"Casual Style" Tournament Rules Proposal

[Randofu]

You could run it but it is stupid. WTF is a best of 10? what if it is 5-5?

My bad. I meant best out of 9. I was really thinking "5 victories". If people really wanted me to, I could break out a character match-up chart and I think use something like Chernoff bounds to compute the number of games you would have to play to determine the "true" winner in an even match-up with high probability. Of course, that would be without items. Besides, I'm guessing that in order to get high probability, the number of games would be way more than you could really play in a tournament.

Also, when I posted originally, I didn't realize that Smash tournaments were about money. Honestly, I thought that for the most part they were about bragging rights. I guess that's where this idea really falls apart; it would be too hard to organize enough people to make this into a real tournament.

That and the fact that I'm too lazy (or is it busy?) to actually put something like this together.

I don't get how the OP is intelligent enough to "debate" people here without throwing a hissy fit yet still had the idea to post this and argue it.

I don't know whether to be flattered or to throw a hissy fit.

 

[Randofu]

i watched two of those vids. there was a pika vs a falco and a mario (same guy as the pika) vs a marth
the guy's mario was better than his pika, and it looked like they were just getting into playing smash competitively. his pika rolled a lot and his mario wd's sparingly.

either way the matches looked like they were more focused on items than technique so i don't know if this proves a point or negates one :o

Yeah, I have to agree. I only watched the first one. It seemed like it certainly helped Mewtwo put up a much better fight against Falco. And I agree, the fight was more focused on items. That was partly because of the choice of only bobombs and motion sensor bombs though. That set of items really constrained the players' movements, so they had to either A) destroy them, or B) use them to their advantage, either by throwing them or successfully avoiding them.

On the one hand, it makes me want to admit that the pros probably are better with items than I originally thought. On the other hand, that Mewtwo player killed himself twice while getting up from the edge.

Of course, it was hard to judge how good the players would have been without items, since it appeared that their attack patterns and strategies changed considerably with the items there. I think this lends some credence to the "it's a different game" theory.

Personally I thought it looked like a lot of fun.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Now that I've watched a couple of the vids, the only player I recognize is Snap, who I'm pretty sure is a pro.

lol he used Falco in a bomb tourney...that cheater

 

[Randofu]

Luck and probability are DIFFERENT things. Though they sound like they're the same, they ARE be used differently. Someone like you should learn how to pick up a dictionary once in a while when you're too confused assuming statements. Your comprehension is like a flushing toilet.

Let's say you beat someone who you definitly say you're better than, and you are. So you've beaten them because of luck you say? After sitting down on the seat and playing Smash for a dozen rounds, you've never lost to him yet. Is it that you're just lucky? Or is it that your probability of winning is higher than your opponent?

I'm a little nervous about responding to this flame, but I'll try to do so politely.

First of all, you quoted me as saying "randomness"; I'm not sure if you think that means luck or probability, but I would say it includes both.

Either way, luck and probability are two different things, but together they determine the outcome of a match. You have some probability of winning, and then the match plays out. If you were more likely to win and you lost, then you got unlucky. If you were more likely to lose and you won, then you got lucky. I feel that you needed me to make this distinction between luck and probability, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Players practice and work hard to increase the probability that they will win. In the face of random characters and items, their probabilities will be skewed more towards a fair match, though practice can still improve their odds. The match then becomes an attempt to discover which player has the higher probability of winning, since that is what we value. By taking more samples (ideally at different times to ignore temporal correlation), we can more accurately estimate these probabilities to determine who the best players really are.

Does that clear things up, or make them more confusing? Traditional tournament rules are optimized to try to discover these probabilities as efficiently as possible. What I propose introduces a second probability (probability of winning with random characters and with items) which is typically highly correlated with the first probability (good players are also good in this new tournament style). This new probability is harder to estimate accurately. Essentially we trade off some accuracy in predicting the probability while attempting to discover a much broader definition of what it means to be a "good player".

Sorry to bring so much game philosophy into this, but it needed to be done.

 

[Micheloxx]

.. ok, isnt this a dumb topic? ...

 

[Scissors Sir]

(As a note: I originally posted this on the Brawl forum, but it got closed there. I still think it applies just as much to Brawl as to Melee, but I'll see if this flies here)

I've been a casual Smasher for years. I recently finally went to my first tournament since it was so easy to get to. I was actually pretty surprised. I thought that the people there would just be leagues ahead of me, but it wasn't really the case. I know the game well, and I know the advanced techniques, but I couldn't hang with the tournament players. Why is that? Well, I don't play by their rules. I've played for years with items on.

You can call me a noob for not being able to waveshine consistently, but I think I can call you a noob for hitting an exploding box when you're playing with items on. Let's face it; it's a totally different game with items on. The tiers are different and there's a bit more randomness. It's still a game though, so why can't there be a tournament?

As far as I'm concerned, this is what a "casual" tournament would be like. Turn all items on, and have items on Very High. Players choose their characters randomly(!). All stages are available and chosen randomly. Since there's considerably more luck involved in this version, you play best of 10. Since you play more games, I think Stock 3 with a time limit of 5 minutes would be better, to speed up the tournament.

I won't deny that it takes a good player to be great with one character on a few stages. It takes a truly awesome player to be great with every character on every stage. Sometimes it'll be Bowser vs. Fox, and you'll just have to suck it up and do your best.

I know this will never catch on, but I'd love to see it. I feel like I could easily compete in tournaments (though probably not win them) if I bought a wired controller and focused on two or three characters only. I feel like that takes a lot of the fun out of the game though. Unfortunately, because I enjoy being more versatile, I feel like there's no place for me in the competitive scene, and I think that's a shame.

PS: It's really hard to practice some of the "advanced techniques" when there are a lot of items around, because the game plays differently when the items are around!

I dont like this idea...

 

[Livvers]

The random characters is what really made me lol. I mostly play for funsies because I only recently started learning so much more about Smash, and I don't really know anyone to play with. I can say I'm a casual looking to get better, and nothing sounds like less fun to me than having the character I'm going to play with picked randomly. I almost never do that, because I just plain ol' don't like playing with some of the characters. Also, if my random is, say, pichu, and my opponent ends up getting Sheik, I might as well toss my controller on the floor unless my opponent is very unskilled.

I wouldn't enjoy this without having money involved, let alone playing this WITH money involved. I wouldn't want my hard earned money lost on bad luck. I'd rather lose it to someone skilled who deserves it.

 

[Randofu]

Here's an alternative idea... Let's forget about items and stages for right now. A matchup between two players consists of 25 2 stock battles with a 2 minute time limit. For the first match, both players write down the name of the character they will use and then the match proceeds. For the second match, the winner of the previous match chooses the character that he or she will use first, and the loser gets to choose his or her character second. However, players may not use a given character in more than one fight.

Would you say that this is a more fair way of testing breadth of skill?

 

[AlphaZealot]

56k: I live your sig, who drew that?

Also, whether or not the topic seems dumb is irrelevant, so far there has been some pretty good discussion, so please don't post just to say "this is dumb".

 

[Adi]

Here's an alternative idea... Let's forget about items and stages for right now. A matchup between two players consists of 25 2 stock battles with a 2 minute time limit. For the first match, both players write down the name of the character they will use and then the match proceeds. For the second match, the winner of the previous match chooses the character that he or she will use first, and the loser gets to choose his or her character second. However, players may not use a given character in more than one fight.

...You realize that one tournament match would then take 50 mins.

 

[battousai555]

Also, whether or not the topic seems dumb is irrelevant, so far there has been some pretty good discussion, so please don't post just to say "this is dumb".

Agreed.

Absolutely stupid.

.. ok, isnt this a dumb topic? ...

Posts like these contribute absolutely nothing to the thread. Try explaining why you don't like the OP's idea. The only purpose that I could think of to make such pointless points is to raise post counts *coughMANALORDcough*.

Oh, and I like the idea of random characters. Master of all characters=winner of tournament. Items would get in the way, IMHO.

 

[geemann2236]

I have one word for you. NO! The randomness would get old fast, because the reason the game is exciting is because when you watch two players battle without items, they must focus more on mindgames and their own skills. When items are on, they have to focus on running around Hyrule to pick up the Pokeball or Hammer or W/e.

Let me some it up: This idea is DUMB. Tournament rules are FINE AS THEY ARE, and they will probably be the same way in Brawl.

 

[snoblo]

Here's an alternative idea... Let's forget about items and stages for right now. A matchup between two players consists of 25 2 stock battles with a 2 minute time limit. For the first match, both players write down the name of the character they will use and then the match proceeds. For the second match, the winner of the previous match chooses the character that he or she will use first, and the loser gets to choose his or her character second. However, players may not use a given character in more than one fight.

Would you say that this is a more fair way of testing breadth of skill?

sounds like this.

I understand your reasoning behind your 'casual tournament' ideas, except there's one thing that doesn't work. Your idea is a great idea for get-togethers with friends and such, but will have little success in a tournament.

First of all, tournaments are meant to be competitive, and your idea seems more on the random-outcome/amusing side.

Secondly, it doesn't seem practical. Unless you have a godly amount of setups, it would run pretty slowly with best out of nine. Do you realize how long regular tournaments last already?

Also, there is a small flaw with your logic

I won't deny that it takes a good player to be great with one character on a few stages. It takes a truly awesome player to be great with every character on every stage. Sometimes it'll be Bowser vs. Fox, and you'll just have to suck it up and do your best.

But how fair would it be if someone's best character beat your worst character (even if all your other characters are better than theirs)? Would this mean that your opponent is much better than you?

And also, on a side note, I see a big potential for character johns if the characters are chosen at random.

Another thing, about the random stages. This isn't meant to be directed toward you alone, but it seems as if many people do not truly understand why the smash community bans stages. Most of the stages that are banned are NOT banned because of randomness, but because of unfair strategies. Banning stages is meant to protect the players from broken tactics, in order to make the matches more fair.


Overall, your idea is great, but would probably capture a different audience of smashers (those who play solely for fun, not caring too much about the outcome).

 

[BrandonOwnageking]

wow thats lame. Items suck it takes no skill to grab a bomb and run at ur opponent and throw it. BOttom line items suck if ur trying to have a serious tournament fight and the idea of having an item based tourny is ********.

 

[Randofu]

wow thats lame. Items suck it takes no skill to grab a bomb and run at ur opponent and throw it. BOttom line items suck if ur trying to have a serious tournament fight and the idea of having an item based tourny is ********.

Someone might say, "It takes no skill to run at your opponent and hit them," but clearly this isn't the case. Your opponent has a number of ways of avoiding being hit by the bomb, not the least of which is catching it. If you really want to hit your opponent with the bomb, you'll have to force them into it, or you'll have to play some mindgames.

Also, sometimes it'll be in your favor to let the bomb run around instead of pick it up.

 

[BigRick]

As far as I'm concerned, this is what a "casual" tournament would be like. Turn all items on, and have items on Very High. Players choose their characters randomly(!). All stages are available and chosen randomly. Since there's considerably more luck involved in this version, you play best of 10. Since you play more games, I think Stock 3 with a time limit of 5 minutes would be better, to speed up the tournament.

hahaha your tourney is going to be very long

with 64 ppl this could easily go on for 3-4 days lol

EDIT: Also saw you idea of 25 rounds of 2-min, 2 stock battles...

That would make each match 50 minutes! I don't think ppl have that much time on they hands

 

[Randofu]

Yeah, I guess it's true that the match-ups would be pretty long in either case. Maybe it would be better suited to a league style of play than individual tournaments.

 

[Sliq]

I've been a casual Smasher for years. I recently finally went to my first tournament since it was so easy to get to. I was actually pretty surprised. I thought that the people there would just be leagues ahead of me, but it wasn't really the case.

How many people were at this tournament, and more importantly, WHO was at this tournament. Just because you went to a tournament and played some people who were slightly better than you doesn't mean you played a seasoned veteran.

I know the game well, and I know the advanced techniques, but I couldn't hang with the tournament players. Why is that? Well, I don't play by their rules. I've played for years with items on.

No Johns.

But seriously, playing with items on won't magically make you beat a veteran. Veterans know WAY more than you do, they know all of their options, and all of your options. It has been proven over and over again, during Melee's six year life span, that casuals can't compete.

Casuals, on the other hand, always claim that they can win, only if the "pros" didn't use "glitches," and/or didn't ban items or stages. Except they never seem to back up their claim by playing any veteran players. They just dance around with words.

I will MM any casual who thinks that putting items on will make them win. Any amount up to 100$. We'll play by your rules. This is the only real way to provide any validity to your argument is to claim you can beat us and then do it.

You can call me a noob for not being able to waveshine consistently, but I think I can call you a noob for hitting an exploding box when you're playing with items on.

Except there isn't anything you can do when an exploding crate, barrel, capsule, or bob-omb SPAWNS right next to you as you complete your attack.

"lol why arent you pros psychic lol"

The tiers are different and there's a bit more randomness.

False. The change in tiers would be so marginal it would be negligible. All of the already top tier characters would **** even harder with items.

All of the best characters are really fast, and would almost always out speed the lower tiers to items. The slower characters would have to rely on a lucky item spawning close enough to them that the faster character can't get to it before them.

It's still a game though, so why can't there be a tournament?

Because no casuals hold tournaments with their own rules and instead opt to complain about ours. Seriously, hold this tournament.

Since there's considerably more luck involved in this version, you play best of 10. Since you play more games, I think Stock 3 with a time limit of 5 minutes would be better, to speed up the tournament.[/SIZE]

Yeah, good luck with that. Tournaments that play best 2 out of 3, 4 stock already take ALL DAY. You will never finish this tournament.

Furthermore, why change the tournament rules to work around luck, when you can much more easily remove that luck?

I won't deny that it takes a good player to be great with one character on a few stages. It takes a truly awesome player to be great with every character on every stage. Sometimes it'll be Bowser vs. Fox, and you'll just have to suck it up and do your best.

This is an awful idea from both perspectives. I HATE playing as certain characters. Since you guys seem to be all caught up in "having fun*," it seems ironic to force someone to not have fun.

*They operate under the assumption that their rules are the fun version, while ours are boring. I have a lot of fun playing by my rules, because fun is relative.

Furthermore, this only adds MORE luck. Why should I have to play Roulette before I play?

I know this will never catch on, but I'd love to see it.

Then host it yourself. You don't get to complain about the politician if you don't vote.

I feel like I could easily compete in tournaments (though probably not win them) if I bought a wired controller and focused on two or three characters only.

I feel Like I could time travel just through wishful thinking, but that doesn't make it reasonable or likely.

I feel like that takes a lot of the fun out of the game though.

Instead of assuming it won't be fun, why don't you actually attend tournaments and find out? And don't bring up the ONE you went to that you brought up in your original post.

Tell me where you live (just a state will do) and I will find a good tournament FOR YOU. Then you can't pass judgment as opposed to making an assumption off of very little evidence.

Also, fun is relative. If it isn't fun, then don't go. But you can't say, "I'd like to play in tournaments (because it would be fun), but I don't want to not have fun." That's contradictory.

Unfortunately, because I enjoy being more versatile, I feel like there's no place for me in the competitive scene, and I think that's a shame.

You ASSUME that your way makes you play more versatilely, which is probably false. Almost always, the best choice of action is 1.) obtain item, 2.) use item. This is because items are very powerful. If anything, items limit versatility due to reliance on them.

Furthermore, almost all casuals know about advanced techniques (AT's) and know how to do them, but rarely implement them correctly, or even know how. A LOT more options open up whenever you implement AT's into the equation, more so then items.

The random character and stage thing is the only thing really adding more versatility, but competitive smash already REQUIRES A LOT of versatility in order to be competent anyway, and anything after that is redundant.

PS: It's really hard to practice some of the "advanced techniques" when there are a lot of items around, because the game plays differently when the items are around!

It really doesn't. The mechanics of the game stay exactly the same regardless of items. However, more options open up. Of course, as those options open up, other ones close, basically making it just as, if not less, dynamic.

It could very well be that the best normal tournament players still come out on top, but I doubt that would be the case if this were actually done seriously.

Well, I doubt that they would lose. Look at that, a baseless opinion! Hard to argue with that!

Seriously, I am willing to play any casual at any ruleset and prove you wrong. You are being delusional to think that you can take on Michael Jordan if the rules were changed so you were both on roller blades, and people were throwing tennis balls at you from the stands.

Also, I don't really see how battles with more randomness will get old faster. Without items, the playing field is more or less even the entire match.

That, and those two pesky characters with unique movesets fighting it out, totally ruining your argument

With items, things sway in one person or the other's favor as the match goes on (assuming they're of equal skill) as randomness benefits one player over the other.

Except what is keeping Player 1 from benefiting from ALL of the randomness? Nothing.

Just because heads and tails is 50-50 doesn't mean you can't get tails 10 times in a row.

Look at it this way. The best player in the world is not going to lose to a complete Smash newb whether there are items or not.

No, but it CAN affect the outcome of a match between 2 equally skilled players, one getting shafted in the end because a bob-omb spawned on in front of him as he did an attack, killing him.

Items add some randomness, and that randomness can sometimes make up for a small difference in skill, but it's not reliable..

But why do people need to be handed faux skill? Why do we have to hold their hands so they can win? Shouldn't their ABILITY be whats more important?

In the end, the game is more fresh since a player who has superior skill is not always guaranteed to win every match, but should probably come out on the top in the end.

Your opinion, which is not based off of any fact.

 

[Skler]

Every post Sliq makes is amazing. I'm going to have to start a fan club.

Edit: To add to this topic, random character is the stupidest thing ever (unless run as a joke). Counters exist, and forcing these matchups on people will only result in results not based on skill.

 

[ihavespaceblondes]

And Sliq just shot down my desire to make a petition forcing him to post only in image macros.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

*whistles.* God****, Sliq. You're on a roll.

And I have to "lol" at the whole "items balance the playing field" bit. Sorry, Randofu, but that logic is inane. As Sliq pointed out, items tip the scale to such a point that whole matches subsist off of halfhearted prayers that an exploding container won't come down and ruin your whole game. If I wanna take a gamble like that, I'll go to the store I work at and purchase some lotto tickets. I'd rather lose money that way.

But, again, if you wanna host this tournament you are more than welcome to. Just expect your friends and maybe one of those Gamestop kids that are like nine to drop on by.

GG thread.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Sliq]

And Sliq just shot down my desire to make a petition forcing him to post only in image macros.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'd like to propose a rock paper scissors tourny. Hopefully we'll get some OOSers to come down to socal (again) for this. Rules are like always, best two out of three. Finals out of 5. Everyone in the tourny splits the pot. $5 entry. No teams this time though sorry. =/

 

[Balloon]

very high? you had me going for a second with the whole "casual tournament style" until you decided that the items should be on very high and ALL on. : |

pretty bad idea.

 

[Randofu]

I really hate to have to respond to this, but you did put a lot of words into my mouth.

How many people were at this tournament, and more importantly, WHO was at this tournament. Just because you went to a tournament and played some people who were slightly better than you doesn't mean you played a seasoned veteran.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 40 people. I know Wife was there, but I didn't play against him myself. I did play some people that were only slightly better than me, and I also played people much better than me. I got a sense of the skill levels out there. I didn't actually participate in the tournament itself, only the pre-tournament practicing and such. While the tournament was going on, I was comparing skill levels. There were definitely some talented folks there.

No Johns.

So it's a john to give an actual reason why you lost which admits that you aren't as good as the other player? I thought it was just me evaluating the match-up.

But seriously, playing with items on won't magically make you beat a veteran. Veterans know WAY more than you do, they know all of their options, and all of your options. It has been proven over and over again, during Melee's six year life span, that casuals can't compete.

I have no doubt that I couldn't beat Wife even with items on. Notice I always said "compete" rather than "win". Turn items on, and I feel that I can compete better than with items off. When you play with items on all of the time, your typical strategies come to rely on items. With items off, I can still participate, but I'm not using some of my best moves. It would be as if it were possible to turn L-Cancelling on or off. If you were suddenly forced to play a game without L-Cancelling, you'd adapt and be able to play pretty well, but it would totally change your game, and doing that on the spot without any practice beforehand is just not going to work. That's why I think that with just a little bit of practice, I would be able to compete with some of the weaker players in the tournament.

As it was, there were several of them that I could consistently beat, and some that I could only beat occasionally, but I'm well aware that they were some of the weakest players there. A lot of the guys mopped the floor with me, usually because they used strategies or techniques I'd never had the opportunity to play against before.

All that aside, the point of this thread was not for me to complain about how you choose to run your tournament matches or to complain about how I can't compete in them. I was just suggesting that other Smash players have a different idea of what rules make for good Smashing, so it might be worth it to consider a different set of rules for a tournament. Unfortunately, I admit, those rules aren't realistic for the amount of time you could really get in a normal tournament.

Casuals, on the other hand, always claim that they can win, only if the "pros" didn't use "glitches," and/or didn't ban items or stages. Except they never seem to back up their claim by playing any veteran players. They just dance around with words.

Always? Really? I don't think I ever said that. I said I could compete in the tournament, not win the whole thing. I'd love to play some veteran players, but if the only way to play them is to go to tournaments, it's just not worth it.

I will MM any casual who thinks that putting items on will make them win. Any amount up to 100$. We'll play by your rules. This is the only real way to provide any validity to your argument is to claim you can beat us and then do it.

I never said I could beat you with items on.

Except there isn't anything you can do when an exploding crate, barrel, capsule, or bob-omb SPAWNS right next to you as you complete your attack.

"lol why arent you pros psychic lol"

I won't deny that this will happen to even the best of players. I do wish that you could turn crate/barrel/capsule explosions off (though I'd still play with them on). Since I'm used to playing with items all the time though, I'm pretty sure that I have a decent feel for when they will appear. Play defensively while the item spawns if you're worried about it blowing up.

Also, playing with more items on reduces the chances that the containers will explode. I hope you're not basing everything off of containers exploding when there's only one type of item out there.

False. The change in tiers would be so marginal it would be negligible. All of the already top tier characters would **** even harder with items.

My apologies. I didn't actually mean the tier list order. I was thinking more of the character match-up chart. I'm sure that that would change quite a bit. Either way, this was a pretty small point.

All of the best characters are really fast, and would almost always out speed the lower tiers to items. The slower characters would have to rely on a lucky item spawning close enough to them that the faster character can't get to it before them.

This ignores all of the ways of dealing with items. I'm a pro at catching thrown items, so I typically don't care too much if you get to the item first. In fact, in my game play I rarely go for items, except for Pokeballs. People have learned to throw those straight down when I'm around, but I still occasionally get in there and steal them.

Because no casuals hold tournaments with their own rules and instead opt to complain about ours. Seriously, hold this tournament.

I didn't complain about your tournament. Everyone assumes that I did for some reason. I think it's great that such tournaments exist, and I think that people who play in them show a lot of skill. I just wish that there was another tournament that showed off skill with items, or skill with a variety of characters.

Yeah, good luck with that. Tournaments that play best 2 out of 3, 4 stock already take ALL DAY. You will never finish this tournament.

I already acknowledged this. This thread is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Furthermore, why change the tournament rules to work around luck, when you can much more easily remove that luck?

You didn't read anything that I said other than the original post, did you? The point of changing the rules would not be to emphasize luck, but rather to exhibit other aspects of the game, including techniques which involve items and versatility with a large number of characters.

This is an awful idea from both perspectives. I HATE playing as certain characters. Since you guys seem to be all caught up in "having fun*," it seems ironic to force someone to not have fun.

*They operate under the assumption that their rules are the fun version, while ours are boring. I have a lot of fun playing by my rules, because fun is relative.

You don't have to participant in my tournament any more than I have to participate in yours. My version of the rules are the fun version for myself many others like me.

Furthermore, this only adds MORE luck. Why should I have to play Roulette before I play?

This was just an idea to randomly sample your skill with other characters. I suggested an alternative that didn't require randomness at the character selection stage. Neither was feasible in terms of time.

Then host it yourself. You don't get to complain about the politician if you don't vote.

I already said that I didn't have the time to run it. Also, by putting this idea on the board, I thought that other people who did have the time to run it and were interested could try it.

I feel Like I could time travel just through wishful thinking, but that doesn't make it reasonable or likely.

You don't feel like you could time travel just through wishful thinking. Do you see the difference between our two statements? You tried to refute my opinion with a faulty hypothetical example.

Instead of assuming it won't be fun, why don't you actually attend tournaments and find out? And don't bring up the ONE you went to that you brought up in your original post.

Tell me where you live (just a state will do) and I will find a good tournament FOR YOU. Then you can't pass judgment as opposed to making an assumption off of very little evidence.

I live in Maryland. I expect that many tournaments would be more fun than that one. As it was, people were so into the game (even before the tournament started) that they weren't talking to you even if you tried to start up a conversation. Is that normal? It was downright uncomfortable to me. Because of this, I didn't learn anyone's name.

Also, fun is relative. If it isn't fun, then don't go. But you can't say, "I'd like to play in tournaments (because it would be fun), but I don't want to not have fun." That's contradictory.

I'm glad you agree that existing tournaments aren't fun? I don't know what you were trying to say here, but that's what you said. "I'd like to play in tournaments" and "I don't want to not have fun" being contradictory means that tournaments are not fun.

If I understand what you really meant, then I must stress again that my intention was not to tear down existing tournaments. Perhaps it was a mistake to suggest that my proposed rules would be included in an existing tournament as a separate event.

You ASSUME that your way makes you play more versatilely, which is probably false. Almost always, the best choice of action is 1.) obtain item, 2.) use item. This is because items are very powerful. If anything, items limit versatility due to reliance on them.

I'm not convinced that this is true. An alternative explanation, and this is just a theory and not meant to be a personal attack, is that you aren't as familiar with the timing and spacing for items, so you believe that they're more powerful than they are. I wholeheartedly admit that I could be wrong about this though.

Furthermore, almost all casuals know about advanced techniques (AT's) and know how to do them, but rarely implement them correctly, or even know how. A LOT more options open up whenever you implement AT's into the equation, more so then items.

I don't really disagree with this. However, you can still use AT's even with items on.

The random character and stage thing is the only thing really adding more versatility, but competitive smash already REQUIRES A LOT of versatility in order to be competent anyway, and anything after that is redundant.

No, anything after that is what separates a really good player from a true expert. If you wanted, you could restrict tournaments to Fox vs. Fox matches only and this would reduce the required versatility drastically, but you don't do that, do you?

It really doesn't. The mechanics of the game stay exactly the same regardless of items. However, more options open up. Of course, as those options open up, other ones close, basically making it just as, if not less, dynamic.

I didn't mean that the game became more or less dynamic. By the very nature of those "options" opening or closing, isn't that changing the game, though?

Well, I doubt that they would lose. Look at that, a baseless opinion! Hard to argue with that!

Then don't, and accept it as an opinion.

Seriously, I am willing to play any casual at any ruleset and prove you wrong. You are being delusional to think that you can take on Michael Jordan if the rules were changed so you were both on roller blades, and people were throwing tennis balls at you from the stands.

See above; I never said I could beat a pro with items on.

That, and those two pesky characters with unique movesets fighting it out, totally ruining your argument

I don't understand what you were trying to say here.

Except what is keeping Player 1 from benefiting from ALL of the randomness? Nothing.

Just because heads and tails is 50-50 doesn't mean you can't get tails 10 times in a row.

So? I've admitted that this is why people wouldn't play for money, and that this is why we would need to take more game samples to get at the real probability. You should read my other posts.

No, but it CAN affect the outcome of a match between 2 equally skilled players, one getting shafted in the end because a bob-omb spawned on in front of him as he did an attack, killing him.

In that case, if you want to come out consistently on top, you'll just have to make sure the match isn't even. I guess you have to try to do that whether there are items or not, though, don't you?

(OK, I admit, you have to be MUCH better to guarantee that the bob-omb isn't going to decide the match, but if it's not for money then can't you occasionally lose gracefully?)

But why do people need to be handed faux skill? Why do we have to hold their hands so they can win? Shouldn't their ABILITY be whats more important?

I agree, but you seem to be saying that ability with items is completely unimportant for some reason.

Your opinion, which is not based off of any fact.

True. I gave a lot of opinions.



Anyway, I don't know how much longer I can go on defending this thread given the number of people trying to tear the idea down. I don't know why they felt it was necessary to do so, but there it is nonetheless. I'll respond if someone gives me a compelling reason to, but for the most part I think this "debate" has run its course.

 

[ihavespaceblondes]

very high? you had me going for a second with the whole "casual tournament style" until you decided that the items should be on very high and ALL on. : |

pretty bad idea.

That just made me realize something. Part of the problem with a tournament like this is there's WAY too much variation in the rules that item-users/casual players have. When I played casually, the items used, their rate, the stages on random, and the amount of time/stock would vary drastically based on what group or whose Cube I was playing with. Getting any kind of agreement would be next to impossible, as would finding enough people nearby who actually wanted to go.

 

[Randofu]

That just made me realize something. Part of the problem with a tournament like this is there's WAY too much variation in the rules that item-users/casual players have. When I played casually, the items used, their rate, the stages on random, and the amount of time/stock would vary drastically based on what group or whose Cube I was playing with. Getting any kind of agreement would be next to impossible, as would finding enough people nearby who actually wanted to go.

Yeah, I agree. I actually don't even play with Very High or even with every item typically (I usually turn off Invincibility and healing items), but I wanted to include everything to make the battles as different from normal tournaments as possible.

 

[Rigor_Mortis]

Remove healing items, and invincibility items (Star, cloaking, ect.) and I would totally support this.

 

[Sliq]

I really hate to have to respond to this, but you did put a lot of words into my mouth.

That's not all I put in your mouth (come on, you set me up for that).

If I had to guess, I'd say about 40 people. I know Wife was there, but I didn't play against him myself. I did play some people that were only slightly better than me, and I also played people much better than me. I got a sense of the skill levels out there. I didn't actually participate in the tournament itself, only the pre-tournament practicing and such. While the tournament was going on, I was comparing skill levels. There were definitely some talented folks there.

I'd like to hear who you played, but from the sound of it, you didn't get to learn a lot of names and such.

Watching someone else play and playing them yourself are 2 different things. Trust me, you can't gauge skill from watching someone (well, you can sort of, but not as accurately had you played them).

Also, friendlies are a lot different than tournament matches, as people often time inadvertantly "sandbag," because nothing is on the line people have less reason to try their hardest.

I'm not trying to diss you, just to point out your observations may or may not be skewed and/or partially false.

So it's a john to give an actual reason why you lost which admits that you aren't as good as the other player? I thought it was just me evaluating the match-up.

Anytime you say, " I would've won if...," or, "You only one because...," then you are Johning. You are making an excuse for your performance. Johns can be legitimate truths (my controller was broken, I only have one hand), but they are still Johns. There is no need to try and explain away defeat, as it makes you look foolish.

I have no doubt that I couldn't beat Wife even with items on. Notice I always said "compete" rather than "win". Turn items on, and I feel that I can compete better than with items off. When you play with items on all of the time, your typical strategies come to rely on items. With items off, I can still participate, but I'm not using some of my best moves.

What you have to realize is, despite pros not using items, we still know how to use them, and we probably have a lot of tricks that you won't expect.

Did you know that if you have a bob-omb, and you press Z right as you land, or as your character pass through a platform, you can set the bob-omb on the ground, and it will start walking? Did you know the a smash attack from a fan breaks your shield in one hit? Did you know that if you are Jigglypuff with a Screw Attack item, you can rest immediately out of the screw attaxk? I did, and I don't play with items.

I'm leaving work right now, so I'll reply to the rest when I get home.

 

[Luigi Ka-master]

@ Randofu, for what it's worth, nice rebuttle(s) lol

 

[Randofu]

What you have to realize is, despite pros not using items, we still know how to use them, and we probably have a lot of tricks that you won't expect.

Did you know that if you have a bob-omb, and you press Z right as you land, or as your character pass through a platform, you can set the bob-omb on the ground, and it will start walking? Did you know the a smash attack from a fan breaks your shield in one hit? Did you know that if you are Jigglypuff with a Screw Attack item, you can rest immediately out of the screw attaxk? I did, and I don't play with items.

I'm leaving work right now, so I'll reply to the rest when I get home.

Of course I knew those things. Let me quote you really quick on something else though:

Furthermore, almost all casuals know about advanced techniques (AT's) and know how to do them, but rarely implement them correctly, or even know how. A LOT more options open up whenever you implement AT's into the equation, more so then items.

As you admit, just because you know that something can be done and even how to do it, it doesn't mean that you're good at it.

That's not all I put in your mouth (come on, you set me up for that).

Kinky. Don't tell my boyfriend.

 

[Junpappy]

Items will probably make skilled players **** casuals even harder than they already do.

 

[Xanderous]

Might as well have a Mario Party tournament.

 

[Metroid_01]

I like it. 10 matches is a bit much, but you are headed in the right direction. Maybe best of 7. The lowered stock is better for this to make up for poor matchups, but not too low to make the matches too quick.

However, there do need to be a few rules. I would say turn on *most* stages. A few really bad ones should get the boot. Likewise a couple imbalancing items should as well. (Healing, star, and hammer come to mind).

I would go to a tournament like this. I went to a tournament just yesterday (no entrance $$ or anything like that, just for fun) that was most stage, item off, random character, teams. It was the most fun. ever. My teammate and I got double pichu in the finals.


Not all tournaments are all about $$ guys. This would be alot of fun.

 

[Skler]

Might as well have a Mario Party tournament.

Only if we do no special blocks, Mario only on Magma Mountain.

 

[Metroid_01]

Only if we do no special blocks, Mario only on Magma Mountain.

Luigi is top tier. He gets better rolls.

 

[Sliq]

All that aside, the point of this thread was not for me to complain about how you choose to run your tournament matches or to complain about how I can't compete in them.

I wasn't targeting you directly during most of my post. I was more talking about John. P Casual. You're way more composed than a lot of the ******* I have to deal with.

I was just suggesting that other Smash players have a different idea of what rules make for good Smashing, so it might be worth it to consider a different set of rules for a tournament. Unfortunately, I admit, those rules aren't realistic for the amount of time you could really get in a normal tournament.

Unfortunately, no casual players are going to hold there own tournament, and even if they did, other casuals still might not go to it becuase of the ruleset, among various other reasons.

No competitive player is going to hold an item tournament, because we prefer to not play with them. Therefore, unless a casual actually steps up, then this will never happen.

I want to hold a tournament like this and get all the casuals to come, so they can see that items and stages won't change anything. However, I'm afraid that if I do this, I won't get any casuals to come to it, and the ones that will come will be only from the immediate area, and only if I broadcast it IRL.

If I held this tournament, almost no competitive players would come. Therefore, this tournament is is doomed to failure.

I would go to these tournaments just to prove my point, but only if I knew if it would be worth my time to (i.e. enough people to play). Hardly any casuals are going to be willing to travel hours on end to attend a tournament, because they don't care enough. If they did, they would have already "tried" the tournaments that exist already.

Always? Really? I don't think I ever said that. I said I could compete in the tournament, not win the whole thing. I'd love to play some veteran players, but if the only way to play them is to go to tournaments, it's just not worth it.



I never said I could beat you with items on.

No, but we could play two sets; one with your rules, one with MLG standard. Then we could compare the results to see if your claim has any validity. Slikvik is the only one that has provided any evidence, granted I don't know which teams they beat or lost to, it is better than hypotheticals.

You don't have to beat me, but if the results don't accurately show that you did better under your guidelines, then it holds less sway (albeit this would have to be done multiple times with multiple people to get a good base, but in order to PROVE you are right, you'll need some type of empirical evidence).

You don't have to participant in my tournament any more than I have to participate in yours. My version of the rules are the fun version for myself many others like me.

I suppose I was speaking in generalities, which I probably shouldn't do, and I apologize. I was just trying to project this argument through the whole competitive vs. casuals thing that has been going on forever.

For the record, I would still go to a tournament with ******** rules if there wasn't another tournament going on at the time, if not just to win some monies and/or prove your argument false.

You don't feel like you could time travel just through wishful thinking. Do you see the difference between our two statements? You tried to refute my opinion with a faulty hypothetical example.

No, but if I genuinely did, you would think, "This guy is out of his mind!" Get it?

I live in Maryland. I expect that many tournaments would be more fun than that one. As it was, people were so into the game (even before the tournament started) that they weren't talking to you even if you tried to start up a conversation. Is that normal? It was downright uncomfortable to me. Because of this, I didn't learn anyone's name.

My first tournament was kind of like that. But you don't become friends with people as soon as you meet them, so you'll have to give it some time. If you frequent tournaments enough, you'll notice the same people keep showing up, and they'll notice you keep showing up, and then you guys are basically skipping through flowery meadows holding hands, singing songs about rainbows and unicorns.

I'm glad you agree that existing tournaments aren't fun? I don't know what you were trying to say here, but that's what you said. "I'd like to play in tournaments" and "I don't want to not have fun" being contradictory means that tournaments are not fun.

People enter tournaments to:

1.) Win and receive recognition/money/both
2.) Test their skills
3.) Test their growth
4.) Get experience to become better
5.) Have fun

Those are in no particular order. You said that you wanted to compete in tournaments, but they were no fun. Why did you want to compete in the first place? If it is any of those reasons that I posted besides fun, then it doesn't matter if it is fun or not because you are not going for 5, you are going for 1-4.

If you want 5, then you don't need to go to a tournament. If you want them all, you'll need to either go to tournaments and hope they get more fun, hold a tournament with your ruleset, or hope someone holds a tournament with a favorable ruleset. The latter don't happen ever, and it is inexplicable. People complain about the ruleset, but then never create their own result and then host a tournament.

The ruleset has evolved from the beginning to be what it is now, and the majority of the people that want all 5 of those are getting what they want. I say majority, because if casuals that wanted to compete but hated the ruleset were the majority, we would see more tournaments like that, not less.

I go to tournaments for all of those reasons.

I'm not convinced that this is true. An alternative explanation, and this is just a theory and not meant to be a personal attack, is that you aren't as familiar with the timing and spacing for items, so you believe that they're more powerful than they are. I wholeheartedly admit that I could be wrong about this though.

If a star rod appears and you can grab it, what do you do? You grab it because it gives you an advantage or removes an advantage from your opponent. You don't just let it go. You either grab it and use it, grab it and throw it at your opponent, or grab it and throw it away so they can't use it.

There can be mindgames involved in the collection of said item, or the use of item as bait, but once you have obtained the item, the best choice of action is generally using it.

Note: The below is false. I was apparently drunk or something when I posted it. Just call me a moron and move on. -_-;

Once you have said item, you can no longer do aerials, grab, etc. Therefore, your options are either use the item or throw the item, generally the latter due to how much competitive Smash revolves around the aerial game.

Smash tournaments started out with items on a evolved to what it is today over the span of 6 years. Items weren't immediately banished without properly being examined. The same goes for stages (to a certain degree).

 

[Sandwich]

No at the proposal.

Nice try though. =D

 

[ihavespaceblondes]

Once you have said item, you can no longer do aerials, grab, etc. Therefore, your options are either use the item or throw the item, generally the latter due to how much competitive Smash revolves around the aerial game.

A star rod (or any other bludgeoning item) replaces your dash attack, jab, ftilt, and fsmash with four different uses of it, and your grab with just throwing/dropping it. You can still u/dtilt/smash, and use all 5 aerials. It actually gives you more options in the air, as you now have the ability to drop it with no startup/cooldown lag, or just throw it in all four directions. Or bomb jump of it with Samus ^_^

 

[overthere]

I personally love the idea of a tournament like this. But I wouldn't call it "casual". For one thing, because "casual" isn't the word I would use to describe such randomness, and also because "casual" and "tournament" in the same phrase is an oxymoron.

I personally hate the rules that make Smash a more narrow game than it offers. But honestly, I'm pleased enough at playing with friends. I don't need tournaments to make me a hardcore smash fan. I'm even planning on camping out in front of Circuit City on February 9th.