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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#81
Because as Cynt pointed out, there have been enough gameplay changes to warrant it.

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.


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.
I do not see that. As a tournament organizer of all fighters/fps/ and the like I just see that we should keep things the same as we have in Smash64. Items are off in my opinion. Best way to say it is when MLG took Equipment off. Guess it was not clear enough for you to get. Either way Evo will pretty much cause a rumble in the community and I do not forsee good things no matter what side wins in the debate. These are grown man talking to kids/teens/young adults about video games and because of that age difference it will cause a really bad divide.

Time will tell as always but AZ said it best and I'll support his views and my own.

BTW SRK did not make the Tekken ruleset so why should they make the Smash ruleset

Thats a question we need to really addess.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#82
I'm not saying the smash rules shouldn't be completely revamped from the ground up, because they are. The number of stocks have been changed to account for the difference in the average time it takes to take a stock from your opponenet. Specific game-stalling tactics that were banned before are no longer banned because they either don't exist or they simply don't work the way they used to because of the new physics engine. And many more.

However, if a new game-stalling tactic was unearthed, it would be banned, would it not? If a stage proved to be too random for tournament gameplay, it would be banned, would it not? Why? Because they violate certain competitive principles. The violations are different, but the principles are the same.

So what principle does items violate? The principle that the winner of the match should be based on his skill and mastery of the metagame, not the randomness of items popping up and changing the balance of the two characters (regardless of what the balance was before the item appeared). For example, we don't know 100% whether a level should be banned if the random elements are too random. That is why we should allow all stages upfront and ban them as time goes on so we can get the chance to test it. But they will be banned as they are accounted for. With items, however, it doesn't matter who the better player is (except when the two players are at opposing extremeties) - items can and will drastically alter the state of a match, having nothing to do with the skill of a player being able to read the metagame and make the decisions he needs to win.

You also have to consider that, while an item may or may not alter a game between two people who are marginally different in skill level, it definitely will between two people are of near the same skill level.

It took two years of melee with items on to prove this principle. Why do we need another two years to prove it again?
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
#83
It took two years of melee with items on to prove this principle. Why do we need another two years to prove it again?
Because, as a thousand times before, this isn't Melee. This isn't Melee 2.0. This an entirely different game with an entirely different set of character statistics and a whole different game mechanic overall. I don't think we'll doubt that Melee has been beaten into the ground in this respect, but this cannot be grandfathered to a game that's only relation is base game idea and character selection.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#84
Because, as a thousand times before, this isn't Melee. This isn't Melee 2.0. This an entirely different game with an entirely different set of character statistics and a whole different game mechanic overall. I don't think we'll doubt that Melee has been beaten into the ground in this respect, but this cannot be grandfathered to a game that's only relation is base game idea and character selection.
If you're gonna pick and choose bits and parts of my posts and completely ignore the rationale, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
#86
But it's not, and if you actually read my posts, you'd understand that. I'm done with this thread, I don't argue with people who can't see past the wool they've put over their eyes.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
#87
If you're gonna pick and choose bits and parts of my posts and completely ignore the rationale, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Fine...

I'm not saying the smash rules shouldn't be completely revamped from the ground up, because they are. The number of stocks have been changed to account for the difference in the average time it takes to take a stock from your opponenet. Specific game-stalling tactics that were banned before are no longer banned because they either don't exist or they simply don't work the way they used to because of the new physics engine. And many more.

However, if a new game-stalling tactic was unearthed, it would be banned, would it not? If a stage proved to be too random for tournament gameplay, it would be banned, would it not? Why? Because they violate certain competitive principles. The violations are different, but the principles are the same.
As with items/stages, too early to tell. I would assume that if something is indeed too overpowering and PROVEN as such, yeah, they will be frowned upon at best, banned at worst.


So what principle does items violate? The principle that the winner of the match should be based on his skill and mastery of the metagame, not the randomness of items popping up and changing the balance of the two characters (regardless of what the balance was before the item appeared). For example, we don't know 100% whether a level should be banned if the random elements are too random. That is why we should allow all stages upfront and ban them as time goes on so we can get the chance to test it. But they will be banned as they are accounted for. With items, however, it doesn't matter who the better player is (except when the two players are at opposing extremeties) - items can and will drastically alter the state of a match, having nothing to do with the skill of a player being able to read the metagame and make the decisions he needs to win.

You also have to consider that, while an item may or may not alter a game between two people who are marginally different in skill level, it definitely will between two people are of near the same skill level.
Not gonna bother repeating what I had just said, so here's a recap that you evidently didn't read.

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.
It took two years of melee with items on to prove this principle. Why do we need another two years to prove it again?
Because, as a thousand times before, this isn't Melee. This isn't Melee 2.0. This an entirely different game with an entirely different set of character statistics and a whole different game mechanic overall. I don't think we'll doubt that Melee has been beaten into the ground in this respect, but this cannot be grandfathered to a game that's only relation is base game idea and character selection.
Is that better?
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
1,814
Location
Toronto
#89
You guys keep saying "But there are all these gameplay changes!" is that going to stop people from camping items? Of course not. Will those new gameplay changes stop items giving a huge advantage to certain player? No.

People act like we need to test it ALOT but we already have. You guys are acting like Brawl is a completely different genre and that it has no similarities to Melee.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
#90
You guys keep saying "But there are all these gameplay changes!" is that going to stop people from camping items? Of course not. Will those new gameplay changes stop items giving a huge advantage to certain player? No.

People act like we need to test it ALOT but we already have. You guys are acting like Brawl is a completely different genre and that it has no similarities to Melee.
Explain to me HOW you camp items. They spawn in no set location or rotation of locations. If you mean that if they control the stage, then yeah, they deserve every **** item they get. They have control of the stage. The only camping that can exist with items in play is one camping a location and they're now in a disadvantage, due to the fact they no longer have control of the stage, and thus, no items.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,841
Location
NYC
#92
This thread was good until casual players and competitive players *****ed about items..

Point is yes its not Melee 2.0 just as Melee is not 64 2.0 so really as I said before there are reasons the items are off and it is pointless to argue with people who cannot accept that.

*sighs and unsubscribe* waste of my time.
 

Phyvo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
289
#93
I am going to base my argument off of my experience with Brawl, for what it's worth, because apparently the skeptics only take that as evidence. I am by no means a pro. But I hope you will understand how I and many opposed to items actually feel, when we're playing the game, when items are on.

To put it most simply, when they're on I feel like they get in the way of fun. ASIDE from some being overpowered (e.g. spicy curry), ASIDE from lightning or clocks spawning right on top of people and giving them an easy advantage, having items spawning in the middle of the match just FEELS wrong. If we're both standing on the stage and an item spawns on him, and he grabs it, SURE if I had skill I could probably dodge it and deal with. But items generate the same discontinuity of play as tripping does, even if the lowly fireflower doesn't threaten to kill you outright. The match is flowing one way and suddenly a hill rises up out of nowhere and everything is redirected because of random chance. It just feels WRONG.

I've played SF third strike (not competitively, but still), and I get good feelings from it when I do things right, when I predict how my opponent will attack after blocking his aerial kick, then blocking his standing and crouch attacks, or land a good hit with some predictive capability. It has flow. I'm not good at it, but it has a good flow.

I get a similar feeling in Brawl and Melee with items off. I'm better at Brawl, but when things happen they happen as a little dance that I and my opponent do. Except for tripping (WHY GOD, WHY), the game doesn't interrupt our dance at all, and leaves us to do it until one is finally KOed. In short, items are like having clippy interrupt you every 30 seconds as you're writing a term paper, or finding that your legs change length while you're running a mile. They just ruin your Zen.

Smash balls are slightly different, but the effect is similar, though other arguments can be made against them.

For one, they aren't at all balanced from one character to another. Falco's landmaster can take off several stock easily off one person. Compare that with Lucario's, which nearly any character in their right mind can just JUMP OVER until it's done. Ness's and Lucas's are aimed at chaotic FFAs but 1vs1 are actually easy to dodge. Metaknight's FS sucks. Marth's is awesome by comparison (though falco's is still best since it can take off multiple stock). Kirby (who is very similar in air mobility to Metaknight) has an absolutely sizzling smash. And none of this has any relation to how good characters are without FSes, so it makes otherwise fun and balanced characters worse. Brawl is more balanced than melee... UNTIL you add FSs.

You do have to fight off your opponent a bit, but I just don't get any feeling of triumph when I kill someone with a final smash. You push B at the right time and they die, or if it's more complicated than that you have to push some other buttons to kill them as with the landmasters or Giga Bowser. Sometimes FSs pop up so much the only kills you ever get are from FSs and you hardly do any fighting without one person or the other using them.

Not to mention that the more of other items you disable, the more FSs pop up. I hear the lowest you can go with just FSs (no other items) is a thirty second interval between each (since you can't get two FSes on the same screen at once). At that rate it would be surprising if you KOed your opponent any other way!

And in the end, this just comes back to my feeling argument. You get in the zone with yourself and your opponent, and then a smash ball pops up and suddenly everything is changed. You can chase the smash ball, you can chase the chaser, you can call it strategy. Heck, that's what it is. But suddenly, in a situation where it was just you and your opponent, this item, this third party comes into play, and if you're LUCKY stands between the two of you and says "Come and get me".

It's a completely different game from the one I enjoy playing, even with my pretty scrubby friends. Smash with items on is a game I will *never* play competitively. I may not be able to prove to you that it's not a good idea, but I, as a hopeful competitive smash player, would rather dance without interruptions.

my 2 cents
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
#94
So what principle does items violate? The principle that the winner of the match should be based on his skill and mastery of the metagame, not the randomness of items popping up and changing the balance of the two characters (regardless of what the balance was before the item appeared). For example, we don't know 100% whether a level should be banned if the random elements are too random. That is why we should allow all stages upfront and ban them as time goes on so we can get the chance to test it. But they will be banned as they are accounted for. With items, however, it doesn't matter who the better player is (except when the two players are at opposing extremeties) - items can and will drastically alter the state of a match, having nothing to do with the skill of a player being able to read the metagame and make the decisions he needs to win.

You also have to consider that, while an item may or may not alter a game between two people who are marginally different in skill level, it definitely will between two people are of near the same skill level.

It took two years of melee with items on to prove this principle. Why do we need another two years to prove it again?
What was proven? Again, whatever Melee proved wasn't enough to ban items from its own system in competitive play. Uncontrollable explosions did. And it's not like items haven't changed in Brawl, either.

How much does your offensive/control capability go up if you pick up a star wand? Beam saber? HRB? Fire flower? Smoke bomb? You lose your standing f-moves as long as you're holding any item. Some of them give you a special f-move in return, that usually has bad recovery or bad range or both. They don't do any significant amount of knockback or damage from a toss alone anymore, unless they explode(and most of the explosive stuff holds the greatest likeliness to be banned in the first place). Pokeballs? They got nerfed so hard that dodging most of them is a trivial exercise, instead of an occasionally irritating one.

I said it before--choosing to go after/picking up items is a decision. It carries both risk and reward. Using your average items knowing the potential drawbacks they may bring, or choosing to control their presence on the stage certainly sounds like a metagame decision to me.
 

Niko_K

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,799
Location
Oshawa 905
#95
If the rule set is manageable and organization seems good I'm thinking of travelling down for this, it will be intense :D
 

swordstrike

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
0
#96
What people is considered pros? because they ****ing go into noob tournaments like EVO and beat nobodies, and then SWF is ready to crown them best in the world, this **** has went for years in melee and about to happen in Brawl.

Now the truth has come out, I guess this will be called troll by a bunch of idiots or this topic be locked, both which proves its true much like any post thats locked.
 

Phyvo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
289
#98
What people is considered pros? because they ****ing go into noob tournaments like EVO and beat nobodies, and then SWF is ready to crown them best in the world, this **** has went for years in melee and about to happen in Brawl.

Now the truth has come out, I guess this will be called troll by a bunch of idiots or this topic be locked, both which proves its true much like any post thats locked.
...Is this even related to the tread?

Looks to me like you've been trolling in more than one place lately.
 

Darcon

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2
#99
People really just need to have an open mind about items/stages especially on a new game in its infancy.

My personal stance on Smash? No Items, Neutral Stages only.

But, you have to take everything at face value. This is NOT Smash Melee. This is Smash Brawl and it is a NEW game with NO extensive BRAWL tournament data backing up any claims if items/stages are overpowered. Just because items were turned off in Melee doesn't give Brawl the same immediate neutering.

Bans should be warranted when the tactics create an environment in which that is the only valid tactic to use and it is considered completely broken.

First of all, read Sirlin's chapter in his book http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/what-should-be-banned/
and I quote this part
Sirlin said:
How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.
Items in Brawl may be functionally similar, but are not exactly the same. The KO potential of throwing them has been lessened. Pokeballs are much easier to dodge and get away from. I've been able to hit my opponent whom has a hammer and knock them down. These changes to the game are different and should be tested first w/o just an immediate ban. Items weren't banned when Melee first came out, so why should it be the same for Brawl?

Also, a fighting game isn't just about fighting your opponent. It's also about space control. The better player will utilize the items to the best of their ability to create space and limit the opponent's ability by controlling that space. If you're on Final Destination and your opponent is hanging on the right ledge and you're waiting for them to come up off that ledge, you control most of the space and if an item pops up on the left side of the stage, you have the advantage because you're the one in control of the space and can get to the item quicker than your opponent. The better players will be the ones to control that space and utilize it to the best of the playing skill.

Also if your opponent plays a certain character which is especially good with an item and it spawns, there are options available. Do you camp it and wait for your opponent to come at you? Do you take it and use it against them? These are all new scenarios with items in.

Look back at past history when it comes to bans. When SSF2T came out, Akuma was a hidden character and it took a while, but everyone came to find he was too broken due to the way his air fireball created some blockstun traps that made characters unable to beat him. After this he was finally banned when he started winning every tournament. Soon after, SFA2 comes out and has Akuma as a playable character. Was he banned just because he was banned in SSF2T? No, he was not. He was allowed to be played to determine if he was to be banned and sure enough he didn't need to be. The same with SF3: Third Strike. He wasn't banned just because he was banned in SSF2T. Note that all these Street Fighter games are SIMILIAR, but NOT the same. This is the same context between Melee and Brawl. They are similar, but NOT the same.

This "ban" tactic can also be applied to other games. Take a look at Magic: The Gathering for instance. No cards are ever banned unless it is apparent that they create an unhealthy environment in which it is the only tactic or the card in question creates some degenerate effect. Even then, these bans come from actual tournament results, not because some people think it should be banned. Even cards with similar function are not banned until proven they are broken. The Timespiral card, while functionally similar to Timetwister wasn't initially banned until after tournament results and even then, because it created an unhealthy environment with many other cards. Other cards functionally similar to Timetwister, like Dimishing Returns were not.

For now, I'm having fun with Brawl with items on. There are random exploding crates which do affect the outcome of a tournament in which money is on the line (I've already seen it in a 60+ player Brawl tourney already), but until there's proof enough that the items in question are uncounterable, I'll be leaving mine on until a competitive rule set with tournament results to back it up becomes available.

Anyways, that's all I really have to say on the matter.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
Logical reasoning doesn't work. It has to be tested first.

At least, that's what everyone in this thread is telling me. Why should it be any different for explosive crates?
 

GameBoyBob

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 15, 2002
Messages
188
Location
Maryland
I find it funny that the smash community is going to have to repeat over again the whole item debate. I wonder how long before it gets sorted out this time around?

The reason for taking off items the first time around wasn’t because of capsules appearing in front smashers and killing them. It was because of the inherent randomtivity of items. Items are RANDOM. They appear in random places giving a player a random advantage. Things that are random have no place in tournaments. It is already bad enough that there is tripping in brawl; let’s not make it worse with items… again.

The argument for brawl being a new game doesn’t matter. The fact that items are random is the same in both melee and brawl. If brawl was a street fighter like game that had random placement items in it, then items would be banned in that game as well.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Corning, CA
I like how so many people are comparing fast-paced, dexterity-based fighters to slow-paced, mental-based card games. Spontaneity in fast-paced games has a deeper effect than it does in slow-paced games, because in slow-paced games you have time to contemplate the situation and react based on a well-though-out decision. In a fast-paced game, you react based on instinct and intuition. It's not the same.

The difference between Items and Akuma is that Items affect every character's balance. Akuma only affects, well, Akuma's balance. It's a lot easier to test for balance in one character on an already-tested field (Comparison to other SF characters) than it is to test for balance in every character on an entirely new field. In example, you're not comparing Yoshi's character properties to Mario's, you're creating new statistics based on items that have to be tested for every single character. It's really not the same thing.

Overall, I don't understand why this big debate is occurring. Regardless of any other factors, items add spontaneity. That's simply not acceptable in a tournament-scene that revolves entirely around eliminating randomness. It'd be like giving attendees at a Basketball game banana peels that they could randomly throw onto the court. It sounds fun, but in reality, it eliminates the entire idea of the competition involved.

Summary:
- Spontaneity (<---BAADDDDDD!)
- Match-ups change spontaneously. Ex: 4-6 might become a 6-4 because Ganondorf picked up a LAZAR.
- Items have a bigger detrimental effect on slower characters, of whom it could be argued already have a disadvantage, at least in past games. Faster characters (Sonic) are able to attain items MUCH, MUCH easier than slower ones.
- Edge hogging & Chasing, already easy, become even easier as all characters can get ranged attacks.
- Fighting games =/= Card games
- Akuma =/= Items
- Keeping an open mind =/= Having everything, even logically non-competitive things, tourney-legal from the ground up.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
Logical reasoning doesn't work. It has to be tested first.

At least, that's what everyone in this thread is telling me. Why should it be any different for explosive crates?
It should.

You can put out as many theories and predictions as you want, and they may have years of applicable experience or strong reasonable logic behind them, but the truth of fighting games is that you can never, ever consistently predict how the metagame will develop. That's the whole point of why this is done.

Yes, I think explosive crates and the like will probably be banned via testing--probably long before EVO, even. You could even consider the Melee influence to be a factor(!) in getting that element banned quickly instead of over the span of half a year+, unless some bizarre new tactic that makes using them balanced shows up.

But ground up is ground up. I'm not denying that foregone conclusions may exist, but Brawl is different enough of a game as a whole that everything warrants a look at first.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
1,345
Location
Holland, Hoorn
Why do you think that sakurai actually gave us the option to switch items off? xD

Anyway, items are random (not much testing needed) and i think that randomness should be avoided if possible. We're playing a fighter not a card game. Although it's also possible to argue that randomness can be part of a game. Both are good reasons to either switch them on or off.
 

Darcon

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2
I like how so many people are comparing fast-paced, dexterity-based fighters to slow-paced, mental-based card games. Spontaneity in fast-paced games has a deeper effect than it does in slow-paced games, because in slow-paced games you have time to contemplate the situation and react based on a well-though-out decision. In a fast-paced game, you react based on instinct and intuition. It's not the same.

The difference between Items and Akuma is that Items affect every character's balance. Akuma only affects, well, Akuma's balance. It's a lot easier to test for balance in one character on an already-tested field (Comparison to other SF characters) than it is to test for balance in every character on an entirely new field. In example, you're not comparing Yoshi's character properties to Mario's, you're creating new statistics based on items that have to be tested for every single character. It's really not the same thing.

Overall, I don't understand why this big debate is occurring. Regardless of any other factors, items add spontaneity. That's simply not acceptable in a tournament-scene that revolves entirely around eliminating randomness. It'd be like giving attendees at a Basketball game banana peels that they could randomly throw onto the court. It sounds fun, but in reality, it eliminates the entire idea of the competition involved.

Summary:
- Spontaneity (<---BAADDDDDD!)
- Match-ups change spontaneously. Ex: 4-6 might become a 6-4 because Ganondorf picked up a LAZAR.
- Items have a bigger detrimental effect on slower characters, of whom it could be argued already have a disadvantage, at least in past games. Faster characters (Sonic) are able to attain items MUCH, MUCH easier than slower ones.
- Edge hogging & Chasing, already easy, become even easier as all characters can get ranged attacks.
- Fighting games =/= Card games
- Akuma =/= Items
- Keeping an open mind =/= Having everything, even logically non-competitive things, tourney-legal from the ground up.
You completely missed the point. I was talking about when something should be banned, just as Sirlin explained in his book (if you even read it). Akuma =/= items and Fighting games =/= cards games. They were giving sentiments why things are BANNED in various types of games.

Akuma isn't banned in SFA & SFIII because of some grandfather clause he's banned SF2T.
Why should items/stages be banned in Brawl just because of some grandfather clause saying they're banned in Melee? Just as SF2 =/= SF3, Melee =/= Brawl.

The Magic reference isn't about the gameplay, it's about WHEN cards are actually banned. They are banned when they are proven after tournament results and extensive testing to show that they are broken are degenerate. I didn't even talk about the gameplay of the game.

So far, none of this has been done for Brawl.

If items are so detrimental to Brawl, then all it take would be a little bit of tournament data and especially some videos showing that items create a detrimental effect on the game.

Like I said before, I'm for the no-items/neutral stages camp, but after playing games competitvely for over 15 years, I know WHY the discussion about it has come up.

If you guys want to prove to Evo that items/stages should be banned, take a pro-active stance and show some proof why they are detrimental. Make a short video showing how a character with no protectile can use an item to detrimental effect and state why it's detrimental. This will actually help your cause than go through the argument/counter-argument debates, in which both sides have no proof so far.
 

Niko_K

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,799
Location
Oshawa 905
What makes item usage any different in brawl then it was in melee. It was clearly proven that items were very deterimental to melee and take away from playing your character skillfully. It should be the exact same for brawl.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
It should.

You can put out as many theories and predictions as you want, and they may have years of applicable experience or strong reasonable logic behind them, but the truth of fighting games is that you can never, ever consistently predict how the metagame will develop. That's the whole point of why this is done.
It doesn't matter how the metagame will develop, that's the whole point. It has nothing to do with the metagame, and everything to do with adding unnecessary randomness to the competition! No matter how in-depth items are, whether they completely change the metagame or for the most part no one bothers with items, you cannot tell me that there will never be a time when a random item appears at just the right moment to turn the balance of the match in favor of someone, all completely based on the sheer randomness of items, irrelevant of either player's skill and/or mastery of the metagame, which we should've had the foresight to remove in the first place!

Yes, I think explosive crates and the like will probably be banned via testing--probably long before EVO, even. You could even consider the Melee influence to be a factor(!) in getting that element banned quickly instead of over the span of half a year+, unless some bizarre new tactic that makes using them balanced shows up.
Which would be the biggest slap in the face to smashboards. "None of your logical deductions on why items should be banned are acceptable because everything has to be tested from the ground up. Except our logical deductions. We can decide whatever we want."

Yeah, that's real consistent.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Corning, CA
You completely missed the point. I was talking about when something should be banned, just as Sirlin explained in his book (if you even read it). Akuma =/= items and Fighting games =/= cards games. They were giving sentiments why things are BANNED in various types of games.

Akuma isn't banned in SFA & SFIII because of some grandfather clause he's banned SF2T.
Why should items/stages be banned in Brawl just because of some grandfather clause saying they're banned in Melee? Just as SF2 =/= SF3, Melee =/= Brawl.

The Magic reference isn't about the gameplay, it's about WHEN cards are actually banned. They are banned when they are proven after tournament results and extensive testing to show that they are broken are degenerate. I didn't even talk about the gameplay of the game.

So far, none of this has been done for Brawl.

If items are so detrimental to Brawl, then all it take would be a little bit of tournament data and especially some videos showing that items create a detrimental effect on the game.

Like I said before, I'm for the no-items/neutral stages camp, but after playing games competitvely for over 15 years, I know WHY the discussion about it has come up.

If you guys want to prove to Evo that items/stages should be banned, take a pro-active stance and show some proof why they are detrimental. Make a short video showing how a character with no protectile can use an item to detrimental effect and state why it's detrimental. This will actually help your cause than go through the argument/counter-argument debates, in which both sides have no proof so far.
Akuma shouldn't be banned automatically (I know this is what you're saying) due to a grandfather clause because testing for his balance should be a FAR easier process than testing for balance of items. All you have to do for tesing Akuma's balance is compare his statistics & framedata to other characters' (Which would most likely occur over time from tournament results, as you've pointed out).

When testing for balance in items, you have to take into account it's affects on every single character. Sure, you can find that balance out through tourney results, but the largest Smash Brothers community has the majority-feeling that they're imbalanced purely by speculation. I understand completely your mindset that nothing should be banned until it is found outright to cause imbalance in the game, but if it's a spontaneous gameplay factor, one could assume that it should be banned without the need for testing. It's like getting a super-character 10% of the time you go random in a fighting game. I think you could outright assume that tourneys would not allow the picking of random characters.

Granted, you could argue items =/= super character, and you'd be right, but the idea is the same in that one player would automatically, due entirely to luck, gain an advantage (or disadvantage if you prefer the term, OR a combination of the two - the point being, it spontaneously affects the match to a possibly large degree).

Like I said, I understand and agree with the mindset that new games should test things from the ground up. The thing is, items really aren't that different in Brawl. The only logical argument I can see for having them is being able to air-dodge multiple times, and even then I'd think it would be easy to "tech trap" (I know it's the wrong term for this game, but the idea's the same) the air-dodge and punish accordingly.

My point is, there's no real need to test for balance in something that the majority of competitive Smash players agree should be out. This testing won't result in the tournaments having more character variety (Akuma-legalizing), it's not going to allow for a differentiation in the timing in matches (Checking for balance between 60 second rounds or 99 second rounds), it's going to allow for changing from a skill-based match without outside influences to a skill-based match with outside influences. And isn't eliminating any outside influences the entire point of competitive tournament play?
 

Anth0ny

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
4,061
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Good, watching vids with commentators from EVO screaming about random tripping killing some one will be hilarious.
Haha yeah :p

I'm pretty happy that EVO picked up Brawl. I just wish they came to Canada at least once. "Evo Canada" should be another division tbh.

However, what does this mean for MLG? Will they still pick up Brawl?
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
Which would be the biggest slap in the face to smashboards. "None of your logical deductions on why items should be banned are acceptable because everything has to be tested from the ground up. Except our logical deductions. We can decide whatever we want."

Yeah, that's real consistent.
I missed the part where SRK is going to take tournament and game results from only games run by SRK as proof.

Oh wait, they aren't.

Oh right, that part where EVO is going to make banning decisions on 'logical deductions' instead of proof. I don't recall seeing that either.

Smashboards has plenty of leeway to prove their point. It just has to be done in the actual game. I'll say it again; there has never been a case where a ruleset from an older version of a fighting game has been grandfathered into a newer title because the systems 'appear the same'. The concept is asinine.

Prove that items cannot exist as part of Brawl's metagame. The Smashboards community has plenty of time to provide that proof, IN BRAWL, before EVO rolls around. After all, if it's such a domineering factor than pretty much any history of official competitive matches should show it on a consistent basis.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
688
Location
CA
How many times do I have to say it? We have no reason to prove it, when we already have.

And don't come back to me saying "Brawl is not melee". Metagame has nothing to do with it. No one here is saying that allowing items won't open up a whole new metagame that may or may not be tournament worthy. No one here is saying that there are no new technical and strategic uses behind items that are worth exploring in the tournament scene.

The issue is as I've stated in my last post: you cannot tell me that there will never be a time when a random item appears at just the right moment to turn the balance of the match in favor of someone else, having nothing to do with either player's skill level.

That is the real issue here.
 

kirbstir

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Messages
1,759
Why do smashboard TOs have to provide the proof? It's the SRK community who is going against the set community standard.

SRK should provide the proof.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
1,814
Location
Toronto
Explain to me HOW you camp items. They spawn in no set location or rotation of locations. If you mean that if they control the stage, then yeah, they deserve every **** item they get. They have control of the stage. The only camping that can exist with items in play is one camping a location and they're now in a disadvantage, due to the fact they no longer have control of the stage, and thus, no items.
Avoid him and wait for an item to drop. If you do that without items you're a loser and you'll get killed eventually.

Besides, they add randomness which has no place in tournament play.
 

JesiahTEG

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
4,144
Location
Rochester, NY
Why do smashboard TOs have to provide the proof? It's the SRK community who is going against the set community standard.

SRK should provide the proof.
I agree with Kirbstir.

Furthermore, without trying to sound elitist at all, I feel most of the more experienced members in the competitive smash community, perhaps the back room members, should speak with whoever is in charge in Evo. (Mr. Wizard I think his name might be idk) Smash really is a completely different concept than all other fighting games, which is my main argument for why our community should be listened to and our ideas taken into account much more heavily than people over at SRK. I feel our back room members would be qualified enough to speak with whoever is in charge of smash @ evo, rather than our entire community.

Not to put the community down, but really we have some...people that don't know what they are talking about. Even me, I'll admit it. Although I have ideas for which stages should be banned, items etc., my experience just doesn't hold up to more knowledgeable members. This is why I'd prefer to leave this in the hands of more experienced members. I don't see why the back room just doesn't handle this...That's what it's there for, right?
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
501
Location
Napa, CA
3DS FC
4227-1428-3954
NNID
Cyntalan
Avoid him and wait for an item to drop. If you do that without items you're a loser and you'll get killed eventually.

Besides, they add randomness which has no place in tournament play.
Alright. Lets say you do this. Lets say we're on FD (stage doesn't matter, just easier to illustrate). You want to "camp" items by avoiding me. So you wait over on the right side of the stage, expecting me to give chase so you can then run to the other side. Tell me now, why I should go to you? You are now positioning yourself in one location, whereas I have access to the rest of the stage. Because items don't spawn in set locations in set intervals, you have now cut yourself off from the items, not camped them, as I have no reason to bother with you if you are wanting to "avoid me". You won't be getting the items because while you're avoiding me, I'm keeping you at a position so you're still in this mindset of avoiding me while still managing the rest of the stage.

This is where the key in strategy lies in item usage. You can't camp the items themselves, only locations on the stage. With items in play, this puts people who camp locations at a disadvantage, due to the fact they're only controlling a small portion of the stage while their opponent has free reign over everything else. That player that has been camping now has to go on the offensive or just get every item he could have had by not camping brought to him in ways he really doesn't want to have happen.
 

DarkBlade77

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8
How many times do I have to say it? We have no reason to prove it, when we already have.

And don't come back to me saying "Brawl is not melee". Metagame has nothing to do with it. No one here is saying that allowing items won't open up a whole new metagame that may or may not be tournament worthy. No one here is saying that there are no new technical and strategic uses behind items that are worth exploring in the tournament scene.

The issue is as I've stated in my last post: you cannot tell me that there will never be a time when a random item appears at just the right moment to turn the balance of the match in favor of someone else, having nothing to do with either player's skill level.

That is the real issue here.
Personally, I don't think your issue is as relevant as you make it sound. There are plenty of factors in fighting games--and in Brawl--that are intrinsically tied into the system that are just as random in determining a match's outcome as items--even at high-level play. A definitive decision between two equally skilled players in a match proves that they were not equally skilled in the first place. That should occur regardless of the presence of minor random factors such as items.

I was going to post a long counter-diatribe, but then I realized I was getting ahead of myself and that my personal opinion as to why items should be looked at differs from the reason why they are currently not being banned for EVO.

So I'll make this my last post. EVO is not held to any standards but their own when they make a tournament. (Hint: you people saying 'SRK should provide proof' and 'smashboards should determine SFIV ruleset at EVO' are wasting everbody's time, just about as much as the people saying 'SRK wants to keep items in because they're random'.) They choose to adopt rulesets based on results--not theories, not logical assumptions, not 'what community pushes what ruleset'. The last part only appears to be such because certain large focused communities like Smashboards are where the most discussion and exchange of information regarding official matches and their results take place--so usually those communities have plenty of proof to provide with the ruleset they may or may not recommend.

No, Tekken Zaibatsu doesn't push rulesets for Tekken 6 based on how Tekken 5 played out. DOAC doesn't slap the rules from DOA3 to DOA4 without testing first either. And finally, neither of these communities have a 'right' that they press on the EVO community that isn't solid proof. Smashboards is no exception. Disabling items wholesale, whether you're in favor of it or not, is a huge change to how both Brawl and Melee play. There is definitive proof in Melee to ban items in Melee. It's up to you to find and display that proof in Brawl to the EVO committee if you want items to be banned in Brawl.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top