Can competitive play change?

[peeup]

Lot's of people, particularly Melee fans (for good reason), are already pointing fingers at Smash 4. They say it is too much like Brawl, too this, too that, etc. Not a competitively structured game like Melee was. Well what are the odds the Smash 4 community changes what competitive play is like?

In Brawl, I think having items turned on would have really enhanced competitive play. Glide tossing is a huge tactic that can only be utilized by a very small portion of the cast. But if items were turned on (simple things like smoke ball, Mr. Saturn, Spring, stuff like that) then it could have been more of a universal tech. I obviously can't say for sure that it would make competitive Smash better, but I think it could have.

Well, maybe Smash 4 will have a lot of really cool, not over the top, fair items. Maybe it doesn't have wavedashing, or maybe it's too floaty, or maybe there are no real combos. Then that definition of competition clearly wouldn't work. Why can't it change?

I think something like this would have worked nicely for Brawl, but because people were expecting it to have more of Brawl's mechanics from the get-go, it wasn't possible to make such an abrupt change to the rules. But now that we know what a Smash game can be like, what are the odds that the community will change something about the rules to make it more interesting?

The same goes for something like Heavy Mode, Super Fast Mode, or something, I dunno. Really any change to gameplay that is included in the game itself, i.e. not a hack. Hell, maybe even coin mode. But not really coin mode.

 

[DakotaBonez]

I think people would be cool with items if the same item spawned in the same spot every time and didn't have any random effects. It's the randomness aspect that make the current item mechanics uncompetitive.

 

[peeup]

But if only items get introduced that don't effect gameplay a lot, like the ones I mentioned? According to the law of averages or something, each person would get to use the items to their benefit a roughly equal number of times. And even if one player happens to get a lot of items his way, it's not like that'll give him the match. Some legal stages have a similar thing, the first thing coming to mind being the friendly ghosts in the Yoshi's Island/Story stage (the Brawl one)

 

[smashbrolink]

IMO, only if the attitudes of the competitive scene undergo a bit of change themselves.
I've met too many players that take a loss in a competitive match as a personal insult if any sort of luck was involved in their loss.
It leads to a lot of ugly, ugly arguments, and the banning of items in general, which in turn reduces the variety of match types players can experience during tournaments.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I find that kind of forced limitation over the sake of winning, to be antithesis to what the Smash series, and video games in general competitive or not, was designed to be.

 

[Chauzu]

The stance on items is one of the things where the competetive community is in agreement.

I'd like at least that to stay the same.

 

[SmashChu]

The problem is that, no matter what, there are too many players who refuse to change. The rules are made not for what is best but what people like and don't like. Very likely, the community will be segmented and continue to shrink and they will blame the new game for that.

 

[[Corn]]

Unless items spawned in specific places at set time intervals, items will never be allowed in any serious smash play.

The ruleset isnt meant to decrease fun or whatever people say, its to decrease the luck involved between two players whilst at the same time making it fun to play and watch.

 

[peeup]

The ruleset isnt meant to decrease fun or whatever people say, its to decrease the luck involved between two players whilst at the same time making it fun to play and watch.

Not saying it makes it less fun. I personally don't play with items unless I'm playing with straight up casuals. And even then, I usually make it no items.

But I do think that if Smash 4 continues in Brawl's trend, then it doesn't have a whole lot of hope to be as competitively viable as Melee was and continues to be. Just throwing out an idea that maybe the issue isn't that the game itself can't be properly competitive, but rather our idea of competition doesn't fit with the game as it is, and that something else could work better.

But maybe that's what P:M is for.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

The problem is that, no matter what, there are too many players who refuse to change. The rules are made not for what is best but what people like and don't like. Very likely, the community will be segmented and continue to shrink and they will blame the new game for that.

And what pray tell do you believe is "best" for the competitive community? This wasn't just a few hack-jobs up top saying they don't like items so they should be off, it was a unanimous decision, and if such another opportunity arises to decide to change the direction of competitive play and it leans towards items then so be it, but you are far from being correct.

 

[[Corn]]

Not saying it makes it less fun. I personally don't play with items unless I'm playing with straight up casuals. And even then, I usually make it no items.

But I do think that if Smash 4 continues in Brawl's trend, then it doesn't have a whole lot of hope to be as competitively viable as Melee was and continues to be. Just throwing out an idea that maybe the issue isn't that the game itself can't be properly competitive, but rather our idea of competition doesn't fit with the game as it is, and that something else could work better.

But maybe that's what P:M is for.

If it doesnt have tripping, has a moderately balanced cast of characters, has a good selection of neutral stages, and you arent punished for landing an attack/higher hitstun on some attacks, it will be competitve.

It will be more competitive then brawl based on stuff shown and stuff leaked. Hell no tripping instantly makes it better comp wise.

 

[SmashChu]

Not saying it makes it less fun. I personally don't play with items unless I'm playing with straight up casuals. And even then, I usually make it no items.

But I do think that if Smash 4 continues in Brawl's trend, then it doesn't have a whole lot of hope to be as competitively viable as Melee was and continues to be. Just throwing out an idea that maybe the issue isn't that the game itself can't be properly competitive, but rather our idea of competition doesn't fit with the game as it is, and that something else could work better.

But maybe that's what P:M is for.

If you do what you've done, you'll get what you've gotten.

And what pray tell do you believe is "best" for the competitive community? This wasn't just a few hack-jobs up top saying they don't like items so they should be off, it was a unanimous decision, and if such another opportunity arises to decide to change the direction of competitive play and it leans towards items then so be it, but you are far from being correct.

The community has to expand or die. If it segments again, it will likely not be big enough to keep going.

The world economy isn't good right now. SSB4 will likely sell less than Bralw did and the player base will shrink due to less disposable income and less interest in the Wii U (which is Iwata's fault, though a topic for another time). If Smash shrinks, competitive Smash shrinks. It may or may not happen, but it is definatly possible. Competitive Smash is hurting itself by being segmented between two scenes. The other issue is that Competitive Smash has a huge stigma among Smash fans and the FGC.

The way to grow is to not think about what is best for the players but what is best for the game. What will get more people watching streams? What will get people more excited? Right now, fans of competitive Smash are competitive Smash players. This needs to change. Items are a good talking point because everyone outside of competitive Smash likes items and they get them. This is one way to get people more excited. They are excited over tech skill I can tell you that much. Again, this is one though. But the thing is competitive Smash players need to rethink everything. Banning items and stages before even having them in tournaments for a while will not work. It will just progress the erosion.

 

[peeup]

I'm diggin everything you're saying, Chu. This in particular:

Right now, fans of competitive Smash are competitive Smash players. This needs to change.

How can this possibly change? On the one hand, Brawl had a much shallower learning curve, allowing for people who had little competitive knowledge/experience to try their hand at the scene and get invested in it (what happened to me.) On the other hand, having a game with such a low skill ceiling alienates the Melee'ers, people who put so much time and effort into mastering a game with way more depth and technical skill.

I would say the answer lies in a middle of the ground game, which is what Smash 4 is looking to be. However, I don't know if even that could bridge the gap between the current competitive players and the current casual players who could be interested in a higher level of competition.

 

[[Corn]]

Items are a good talking point because everyone outside of competitive Smash likes items and they get them. This is one way to get people more excited. They are excited over tech skill I can tell you that much. Again, this is one though. But the thing is competitive Smash players need to rethink everything. Banning items and stages before even having them in tournaments for a while will not work. It will just progress the erosion.

Thats completely false, unless by casual you mean plays the game on weekends by themselves with no internet.

Never once have I heard any person who has a beginner level in smash ever argue with, "They increase the luck factor in the game, so we turn them off." The only thing that I have ever known of casuals to complain about is stage counterpicking, especially stages with hazards.
Leaving items on will make people who want to play comp now not want to play and the people who want them are an extreme minority.
I remember when the first brawl and melee tournies had items....It was so stupid and random that people who played serious literally saw that they were on and immediately left.

The ruleset is based on fair play and reducing luck factors, it follows simple guidelines.

-If it is random or game breaking we will either turn it off or reduce its effect. Items fit that role perfectly as they were game changing luck based random drops.
-If a stage gets kills or has multiple hazards that are negative to nearly every character, it is removed from the list. Its not hard to deduce that PokeFloats or Warioware are impossible for serious play.
-If a tactic is an instant win for little effort or is effecting the gameplay negatively, it will either have strict rules or specific things to follow. Peach Wall Stalling, Freeze Glitch, D3 infinite on a few characters, Planking were easy things to root out.

If we wanted to, we could play with low grav bunny hoods with only pokeballs, but noone would want to compete with that.

 

[SmashChu]

I'm diggin everything you're saying, Chu. This in particular:

How can this possibly change? On the one hand, Brawl had a much shallower learning curve, allowing for people who had little competitive knowledge/experience to try their hand at the scene and get invested in it (what happened to me.) On the other hand, having a game with such a low skill ceiling alienates the Melee'ers, people who put so much time and effort into mastering a game with way more depth and technical skill.

I would say the answer lies in a middle of the ground game, which is what Smash 4 is looking to be. However, I don't know if even that could bridge the gap between the current competitive players and the current casual players who could be interested in a higher level of competition.

To a spectator, skill depth means nothing. They care more about interesting plays and the excitement of the match more than "Oh, player X's execution is incredible." Tournament rules are made for the players, not the spectators. Their enjoyment is what needs to be considers more of all. This means doing things competitive players don't want to do. Items is one thing, but not an end all be all.

Really, it comes down to the mentality. The community is too conservative and unwilling to change (or even acknowledge an alternative). That needs to be corrected. The spectator is the focus, not the player.

 

[[Corn]]

To a spectator, skill depth means nothing. They care more about interesting plays and the excitement of the match more than "Oh, player X's execution is incredible." Tournament rules are made for the players, not the spectators. Their enjoyment is what needs to be considers more of all. This means doing things competitive players don't want to do. Items is one thing, but not an end all be all.

Really, it comes down to the mentality. The community is too conservative and unwilling to change (or even acknowledge an alternative). That needs to be corrected. The spectator is the focus, not the player.

If a player is involved enough to want to watch a Smash stream they damn better understand why certain rules are in place. I dont walk into a Hockey game expecting everyone to be sliding around on their stomachs, I walk in and see a sport, get to understand it, and eventually might pick it up.

The casual people you are describing sound like potatoes.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

If you do what you've done, you'll get what you've gotten.



The community has to expand or die. If it segments again, it will likely not be big enough to keep going.

The world economy isn't good right now. SSB4 will likely sell less than Bralw did and the player base will shrink due to less disposable income and less interest in the Wii U (which is Iwata's fault, though a topic for another time). If Smash shrinks, competitive Smash shrinks. It may or may not happen, but it is definatly possible. Competitive Smash is hurting itself by being segmented between two scenes. The other issue is that Competitive Smash has a huge stigma among Smash fans and the FGC.

The way to grow is to not think about what is best for the players but what is best for the game. What will get more people watching streams? What will get people more excited? Right now, fans of competitive Smash are competitive Smash players. This needs to change. Items are a good talking point because everyone outside of competitive Smash likes items and they get them. This is one way to get people more excited. They are excited over tech skill I can tell you that much. Again, this is one though. But the thing is competitive Smash players need to rethink everything. Banning items and stages before even having them in tournaments for a while will not work. It will just progress the erosion.

What?

I can see where you could be concerned, but the position of the United States economy will not affect how this game sales. Disposable income or not, entertainment isn't something that is heavily affected by the recession; especially considering that the average smart phone, or even good seats to a ball game cost significantly more than the price of a Wii U and the game combined. When you speak about the economy as a whole you are speaking about how we, as a country facilitate our expenses. As of late the United States GDP has been steadily increasing in the past 2 years as well as our GDP per capita. In a depression entertainment shines the brightest because it provides a form of escapism to combat the reality of a deficit.


Even though this is hard for you to swallow, it has to be stated; no player who is competing for something that potentially involves money wants to play knowing that any given time a random variable can cause a player to lose unjustly. This wouldn't be an issue if items had something of a controlled spawn rate, or if there was a way of knowing that the item contained an explosive or not, but that isn't the case. While some members on SRK would argue differently since they are accustomed to playing with default settings its still a case of apples and oranges. Also, who the hell cares what SRK thinks? They have nothing to do with our community issues.

This community will not cease to exist if the majority of players acknowledge our presence, as it has thrived in the same way it has been since Smash 64 was released. Sure, we got more players here (thanks to the link of the website on the back of the official Nintendo Super Smash Bros Brawl strategy guide), but it wasn't ground breaking. It was the usual influx of players that followed each smash bros. game release, and its the same thing now. It's hard to believe that this website won't exist, we have 3 (4 if you count project M) different games, and a 5th coming, and if these players decide to part ways then so be it, but your notion that this community will just suddenly vanish is far-fetched, and that is an understatement.

Also, it is very presumptuous to believe that everyone who doesn't play this game competitively likes items. May casual playing acquaintances don't like them, 12 year old brother doesn't use them, however, if i'm not playing in a tournament setting, I use items. You can't speak for everyone's preferences.

What really confuses me is that you have this idea that our community is some sort of complacent totalitarian regime that only wants the thwart any possibility of change, when the reality of the matter is that you can't seem to grasp the concept of how things work in this environment. Do you really believe that not a single player hasn't thought of the concepts of items in competitive play? Do you believe that a programmer hasn't tried to make it work? Everything that happens in this community is actively discussed and taken into consideration. You can play this game any way you want, but having items in the game for ****s and giggles isn't gonna fly with anyone who wants to win by their own means.

 

[GP&B]

I know of several people who have no involvement with the competitive scene but still enjoy playing 1v1 neutral matches. They like the idea of competition and growing as a player but simply never made the steps to entering the scene. I like to call them incubating players as they play under those conditions but are simply not "born" yet.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Basketball is getting decreased ratings. Maybe they should allow fans to throw stuff at the players and have buckets of water randomly spill on the court during the game. Casual watchers don't care about skillful athletic play, they just want to watch something exciting.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Basketball is getting decreased ratings. Maybe they should allow fans to throw stuff at the players and have buckets of water randomly spill on the court during the game. Casual watchers don't care about skillful athletic play, they just want to watch something exciting.

"Dwyane Wade pushing for the lay-up...OOOH!...he gets hit by a medicine ball! Too bad folks"

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

"Dwyane Wade pushing for the lay-up...OOOH!...he gets hit by a medicine ball! Too bad folks"

Okay, I MIGHT start watching basketball if that occurs more often... XD

 

[[Corn]]

While I do enjoy these analogies, I think we should wait for a counter retort or something.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

 

[etecoon]

The problem is that, no matter what, there are too many players who refuse to change. The rules are made not for what is best but what people like and don't like.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, people don't like it = the game dies. There's a reason people have been abandoning Brawl in droves, and there is no amount of gimmicky rule changes like adding items that was going to change it. The game has to be good, everything else will take care of itself if the game is actually good.

 

[Mithost]

Brawl is a really entertaining, balanced, and fast game if you play 1 Stock 3 Minute Timer. Concentrate 2 did it and it was one of my favourite Smash tourneys I've ever watched. Too bad that people are against the change though.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, people don't like it = the game dies. There's a reason people have been abandoning Brawl in droves, and there is no amount of gimmicky rule changes like adding items that was going to change it. The game has to be good, everything else will take care of itself if the game is actually good.

I think the point he was making was that Brawl is actually a good game with certain items turned on. Which is true. Planking becomes, universally, a non-issue. More characters than just Diddy can utilize glide tossing. Stage control becomes a tested skill. Playing super defensively is harder (in most cases) and many items make approaching and playing aggressively more viable in more situations. A lot of Brawl's mechanical issues become either toned down or eliminated by adding just some basic items.

The problem that I, personally, see with the traditional arguments for keeping items off is that they don't really apply to Brawl. Remember, items were removed in Melee for one reason, really, if you get right down to it: one player got lucked out of a Grand Finals win due to a exploding box spawn. Really, that was it. West coast was actually pretty ok for a LONG time with having randomness in the game. That one event really turned the tide, and even then it wasn't as universal as people make it out to be on the boards nowadays. There was still contention.

Even if you look at fighters from the greater FGC, randomness is not viewed as intrinsically bad; like anything else, context is important. Randomness can be good, depending on the game and the context. How a game is random is incredibly significant to the determination of whether it is acceptable or not. All of the real issues that items had (NOT spawn location, but rather amount of effect on a match) were solved in Brawl by allowing us to turn off containers. As the ISP thread clearly proved, it was non-trivial but simple to make a ruleset that only allowed items that wouldn't cause someone to lose a GF match unless they were already less skilled. In that context, and especially considering the amount of mechanical good they could have done, there was actually little serious reason to keep items off, besides just sheer preference.

But, as the OP is saying, we need to change our community outlook to really make ourselves great again. We can't just be closeminded for the sake of stopping change. Melee is now going to be 2 generations removed. Whatever rationale we had for doing something in Melee, I'm sorry to say, probably won't apply to SSB4. It's been too long and the game would have changed too much. We have to be open to changing not only the game but our definition of what a good SSB game is, in addition to allowing ourselves to like something different. If we don't change with the game, bad things will happen.

 

[Mithost]

I've tried items before in Brawl. Containers, non-smartbomb explosives, Bumpers, and smashballs/trophies/pokeballs are really the only game enders. The rest of the items provide enough fuel to keep offensive play going.

 

[[Corn]]

But, as the OP is saying, we need to change our community outlook to really make ourselves great again. We can't just be closeminded for the sake of stopping change. Melee is now going to be 2 generations removed. Whatever rationale we had for doing something in Melee, I'm sorry to say, probably won't apply to SSB4. It's been too long and the game would have changed too much. We have to be open to changing not only the game but our definition of what a good SSB game is, in addition to allowing ourselves to like something different. If we don't change with the game, bad things will happen.

Of course if we dont change a bit to suit the new game bad things will happen, but if we change to much it will be terrible as well. You cant have a scene for a game if the game has no competetive ruleset, you cant have players for said game if the ruleset doesnt try to completely encourage skill., and you cant have skill reign if stuff that severely impacts gameplay is random.

Items in smash have always been random gamechanging things, stuff that isnt liked or encouraged for a comp community to grow. Its safe to say that they will function exactly the same as in the other 3 games.


Also, Brawl would be horrible with just certain items on.
-Meta Knight with projectiles to make him even safer
-IC would have instant desycs with fast projectiles and the ability to hold 2 at once
-Planking wouldnt change at all, whatcha gonna do throw a smoke ball at him?

When 64 came out, items were tested and proven to reduce skill level and increase the randomness. Turned em off and had a scene.
When Melee came out, items were tried again and had the same results. The concept from 64 didnt change and people who had played 64 before had no idea what the fuss was about. People wtfed at the stupidity of players for not understanding that rules that encourage skill were encouraged.
When Brawl came out items were tried and completely broken. The concept from 64 didnt change exept for the inclusion of the smash ball, which broke the entire game. People wtfed at why items werent off like in the previous 2 smash games and turned em off.


See, this is a cycle of dissapointment. Items were proven to be perfect in the casual community for random wacky gameplay. Items were detriment to comp and havnt changed at all over the years.

We have players who have never played for money or anything important engaging in a competitive ruleset discussion, thats unacceptable.

 

[Jack Kieser]

You really have no idea who I am, do you?

 

[-DR3W-]

Who ya are don't matter if you aint ****

 

[[Corn]]

You really have no idea who I am, do you?

It doesnt matter if Im not reffering to anyone specifically.

Tell me that a large majority of smash players who understand and encourage the growth of all three games as well has having some comp experience want specific items on.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Who ya are don't matter if you aint ****

Burned.

 

[SmashChu]

What?

I can see where you could be concerned, but the position of the United States economy will not affect how this game sales. Disposable income or not, entertainment isn't something that is heavily affected by the recession; especially considering that the average smart phone, or even good seats to a ball game cost significantly more than the price of a Wii U and the game combined. When you speak about the economy as a whole you are speaking about how we, as a country facilitate our expenses. As of late the United States GDP has been steadily increasing in the past 2 years as well as our GDP per capita. In a depression entertainment shines the brightest because it provides a form of escapism to combat the reality of a deficit.


Even though this is hard for you to swallow, it has to be stated; no player who is competing for something that potentially involves money wants to play knowing that any given time a random variable can cause a player to lose unjustly. This wouldn't be an issue if items had something of a controlled spawn rate, or if there was a way of knowing that the item contained an explosive or not, but that isn't the case. While some members on SRK would argue differently since they are accustomed to playing with default settings its still a case of apples and oranges. Also, who the hell cares what SRK thinks? They have nothing to do with our community issues.

This community will not cease to exist if the majority of players acknowledge our presence, as it has thrived in the same way it has been since Smash 64 was released. Sure, we got more players here (thanks to the link of the website on the back of the official Nintendo Super Smash Bros Brawl strategy guide), but it wasn't ground breaking. It was the usual influx of players that followed each smash bros. game release, and its the same thing now. It's hard to believe that this website won't exist, we have 3 (4 if you count project M) different games, and a 5th coming, and if these players decide to part ways then so be it, but your notion that this community will just suddenly vanish is far-fetched, and that is an understatement.

Also, it is very presumptuous to believe that everyone who doesn't play this game competitively likes items. May casual playing acquaintances don't like them, 12 year old brother doesn't use them, however, if i'm not playing in a tournament setting, I use items. You can't speak for everyone's preferences.

What really confuses me is that you have this idea that our community is some sort of complacent totalitarian regime that only wants the thwart any possibility of change, when the reality of the matter is that you can't seem to grasp the concept of how things work in this environment. Do you really believe that not a single player hasn't thought of the concepts of items in competitive play? Do you believe that a programmer hasn't tried to make it work? Everything that happens in this community is actively discussed and taken into consideration. You can play this game any way you want, but having items in the game for ****s and giggles isn't gonna fly with anyone who wants to win by their own means.

If a player is involved enough to want to watch a Smash stream they damn better understand why certain rules are in place. I dont walk into a Hockey game expecting everyone to be sliding around on their stomachs, I walk in and see a sport, get to understand it, and eventually might pick it up.

The casual people you are describing sound like potatoes.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, people don't like it = the game dies. There's a reason people have been abandoning Brawl in droves, and there is no amount of gimmicky rule changes like adding items that was going to change it. The game has to be good, everything else will take care of itself if the game is actually good.

To answer your question Peeup. The answer is no.

 

[_R@bid_]

I doubt adding items in would make competitive play any more exciting for casuals to watch. Seeing someone about to win fairly, and then get screwed over by an item placement will only disappoint them, not make them more hyped. Randomness is not that fun to watch, with a few exceptions,G&W hammer among them. Believe me, as one of the casuals that does watch competitive play, I would hate having to see items screwing up play.

 

[Vulpine51]

Been a while since I've been on this site, came on to see what the community looks like these days.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but a real competitive match is purely player v player. What drew my friends and I to competitive play was the game's allowance for us to develop real skills, unique fighting styles, and use them to win matches. From what I've read it seems that items need to be added to a Brawl match to make it competitive. Doesn't this seem like a step backwards? We had everything we needed before without items.

The problem here isn't competitive players, it's the game developer. Brawl just felt boring, restrictive, and barely competitive. I wish it were different and I would be the first person to buy Smash 4 if I saw things were going to be better. But I wont hold my breath, and I sure as hell wouldn't feel motivated to practice if I knew I could lose by a mere unlucky item spawn.

Times have changed and this is the direction the game is headed. I'm just sad it isn't the direction we all hoped with would have been. Melee may be two generations old, but you have to admit, it truly was the greatest generation. Here's hoping for a U-turn.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

To answer your question Peeup. The answer is no.

The same answer could be applied if the question was "Can you be reasoned with?".

 

[Jack Kieser]

It doesnt matter if Im not reffering to anyone specifically.

Tell me that a large majority of smash players who understand and encourage the growth of all three games as well has having some comp experience want specific items on.

I'm sorry, I try to be civil, but this is a really dense response. First of all, if you knew who I was, you'd know why the arguments you used don't actually hold any water. It's not that I don't agree with them; it's that they are just bad arguments.

Second, I couldn't care less who does or does not want items on. The statement "items are competitively invalid" is a boolean statement with a true or false value, but that value is also a function of the context of the question. What I was trying to get you to understand (unsuccessfully, apparently) is that when you make a statement like that, not only are you WOEFULLY underinformed, but you are asking it in the context of Brawl, specifically, in which case you're also simply factually incorrect. In Brawl, all-Brawl is a bad idea. A restricted list of items (about 10-15 total, but there's some wiggle room) has been tested and proven to improve the game's depth and number of viable options.

So, deary, when I post this, what you're supposed to get out of it is that when people (like you) are saying "items are bad for Brawl", you're not saying it with any actual proof behind you. You're saying it with Melee theorycraft backing you up. Because, at the end of the day, you're not actually saying that items are bad for Brawl. You're saying you don't like them, and trying to trick others into thinking that they are factually uncompetitive with rhetoric.

Don't do that. It doesn't fly.

@-DR3W- : Is that supposed to make me feel something? I don't claim to be a big person, or even influential. I'm just a guy. But, there ARE people who know me on these boards, even a few I've met at events, and they know not to use bad arguments like that on me. So, if you were trying to make me feel bad or something, it didn't work. -_-

 

[[Corn]]

I'm sorry, I try to be civil, but this is a really dense response. First of all, if you knew who I was, you'd know why the arguments you used don't actually hold any water. It's not that I don't agree with them; it's that they are just bad arguments.

Second, I couldn't care less who does or does not want items on. The statement "items are competitively invalid" is a boolean statement with a true or false value, but that value is also a function of the context of the question. What I was trying to get you to understand (unsuccessfully, apparently) is that when you make a statement like that, not only are you WOEFULLY underinformed, but you are asking it in the context of Brawl, specifically, in which case you're also simply factually incorrect. In Brawl, all-Brawl is a bad idea. A restricted list of items (about 10-15 total, but there's some wiggle room) has been tested and proven to improve the game's depth and number of viable options.

So, deary, when I post this, what you're supposed to get out of it is that when people (like you) are saying "items are bad for Brawl", you're not saying it with any actual proof behind you. You're saying it with Melee theorycraft backing you up. Because, at the end of the day, you're not actually saying that items are bad for Brawl. You're saying you don't like them, and trying to trick others into thinking that they are factually uncompetitive with rhetoric.

Don't do that. It doesn't fly.

I am a primary Brawl player, never once have I ever heard/seen proof of them either keeping or increasing the games skill level whilst at the same time adding depth. If you could provide proof of your arguments as well it would be very nice. I would love to have an example of the other side of this argument. Heck, even a list of the items you keep mentioning would stir a discussion.

You are wrong thinking that the statement, "items are competitively invalid" is my opinion. My opinion is "Things that have uncontrollable factors of randomness should not be included".

I dont care who you are or how long you have been playing. What I care about is things that hurt player vs player or discourage people from wanting to become part of the comp scene.

 

[Jack Kieser]

http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

You now have many, many pages of homework to do.

Your opinion, properly stated and based off of your posts, is "Because things that have uncontrollable factors of randomness should not be included, items are competitively invalid" (and in this context, "competitively invalid" == having no redeeming qualities for consideration in competition). Which is still wrong, because the first part, that "things that have uncontrollable factors of randomness should not be included", is also wrong, because as I said before, it ignores context. You don't see SF players complaining when moves do variable damage (and yes, some SF games have variable damage moves that are either slightly random or are hard / impossible to perfectly control the damage amount consistently). Random =/= bad. That's the whole point that you're ignoring out of convenience because it's easier to ignore context.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Ya know what really pisses me off?

Because Brawl isn't considered a 'competitive' game by many, it's instantly bad. Screw you, I enjoyed it! Just because it's not good for tournament play with your restrictive rules and your waveshining and your Q-cancelling doesn't mean it's terrible! Back in my day...(continues to rant in old man voice.)

But seriously. Just because it's not a "Competitive" game doesn't automatically make it a bad game.

 

[GP&B]

Quick question on the variable moves thing: In the SF games that did include this, was this present on every move or only select moves?