Evo's Ruleset Announcement (UPDATED RULES)

[AlphaZealot]

Okay everyone, I've reached some conclusions for myself personally and I'm hoping others may resonate similar ideas.

I would have liked EVO to be a staple for the Smash community similar to what MLG was. They picked up Smash, after all, because of the strength of the community here at Smashboards. It seemed only logical that they would cater the rules toward the competitive standard and not something contrived on SRK. This is where my problem was, and why it was upseting.

Instead of viewing this as EVO taking in the Smash community, just look at it in the same light as the Nintendo or Gamestop tournaments. No one complained about the rules for those events because we made the assumption they had no idea what they were doing and that they were catering toward a larger crowd, not the competitive players. I could be entirely possible that EVO is attempting the same thing. Regardless though, Kirbster pointed out we should let the free-market do the work for us. If you like the rules and the tournament, go, if you don't, don't go. At this point in time, I'm ceasing my debate on this topic and I hope many of you do the same, it simply draws out the worst from people on both sides, and doesn't help at all considering it looks like the position on items simply will not be budged.

If you mirror these sentiments, and want the debate simply to die because things won't go anywhere, and you simply want the free market to take affect, then simply ignore this thread and others like it, it is what I'll be doing.

 

[BigRick]

I wanna add my two cents.

Melee, that was picked up by evo kinda late in its lifecycle was SWF's game. Nobody played it but us, nobody knew it better than us.

Since Brawl is a new game, we can't really say that it's our game yet, so they can permit themselves to do what they did.

Due to past experiences, the notion of sequels simply dont exist for them... a new game is a new game.

AZ is right, if you like no-item brawls you just need to move on...The two communities can coexist.

Now, is there going to be a Brawl FC or what?

 

[JTB]

Somehow, I've attained -10725 rep on SRK with 41 posts.

 

[35forlife]

It seems that the rulemakers for EVO are just as ignorant of the competitive scene as was sakurai when he made brawl...

...It still amazes me that you think that this game was made for competition. Let's take a look at the leaderboard, Mo.

Members on Smash Boards: 87094
Total copies of Brawl sold: 3.55 million in America (VGCharts)
Total copies of Melee sold: 4.49 million in America (VGCharts)

Now, I'm gonna be generous here, and say that aprox. half of the users here are active, giving a grand total of 43547 tournament players here. Now, this represents about 1% of all the people who bought Melee. Now, I know what you're gonna say, "Dude, there are more tourney players than just us!" This may be true, but I also don't believe that all 43547 of the people I counted play in a tournament regularly, or even at all. These numbers balance out. And common sense and basic knowledge of advertising, making money, and game development says that you don't make a game for 1% of it's total audience, you make it for 99% of it's total audience. And a majority of people who would want to watch a game of Smash played would look out for things like "OMG, did you see that cool explosion?" "Yeah, where the shell knocked out the dude, and he landed on the mine? THAT WAS SO FRICKEN SWEET!" as opposed to "Dude, check out how he uses his space, he's manipulating his opponent perfectly." Notice that they sell DVDs. They're gonna pander to the masses, like "Check out this, it's exciting!" not "Check out this, these people are playing perfectly!" I appreciate all that this community for the game, and don't mean to insult you, but if you want to advertise, you go for the masses, not the minority. Judging by the way they've treated SWB in the past, that the game is being recognized at all is a feat in itself. You're gonna complain and moan, but this is the first year this game has been out, and they want to capitalize on it's popularity. So what if they don't agree with the rules you guys have laid out for your tournaments, you should go support the game you play, regardless of how they play it.

 

[SynikaL]

UltraDavid presents a very compelling case for items. Now the question is: will anyone in the Smash community actually recognize the merits presented within and respond accordingly? SamPanda responded with something totally closed minded and flaky to the tune of "That sounds great in theory..." with zero substance. Not good.


-Kimosabae

 

[LeeHarris]

I've said this once before (maybe in the SBR) and I'll say it again.

Evo needed competitive Smash more than competitive Smash needed Evo.

We've got several national tournaments for Brawl this summer, and quite frankly Evo is hanging on to a dying breed of 2D fighters that needs to gather players from all around the world to make a decent sized tournament.

When Third Strike starts bringing in several tournaments a week with 70+ attendance solely for that game, then they will hold the leverage Smash does. Until then, we should just ignore their stubborn decision and continue hosting large and superior events.

 

[Aesir]

UltraDavid presents a very compelling case for items. Now the question is: will anyone in the Smash community actually recognize the merits presented within and respond accordingly? SamPanda responded with something totally closed minded and flaky to the tune of "That sounds great in theory..." with zero substance. Not good.


-Kimosabae

What exactly was it? because I can tell you right now it has to be pretty convincing to ignore the whole Random spawn = bad.

I really think thats what it boils down too. Items aren't bad it's the way they enter the game that makes them bad. Getting rewarded just because you were at the right place at the right time isn't very skillful especially since items can generate a pretty solid advantage at times.

 

[BigRick]

What exactly was it? because I can tell you right now it has to be pretty convincing to ignore the whole Random spawn = bad.

I really think thats what it boils down too. Items aren't bad it's the way they enter the game that makes them bad. Getting rewarded just because you were at the right place at the right time isn't very skillful especially since items can generate a pretty solid advantage at times.

actually his post tries to take account of the random spawn argument

Ill try to go get it so that all of yall can feast on it

 

[BigRick]

sry for dbl post but I'm putting this on to fullfill Aesir's request. The guy has an account here on smashboards but I dont think that he knows that this thread is open.

First of all the post answers this:

I have asked twice now, and been ignored both times. What GOOD will items do for competitive play? We have presented legit reasons as to why items can easily detract from competitive game play. No one has elaborated on the good things items can do for competitive play. Its totally a one sided debate. You guys act like items are some how a given that we have to take down, when you have yet to even present a case as to why items should even be there.

Answer:

his is virtually all I've ever talked about in these threads, but I guess you didn't follow the previous ones. That's cool. Quick rehash:

Items force you to control the entire stage, not just the space around your opponent. Because items spawn in random locations, you don't know where the next one's gonna land, and because the next one could be a good one, you want to control as much of the spawning points as possible. While playing like this can seem the same as playing to control your opponent, they're really two different things that just look the same at certain points. Like if you're on Final Destination and you're pushing your opponent to an edge, you're both controlling his space and the various spawn points on the stage. But if you're coming up to a spawning time (which is not random, it's set on repeat to within a few seconds), you might not want to try to follow the opponent off a ledge after you launch him, for example. And whereas some characters might otherwise be alright with being off the stage for a while after getting launched, with items on you want to be on the stage as much as possible. And then there are stages with important choke points that you want to control so as to control the most item drops possible, and those points can change depending on where you and your opponent are at the time. The stage-control part of the game is enhanced, and yeah, I think that's a good thing.

Items also make running away less of a valid option. If you're Pit against a Ganon on FD and you're just shooting the crap out of him from one side of the stage, you're controlling Ganon, but you're not controlling the stage and its spawning points, meaning that you're basically giving Ganon some portion of the stage's spawning points and therefore (probably) some items. Or if you're Metaknight and you just wanna fly underneath a stage forever, fine, but you're voluntarily giving up all items, and in doing so you might be giving up a stock. Items necessarily make the game less about running away, and I think that's good too.

Smash balls and dragoons in particular make for cooler strategy in that they force you to control the space around neutral third objects. The person who controls more space is better off at the beginning in some cases, but the fact that the smash ball moves around and takes multiple hits to break means that there's a real battle over it. There's a bunch of interesting questions you and your opponent have to answer, like whether you go for the ball right away, whether you try to keep your opponent from getting it, whether you use it to bait your opponent into making mistakes, etc. And then once you get the final smash, you have to consider whether to use it immediately, whether to try to take a stock from your opponent first, whether to risk losing the final smash in baiting your opponent, how to put your opponent in a situation where your final smash is guaranteed, etc. And the dragoon has a lot of cool battles too, like whether you gather it immediately, whether you guard the pieces, whether you use them to bait your opponent into doing something bad, and so forth. I like battling over neutral third objects like that, and I like the extra strategy and mind games that come with doing so.

Having lots of stages on is also really interesting and better to me, but you didn't ask about that. Suffice to say, I like the fact that you have to control strategically advantageous stage positions.

Also, SRKers like most items/stages just because that kind of play is so different from what we're used to. I can certainly understand liking the 1v1, flat-stage, no-items kind of strategy, because I and everyone else on SRK play that all the time in Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, CvS2, Marvel2, VF, T5/6, and so on. We love that stuff, but we also already play it all the time. Having most items and stages on makes for a very different experience, and we want that kind of thing.

Also a little comment by Panda:

ROFL! Yeah, I'm going to control luck to win the match.

Answer:

This is not a ridiculous thing to say; it happens all the time in poker, MTG, backgammon, and so on. You don't control the luck itself, you control for it, and in doing so you win. You control for luck in all-Brawl by controlling the spawning points and choke points as often as possible and by using and reacting to items intelligently.


Edit: Obviously items change the tiers. And that's super unimportant.

 

[Yoyo89]

I think the whole "controlling the stage for items" issue is redundant. If you want to control as many spawn points as possible, then you better send your opponent off the stage, which is really the whole point of the game when not using items.

 

[Atacusbebop123]

I deff changed my mind about going so yeah.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I think the whole "controlling the stage for items" issue is redundant. If you want to control as many spawn points as possible, then you better send your opponent off the stage, which is really the whole point of the game when not using items.

Which is exactly the problem with the "controlling the stage" argument.

A good example of this is a game of chess, where you are constantly fighting for small advantages. Suppose against my opponent I've reached an open end-game position with only a few pawns left with even material, except I have a bishop to my opponent's knight. In most situations, this is a win because bishops are much better than knights in open positions with their ability to control so many squares at once from a long range. I worked for this advantage, and this advantage alone is enough for me to win the game if I play right.

So of what advantage is it to the competitive scene for my powerful bishop to randomly gain the strength of a queen? I already have the advantage, I can already pull out the win. What purpose does it serve to randomly increase this advantage just because I had it at the right time?

It's the exact same thing with smash. You're already trying to limit your opponent's options. You're already trying to throw them off the stage. What strategical value could you possibly gain by randomly overpowering someone just because they gained the advantage at the right time for doing what he should already be doing?

 

[BigRick]

I think the whole "controlling the stage for items" issue is redundant. If you want to control as many spawn points as possible, then you better send your opponent off the stage, which is really the whole point of the game when not using items.

hmm some1 already said something like this, an answer

You don't necessarily want to force your opponent off the stage, although this is totally stage and matchup dependent (which is another reason items and stages are cool). Say you're on Corneria and you have your opponent trapped on the tail with you at the top of the ledge. When you're there, you're controlling every spawning point on that stage except for one, and you have just as much access to that one as your opponent in the case of the powerful items. Why bother forcing your opponent off the stage and risk losing such a good position?

And yeah, strategy, stage selection, and character choice are all different with items on, I think everyone recognizes this. Is that a problem?

Of course, but you have to win in a different way, like I posted. And I think that's cool.

 

[thesage]

The problem is that it creates a whole different kind of game with different rules. Most people simply prefer the non-items version.

I understand that you can control a larger portion of the stage to increase your chances of getting an item, but there's still a chance that it spawns in the other persons territory. All you have to do is keep your opponent close to an edge and make sure they stay there. I don't like playing that way, as well as most of the community.

 

[BigRick]

Which is exactly the problem with the "controlling the stage" argument.

A good example of this is a game of chess, where you are constantly fighting for small advantages. Suppose against my opponent I've reached an open end-game position with only a few pawns left with even material, except I have a bishop to my opponent's knight. In most situations, this is a win because bishops are much better than knights in open positions with their ability to control so many squares at once from a long range. I worked for this advantage, and this advantage alone is enough for me to win the game if I play right.

So of what advantage is it to the competitive scene for my powerful bishop to randomly gain the strength of a queen? I already have the advantage, I can already pull out the win. What purpose does it serve to randomly increase this advantage just because I had it at the right time?

It's the exact same thing with smash. You're already trying to limit your opponent's options. You're already trying to throw them off the stage. What strategical value could you possibly gain by randomly overpowering someone just because they gained the advantage at the right time for doing what he should already be doing?

This is a very solid point, but he also gave an answer for it:

And the goal is not always to force your opponent off the stage. It usually is on stages like Final Destination that don't have varied terrain, but that changes on most non-flat, platform-having stages and on walk-off stages. And the goal of some characters is not necessarily to push their opponent back anyway, like a Pit player wouldn't necessarily want to be up in his opponent's grill, he might rather be far away shooting arrows, and with items that becomes a less effective strategy because that's playing to control the opponent, not the stage. Like I said, controlling your opponent and controlling the stage can often seem the same, but they're really not.

 

[Aesir]

He makes a really solid argument though however I have to ask exactly how much of the game has he played? I'm gonna have to say it works well in theory but in practice? I don't think so and heres why.

Items spawn at random, you never know which item is spawned so it's a luck of the draw. the luck we talk about and the luck used in magic is completely different. Players in magic use cards their decks need in order to run well. so you draw the cards you need at that point in time or you draw cards you'll need later, this isn't the same thing as being in the right place at the right time so to speak.

and honestly you can control the stage all you want you still have no control over the spawning points of items or which items spawn. Unless you constantly have the other player in some spot where theres no way they can get the item before you. (which is highly unlikely.) It's still going to produce the effect of being in the right place at the right time based on luck.

Sides nothing is stopping an item form spawning right next to the other player.

 

[Yoyo89]

The problem is that it turns the game into a "who gets the item first so he can KO the opponent" instead of the "just KO the opponent" game we know. Which I think, makes it redundant.

EDIT: I agree UltraDavid does have a valid argument (IMO he's the smarter poster on their side of the debate) but like many other have said, it turns into a whole different game.

 

[BigRick]

He makes a really solid argument though however I have to ask exactly how much of the game has he played? I'm gonna have to say it works well in theory but in practice? I don't think so and heres why.

Items spawn at random, you never know which item is spawned so it's a luck of the draw. the luck we talk about and the luck used in magic is completely different. Players in magic use cards their decks need in order to run well. so you draw the cards you need at that point in time or you draw cards you'll need later, this isn't the same thing as being in the right place at the right time so to speak.

and honestly you can control the stage all you want you still have no control over the spawning points of items or which items spawn. Unless you constantly have the other player in some spot where theres no way they can get the item before you. (which is highly unlikely.) It's still going to produce the effect of being in the right place at the right time based on luck.

Sides nothing is stopping an item form spawning right next to the other player.

He also answered to a post similar to this, here it goes:

Yeah, it's hard to control the whole stage; that's just the goal, and it's a hard one. But in controlling more of the stage than your opponent, you're likely to get more of an advantage from items. And while a match between two even players certainly can be decided by like, if the two of you are controlling the same amount of stage, it's not likely that one of you will get much of an advantage from items over the other. And this is why having 3/5 matches is good, because it will help control for whatever randomness the players themselves find too hard to control.

Another post by another guy on the same subject that I think is worth showing:

This is exactly the same problem that any other game involving luck potentially faces. Two equally skilled MTG players can go back and forth until one player manages to topdeck their win condition and takes the game. Tournament history demonstrates that luck is still not a major factor, and what role it does play is worth it for the other gains.

 

[35forlife]

So, who's to say that this particular game is bad? What he is arguing is that it's a different game, and you guys are arguing that that particular game is wrong, and that you won't stand for it. If you don't wanna go, don't go, but don't say that this is a travesty because it's not the game that you play.

It's like CTF and Deathmatch. Two equally valid, and different games. Different strategy, same equipment.

 

[Aesir]

Drawing cards isn't as random as an powerful item randomly falling on you.

Theres a high chance that 3 assist trophies can land next to you late game. There isn't a high chance you'll draw burn spells late game in magic.

Thats what he fails to see here, it's not the same thing. Magic players have a list of cards available in their deck, so as the game progresses they have some sort of idea what they're getting. This isn't the case with item play in smash. It's a complete toss up, controlling the stage only limits this possibility, however it's futile endeavor because all you're really doing is prolonging inevitable of an item spawning near the player who you've been working so hard to ensure he has little advantages as possible. Then all of a sudden an item spawns next to him and he has the advantage?

 

[BigRick]

So, who's to say that this particular game is bad? What he is arguing is that it's a different game, and you guys are arguing that that particular game is wrong, and that you won't stand for it. If you don't wanna go, don't go, but don't say that this is a travesty because it's not the game that you play.

It's like CTF and Deathmatch. Two equally valid, and different games. Different strategy, same equipment.

It's like singles and doubles also!

A Smash tourney could easily run 4 events: Standard, Items, Doubles, FFA

Each game with its pros and its cons (with FFA having a ****load of cons hehehe)

 

[35forlife]

Ah, but there are only a limited number of items that a person could get, that are as different as mana and spells in Magic. I've seen people be screwed by mana burn before, and that's more luck than item dropping. And yet they still consider Magic competitive. Hm...

 

[35forlife]

It's like singles and doubles also!

A Smash tourney could easily run 4 events: Standard, Items, Doubles, FFA

Each game with its pros and its cons (with FFA having a ****load of cons hehehe)

And therein lies the problem. Each mode has its pros and cons, you agree with me, but what makes FFA have any more cons? It's just as competitive, but is just a little more luck based. A little less Chess, a little more Blackjack. You just have predisposition to dislike things that you can't be sure you win.

 

[BigRick]

Drawing cards isn't as random as an powerful item randomly falling on you.

Theres a high chance that 3 assist trophies can land next to you late game. There isn't a high chance you'll draw burn spells late game in magic.

Thats what he fails to see here, it's not the same thing. Magic players have a list of cards available in their deck, so as the game progresses they have some sort of idea what they're getting. This isn't the case with item play in smash. It's a complete toss up, controlling the stage only limits this possibility, however it's futile endeavor because all you're really doing is prolonging inevitable of an item spawning near the player who you've been working so hard to ensure he has little advantages as possible. Then all of a sudden an item spawns next to him and he has the advantage?

Yes if an item spawns next to him he will have the advantage. However the item has more chances to spawn for you, so stop being pessimistic... it is not a futile endeavor.

 

[BigRick]

And therein lies the problem. Each mode has its pros and cons, you agree with me, but what makes FFA have any more cons? It's just as competitive, but is just a little more luck based. A little less Chess, a little more Blackjack. You just have predisposition to dislike things that you can't be sure you win.

lol actually the cons will mostly come from the players, not the game itself if you see what I mean (complaints and etc.)

 

[-Wolfy-]

But how practical is running 4 brawl events at a national level tournament, where brawl is one of several games being played this year at Vegas?

I agree it'd be possible if smash could foster enough interest to have its own dedicated tournament, also because the juxtapositioned events would help lead non-veterans to appreciate the subtleties of our "tourney-***" way of playing.

 

[BigRick]

But how practical is running 4 brawl events at a national level tournament, where brawl is one of several games being played this year at Vegas?

I agree it'd be possible if smash could foster enough interest to have its own dedicated tournament, also because the juxtapositioned events would help lead non-veterans to appreciate the subtleties of our "tourney-***" way of playing.

oh no I've never proposed to run 4 brawl events at evo

we're big enough to do this ourselves

 

[35forlife]

Right. One place, 4 styles, not excluding anyone. Hold it somewhere that's aprox. equal distance from everybody, like St. Louis or Chicago, and you've got yourself some good times.

You can even build a wall to keep the FFAers out of your area, if you so desire.

 

[-Wolfy-]

oh no I've never proposed to run 4 brawl events at evo

we're big enough to do this ourselves

I agree, I'm definitely a proponent of the freemarket idea. EVO would have been nice because of the legitimacy from a pro tour type deal, but with their approach to it, we are better off sticking to our guns.

Showing we don't need anyones help to run our own national tournaments for brawl is probably the single best thing we can do to get someone like MLG to pick it up.

 

[Aesir]

Yes if an item spawns next to him he will have the advantage. However the item has more chances to spawn for you, so stop being pessimistic... it is not a futile endeavor.

If you say so, it's not pessimism it's being realistic here, not everything is going to turn out in your advantage. Thats the point, he makes it sound like if you're in more control of the stage you'll win. Thats not the case in fact it's far from it. Because of their random spawning points you can't predict where they'll fall or what will fall.

Thats the point, frankly it's naive to think things won't back fire, controlling the stage sounds nice on paper but in practice I don't think so.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

...I made my little comment to someone else, not the "controlling the stage" guy. And you want to know why I'm not posting anything with substance anymore? Because they blow off everything of substance that people write as nothing. They either ignore it or wave it by with a simple blanket statement they think covers their *****, but it doesn't. I gave up. Many of those users are beyond reason, and it honestly doesn't matter anymore. All we do now is wait to see what Mr. Wizard says next, which I can only hope (but don't actually expect) is a change to the ruleset to something more manageable.

 

[thesage]

I think a melee tournament would be preferred over free for all and item tournaments.

 

[po pimpus]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, and attempt to be somewhat subjective...

They are running an item tournament. Okay, fine. I don't have a problem with items per say, but, the types of items being used are game-breakers. Smashballs, explosives, and the Dragoon especially are basically free KOs to whomever gets ahold of them. Yes, Dragoon you have to fight for it, and then aim it, so maybe I'm stretching there.

However, it seems that each stage has paticular spawn points for items and that they tend to drop at set intervals(around 9-12 seconds if the research is correct), that makes it more of a controlled variable. No, you won't know what items will drop, but you can approximate when and where, thereby allowing you to play a game of spacial control for them.

The usage and mechanics of items makes for a COMPLETELY different game than the one most competitive Smashers are used to. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it will have its detractors. This creates a different audience than the one we are most used to seeing at tournaments.

Basically, when it comes down to items, it's not the end of the world, just something new and different. This can be worked around by a smart and skilled player. Devil's Advocate over.


The REAL PROBLEM I think we should address is the counter-picking system. It does not allow for fairness in the least. The losing player is left with two choices: Change stages and remain the same character, or Change his character and--hey, what happens to stage selection if he changes characters? Does anyone know? Did they even cover it?

At best, you change your character and go to a random stage(and pray random select doesn't screw you over) or stick with your guy and probably lose on your counter-pick stage (especially if you're Lucas, Ness, or against a good Dedede with most of the rest of the cast)
You better be godly with your choices, and somewhat lucky, because with this system, the winner of the first game is going to be holding all the cards.

The stock is fine, but time is still too short. Most matches will take longer and will have to be decided by stock/percentage giving an unfair advantage to good projectile users and control-type players. Better be smart with the rushdown, aggressive players.

The stages I won't get into, as I have weird taste in stages.(No Spear Pillar as counter-pick, boo! ) So, basically, we have a tournament that favors control-type players rather than aggro-types.

I am still upset by a lot of the decisions of EVO staff, but I am willing to give them a chance if they just address the counter-pick system and time-limits. (I know they won't budge on items, so its a moot point)

I think there is a potentially radical metagame there, if they just tweak the rules a little more. Not something I'm in great favor of, but I am willing to give it chance if things develop a bit more. I think the rest of you should do the same. Just a suggestion.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

This is a very solid point, but he also gave an answer for it:

Meh, not really. Not all characters main game is to camp, so only some will change. The rest will continue to play exactly as they have before, hoping the tables of luck will turn in their direction by an item spawning when they have control of the stage. Is that really enough to compensate for the randomness of items? I don't think so.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah honestly I can live with items, but their counter pick system and stock/time-limit thing is just why? It def doesn't give the looser more of an advantage if you're better then them and if you think they're going to counter pick your character pick someone who isn't so easily counter picked, it's that simple.

the time limit thing is also just why? they should adopt what we have 3 stock 8 minutes. Hell if we have items on we might even get to lower to like 6 minutes.

 

[SpaceFalcon]

Items on are ******** in competitive play and everyone knows it, no argument.

 

[35forlife]

Items on are ******** in competitive play and everyone knows it, no argument.

Way to keep an open mind.

Regardless of what "everyone" thinks, people would show in support. I know I'd rather play an FFA than a "real" match, that's just what I like. I don't think less of people who like to play in a more restricted, less luck based environment, I just don't do it myself. Think of it as leveling the playing field, so that everyone has a shot at winning something. If you don't find that idea appealing, or just dismiss it as "inferior" to tournament play, then you're just as elitist as the SRK boys. People might initially think that it's strange, or insult it, but if they watch, they'll find it's just as exciting to watch two experienced players use their skill as it is to watch Dialga blow away all of their opponents in a single blow.

 

[Aesir]

Way to keep an open mind.

Regardless of what "everyone" thinks, people would show in support. I know I'd rather play an FFA than a "real" match, that's just what I like. I don't think less of people who like to play in a more restricted, less luck based environment, I just don't do it myself. Think of it as leveling the playing field, so that everyone has a shot at winning something. If you don't find that idea appealing, or just dismiss it as "inferior" to tournament play, then you're just as elitist as the SRK boys. People might initially think that it's strange, or insult it, but if they watch, they'll find it's just as exciting to watch two experienced players use their skill as it is to watch Dialga blow away all of their opponents in a single blow.

Lol Sakurai is that you?

 

[Firestorm88]

I PMed MrWizard asking for justification on the counterpick thing because he still hasn't addressed it and the items debate sort of overshadowed it. At least they have reasons for items off (as misguided as they may be), the counterpick is just changing for the sake of changing and adds nothing.

 

[35forlife]

Lol Sakurai is that you?

No, but it's nice to see you grasp the concept that the game was created to have the ability to get everyone up to a level of competency enough to enjoy.