demanding credit for does not legally belong to you. It belongs to Nintendo. You have no right to demand recognition for something that you stole, and does not belong to you.

I'm seriously at lost of words with this comment. . . . .
you should really learn more about these kind of things lol

Note to AA and thinkaman: You could have avoided all the BS that is going on right now between you 2 and the coders of Brawl+ if you just gave them the proper credit and respect they deserve, just saying

 

[Linkshot]

No, it's property of Nintendo.

As said, when you power on the Wii, you are signing a contract that states anything you make of Nintendo's property is not your property but still Nintendo's. All those thousands of charitable hours Thinkaman and AA put into BBrawl? Not their property; Nintendo's.

 

[jalued]

No, it's property of Nintendo.

As said, when you power on the Wii, you are signing a contract that states anything you make of Nintendo's property is not your property but still Nintendo's. All those thousands of charitable hours Thinkaman and AA put into BBrawl? Not their property; Nintendo's.

yeah but u have to agree that the coders who actually worked out all the codes put alot more time into the game than thinkman and AA did. thats the issue here, all the effort that the real coders did is just being brushed off by AA and thinkman.

tbh its not illigal unless they sell the game, which they arnt, so its not illigal. nothing wrong with improving a game people have alot of probs with as long as u dont market it as your own

 

[Sterowent]

fine, let's say it Is nintendo's. how does that change the fact that you and i both recognize the time and effort spent in creating these codes? is it really just fine to not cite their origins?

as well, like i've said, organization is a key factor in any good project. choosing to keep the format of previous projects makes things much more identifiable inherently.

(by the way, i DL'ed the genesis .gct and am packing up the wii for a friend's...i'll load this up when they're not lookin, har har)

 

[Linkshot]

I do agree that proper credit and proper names are due in the public release.

What ticks me off here is the need to spam the thread about it. Couldn't they have just PM'd them?

Anyway, once I get this, I'll be picking up data for Samus, ZSS, Pit, and Lucario (I can also get data for Mario, Ness, Toon Link, and Lucas, as I decently play them, too!)

I agree with no freezing (unless you can set the freeze to a button input). Modify the rewards to all heal (if possible when the time comes, perhaps different values of healing? 4%, 10%, and 16%?) Or instead of Giant and Invincible, Bunny Hood and Reflect? I'm pretty sure there's nothing massively gamebreaking about those.

 

[zxeon]

It should have only taken one post to get the point across.

By the way who reported my post? I'm not angry I promise.

 

[Tommy_G]

Does Burger King or Wendy's give credit to McDonalds for the idea of Fast food?

Does Microsoft give credit to the creators of the Macintosh for the user interface?

No.

Even without the codes from Brawl+, people would have eventually gotten the codes for this version. There are too many people who would want Brawl to be more balanced.

If Nintendo wanted to claim rights to it, fine. The creators of the codes could give them the codes in a huge jumbled mess. I don't think even Nintendo would figure out how they're suppose to be set up.

 

[zxeon]

Does Burger King or Wendy's give credit to McDonalds for the idea of Fast food?

Does Microsoft give credit to the creators of the Macintosh for the user interface?

No.

Maybe that's why they are all douche bags. You should always give credit where credit is due and let's try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than those cut throat multinational companies that love to use criminally cheap labor.

Way to set the bar high tommy.

 

[NintenJoe]

Lol I got lost a really long time ago... I have no clue what needs to be changed in terms of credit but it sure is causing a huge ruckus...

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

This ruckus really needs to stop; it's just derailing the topic. I've fulfilled my ethical obligations and have given full and proper credit to all coders in a thoroughly unambiguous format. Claims that I'm a "thief" or have "stolen" anything are absurd and honestly a little libelous. I have seen no serious posts that outline very clearly exactly what these supposed ethical obligations I'm not fulfilling are. If you have a further issue, please PM me about it. This is not a big issue, and it's wasting everyone's time. Our mutual position is to ignore any public posts on this matter from here on out; if you have an issue remaining, PMs are the answer.

Now, back to serious business, the release of the throw modifier smooths out the last issue we had before we could get to serious work on our next release. Expect to see ICs infinites fixed (don't worry, we'll buff ICs accordingly) and better solutions for a variety of chaingrab fixes in the next release (DDD's!).

On the note of the currently released version though, has anyone put in some playtime with Zelda & Sheik? This new version is a big upgrade over the old one, and we hope it satisfied all mains involved!

 

[shanus]

This ruckus really needs to stop; it's just derailing the topic. I've fulfilled my ethical obligations and have given full and proper credit to all coders in a thoroughly unambiguous format. Claims that I'm a "thief" or have "stolen" anything are absurd and honestly a little libelous. I have seen no serious posts that outline very clearly exactly what these supposed ethical obligations I'm not fulfilling are. If you have a further issue, please PM me about it. This is not a big issue, and it's wasting everyone's time. Our mutual position is to ignore any public posts on this matter from here on out; if you have an issue remaining, PMs are the answer.

Now, back to serious business, the release of the throw modifier smooths out the last issue we had before we could get to serious work on our next release. Expect to see ICs infinites fixed (don't worry, we'll buff ICs accordingly) and better solutions for a variety of chaingrab fixes in the next release (DDD's!).

On the note of the currently released version though, has anyone put in some playtime with Zelda & Sheik? This new version is a big upgrade over the old one, and we hope it satisfied all mains involved!

Taking our stuff yet again? You guys are shameless.

 

[zxeon]

You really can't just get rid of that other list and leave the official names? This isn't that deep, quit slow stepping it and just post the codes the correct and polite way.

If you need to see the guidelines for code nomenclature go to USB gecko forums or Code central and look at codes. They are all posted in the same way. This is the kind of thing you pick up when you get the codes directly from a coder rather than pilfering them from other people.

 

[jokey665]

Taking our stuff yet again? You guys are shameless.

Okay, seriously... what the **** is wrong with you? I support the Brawl+ project more than the bBrawl project, but **** like this is making me reconsider.

 

[The Cape]

The issue is the fact that we have spent 8 months developing these codes for our project. The time of the coders committed to our project. And you just waltz in and take the codes without asking or anything, throw up a set.

Which is fine for the codes that were posted in the Competitive Brawl+ thread. However, Paprika Killer made the throw mod specifically for Brawl+ and you go inside our .GCT and just take the mod?

Its dirty tactics and basically a despicable way to do anything. Why cant you be real professional human beings and just ask to use the codes that we worked hard to develop instead of just taking what you want?

 

[jokey665]

All I can say is that I'm glad PW isn't an assclown about his codes.