Brawl picked up by EVO....Good or Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#41
They are discussing the rule set so it is not definite unless i hear an official announcement from teh Canon's ( the people who run Evo. ) I stand by Evo. Ya SRK people can be moronic but Evo Staff is always fair and does what they can.
Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. I had the pleasure of dealing with the staff for the MKDS tournament they had, and they were awesome.
 

Crizthakidd

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
2,619
Location
NJ
#42
thats werid. i really hope brawl is in mlg tho. and have good rules. nice stages like battle field and FD, no items 4-6 stock. thats it
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#43
thats werid. i really hope brawl is in mlg tho. and have good rules. nice stages like battle field and FD, no items 4-6 stock. thats it
Do not count on it unless they work out a deal with M$

Either way do not forget Evo is VERY good with fighting games and help out the community as well. Just because they have to make Prelims short does not mean it will all be short. They did it to their most popular games as well. Just adapt and enjoy.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
1,345
Location
Holland, Hoorn
#44
****, have been hanging around that srk boards and those people are dumb o_0

Most of them have never heard from the word random, because it doesn't exist in other fightinggames (and because they haven't had schooling, lol)

"Randomness? Yeah cool man! sounds exciting! let's add as much randomness as possible!"
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Corning, CA
#46
****, have been hanging around that srk boards and those people are dumb o_0

Most of them have never heard from the word random, because it doesn't exist in other fightinggames (and because they haven't had schooling, lol)

"Randomness? Yeah cool man! sounds exciting! let's add as much randomness as possible!"
Yeah. It's really kind of ironic, considering most SRKers (from what I've seen) are very elitist & strict.

@ to lightXdream: Yes, holding a side-tourney would be perfectly fine. Us Guilty Gear players are forced to do so because of *ramble ramble*, pointinhand Guilty Gear draws tons of people, *ramble ramble* it'll be back next year, annoying but not a big deal, *ramble ramble*. So yeah, go for that side tourney. :p
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#48
Yeah. It's really kind of ironic, considering most SRKers (from what I've seen) are very elitist & strict.

@ to lightXdream: Yes, holding a side-tourney would be perfectly fine. Us Guilty Gear players are forced to do so because of *ramble ramble*, pointinhand Guilty Gear draws tons of people, *ramble ramble* it'll be back next year, annoying but not a big deal, *ramble ramble*. So yeah, go for that side tourney. :p
Well I know of the issues you dealt with it doing 3v3 instead of regular 1v1.

SRKers are what you say they are most of the time. Because the demographic is so much older they consider Smash a party game no matter what we talk to them. Very few really see the great things that come from the tournaments. Empire Arcadia is an example of SRKers gone horribly wrong.

Either way I think they will handle it correctly but I can see why they want some fun into the factor but all I have to say is that if they do that it will be a very bad idea seeing as they take those games so serious they will not deal with changing settings for CVS2/MVC2 to make them more "fun".

GGAC is my favorite series of all the SRK stuff to watch besides 3s though. Maybe I will run another tournament in FGC stuff again lol
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Chino, Cali
#52
I don't consider this to be a bad thing. Internationally known, with fighters from all over, hopefully this will lift the remaining veil of "Kids Game" that still plagues the series.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#53
I don't consider this to be a bad thing. Internationally known, with fighters from all over, hopefully this will lift the remaining veil of "Kids Game" that still plagues the series.
I do not know what your talking about. Not many international players come to Evo...in fact the only time fighting game tournaments become a world wide thing is during SBO and thats something smash can never be a part of due to the selection of games being on Arcade.

To be honest if I had a choice, now that I think about it, between Evo and MLG , MLG would be a better bet. Simply put Evo is not an organization that is considered "professional" in the best sense. MLG has staff and TV deals and all that but Evo has a community that runs its own tournaments ( much like us ) but thats just from a media standpoint.

Either way that Veil you talk about will always be there just as much DOA is considered a crappy game due to its focus on female characters. You just accept it and move on.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Chino, Cali
#54
I do not know what your talking about. Not many international players come to Evo...in fact the only time fighting game tournaments become a world wide thing is during SBO and thats something smash can never be a part of due to the selection of games being on Arcade.

To be honest if I had a choice, now that I think about it, between Evo and MLG , MLG would be a better bet. Simply put Evo is not an organization that is considered "professional" in the best sense. MLG has staff and TV deals and all that but Evo has a community that runs its own tournaments ( much like us ) but thats just from a media standpoint.

Either way that Veil you talk about will always be there just as much DOA is considered a crappy game due to its focus on female characters. You just accept it and move on.
I dunno. I think that given the chance, the game can prove itself as a serious fighter. But that said, I get what you're saying about MLG. However, I'd rather not be on television as a part of MLG. Understandably they're big, but with their view over so many different genres, primarily shooters, I get the feeling that they'd be somewhat sketchy on fighters (I'm not big on FPS'). EVO is more indie, and the rules are more centered because of their singular focus. Besides, I'm sure not a lot of gamers that play fighters want all that media coverage (myself included).
 

AlphaZealot

Smashboards Owner
Administrator
GRimer
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
13,129
Location
Bellevue, Washington
#56
Didn't even know it ran R6V. I've been out of the MLG loop since they dropped smash and stopped working with Fighting games all together. I knew they picked up Gears of War, only because it kicked the crap out of Halo2 so much.
Halo isn't even the 5th best FPS on the system. Bioshock, Orange Box, GoW, and CoD4 are all better. But, with popularity goes the money I suppose. Bioshock didn't get it's own mountain dew flavor.
I've been playing ALOT of 360 since I've been over here, and I have to say Halo 3 was the biggest letdown I've had.

Anyway. I'm off topic.

The real point... do smashers want to be with MLG and First Person Shooters? Or do they want to be with the fighting games? I think SSBM and SSBB are fighting games. It's more appropriate, and smash gets a bigger focus at EVO. Not to mention, I trust 100% in EVO staff making the right call in the end. I know all of them personally.
Bioshock: No multiplayer
CoD4: Online multiplayer only (at least how I understand it): MLG picked it up for its first online only pro circuit
GoW: in MLG
R6V2: in MLG
Orange box (and team fort): not in MLG, maybe it should be, but as I understand it the vast majority of this community is based on PC and not console, you can't run a game without a dedicated community behind it, which is what Smash has.
---
The old fighters would probably have been fine in MLG, but the late checks decreased the old school fighting game attendance much more significantly than Smash attendance (mainly because the Smash players who weren't getting paid didn't try and lobby the community against MLG and boycott events, which was a dumb move on the tradional fighters part).
---
I trust the guys at MLG because I know them and I know how the rules get made and the work that goes behind each event. That said, I also trust the guys at EVO. 10 years of experience running 500-1000 person tournaments should speak for itself, and the guys at EVO actually have input from the community and make their pretense known. All the failed leagues out there, like EGL, Vgames, etc. all have terrible community involvement. CPL was a weird exception to this, but they were in business for over a decade so of course they would continue talking on message boards even when things were grim.

I don't want to have to choose between MLG and EVO because they both offer completely different things. Seeing the other fighting games is pretty awesome because they each have their own properties that correlate to Smash and when I watch them I often think about what they are doing and how I can do it in Smash. MLG, well, its MLG, professional look and feel, big numbers, big payouts, what have you. MLG has been good to Smash, just as EVO has more recently.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#58
I dunno. I think that given the chance, the game can prove itself as a serious fighter. But that said, I get what you're saying about MLG. However, I'd rather not be on television as a part of MLG. Understandably they're big, but with their view over so many different genres, primarily shooters, I get the feeling that they'd be somewhat sketchy on fighters (I'm not big on FPS'). EVO is more indie, and the rules are more centered because of their singular focus. Besides, I'm sure not a lot of gamers that play fighters want all that media coverage (myself included).

Dude no offense but do your research. For one MLG has been involved with the smash community and did a lot for them. Ya the one issue we had was VoD's but that was something that could not be helped.

As for them being sketchy? Come on. You wanna talk about sketchy you just need to look at the people who play Marvel and see what I mean. They threaten people over this game. Either way I rather be mainstream because that is the overall goal of E-sports. To become mainstream. Fighters, I love them, but to face facts they are not intelligent when it comes to publicity. The only fighters that made it have been people involved in Empire Arcadia.

Whether or not you understand it face the facts that MLG has done just as much if not more for the community than Evo. While I respect Evo they do not have the resources to run Smash tournaments the way the community wants to. MLG had that and more. Also, Halo players respected smash players and would mingle often. I do not know where you or many of the people posting here get that MLG was ever bad to the community or that they did not have a "singular focus". Seriously where do you get your ideas from???


@ Alpha - what you said was basically the truth for the most part.

Some people in this forum are as dumb as the SRK people...seriously.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
#59
Hi, I'm from SRK.

I was curious what the opinions you guys held from this side were, since the opposing side of opinions obviously didn't have the same level of representation. I expected more people to come in and pose a stronger counter-argument.

Reading your general responses though, I'm left wondering "Did these guys just read what they wanted to read?" This isn't really intended in offense, but as you guys also admit there's a lot of flames and difference between reasonable, thought-out posts, why didn't you consider the ones we had on that side?

I'm not here to start beef, I just want your honest opinions. Let me start by placing the stance down.

SRK is a community that has seen the inception and refinement of many fighters(not claiming it's responsible for the latter, but it does happen from time to time). The way SRK approaches the development of new fighting games is similar in spirit to the scientific method; isolate and quantify results, and only then make judgment. I don't think you guys are any stranger to how this works, since that's how the Melee metagame solidified in the first place.

So why in the world do you want to apply Melee's ruleset to Brawl right away?

If you know how the metagame develops, then you know that elements that immediately appear 'broken' just from initial impressions are hardly always just that. Techniques that dominate for half a year are dethroned or rendered obsolete the next, elements that were considered unescapable are relegated to mediocrity or uselessness when a counter-strategy is discovered and adopted, and so on and so forth. So why can't you consider items to be part of that?

Similar to how it functions in Melee, choosing to pick up an item is an active decision with advantages and drawbacks. Some limit your movement, most change or rob you of your forward normals/smash options until you get rid of them, some can be a penalty instead of a benefit. Risk-reward is a consistent element of metagame regardless of whether it comes from items or not. You can choose to make a smash with a longer windup time, counting on your opponent to behave in a way that will allow it to connect, but you don't know how he or she will behave. It isn't utterly the same thing, but running for a mushroom counting on raising your size yet not knowing if it will shrink you instead is the same rhetoric.

Good players make use of the elements available to them, even if they are determined through a random fashion--and they can still prove their capability and skill beyond the shadow of a doubt, thanks to the stock system. It was brought up several times in the thread, but poker is a high-stakes competitive game where luck is a powerful factor, yet only skilled players make it to the top.

And let me put a very big emphasis on this point: SRK(and EVO)'s ruleset may eventually mirror Melee's. We're not idiots, we know items have a very large impact on how the game works. It's not like we are openly supporting golden hammers, stars, healing items and exploding capsules; rather we want to see--definitively--if they hold enough of a dominating factor on high-level play that they warrant banning. Banning based on rough impressions is a fallacy; the competitive game evolves and changes too much for hasty decisions like that to be made.

Lastly, I'm not too clear on this point, but weren't all items ultimately banned wholesale from Melee not because of any random factor of the basic items themselves, but because of the exploding crate/capsule chance? This is a controllable option in Brawl, so it is a moot point.

Realistically, I'm sure some items will be banned before EVO starts. Final Smashes might be banned as well. But can you see why we think it is a bad/unrealistic idea to start a game with elements banned based on impressions and a precedent from a previous game whose mechanics and options differ?

The metagame is barely out there. Let's see everything Brawl has to offer first.
 

Aesir

Smash Debater
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
#60
I use to be really anti-item but after talking to someone who really knows his **** more so then me. (Dazwa) I think it would be a shame to not try out items. Obviously some should be banned healing items, golden hammers, hammers in general. Certain healing items I don't think are that bad, such as the team healing item, or food.

The main problem I have about items are they provide a random advantage for almost no work at all. Most of us like to work for our wins as it gives the loosing party no excuse as to why the loose other then, You suck.

Items were on in melee tourneys for the longest time I think it would be a shame if we just got rid of them from right off the bat here.
 

AlphaZealot

Smashboards Owner
Administrator
GRimer
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
13,129
Location
Bellevue, Washington
#62
Why aren't you supporting healing items? If anything, healing items are the most legitimate items that there are because even if they appear randomly, the effects at the very least aren't detrimental to whoever is in a negative position at the time.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
#64
Why aren't you supporting healing items? If anything, healing items are the most legitimate items that there are because even if they appear randomly, the effects at the very least aren't detrimental to whoever is in a negative position at the time.
I don't really have a stance one way or another on them; I listed them because they along with hammers/starmen/etc are often the most complained about items, or the ones with the largest immediate impact on gameplay.

Some people would argue otherwise, but hey, that's what testing is for.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#65
DarkBlade77

The answer is pretty simple, and is best illustrated this way: If you bang your head against the wall 10 times, and it hurts every time, you don't need to bang your head against the wall an 11th time just to know if it's gonna hurt again. But everyone at SRK seems to think so.

Smashboards has two years experience of items in smash tournaments that SRK thinks they can ignore because they were never a part of it, and they use the sorry excuse that it's a new game to cover that fact. Both brawl and melee have the exact same game mechanics. Brawl is just a new melee with different stages, characters, and move sets. The core of the game hasn't changed.

You can argue all you want about new depths of gameplay and new facets of strategy by integrating items into the tournament scene, but the fact remains that those depths and facets already existed for items in melee. But after two years of that, it became obvious that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages items brought to the table.

You guys want to allow items for brawl? Fine. I'll give you a brief synopsis of exactly what will happen: The people who will come to the tournament will use the same old grief tactics that were used before just to prove to you the point of why they should not be allowed in the tournament. These tactics are annoying as hell to use, annoying as hell to play against, and annoying as hell to watch. But the most important thing about them is it entirely changes the focus of smash - instead of trying to beat your opponent, you spend the whole match trying to give yourself the best advantage of getting that item as soon as it appears on the stage, because you know that the scales of the match drastically alter to benefit the person who gets that item. So instead of watching two people viciously try to beat each other out, you have to watch two people spend the whole match fighting over control of the stage, just so they can get the item.

Then, after the tournament, Evo will (hopefully) come to their senses and ban the items. While everyone at SRK will be patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves because they proved their point, the rest of us will walk away peeved because we proved our point, and we see the real truth behind what happened - it was all a complete waste of everyone's time. We could've been smart and taken into account what smashboards has already proved, which is that items should never be a part of the tournament scene.

You can count on me not wasting my time if they decided to let items stay turned on. Just as much as you can count a lot of people not wasting their time.

Edit: This is just about items in general. Final Smahses is a completely different ballpark that I think deserves at least consideration, if not testing.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
#66
Smashboards has two years experience of items in smash tournaments that SRK thinks they can ignore because they were never a part of it, and they use the sorry excuse that it's a new game to cover that fact. Both brawl and melee have the exact same game mechanics. Brawl is just a new melee with different stages, characters, and move sets. The core of the game hasn't changed.
Wow. 'Exact same game mechanics'... I have no idea how you can actually type that and seriously mean it.

You can argue all you want about new depths of gameplay and new facets of strategy by integrating items into the tournament scene, but the fact remains that those depths and facets already existed for items in melee. But after two years of that, it became obvious that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages items brought to the table.
I think I covered this in my last post. The sole determinant factor in items getting banned as a whole was the fact that turning on any item enabled capsules/crates--and by proxy, exploding capules/crates. This is a feature that can be turned off in Brawl.

In summary, the decisive reason why items were banned in Melee holds no water in Brawl.

As far as I'm concerned, you are vastly mistaken if you consider Brawl to be the same game as Melee with additions, and it's your loss if you want to treat it that way.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#67
Wow. 'Exact same game mechanics'... I have no idea how you can actually type that and seriously mean it.
Simple. The relationship between the two players, between them and the stage, and between the players and the items is all exactly the same.

I think I covered this in my last post. The sole determinant factor in items getting banned as a whole was the fact that turning on any item enabled capsules/crates--and by proxy, exploding capules/crates. This is a feature that can be turned off in Brawl.

In summary, the decisive reason why items were banned in Melee holds no water in Brawl..
Go back and read my post. That's not the only reason items should be turned off. Items are too imbalanced (in the sense that, regardless of what kind of skill/strategy it takes to get it, once you have an item everything tilts in your favor), and they turn matches into frenzies over who gets the item first.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#69
I think that's what they're interested in determining the veracity of. Besides, what exactly would be the point of going for an item if it didn't give you advantages?
But what's the point in testing it...if it's already been tested?

I understand the logic behind testing everything in the full tournament scene with money on the line. But I can't help but think this is SRK's way of sticking it to "lolsmashboards". It's a double-standard for them to be able to compare the history of all their games to smash, but we aren't allowed to compare the history of melee to brawl, a game that is far more similar to brawl than any other game could ever be. To throw away those two years is foolish.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#70
I don't really have a stance one way or another on them; I listed them because they along with hammers/starmen/etc are often the most complained about items, or the ones with the largest immediate impact on gameplay.

Some people would argue otherwise, but hey, that's what testing is for.

Again this goes back to the single thing SRK people do not remember.

- TZ makes their tekken rules
- VFDC makes their VF rules
- DOAC makes their DOA rules
- SRK makes capcom game rules


When SRK tries to do things on their own they get the messes that is GG 3v3...For years GG players wanted 1v1 to make it better but well...thats another story that is gay for tem

Point is that why not work in conjunction with Smashboards. When I see a Evo dvd they give credit to TZ and other communities I feel this is another time when the people who run the community should have a say.

Think of it this way. Imagine 1 round 30 second matches for 3rd strike or Normal Speed marvel. Ya it is not the same thing as items but imagine if someone came to SRK and basically said "your elist lets make this fun" ... You would think they were nuts right? Same thing here.

Again I know both communities better than most people and I know EVO and MLG just as well. These things work best when everyone works together and if EVO said "look we have __ many setups and ___ resources can you make it work" People like me AZ and others will make it work in respect to the game.

Working together avoids all the bull****.

Again just my opinion but it will be a very long and gay road for Smash and EVO if it's made for the more "fun" mentality then "fair" and it will cause more of a divide. We are not DOA we have a strong community that is not stupid. Work with us EVO/SRK
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
#71
DarkBlade77

The answer is pretty simple, and is best illustrated this way: If you bang your head against the wall 10 times, and it hurts every time, you don't need to bang your head against the wall an 11th time just to know if it's gonna hurt again. But everyone at SRK seems to think so.
By this logic, it sounds like if you were in control of the SF tourneys, after Super Turbo, once you guys saw Akuma in A3, he was banned without forethought. CvS2? Banned without forethought. 3rd Strike? Banned without forethought. Just because the game's in the same line doesn't mean everything stays exactly the same. There's been a large number of changes, from the whole shift in how air dodging works, to item catching ease, to containers getting a toggle, that may or may not bring this back into the spotlight. I'm not saying that we'll find out that items are the end all be all way to Smash or that something akin to Melee's ruleset will end up the result, but one can't know without trying, as this is a completely different game.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#72
By this logic, it sounds like if you were in control of the SF tourneys, after Super Turbo, once you guys saw Akuma in A3, he was banned without forethought. CvS2? Banned without forethought. 3rd Strike? Banned without forethought. Just because the game's in the same line doesn't mean everything stays exactly the same. There's been a large number of changes, from the whole shift in how air dodging works, to item catching ease, to containers getting a toggle, that may or may not bring this back into the spotlight. I'm not saying that we'll find out that items are the end all be all way to Smash or that something akin to Melee's ruleset will end up the result, but one can't know without trying, as this is a completely different game.
If an item appears on the stage, who can honestly say they won't fight to get it first? Sure there are new ways to avoid getting hit by an item, but they still have the same KO potential, and thus will turn the matches main focus into who gets the item first.

What if my character totally dominates with a certain item? Because of how random the items are, sometimes that item will appear during a match, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it will appear where I have the advantage of getting it first, sometimes it won't. You think it's fair that suddenly my potential to win the match sky rockets because randomly this item appeared right when I needed it?

I can see how matches like that will end up: "You only won because you got that item," and "I only lost because I didn't get that item," will be rampant.
 

Yeroc

Theory Coder
GRimer
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
3,273
Location
In a world of my own devising
#74
If an item appears on the stage, who can honestly say they won't fight to get it first? Sure there are new ways to avoid getting hit by an item, but they still have the same KO potential, and thus will turn the matches main focus into who gets the item first.
Your basis for the view still seems to primarily be that you believe this to be the case, not that it's actually been proven. If you are trying to make this type of assertion, then you should provide proof that this is the case. Ironically, that's what DarkBlade and Cynt are proposing, and you've said that it's a waste of time.

What if my character totally dominates with a certain item? Because of how random the items are, sometimes that item will appear during a match, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it will appear where I have the advantage of getting it first, sometimes it won't. You think it's fair that suddenly my potential to win the match sky rockets because randomly this item appeared right when I needed it?
Again, you should try to demonstrate this instead of assuming it's a foregone conclusion.

I can see how matches like that will end up: "You only won because you got that item," and "I only lost because I didn't get that item," will be rampant.
What Aesir said.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#76
Your basis for the view still seems to primarily be that you believe this to be the case, not that it's actually been proven. If you are trying to make this type of assertion, then you should provide proof that this is the case. Ironically, that's what DarkBlade and Cynt are proposing, and you've said that it's a waste of time.

Again, you should try to demonstrate this instead of assuming it's a foregone conclusion.

What Aesir said.

Again read what I wrote and see that it makes a lot of sense.


As for items in tournament play...No 1v1/2v2 fighting game should be based around camping an item. In my opinion it should be based on skill. Argue what you may about items taking skill but this argument has been the SAME since Smash 64...again let the tournament organizers decide and , as always , we do not disappoint.
 

TheGeneral

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
347
#77
When I first read looked at this thread, I thought, no Brawl shouldn't be at EVO; bad idea. I thought the game was too young to be placed on a national stage and left up to the scrutiny of all in attendance at EVO.

Then I read some of the posts in here and I changed my mind. I think if EVO wants to support Brawl then let them. I used to think the smash and EVO communities wouldn't work together at all but it is possible (albeit stressful at times.) The exposure that Brawl will get can only be good for the community and as for the rule set, I trust SRK to decide in this case because the game is still in its infancy. I don't see anything wrong with conflicting rule sets between the EVO tournament series and the underground smash community's rule sets for the time being. I don't think anyone can claim to really have a solid grasp on the new game's mechanics yet. I mean, from what I understand about the melee tournament scene it took many turbulent years to come to a generally accepted rule set (and people still like to argue against it.)

I see this EVO as a grand experiment. If you look at some of the changes they've made to the line-up , you can see that the coordinators are making some pretty big changes. (yes I know 3S and MVC are still there, but it's from freaking SRK, lol :) ) So, I think that this Brawl tournament should be very liberal in its rule set. Also, coooperating with the EVO staff this year will probably make working towards a more unified rule-set at EVO simpler in later years.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
#78
But what's the point in testing it...if it's already been tested?

I understand the logic behind testing everything in the full tournament scene with money on the line. But I can't help but think this is SRK's way of sticking it to "lolsmashboards". It's a double-standard for them to be able to compare the history of all their games to smash, but we aren't allowed to compare the history of melee to brawl, a game that is far more similar to brawl than any other game could ever be. To throw away those two years is foolish.
Why is it a double-standard?

This is comparing the concept of the best way to treat developing the metagame from a new(albeit successive) title in a game series.

Time and time again, fighting games are introduced with new installments that change maybe a handful of characters and introduce a few mechanics here and there, yet the initial stance is to judge them from ground zero up. Pretty much any King of Fighters game or SF Alpha-series game can claim to be closer to its brethren than Melee and Brawl ever could, and they're not exempt.

How can you compare that to experiencing Melee's metagame for two years over Brawl? Why should it carry over? The physics engine differs, the available items and their impact differ, the characters differ, and the effects of normals and smashes also differ. Saying 'the basic concepts are the same so the rules should be the same' wouldn't fly for any other fighting game title ever.

If you're going to say that this situation is different BECAUSE it's Smash Bros., I don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask for proof. 'The proof existing in Melee' says nothing by itself.
 

Yeroc

Theory Coder
GRimer
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
3,273
Location
In a world of my own devising
#79
I ask again, why should I have to if it already has been demonstrated?
Because as Cynt pointed out, there have been enough gameplay changes to warrant it.

Again read what I wrote and see that it makes a lot of sense.
I did. And given the rest of your argument it says to me (a native SWFer mind you): "SRK should just give up all this item-testing bull**** because we already know the answer." And Cynt nicely has already explained why I feel that we in fact don't.


As for items in tournament play...No 1v1/2v2 fighting game should be based around camping an item. In my opinion it should be based on skill. Argue what you may about items taking skill but this argument has been the SAME since Smash 64...again let the tournament organizers decide and , as always , we do not disappoint.
I can't exactly see what you're trying to say here. If it's to reiterate your previous stuff, then fine, I've answered that. If you're giving reasons for disabling items, I don't follow you at all.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
#80
I ask again, why should I have to if it already has been demonstrated?
Because it has not been demonstrated.

In fact, it was never demonstrated in Melee. The ONLY reason item matches died were because of the one subset of items that caused a significant problem could not be turned off without turning items off altogether: containers. Specifically, exploding capsules. That option is now in Brawl.

Also, for any other argument claiming that it was "proven in Melee", it STILL doesn't hold water, 'cause this isn't Melee. It's a whole new game with a whole new design behind it. You will not know if it will cause this doom prophecy you see until you actually prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I bring to you an analogy. Let's look at games like Poker, Magic: TG, and other games where, at face value, looks like the most random thing on the face of the earth, but the same people in tournaments continually win in spite of that random base. Why? Because they understand the fundamentals of their game. They understand how to read their opponent. They can handle any situation given to them and come out on top. If the random factor was in control of the match, the same players would not win every time.

The same goes for items in play. Yeah, some items are indeed too overpowering for their own good, such as the explosives, the healers, and auto-use items like stars. These are obviously items that will not exist in an items allowed tournament. This doesn't mean EVERY item is as overpowering as them. Once removed, the base BENEFITS of items exist are still there. Rewarding aggressors/stage controllers. This is a big thing that keeps stages from being no longer viable for tourney play. Characters who may have a huge benefit on one section of a stage and players rely on said portion now have given way to the rest of the stage for their opponent to arm themselves to pull them out of their camping spot. Without the concept of items, that player has no reason to leave their safety net, to the point where the stage now has to be removed from play to return balance to the game. This is how Melee ended up where it is today. A ghostly shell of its former self. It was unavoidable, yes, but that's the truth.

So why pull the same excuses on the sequel? The developers seemed to notice some of the problems outright, adding in the toggle for containers. Will that be enough? That's what is intended to figure out by testing all over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top