Can we talk before we try to make a ruleset for this game?

[Chiroz]

No chain grabs? Walf offs may not be as big an issue anymore.

What about over-centralization of the strategies/meta-game on those specific stages? (Which has been proven to happen).



The thing is, you say that most people who argue against liberal stages choose to bash the other side, but as I have seen from the recent days, most of the time both sides ignore each other and don't even listen to what the other side has to say.

I must admit it is quite amusing seeing people who complain about bias and then go ahead and "like" the posts written by people who agree with their side of the argument only to later on go ahead and then almost literally quote what was being said by the other side of the argument stating that that should be the only reason which is warrant of a ban.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Items will always be banned as long as both item spawning times and item spawning location is random and instantaneous.

And it should be. The only Item that I can think of that does nothing is the smoke ball and it's just a distraction.

 

[LiteralGrill]

O

One of the reasons was removed, not the rest.

Testing doesn't hurt. Go for it. But you're going to need participants in your tournament to test for it, and if you can't convince people of your position then that will be hard to come by.

ISP actually still has tournaments running with it, even I was surprised there but there is. If testing does not hurt though, test it. Prove it's a problem, ban it. If it's that obvious something would be a problem it should be banned VERY quickly and not effect too many people poorly.

 

[LiteralGrill]

What about over-centralization of the strategies/meta-game on those specific stages? (Which has been proven to happen).



The thing is, you say that most people who argue against liberal stages choose to bash the other side, but as I have seen from the recent days, most of the time both sides ignore each other and don't even listen to what the other side has to say.

I must admit it is quite amusing seeing people who complain about bias and then go ahead and "like" the posts written by people who agree with their side of the argument only to later on go ahead and then almost literally quote what was being said by the other side of the argument stating that that should be the only reason which is warrant of a ban.

May was a keyword. and depending on how you feel Cars on Onett and it's unique sshape actually solved that problem. I'm still unsure, but there's barely any info or footage to look at to make a good decision, it was never given a chance.

Your second paragraph though is VERY true. It may not seem like it, but I'm very willing to listen, I may like posts I agree with, but if I was seriously proven wrong on some things, I'd go back and unlike them and I mean that.

 

[IhaveSonar]

The vast majority of people interested in tournaments view themselves as competitive players; competitive players wish to determine who is the best by contests of skill.

Items, assuming they still follow the mechanics of random spawning, add an inordinate amount of luck to the game, so much that they ruin fair competition in the eyes of most tourneygoers.

Therefore, unless item mechanics are drastically altered, Sm4sh tournaments shall run with all items banned. This is not due to some "Melee" or "Brawl" mindset, as the OP claimed- it is due to the players choosing to minimize all factors of luck, as the game options allow us to do.

Tournaments with items could certainly be run, but the odds are that the best, most competitive players will choose not to attend.

 

[Chiroz]

May was a keyword. and depending on how you feel Cars on Onett and it's unique sshape actually solved that problem. I'm still unsure, but there's barely any info or footage to look at to make a good decision, it was never given a chance.

Your second paragraph though is VERY true. It may not seem like it, but I'm very willing to listen, I may like posts I agree with, but if I was seriously proven wrong on some things, I'd go back and unlike them and I mean that.

You are one of the few that does try and listen.

Quite honestly I am not taking sides in this debate, My position is mostly that we should tests these things only but that we should keep a sort of "skepticism" about the things that we are testing instead of having this "everything-goes" mentality and just pretending like the previous games never happened. (But that is just my opinion)

Over-centralization of strategies is what I believe will get stages like RC (Moving cameras that force you into positions)/Walk-Offs/Gigantic Stages banned as having a completely optimal strategy on any one stage will just become stale and cause major headaches on regulations. It would honestly become a game I wouldn't want to play.

I tried to voice my opinion on the other thread stating that these stages (I was talking specifically of RC/Walk-Offs and Gigantic Stages) would probably cause an over-centralization of strategies and cause a major shift of the metagame in a direction which is not the one the community desires, but as soon as I used the word "desire" it's like any other reason or post I made was thrown out the board. Even after I proved that every rule we have in place is actually created to move us in a direction (at least on theory, sometimes a rule has repercussions that were not foreseen and they drive us further away from the direction it was created to pursue) and that this direction always has to do with what we as a community desire.

I think we need to open our ears and listen more carefully. We all have our opinions, but for now, the game isn't even out and everything we have is opinions based on past events, nothing is actually solid proof.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You are one of the few that does try and listen.

Quite honestly I am not taking sides in this debate, My position is mostly that we should tests these things only but that we should keep a sort of "skepticism" about the things that we are testing instead of having this "everything-goes" mentality and just pretending like the previous games never happened. (But that is just my opinion)

Over-centralization of strategies is what I believe will get stages like RC (Moving cameras that force you into positions)/Walk-Offs/Gigantic Stages banned as having a completely optimal strategy on any one stage will just become stale and cause major headaches on regulations. It would honestly become a game I wouldn't want to play.

I tried to voice my opinion on the other thread stating that these stages (I was talking specifically of RC/Walk-Offs and Gigantic Stages) would probably cause an over-centralization of strategies and cause a major shift of the metagame in a direction which is not the one the community desires, but as soon as I used the word "desire" it's like any other reason or post I made was thrown out the board. Even after I proved that every rule we have in place is actually created to move us in a direction (at least on theory, sometimes a rule has repercussions that were not foreseen and they drive us further away from the direction it was created to pursue) and that this direction always has to do with what we as a community desire.

I think we need to open our ears and listen more carefully. We all have our opinions, but for now, the game isn't even out and everything we have is opinions based on past events, nothing is actually solid proof.

Now you get a like

Let me see if OS still has data he used to on RC, data actually suggested the stage never was THAT polarizing as hard as it was for me to believe. He just showed that FD is more polarizing then Norfair, also a mind blower. Testing DEFINITELY is needed, as things like this you'd never see on the surface.

 

[Chiroz]

Now you get a like

Let me see if OS still has data he used to on RC, data actually suggested the stage never was THAT polarizing as hard as it was for me to believe. He just showed that FD is more polarizing then Norfair, also a mind blower. Testing DEFINITELY is needed, as things like this you'd never see on the surface.

The thing about these tests though, is that its years and years of an exaggerated amount of games on FD vs many, many less games on stages like RC or Norfair.

For me this information is completely biased based as I do not know if the people playing on these stages were actually adept at actually playing on them while I am pretty sure that people are already very experienced at playing on FD just because of the sheer number of matches played there (I know this sounds a bit illogical and biased of my part, and I know that until we decide as a community to actually test these stages then this situation will always be true and I am sorry about that.).

Now speaking of stages like RC, (I don't have much info on Norfair so I cannot discuss it with you because I do not like to discuss things without actual knowledge about what I am speaking) an actual logical way of showing me how it isn't over centralizing in the metagame is giving me several different optimal strategies on the stage that are viable.

For now I myself believe that there are only 2 optimal strategies. Picking a character with superior mobility and just camping the whole match waiting for the stage to reach a transition that gives you completely free, no-risk hits or pick a character with great priority and speed on his aerials and then camp and wait to fight your opponents on the parts of the stage where getting 1 hit means serious problems for him (or you).

If you can prove to me that there are strategies that can beat both of these strategies (hopefully without involving a camp and wait strategy) when played right I will admit that my "fear" is completely unwarranted.

OS only speaks of tier lists, he doesn't actually think of how limiting these stages are in terms of actual gameplay (strategies) which is what I was discussing all along. All his information is about if the tier list stays the same or if there is an overcentralization of a single character, he doesn't look at the actual metagame in any of his posts. (At least the ones in the last 2 weeks, I haven't read the previous years like you have so I might be missing information).

I don't care about wether Olimar is top or Yoshi is.

I do care though if the game becomes all about camping on a ledge and avoiding combat for 30 seconds to 2 minutes for that one free hit the stage gives you and then going back to avoiding again in a repetitive cycle until you get a stock and then time out the opponent. (And I bet many people do too)

 

[LiteralGrill]

The thing about these tests though, is that its years and years of an exaggerated amount of games on FD vs many, many less games on stages like RC or Norfair.

For me this information is completely biased based as I do not know if the people playing on these stages were actually adept at actually playing on them while I am pretty sure that people are already very experienced at playing on FD just because of the sheer number of matches played there (I know this sounds a bit illogical and biased of my part, and I know that until we decide as a community to actually test these stages then this situation will always be true and I am sorry about that.).

Now speaking of stages like RC, (I don't have much info on Norfair so I cannot discuss it with you because I do not like to discuss things without actual knowledge about what I am speaking) an actual logical way of showing me how it isn't over centralizing in the metagame is giving me several different optimal strategies on the stage that are viable.

For now I myself believe that there are only 2 optimal strategies. Picking a character with superior mobility and just camping the whole match waiting for the stage to reach a transition that gives you completely free, no-risk hits or pick a character with great priority and speed on his aerials and then camp and wait to fight your opponents on the parts of the stage where getting 1 hit means serious problems for him (or you).

If you can prove to me that there are strategies that can beat both of these strategies (hopefully without involving a camp and wait strategy) when played right I will admit that my "fear" is completely unwarranted.

OS only speaks of tier lists, he doesn't actually think of how limiting these stages are in terms of actual gameplay (strategies) which is what I was discussing all along. All his information is about if the tier list stays the same or if there is an overcentralization of a single character, he doesn't look at the actual metagame in any of his posts. (At least the ones in the last 2 weeks, I haven't read the previous years like you have so I might be missing information).

I don't care about wether Olimar is top or Yoshi is.

I do care though if the game becomes all about camping on a ledge and avoiding combat for 30 seconds to 2 minutes for that one free hit the stage gives you and then going back to avoiding again. (And I bet many people do too)

But that is where the data is so helpful! If a strategy like only ledge camp was viable on a stage, that character would be showing polar matchups on that stage. If running away to camp and hope to get a lucky hit were the case on RC, characters that could do that would be polarizing in the data because they'd be doing it.

RC isn't easy, I've wondered on the stage myself. I play character with a lot of mobility most of the time though, so I may be biased. However, at one point I played Pokemon Trainer a lot (recently been picking him up again) and had to try and deal with being Ivysaur on that stage. It was the bane of my existence for quite a while, but there are random ledges you can grab and little things here and there were random moves come in handy. It's definitely a counter to me in a way, but it's not unwinable. You main ICs, god have mercy on your soul. I could see why it does look so horrible from your perspective because for ICs it is. I don't know the character enough to come up with things. I could attempt to maybe with a ton of IC study though, though I doubt it would make things that much better for them, it's a tough stage for them, but the tteeam isn't super adaptable at times so it's not surprising.

 

[Chiroz]

But that is where the data is so helpful! If a strategy like only ledge camp was viable on a stage, that character would be showing polar matchups on that stage. If running away to camp and hope to get a lucky hit were the case on RC, characters that could do that would be polarizing in the data because they'd be doing it.

RC isn't easy, I've wondered on the stage myself. I play character with a lot of mobility most of the time though, so I may be biased. However, at one point I played Pokemon Trainer a lot (recently been picking him up again) and had to try and deal with being Ivysaur on that stage. It was the bane of my existence for quite a while, but there are random ledges you can grab and little things here and there were random moves come in handy. It's definitely a counter to me in a way, but it's not unwinable. You main ICs, god have mercy on your soul. I could see why it does look so horrible from your perspective because for ICs it is. I don't know the character enough to come up with things. I could attempt to maybe with a ton of IC study though, though I doubt it would make things that much better for them, it's a tough stage for them, but the tteeam isn't super adaptable at times so it's not surprising.

IC synched perfect Side-B is much better than anything PT has to recover quite honestly, but that isn't the problem.

You were playing against people not abusing the stage. It isn't that the stage will kill you on its own, it's that the opponent can wait for an specific transition that has only one ledge and forces you to double jump. If your opponent has better mobility he will reach that part first and then just wait for you to have to reach it and now what? What exactly can you do?

Well you can time your second jump correctly to try and evade your opponent. You could also try to Up-B counter his approach (depending on your character)or you could try to airdodge past him, all valid strategies (doing an aerial will probably outright kill you unless you are using a character with an awesome Up-B or an incredibly fast aerial). But your opponent can just start avoiding you again and wait for this situation to come up again, and then the game becomes a series of repetition of this one choice, over and over again. Even if you manage to win through small mistakes made by the camper, it will still be a very stale and boring game and the whole reason you won is because he played poorly.

For reference look up the Brood vs M2K game where M2K did a horrible job at camping (he had his timing all wrong on the approaches, he kept attacking when he should have waited and he let opportunities go by that would have probably meant 1-2 hits, but he is very good at ledge camping, I got to give him that) and even so he still won.




As for OS, if the data you are referencing is the one posted on the other thread there aren't really any matchup datas. All he looks at is character usage on certain stages. Sure you can derive to a certain extent just how well a character might do on a certain stage depending on how many people pick said stage for said character, but how do you know if MK just completely obliterates Wolf on Norfair without an actual win ratio of Wolf vs MK on Norfair or a in depth analysis of the gameplay on the stage.

Anyways I believe the reason most of those stages aren't as polarizing in that data is because he has a grand total of 57 games on RC while he has 550 on FD. Most people who are taken to RC have no idea of how to play on it which also skews data away from the actual optimal gameplay.

Honestly I don't care if a character does bad on a certain stage or not or if a stage causes different, new strategies to be analyzed and executed. What I don't like is a stage where the one and only optimal strategy against more than 2/3 of the cast is just running away and not fighting.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You were playing against people not abusing the stage. It isn't that the stage will kill you on its own, it's that the opponent can wait for an specific transition that has only one ledge and forces you to double jump. If your opponent has better mobility he will reach that part first and then just wait for you to have to reach it and now what? What exactly can you do?

Anyways I believe the reason most of those stages aren't as polarizing in that data is because he has a grand total of 57 games on RC while he has 550 on FD. Most people who are taken to RC have no idea of how to play on it which also skews data away from the actual optimal gameplay.

Honestly I don't care if a character does bad on a certain stage or not or if a stage causes different, new strategies to be analyzed and executed. What I don't like is a stage where the one and only optimal strategy against more than 2/3 of the cast is just running away and not fighting.

I quote this part because this is where the truth really shows. People don't actually know the stage, yet it was banned. With seriously thorough testing and tons of games by the best players in the game that we can film and show to people you finally have something to show! If people watched a bunch of respected players do an RC only tournament after training on the stage for a good while and it was terrifying to watch for how centralizing it was, NO ONE could argue against it being banned. 57 on RC vs 550 on FD can't do that, but for now it's what we have to look at.

People who want stages legal have often been told to go play people on those stages and see how getting played "gay" against feels. A lot of times (not all, but a lot) the player says "I'll do it, who will play me?" A great deal of times, they don't even get a volunteer, or when a "gay stage tournament" is held which has happened quite a bit, or when players get encouraged to break the stage and choose it as much as possible to prove it's a problem, they either don't, or try to and can't actually make it the problem they said it was.

I actually was originally very much more conservative in stages, not too much but I would have knocked off RC or Norfair pretty quickly myself. But I had to dig deep and really look at things, and I found tons of times things got banned without evidence or maybe even made up evidence! Norfair orginally finally started a huge movement for banning because of a JIGGLYPUFF match (I kid you not) on the stage that never managed to be shown even existed. That match changed the tiny mublings into loud rumblings, and it may never have even happened.

Now, if there is serious evidence to look at that could be pier tested, I'd ban any stage you ask me to because I could try and copy the game breaking tactic, and either personally see the way around it, or realize it was broken and move to ban. It just doesn't happen that way though, compromise isn't even a solution it seems either.

I bet if conservative players said "Okay, we get you want some of these stages legal, but some some are just WAY to jacked up to us." and liberals said "We understand, but would you consider adding in these few stages that are seriously borderline to give them a real chance?" we could get somewhere. I may not be playing on Greens Greens or something, but hey, Jungle Japes is on the list! Both sides could accept that.

 

[Chiroz]

I quote this part because this is where the truth really shows. People don't actually know the stage, yet it was banned. With seriously thorough testing and tons of games by the best players in the game that we can film and show to people you finally have something to show! If people watched a bunch of respected players do an RC only tournament after training on the stage for a good while and it was terrifying to watch for how centralizing it was, NO ONE could argue against it being banned. 57 on RC vs 550 on FD can't do that, but for now it's what we have to look at.

People who want stages legal have often been told to go play people on those stages and see how getting played "gay" against feels. A lot of times (not all, but a lot) the player says "I'll do it, who will play me?" A great deal of times, they don't even get a volunteer, or when a "gay stage tournament" is held which has happened quite a bit, or when players get encouraged to break the stage and choose it as much as possible to prove it's a problem, they either don't, or try to and can't actually make it the problem they said it was.

I actually was originally very much more conservative in stages, not too much but I would have knocked off RC or Norfair pretty quickly myself. But I had to dig deep and really look at things, and I found tons of times things got banned without evidence or maybe even made up evidence! Norfair orginally finally started a huge movement for banning because of a JIGGLYPUFF match (I kid you not) on the stage that never managed to be shown even existed. That match changed the tiny mublings into loud rumblings, and it may never have even happened.

Now, if there is serious evidence to look at that could be pier tested, I'd ban any stage you ask me to because I could try and copy the game breaking tactic, and either personally see the way around it, or realize it was broken and move to ban. It just doesn't happen that way though, compromise isn't even a solution it seems either.

I bet if conservative players said "Okay, we get you want some of these stages legal, but some some are just WAY to jacked up to us." and liberals said "We understand, but would you consider adding in these few stages that are seriously borderline to give them a real chance?" we could get somewhere. I may not be playing on Greens Greens or something, but hey, Jungle Japes is on the list! Both sides could accept that.

That is all true, which is why I am not against testing stages.

My argument was never about whether stages should be tested or not, it was more along the lines that "having stale gameplay", specially when it is the only optimal stategy on that stage, (obviously this is something that should be proven by testing) should be a valid reason for banning a stage, even if it has no random elements.

Saying that out loud it sounds like a really stupid argument on my part, but honestly if we have many stages were the optimal gameplay is stale and boring then the metagame will slowly shift to adapt to this type of gameplay, thus making the game unbearable to play or to watch. If that happens then you can rest assured most people will slowly lose interest in the game and the community will lose strength.


Edit: It is good to note that some aspects of the game will not change though.

We already know stages like Hyrule Castle or New Pork City cause this type of stale, boring gameplay, where one player gets a stock lead and then runs all around the stage until a time out. So why not ban any stage that is proven to have the same fault these stages have (a gigantic stage which loops) since we already know how these stages work out on a competitive basis.

 

[eshu125]

What kind of competitive community promotes RNG? I don't understand how items in a competitive scenario is even up for debate.

 

[LiteralGrill]

That is all true, which is why I am not against testing stages.

My argument was never about whether stages should be tested or not, it was more along the lines that "having stale gameplay", specially when it is the only optimal stategy on that stage, (obviously this is something that should be proven by testing) should be a valid reason for banning a stage, even if it has no random elements.

Saying that out loud it sounds like a really stupid argument on my part, but honestly if we have many stages were the optimal gameplay is stale and boring then the metagame will slowly shift to adapt to this type of gameplay, thus making the game unbearable to play or to watch. If that happens then you can rest assured most people will slowly lose interest in the game and the community will lose strength.

It's not stupid, it's why Temple and 75M are banned. I really don't like how people are actually AGAINST testing some stages that may look iffy, it's good to see you can agree with me testing is at least needed. We're cool

 

[Chiroz]

It's not stupid, it's why Temple and 75M are banned. I really don't like how people are actually AGAINST testing some stages that may look iffy, it's good to see you can agree with me testing is at least needed. We're cool

Testing is inherently needed to counteract things I've said myself.

For all I know, there could be a section on RC where if pressured, it is impossible for any character to camp effectively and camping might prove to have more negative effects than beneficial thus killing the strategies I currently believe to be optimal, yet we would not be able to tell that until there has been some testing on the stage.

Unfortunately I have not been present for many years of Smash and I was never part of the North American community, being from the Caribbean we had our own ruleset and such (RC for example was legal at the beginning there too and I used to practice a lot on all legal stages so I have a but of experience on it. Norfair was never legal for example which is why I almost never played on it and have no information on it. I don't know how the ruleset is on the present day though), so I do not know the extent of the testing that was done on said stages, all I can attest to is my own experience on the stages.


Edit: I now live in Los Angeles which is why I am getting into this arguments this time around, as I am now part of the North American community.

 

[Ulevo]

What kind of competitive community promotes RNG? I don't understand how items in a competitive scenario is even up for debate.

 

[LiteralGrill]

What kind of competitive community promotes RNG? I don't understand how items in a competitive scenario is even up for debate.

I don't personally do the advocating, but other then ISP, many people had strong theory that glide tossing and items could have solved many problems Brawl had and possibly boosted attendance of events. We obviously can never know, but it's worth testing them just in case.

 

[nat pagle]

Are we still debating whether items should be on or off in respectable tournaments?

I don't personally do the advocating, but other then ISP, many people had strong theory that glide tossing and items could have solved many problems Brawl had and possibly boosted attendance of events. We obviously can never know, but it's worth testing them just in case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFx0-Zkn54

Clearly a game of skill there.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Are we still debating whether items should be on or off in respectable tournaments?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFx0-Zkn54

Clearly a game of skill there.

Now do you have one for Brawl? The examples people argued for were with Brawl's items. Again, not MY thing but playing devil's advocate I have to ask.

 

[nat pagle]

Now do you have one for Brawl? The examples people argued for were with Brawl's items. Again, not MY thing but playing devil's advocate I have to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UKpl9VbPBM

You tell me that's serious. M2K practically did 100% damage using a fan.

 

[LiteralGrill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UKpl9VbPBM

You tell me that's serious. M2K practically did 100% damage using a fan.

Devil's advocate now says, find one using ISP:

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

Fan's are banned in ISP, as well as containers if I remember correctly. That match is definately what most items users would promote.

 

[nat pagle]

Devil's advocate now says, find one using ISP:

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

Fan's are banned in ISP, as well as containers if I remember correctly. That match is definately what most items users would promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgHcPueW20

Even with the restrictions on the items, it can still benefit or hurt people based on randomness. For example, you hit DK off the stage. He's about to recover. Lo and behold, a lipstick spawns near you. You chuck it at him and DK loses a stock because there's no answer to it.

I just can't believe that a tournament would be legitimately decided in some cases by an item spawning in someone's favor and that winning them the match. Not to mention all the potentially ridiculous occurrences that could happen like in the video I posted.

 

[LiteralGrill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgHcPueW20

Even with the restrictions on the items, it can still benefit or hurt people based on randomness. For example, you hit DK off the stage. He's about to recover. Lo and behold, a lipstick spawns near you. You chuck it at him and DK loses a stock because there's no answer to it.

I just can't believe that a tournament would be legitimately decided in some cases by an item spawning in someone's favor and that winning them the match. Not to mention all the potentially ridiculous occurrences that could happen like in the video I posted.

That would be a very good argument to look at, as I'm only playing devil's advocate at this point, you gotta find an ISP expert now.

 

[nat pagle]

That would be a very good argument to look at, as I'm only playing devil's advocate at this point, you gotta find an ISP expert now.

Let's be lazy and let them find us.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Let's be lazy and let them find us.

Well getting Jack in here wouldn't be too hard I bet, I may ask him.

 

[BSP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEgHcPueW20

Even with the restrictions on the items, it can still benefit or hurt people based on randomness. For example, you hit DK off the stage. He's about to recover. Lo and behold, a lipstick spawns near you. You chuck it at him and DK loses a stock because there's no answer to it.

I just can't believe that a tournament would be legitimately decided in some cases by an item spawning in someone's favor and that winning them the match. Not to mention all the potentially ridiculous occurrences that could happen like in the video I posted.

Let me say that random spawn times will probably be the reason I'll never take items seriously.

In the example you gave though, DK could just instant throw the lip's stick away. Spinning Kong may even beat it out right. If he see's that you've got it, he could Up B early to make sure he gets more towards center stage before he gets hit again (stupid because of random spawn, but hypothetical) Regardless, he's got options, but the fact that the Lip's stick spawned while he was offstage (and may or may not spawn if he knocks me off) is why I'd still ban items.

 

[nat pagle]

Let me say that random spawn times will probably be the reason I'll never take items seriously.

In the example you gave though, DK could just instant throw the lip's stick away. Spinning Kong may even beat it out right. If he see's that you've got it, he could Up B early to make sure he gets more towards center stage before he gets hit again (stupid because of random spawn, but hypothetical) Regardless, he's got options, but the fact that the Lip's stick spawned while he was offstage (and may or may not spawn if he knocks me off) is why I'd still ban items.

In theory the guy on the stage could just jump over him and hit him from above. And good luck to the characters that don't get the priority when items hit them during recoveries.

 

[SmashChu]

Items will always be banned as long as both item spawning times and item spawning location is random and instantaneous.

That's not a reason to ban them. Why is it being random bad?

The problem is every time we talk about Items someone says "No, they shouldn't be allowed because they are random." This is not a reason. This doesn't even qualify as a decent answer. You can just assume random is bad. You need to actual make a case for why random elements are bad. Not just say "random is bad." This is how the community got itself into trouble.

imagine theres gonna be a few new basketball courts in the neighborhood and you find out that one of them has 1-foot deep holes that appear out of the ground at random.
are you going to want to hold a professional game there? of course not. its painfully obvious that some stages don't offer a fair playing ground

That is not an appropriate comparison. A basketball court with holes in it is unfinished or falling apart. NO ONE would want to play on it.

and introduce the "luck" factor, which is frowned upon in just about every competitive activity known.

Umm, not it's not. Examples: Poker is a competitive sport and it is ALL about luck. It is much larger than competitive Smash. They don't have an issue with the luck factor. There is also Monopoly tournaments. That game has a lot of luck. For game examples, look at Dota 2. It is a bigger competitive game than Smash and yet it has a ton of random elements. Pokemon is bigger too and it has random elements. In fact, you can say it makes the game stronger. Take Thunder. It is very powerful but can easily miss. So, some people may go with the safer Thunderbolt. You lose some power, but the hit rate is better. You you can be a risk taker or play ti safe.

Randomness is not inherently bad. I gave you some examples where a game is played competitively and had random elements. The randomness in those games is far more profound than in Smash. IPS has been running item tournaments and it's been found to help balance. Again, randomness is not a reason for banning something. You need to actually defend the claim with some evidence.

 

[salaboB]

What kind of competitive community promotes RNG? I don't understand how items in a competitive scenario is even up for debate.

Honestly, you're overestimating how much "random" is involved in items when people spend some time practicing with them.

The reason that no-items arguments get ignored so often is because the "arguments" are generally the following statements:

• Random is bad.
• Item spawns are random.
• What if I get a pokeball?
• I can't tell when or where an item will spawn.
• Random is bad.

What is there to actually have a discussion with, here?

Here are some benefits that make it worthwhile to test items and see if they work competitively:

• Camping the whole match is harder because you won't be controlling the stage, losing you items.
• Item timings are ensured within given windows and item spawns occur within known regions, allowing you to plan and work to be in the right places.
• Items are carefully selected so every item can be dealt with and won't ensure a win just by grabbing it.
• Items fill gaps in character abilities and could allow more characters to be competitive (While characters that already have all the tools they need benefit less).
• There's a higher skill ceiling both because of the increased value of stage control at key times and in knowing how to deal with each item that can spawn.
• The game will be more familiar (There are some items spawning) to new players coming in from having played it with the default rules.

What response will I get to this if someone disagrees? Probably a variation on "Items are random and have no place in a competitive game". Which is not something I can discuss, because it's starting from an absolute negative stance.

(I will recognize that at least one time I saw a no-items point that items filling missing gaps in characters makes the game more stale because everyone becomes more the same, but with items set on low you're facing pretty large gaps in time where you're still fighting with only your character's abilities, so that shouldn't really be a problem either.)

 

[SmashChu]

Honestly, you're overestimating how much "random" is involved in items when people spend some time practicing with them.

The reason that no-items arguments get ignored so often is because the "arguments" are generally the following statements:

• Random is bad.
• Item spawns are random.
• What if I get a pokeball?
• I can't tell when or where an item will spawn.
• Random is bad.

What is there to actually have a discussion with, here?


Here are some benefits that make it worthwhile to test items and see if they work competitively:

• Camping the whole match is harder because you won't be controlling the stage, losing you items.
• Item timings are ensured within given windows and item spawns occur within known regions, allowing you to plan and work to be in the right places.
• Items are carefully selected so every item can be dealt with and won't ensure a win just by grabbing it.
• Items fill gaps in character abilities and could allow more characters to be competitive (While characters that already have all the tools they need benefit less).
• There's a higher skill ceiling both because of the increased value of stage control at key times and in knowing how to deal with each item that can spawn.
• The game will be more familiar (There are some items spawning) to new players coming in from having played it with the default rules.

What response will I get to this if someone disagrees? Probably a variation on "Items are random and have no place in a competitive game". Which is not something I can discuss, because it's starting from an absolute negative stance.

(I will recognize that at least one time I saw a no-items point that items filling missing gaps in characters makes the game more stale because everyone becomes more the same, but with items set on low you're facing pretty large gaps in time where you're still fighting with only your character's abilities, so that shouldn't really be a problem either.)

You said it better than I ever could of. Bravo good sir!

 

[LiteralGrill]

Items Stuff

You said it better than I ever could of. Bravo good sir!

I have plans on creating a super database to keep track of Smash data. Host items on events, and you can compare them directly to other tournaments. If you can attract people to play with items on and show it can make a scene thrive, you'll have a ton going for you.

 

[SmashChu]

I have plans on creating a super database to keep track of Smash data. Host items on events, and you can compare them directly to other tournaments. If you can attract people to play with items on and show it can make a scene thrive, you'll have a ton going for you.

I'd be all for supporting that.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'd be all for supporting that.

Then do it! Host the tournaments, submit the data, and have cold hard numbers to look at. If a scene builds up with tons of popularity good on you!

I don't personally plan on having items on, but I do seriously support the test of an ISP style of play. If it looks good and data supports it, I'll even change my mind,

 

[SmashChu]

Then do it! Host the tournaments, submit the data, and have cold hard numbers to look at. If a scene builds up with tons of popularity good on you!

I don't personally plan on having items on, but I do seriously support the test of an ISP style of play. If it looks good and data supports it, I'll even change my mind,

I'm considering it. I play with items on normally, so I can at least give some knowledge if I don't run a tournament.

People tend to spit on items without even given them a chance. Even if you don't care for them, I'm glad you are open to testing.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm considering it. I play with items on normally, so I can at least give some knowledge if I don't run a tournament.

People tend to spit on items without even given them a chance. Even if you don't care for them, I'm glad you are open to testing.

It is true, have you ever seen the ISP thread? A good place to start if trying to use items in a competitive format. Several tournaments have used it even successfully.

 

[eshu125]

You could write a 4,000 word essay on why adding items doesn't add that much randomness to the table and why 'random' isn't even that bad, but that doesn't change the fact that you're making an argument for a random element's place in a competitive scenario.

Saying 'random is bad' is a solid argument in itself that doesn't need 3 pages of analyses to prove its validity. Competitive play means one thing: playing to win, or rather playing to be more successful than others. When that success can be determined by a random, uncontrolled factor (no matter how small, Mr. Item Major), it is no longer as competitive as it can possibly be.

Now don't get me wrong, I love watching games like Dota 2 and Poker, and both have a decent amount of RNG involved. But if it were possible, I would gladly advocate for those random elements to be removed so that the victor is determined solely by skill and not any random element, no matter how big or small. In Smash's case, that random factor can be removed, and with that I support the option do so.

Call me negative. I find myself to be positive towards competitive gaming and negative towards anything that (IMO) limits a game's maximum, competitive potential.

 

[Big-Cat]

Umm, not it's not. Examples: Poker is a competitive sport and it is ALL about luck. It is much larger than competitive Smash. They don't have an issue with the luck factor. There is also Monopoly tournaments. That game has a lot of luck. For game examples, look at Dota 2. It is a bigger competitive game than Smash and yet it has a ton of random elements. Pokemon is bigger too and it has random elements. In fact, you can say it makes the game stronger. Take Thunder. It is very powerful but can easily miss. So, some people may go with the safer Thunderbolt. You lose some power, but the hit rate is better. You you can be a risk taker or play ti safe.

I think where and how randomness/luck plays a role in a game depends simply on the game. Poker also involves strong skills in things like faking body language, controlling it, reading bluffs, etc. I can't say anything on DOTA as I've never played it. Pokemon is actually a good choice of comparison because it'll go into my next part of your post. Your analogy is comparing risk and rewards.

Randomness is not inherently bad. I gave you some examples where a game is played competitively and had random elements. The randomness in those games is far more profound than in Smash. IPS has been running item tournaments and it's been found to help balance. Again, randomness is not a reason for banning something. You need to actually defend the claim with some evidence.

And you're right, randomness/luck is not inherently bad, but like I said, it depends on how it's implemented in the game. Fighting games have a wide variety of mixups depending on the situation. The randomness/luck there is entirely player controlled. You can decide to rather go for that risky, but rewarding move or play it safe depending on how the match has progressed so far. This is essentially educated guesses instead of shooting in the dark. Don't those last two sentences sound an awful like poker?

When that luck factor is out of the control of the players' hands, this is when things get messy in a fighting game. You can do things like BlazBlue's Platinum. She can use items, but the item that comes up next is random. However, to have a sense of control, both players know what the next item she'll pull out before she even uses it. Meanwhile, compare this to random tripping which is out of everyone's control.

Has ISP really shown that items contribute to the balance? I'd like to see some results with that along with seeing consistent winners in these tournaments - this would imply that fundamental play is still an important part to winning.

 

[salaboB]

Saying 'random is bad' is a solid argument in itself that doesn't need 3 pages of analyses to prove its validity. Competitive play means one thing: playing to win, or rather playing to be more successful than others. When that success can be determined by a random, uncontrolled factor (no matter how small, Mr. Item Major), it is no longer as competitive as it can possibly be.

Edit: Removing pointlessly argumentative sounding post.

I'll just say that I strongly disagree that the random element introduced by carefully selected items weakens competitive play at all. You can play to win just as hard with an item spawning every 30-45 seconds as you can without. Saying that it's less competitive simply because of that random event is not actually obvious nor such a basic statement of fact that it can stand solely on its own merits.

 

[grizby2]

That's not a reason to ban them. Why is it being random bad?

The problem is every time we talk about Items someone says "No, they shouldn't be allowed because they are random." This is not a reason. This doesn't even qualify as a decent answer. You can just assume random is bad. You need to actual make a case for why random elements are bad. Not just say "random is bad." This is how the community got itself into trouble.



That is not an appropriate comparison. A basketball court with holes in it is unfinished or falling apart. NO ONE would want to play on it.


Umm, not it's not. Examples: Poker is a competitive sport and it is ALL about luck. It is much larger than competitive Smash. They don't have an issue with the luck factor. There is also Monopoly tournaments. That game has a lot of luck. For game examples, look at Dota 2. It is a bigger competitive game than Smash and yet it has a ton of random elements. Pokemon is bigger too and it has random elements. In fact, you can say it makes the game stronger. Take Thunder. It is very powerful but can easily miss. So, some people may go with the safer Thunderbolt. You lose some power, but the hit rate is better. You you can be a risk taker or play ti safe.

Randomness is not inherently bad. I gave you some examples where a game is played competitively and had random elements. The randomness in those games is far more profound than in Smash. IPS has been running item tournaments and it's been found to help balance. Again, randomness is not a reason for banning something. You need to actually defend the claim with some evidence.

I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. in the basketball scenario, it WAS the finished product.
I wasn't saying randomness is purely bad.
randomness is okay as long as the randomness is created by the players THEMSELVES.
also, concerning monopoly and poker, i honestly don't see them as sports. imo, that's just Gambling, which is specifically an act or undertaking of uncertain outcome in hopes of making a profit.
that last part sounds a dumb point of my argument, i know. anyways, people tend to feel better losing to skill rather than luck. not a lot of people are respected due to luck, and if people think they SHOULD be respected for their good luck... well, GOOD LUCK . if i want luck, i'll play a board game (i just hope the guy im playing with isn't a professional dice tosser.
the universe offers its own brand of randomness along with static laws of physics, but we still aren't satisfied with that.

 

[SmashChu]

I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. in the basketball scenario, it WAS the finished product.

Hole is a basketball court means it's busted. Try another line of thinking.

I wasn't saying randomness is purely bad.
randomness is okay as long as the randomness is created by the players THEMSELVES.
also, concerning monopoly and poker, i honestly don't see them as sports. imo, that's just Gambling, which is specifically an act or undertaking of uncertain outcome in hopes of making a profit.

And most people don't think Videogames are a sport. You'd get far more respect playing professional poker than professional Smash. An opinion.

that last part sounds a dumb point of my argument, i know. anyways, people tend to feel better losing to skill rather than luck. not a lot of people are respected due to luck, and if people think they SHOULD be respected for their good luck... well, GOOD LUCK . if i want luck, i'll play a board game (i just hope the guy im playing with isn't a professional dice tosser.
the universe offers its own brand of randomness along with static laws of physics, but we still aren't satisfied with that.

This is still not a good argument. A lose is a lose. How you feel about it doesn't justify the rule set.

I'm being pretty harsh here, but the point I'm making is that the ruleset needs to be based on a logical system. How people feel and opinions are not justifiable. What the community needs to do is about a criteria for when something is broken and how to test if something is broken.