Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[Wenbobular]

It's banned? That's news to me ...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Some areas might ban it, I dunno since I don't look at rulesets for melee as much.

On the Official Melee Rule set, Kongo Jungle is a legal counter pick.

 

[Black Mantis]

Some areas might ban it, I dunno since I don't look at rulesets for melee as much.

On the Official Melee Rule set, Kongo Jungle is a legal counter pick.

Let the melee timeouts continue.

 

[Wenbobular]

Yeah, those timeouts in Melee that happen like, once a year. V_V

 

[Sliq]

The only people that try to timeout in Melee are douchebags and are the minority. Everyone I played in Brawl had no problem timing out.

If it's not about the game mechanics, then Brawl players are collectively ******s.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

it's both.

 

[SmashChu]

...are we really still responding to this guy

s _I_ rlin is great and all, but truly random elements like items and completely overcentralizing or degenerate elements like half of the stages Brawl shipped with (circle camp, cave of life) have no place in a competitive game.

Not to mention the fact that we don't ban items or stages in Brawl. We TURN THEM OFF because the game shipped with the ability for us to choose how to play- and the community simply made a choice. If an item magically appears somehow anyway, you're free to use it. Nothing, I repeat nothing, is banned in Brawl.

Two things
1)I fail to see how turning it off and banning it are any different.
2)No one has explained why "random elements," are bad.

Chu (assuming you aren't trolling), items are banned because they are "excessively random". Random things tend to detract from competition because they arbitrarily decide the winner. Randomness can be excessive in two ways: if it comes with very little warning, and/or if it's overpowering. So while a few items are arguably fine (Star Rod, Beam Sword, and especially Food come to mind), many are unacceptable (Bob-ombs, soccer balls, containers, Pokeballs, arguably Smash Balls). There is also one stage banned for excessive randomness, and that is WarioWare. Its rewards are too random because they range from nothing to invincibility with no pattern whatsoever. Remember that we're trying to decide who the best player is; excessive randomness gives one player a buff for no reason, and thus acts as essentially a handicap. (Small amounts of randomness are generally okay, because it tests the players' ability to handle unexpected events; however, random factors should not decide the outcome of the match.)

First, thanks for explaining the other side. Too often people just regurgitate lines and never give them backing.

My argument with the logic is that randomness doesn't take away from the game. There is a misconception between random and luck. Take Poker, a game that is much bigger than Smash. It is all based around being random. But the players play though that. They use head games to try and make something good of their situation. You can still lose with a good hand.

If items are on, wouldn't you want to maximize the items you get. The items that spawn are random. So if you get 50:50 of the items, than you could still get the weaker ones. And besides, you want to win. You want to have them all for yourself. So you want to maximize the items you get. So how do you do that? Well, items can spawn anywhere on the map, and logic dictates that if you are closer to one, you have a better change of getting one. So, item Smash becomes a game based more on stage control. It will become a game of controlling space. And that takes a lot of skill and strategy to pull off. It becomes controlling the match, which seems to have a lot of competitiveness to it.

The problem has been that no one tries to think about items as an intricate part of the game. They just fight and "OHHH here's a beam sword." Players don't take them into account when playing. Not to mention too many of these "good," players do dumb things with items. I can't see a way it detracts from the game. heck, if anything it adds a new layer of depth to it.

Most stages are banned because they enable some tactic that heavily skews the balance of risk and reward. Sonic has all 100-0 matchups on levels with circle camping, for instance, because opponents cannot get close to him. Many stages with permanent walkoffs or walls are banned (Corneria, Green Hill Zone for instance) because you can sit next to the wall or walkoff and your opponent risks an infinite combo or immediate KO if they try to approach. One stage is banned in part because the skills required of it are "too different" from the ones required of other stages. This is, of course, Mario Bros, which is being discussed in another thread.

Stages are a little different. Part of the problem with the stages is the rule set which is so far away from what they game was made around (then people whine that Sakurai screwed up). One problem is using damage, not sudden death, as the determinate of a win. The game was made using sudden death, not to mention damage means nothing as you can lose a stock at 0% and live with 999% (again, why the game has sudden death in the first place). Items also stop this as they give characters more range and option. Items make walk-off stages better as a character who camps the edge gives up stage control, allowing you to get every item on the map. It comes down to the *******ized rules make stages unplayable.

Mario Bros. is another "deal with it." It's different, but the rules of the game don't change. It doesn't become a shooter or a racing game. It is still "Knock off foe to win." It's just designed around a mechanic (which happens in almost every game).

[qoute]I feel rather strongly about you because of this last paragraph. You're taking perfectly fine ideas and mixing them with idiotic ones, and it's quite frustrating for me to watch.[/quote]

Why is it idiotic. He does not say.

What I'm advocating is "All Brawl." It is trying to make the game based around how the game was designed which will make matches more exciting and add lots of depth to the game. I find it funny that people will claim Sakurai did EVERYTHING wrong and Brawl is horrible when they ignore elements that he added organically to the game (in other words, Smash, as it is played, is very much a shell). What I'm bring up is nothing new, and is just applying common knowledge in other games. Smash Brothers as a competitive game has really become a twisted knot.

Although, some rules I suggest can be altered. Not all the items and stages have to be on, but 95% of them should. The goame was built with these elements on. How can we say we are the best when we don't want to grown and learn with these elements and just shut them off and out of sight? Sure, you can claim it is "more cmpetitive," but how can that be when you are not ready to meet a challenge and get better from it and feel better to just ignore it and consider it not a part of the game. It's there and is just as important as any match-up.

Don't take it personally.

It's all good.

 

[Black Mantis]

The only people that try to timeout in Melee are douchebags and are the minority. Everyone I played in Brawl had no problem timing out.

If it's not about the game mechanics, then Brawl players are collectively asshats.

The point is that being overly defensive can be just as powerful in Melee as in Brawl.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Not quite but the punishments are significantly more severe.

In Melee, making an error during playing defensively means taking a lot of damage or losing a stock.

There was a Pokefloats match from 2009 that shows you what I mean, but I can't find it.

Being defensive in Melee can be effective but not quite as effective, not to mention far more dangerous.

 

[Black Mantis]

Oh yeah
inb4amsahvsjmanteroandpinkshinobi

 

[lasershadow]

the difference is that in poker whether you win or lose isn't based on 3-5 hands. it's based on a bunch of hands. this is a really important distinction, and not too many people understand why.

the purpose of a tournament set should be to determine who the better player is.

when the outcome of a match/hand is significantly decided by a small (read:<5) amount of random events, then the outcome of this one match says very little about the relative skill of the two players. If they played, say, 50 or 100 matches/hands, the better player would tend to win more over time.

In poker, the high random element works because in a round you will play many hands, thus making the random element of the game average out over time.

In smash, this isn't the case because a tournament set cannot practically have enough matches to average out the random element introduced by items or the stage.

 

[OmegaZeroX]

I'd say it's about Skill, lots and lots of skill. Oh and luck, lots and lots of luck. Combos aren't essentially important cuz a game can be played without 'em, although having combos does increase the fun in a game, not to mention it opens up further methods of comboing.(combo-ing?)

 

[lasershadow]

having combos... opens up further methods of comboing.(combo-ing?)

wut

10wuts

 

[SmashChu]

the difference is that in poker whether you win or lose isn't based on 3-5 hands. it's based on a bunch of hands. this is a really important distinction, and not too many people understand why.

Actually, it can, and very often so. Ever heard of an All In? It's one hand that changes the game entirely. Even so, most of the time, a lot of hands are not played to the end, or they are played by 2 or 3 players.

the purpose of a tournament set should be to determine who the better player is.

Which is what I'm suggesting. Knowing items is very important. (Heck, just saw a player I knew played tournament Smash shield Marth's final smash).

when the outcome of a match/hand is significantly decided by a small (read:<5) amount of random events, then the outcome of this one match says very little about the relative skill of the two players. If they played, say, 50 or 100 matches/hands, the better player would tend to win more over time.

In poker, the high random element works because in a round you will play many hands, thus making the random element of the game average out over time.

In smash, this isn't the case because a tournament set cannot practically have enough matches to average out the random element introduced by items or the stage.

You are comparing it incorrectly. A hand is not a game of Poker. Since the random even happens often, it evens out (which is called the Law of Large Numbers). However, in Smash Bros, items spawn all the time. You'll probably see as many items fall as the number of hands in a Poker game (trust me, you don't go though many hands).

But, even so, it doesn't explain why "random," is bad. Random is not bad. It's how the players deal with it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The only people that try to timeout in Melee are douchebags and are the minority. Everyone I played in Brawl had no problem timing out.

If it's not about the game mechanics, then Brawl players are collectively asshats.

I'm sorry but, what? That is a terrible conclusion to reach.

So because people time-out, playing to win which is exactly what people should be doing. Competitive is not about playing nice, we CG those low tier mains with Sheik all day, we play to win in each game and be respectful about it.

Is Pink Shinobi an *** for timing out a Ganon on Kongo Jungle? No he's using the fact Ganon is slow to get a time-out. Is it pretty or playing like people want to? No, but it doesn't mean he is mean spirited for doing that.

The only time a time out strat is bad is if it is unbeatable or not reasonably beatable.

Not quite but the punishments are significantly more severe.

In Melee, making an error during playing defensively means taking a lot of damage or losing a stock.

There was a Pokefloats match from 2009 that shows you what I mean, but I can't find it.

Being defensive in Melee can be effective but not quite as effective, not to mention far more dangerous.

The approaching player can be punished just as hard by the defensive player if he makes a mistake as well. It's not as if the defending player suddenly loses all their punishment options by playing defensive.

 

[Wenbobular]

It's far more dangerous being recklessly aggressive o_O M2K vs Shiz happened for a reason ...

That being said, hardcore camping isn't really a winning strat save in a select few, stage specific matchups.

Also Jiggs planking the edge is broken according to M2K but only Chibosempai has tried to do anything like that.

 

[flyinfilipino]

But, even so, it doesn't explain why "random," is bad. Random is not bad. It's how the players deal with it.

How does one deal with an exploding capsule that "randomly" spawns right in front of you as you charge a Smash Attack?

 

[Wenbobular]

Going off wiki:

A game of skill is a game where the outcome is determined mainly by mental and/or physical skill, rather than by pure chance.

Does that answer your question well enough, Sir Smashchu ~_~
Why you'd want to have random chance affecting the outcome of a skill based competition is beyond me.

 

[Kanelol]

I haven't read all 90 billion pages of this, but I'll offer a little nugget of wisdom

From here, it looks like most everyone assumes that all the combos you see in Melee are automatic, with no chance for the combo-ee to escape or fight back. If this was truly the case, I would agree that lack of combos doesn't hurt Brawl that much.

Granted, there are a few automatic combos in melee. I can think of maybe 2. 3 if you want to count chain grabs.

However, the amount of DI/teching options in melee adds several new layers of mindgames to the average "combo". People claiming that Brawl requires more mentality in order to continue hitting your opponent are trying to cover up the fact that Brawls engine is so slow and developmentally challenged that it's almost impossible to combo.

Also,

Spoiler

FALCO'S D-THROW LOLOLOLOL

 

[Sliq]

The point is that being overly defensive can be just as powerful in Melee as in Brawl.

Right, but it isn't the ONLY successful option.

I'm sorry but, what? That is a terrible conclusion to reach.

So because people time-out, playing to win which is exactly what people should be doing. Competitive is not about playing nice, we CG those low tier mains with Sheik all day, we play to win in each game and be respectful about it.

Is Pink Shinobi an *** for timing out a Ganon on Kongo Jungle? No he's using the fact Ganon is slow to get a time-out. Is it pretty or playing like people want to? No, but it doesn't mean he is mean spirited for doing that.

The only time a time out strat is bad is if it is unbeatable or not reasonably beatable.



The approaching player can be punished just as hard by the defensive player if he makes a mistake as well. It's not as if the defending player suddenly loses all their punishment options by playing defensive.

See, you're wrong. Just because you play to win doesn't mean you don't use ******* tactics. That's pretty much the ESSENCE of playing to win in almost EVERY FIELD: abusing ******* tactics.

I never claimed those people don't play to win, I claim they are *******s based on their playstyle. And so are you.

 

[Sliq]

Whoops double post. I wish I could delete posts...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Right, but it isn't the ONLY successful option.

If it was the only successful option getting a lead should be an instant win.

See, you're wrong. Just because you play to win doesn't mean you don't use ******* tactics. That's pretty much the ESSENCE of playing to win in almost EVERY FIELD: abusing ******* tactics.

I never claimed those people don't play to win, I claim they are *******s based on their playstyle. And so are you.

So your going to retort to personal attacks instead of debating my point, but hey I'll go with it.

The reason we ban a few stages if because of those ******* tactics your talking about. You don't leave those things that are broken unbanned because we should always assume people will play to win and use them. If they aren't using them while legal they aren't playing to win.

Peach can go and fight Ganon on Kongo Jungle or she can make him approach her. Making him approach is a lot easily than going to fight him because of honor or something else.

We assume the worst of what players will do. If we didn't quite a few banned stages in both games would be legal.

 

[TurnOneWrath]

My argument with the logic is that randomness doesn't take away from the game. There is a misconception between random and luck. Take Poker, a game that is much bigger than Smash. It is all based around being random. But the players play though that. They use head games to try and make something good of their situation. You can still lose with a good hand.

While that's true for Poker, it's impossible with Smash. You can't play head games with the capsule your character is holding in his hand, because no one knows what it is.
Is it a bomb so you throw it at your opponent, or is it a Pokeball? And then you can't bluff Pokeballs either because what's inside is completely random and ranges from doing nothing to killing your opponent.

Way back in the day my friend and I would set the game settings to very hard and team up to fight Falco and Fox (they seemed to be the most difficult characters to beat). In retrospect, it pretty much came down to who grabbed better Pokeballs. I remember constantly asking, "Is that our Pokeball?"

Items are definitely very capable of determining a winner and loser completely at random. Whether we won or lost was completely out of our hands. People don't want to have tournaments that really amount to a series of coin flips.

 

[lasershadow]

stuff about math

I concede that there may be a large number of random events that effect gameplay with items on. However, this changes the type of skill that the a tournament set is testing for. Some items can be so polarizing (warp star, bomb-ombs, pokeballs, etc) that they literally decide the game. Thus the skill a set tests for shifts from spacing, reads, combo ability, execution, etc, to pure stage control, and speed. I argue that this removes depth by emphasizing parts of the game that aren't as important

Think about how many tourney matches come down to one stock each. Quite a bit, right? Even if items were on medium or low, there is a pretty good probability (as you said, with many different random events occurring) that an empty capsule would kill a player, or a bomb-omb would let the player at 150% kill the player at 40%. In the current system, if a player has a lead, it is through their own merit, not at the mercy of the gamecube's (psuedo)random number generator.

So that means quite a few tourney matches will end up coming down to who is lucky with items. How is this desirable, and how does it in any way add depth? In my opinion, it heavily favors characters who can run faster and get to the items before their opponent. After all, who's going to play someone like Ganon or DK when they can't possibly outrun a Fox?

tl;dr items favor the wrong kind of skill

 

[Djent]

Right, but it isn't the ONLY successful option.



See, you're wrong. Just because you play to win doesn't mean you don't use ******* tactics. That's pretty much the ESSENCE of playing to win in almost EVERY FIELD: abusing ******* tactics.

I never claimed those people don't play to win, I claim they are *******s based on their playstyle. And so are you.

You call competitve gamers "*******s" like it's a bad thing. If given the choice between "*******" and "scrub," you bet imma choose the former.

10*******s

 

[Sliq]

So your going to retort to personal attacks instead of debating my point, but hey I'll go with it.

I debated your point fine. You asked if Pink Shinobi was an *** for playing that way, and I said yes and explained why. Let's say you are applying for a job. The day of the interview, you slash the tires of all of your competitors. They miss the interview, you get the job. You win. But you are also an *******.

You used all of the tools at your disposal, and followed all of the rules (rules being the rules of reality and physcs i.e. you didn't time travel and punch your competitions' moms in the stomach when they were pregnant). You won, but not a lot of people are going to high five you for your actions. Then I insulted you because you really should feel bad about making your name RED RYU. Come on, seriously? The only way that's acceptable is if your actually name is Ryu and you are a ginger, which seems EXTREMELY unlikely, however awesome it would be.

You call competitve gamers "*******s" like it's a bad thing. If given the choice between "*******" and "scrub," you bet imma choose the former.

10*******s

Ok, so you are an *******. What's the problem? There shouldn't be one. I'm calling you an ******* and you're ok with it. Also, you're probably bad anyways, so I could probably call you a scrub and an ******* and get away with it. You'd probably try to win by ***ging out, but you'd lose anyways.

The problem is when I call an ******* an ******* and they get pissed off, like they didn't realize running the timer or using an D3's infinite was a **** move.

If you play to win as ruthlessly as possible, fine, but you CAN NOT be mad when I called you a ****** for being a ******.

Why does no one get this?

 

[Wenbobular]

I think slashing someone's tires is illegal haha

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I debated your point fine. You asked if Pink Shinobi was an *** for playing that way, and I said yes and explained why. Let's say you are applying for a job. The day of the interview, you slash the tires of all of your competitors. They miss the interview, you get the job. You win. But you are also an *******.

You used all of the tools at your disposal, and followed all of the rules (rules being the rules of reality and physcs i.e. you didn't time travel and punch your competitions' moms in the stomach when they were pregnant). You won, but not a lot of people are going to high five you for your actions.

I never asked, I outright stated he isn't an *** for doing that

Here is the difference in your example, the person slashing tires is doing a literally criminal act to get the job. So yeah he would get the job, then go to jail or pay a huge fine for all the tires he slashed and then lose it.

He followed the rules legitly and beat him using what we determined was fair game to use, I would high five Pink Shinobi just like I would high five DMG for doing a successful timeout, because they used what was legal to win.

Now if timeouts were too strong or unbeatable, circles camping on temple for example, then I would do something about it, like banning the stage.

Don't blame the players for using something the community left legal.

Then I insulted you because you really should feel bad about making your name RED RYU. Come on, seriously? The only way that's acceptable is if your actually name is Ryu and you are a ginger, which seems EXTREMELY unlikely, however awesome it would be.

I've heard worse.

Ok, so you are an *******. What's the problem? There shouldn't be one. I'm calling you an ******* and you're ok with it. Also, you're probably bad anyways, so I could probably call you a scrub and an ******* and get away with it. You'd probably try to win by ***ging out, but you'd lose anyways.

The problem is when I call an ******* an ******* and they get pissed off, like they didn't realize running the timer or using an D3's infinite was a **** move.

If you play to win as ruthlessly as possible, fine, but you CAN NOT be mad when I called you a ****** for being a ******.

Why does no one get this?

Because nothing he did was illegal or against the rules.

Grow up.

 

[NovaSmash]

Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

Yes, yes it does, to the point where alot of ppl wont even play it(including myself)

 

[Black Mantis]

Yeah Sliq that was a bad example. I don't think Pink Shinobi, Tero, or Amsah would go to jail for camping.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

nah Pink Shinobi is legit.

he's mad good, but started playing hella gay after he came back from SF 3S

also smashchu is ******** or something I swear.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Black Mantis]

nah Pink Shinobi is legit.

he's mad good, but started playing hella gay after he came back from SF 3S

also smashchu is ******** or something I swear.

Yeah I give pinkshinobi his props. But the point is that he plays very defensive which is something melee players constantly insult brawl for. I find it hypocritical that being campy in one game is considered as "legit", but in another it sucks and is horrible.

 

[TurnOneWrath]

I debated your point fine. You asked if Pink Shinobi was an *** for playing that way, and I said yes and explained why.

This may be a silly question, but in what way was he/she playing? I've never heard of timing out.

 

[WoodyWiggins]

I've been playing Smash Bros. since Melee came out, though only casually because I was too young to go to tournaments. Now that I'm in college, I'm able to play with a much wider range of people, including those who are frequent tournament goers.

A couple of the people that I have met extremely dislike Brawl compared to Melee (not that uncommon of an opinion), and what their problem with it boiled down to, even more so than the obvious flaws like tripping and character balance (not that melee was much better in that respect), was combos, or Brawl's lack thereof.

I, on the other hand, don't see why that is a problem, I see it as making that game more about reading , predicting, and overall outsmarting that opponent to land consecutive hits than relying on one's ability to perfectly press the right buttons in the correct sequence after landing the first hit.

This is also quite evident in our choice of mods. I really like Balanced Brawl, because it fixes my problem with the game, character and stage viability. My friends, on the other hand, prefer Brawl+ because it allows them to combo effectively.

What are your opinions on this? Are combos really so important that a game without very many of them is simply worse than one with them?

Brawl is refreshing because of the reading, predicting, and outsmarting involved. Landing perfect combos is more of a personal challenge, and it feels really good to pull off a combo in a tournament, that you have practiced on for months.

HOWEVER

Smash is not a standard fighter.

By standard I mean a fighting game with a health bar, and the objective is to KO your opponent. The objective in Smash is to rack up your opponents damage, and then ring out your opponent.

That's almost the opposite.

Combos surely make ringing out your opponent easier, but do combos really belong in a game, where the objective is completely different from standard or traditional fighting games?

I also think this is the reason why the Brawl Metagame is stale. A lot of players have the mind set that the metagame sholud focus on combos, infinites, and chaingrabs. Rather than capitalizing on the "defensive" nature of Brawl. Things like camping, planking, stage control, zoning and etc, can be used in a manner similar to combos, chaingrabs and etc. It may not be exciting to watch, but someone a long time ago brought up the analogy that basically meant Melee = Checkers, Brawl = Chess.

It just all boils down to which game you find to be more pleasing.

But, no, a lack of true combos does not hurt brawl.

 

[Wenbobular]

Melee = Checkers, Brawl = Chess?

Seriously?

I think just the fact that you can literally have more options with your character in Melee means that you can't make that statement right -_____-

 

[Black Mantis]

Brawl is refreshing because of the reading, predicting, and outsmarting involved. Landing perfect combos is more of a personal challenge, and it feels really good to pull off a combo in a tournament, that you have practiced on for months.

HOWEVER

Smash is not a standard fighter.

By standard I mean a fighting game with a health bar, and the objective is to KO your opponent. The objective in Smash is to rack up your opponents damage, and then ring out your opponent.

That's almost the opposite.

Combos surely make ringing out your opponent easier, but do combos really belong in a game, where the objective is completely different from standard or traditional fighting games?

I also think this is the reason why the Brawl Metagame is stale. A lot of players have the mind set that the metagame sholud focus on combos, infinites, and chaingrabs. Rather than capitalizing on the "defensive" nature of Brawl. Things like camping, planking, stage control, zoning and etc, can be used in a manner similar to combos, chaingrabs and etc. It may not be exciting to watch, but someone a long time ago brought up the analogy that basically meant Melee = Checkers, Brawl = Chess.

It just all boils down to which game you find to be more pleasing.

But, no, a lack of true combos does not hurt brawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVTaD1PY1aw

 

[Sliq]

This may be a silly question, but in what way was he/she playing? I've never heard of timing out.

He pretty much circle camped on Kong Jungle 64. He avoided all conflict once he got the lead. It was a really disappointing match to watch because both players are so talented that I was sure it was going to be awesome.

Yeah Sliq that was a bad example. I don't think Pink Shinobi, Tero, or Amsah would go to jail for camping.

They'd go to the jail known as my broken heart and reside there indefinitely, wallowing in a pool of infinite sadness. Also, Lady Gaga is playing over the speakers.

nah Pink Shinobi is legit.

he's mad good, but started playing hella gay after he came back from SF 3S

also smashchu is ******** or something I swear.

I'm sure he is, and I'm sure we wouldn't have any problems. My first impression of him, tho, is one of justified pessimism.

Brawl is refreshing because of the reading, predicting, and outsmarting involved.

Yeah, finally a fighting game included that ****. About time!

Landing perfect combos is more of a personal challenge, and it feels really good to pull off a combo in a tournament, that you have practiced on for months.

No one ****ing practices Melee combos, don't be a ******. Melee doesn't have automatic combos like Street Fighter because of DI, so practicing that **** would make no sense.

By standard I mean a fighting game with a health bar, and the objective is to KO your opponent. The objective in Smash is to rack up your opponents damage, and then ring out your opponent.

That's almost the opposite.

You shouldn't drink so heavily.

Combos surely make ringing out your opponent easier, but do combos really belong in a game, where the objective is completely different from standard or traditional fighting games?

Not if you like your fighting games boring and ****ty.

I also think this is the reason why the Brawl Metagame is stale. A lot of players have the mind set that the metagame sholud focus on combos, infinites, and chaingrabs. Rather than capitalizing on the "defensive" nature of Brawl. Things like camping, planking, stage control, zoning and etc, can be used in a manner similar to combos, chaingrabs and etc..

Have you ever attended a tournament? That's all that ****ing happens!

It may not be exciting to watch, but someone a long time ago brought up the analogy that basically meant Melee = Checkers, Brawl = Chess

You shouldn't take prescription drugs and then drink heavily.

I think slashing someone's tires is illegal haha

The law is pretty much a "made up" rule, imposed by the players and not the creator. Not slashing the tires is tantamount to not edgeguarding.

I never asked, I outright stated he isn't an *** for doing that.

Is Pink Shinobi an *** for timing out a Ganon on Kongo Jungle?.

I understand it was rhetorical, but it's the same as saying, "Does 2+2=5? Yes, it does."

Here is the difference in your example, the person slashing tires is doing a literally criminal act to get the job. So yeah he would get the job, then go to jail or pay a huge fine for all the tires he slashed and then lose it.

You'd only go to jail if you got caught. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you won't get caught, and there would be no consequences for slashing the tires. Would you do it? You'd win for certain if you did. Play to win, right?

He followed the rules legitly and beat him using what we determined was fair game to use, I would high five Pink Shinobi just like I would high five DMG for doing a successful timeout, because they used what was legal to win.

Well, I do suppose members of the KKK do high five each other when they stick it to a minority. Let's retroactively agree that what I said only applies to non-*******s so I don't have to ridiculously compare you to the KKK.

Now if timeouts were too strong or unbeatable, circles camping on temple for example, then I would do something about it, like banning the stage.

I'm not claiming it's overpowered. I'm saying it makes you less likeable as an individual. Seriously, pull your head out of your ***. If you are cut throat in any competition, everyone is going to dislike you. Ty Cobb was an amazing baseball player, and he's in the baseball hall of fame. However, the fans hated him because he would use legal, underhanded tactics like spiking players.

I've heard worse.

Congratulations, you don't have the absolute worst name on the boards. Maybe some day you can shoot for mediocrity. A man can dream...

Because nothing he did was illegal or against the rules.

So I guess that I'm the only one on these boards that hates camping and lame tactics. That's why people bring up banning them even though they aren't gamebreaking (lol edge grab limit).

Grow up.

If I did that then I wouldn't be able to describe in great detail about how I plowed the **** out of your mom last night. But that's another story for another time.

 

[Wenbobular]

Actually I think slashing someone's tires is basically like punching them in the face while playing Melee.

 

[Sliq]

Actually I think slashing someone's tires is basically like punching them in the face while playing Melee.

Actually, I think that would be the same as time traveling and punching the competitions' moms in the stomach.

Punching your opponent in the face is outside of the reality of the game. Time traveling is outside of the reality of the game of life. Each reality has to abide by the rules established (which is different from the man made laws).