The problem isn't that things are turn off, but that the community is ban happy. Back during Melee, the community could defend its stance because there is always an instance of items spawning in front of an attack. Brawl changed that so items could be on. But the community never changed and when questioned, gives the reason of "It's random." Of course, no one buys it because it's a stupid reason (Poker is bigger than Smash and is ALL random). Stages have the same issue. Competitive people say "I don't want to fight the stage." What that sounds like to the rest of us is "I don't want to deal with it, so I turn it off." It doesn't sound skillful to the rest of us. Meta-Knight bans were the icing on the cake. Other game with a competitive base don't have the same hostility. It really comes down to the community has so many problems that they don't want to acknowledged.
When the community is questioned and gives the retort that "it's random", it's because its assumed this is common knowledge that any reasonable person can understand when it regards competition. That retort is also given because 95% of the time the arguments proposing items in competitive play are not sound arguments, but preference based propositions by a more casual player base, typically newer to the scene.
And yes, most people buy it. If you think there is this screaming majority of the
competitive player base that actually thinks what you're suggesting is both a good idea and healthier for the game, then I would
love to see you prove that. Within the competitive scene with players that
actually play this game in tournaments you are the minority here.
tl;dr people stop giving constructive arguments when they've been gone over before and the consensus is easy to understand already. It's like why parents don't explain everything to their child when they tell them "no" even if they have reasons for it. They could explain, but it doesn't mean progress is going to be made.
I really liked your explanation here until it lumped the MK ban in with the others.
The problem with MK was that he spent years at the top of the tier list -- thus with everyone working on how to beat him -- without anyone finding better than a small selection of 5:5 matchups (That he could often stage cp for a bigger advantage for himself). This made him an incredibly dominant pick. Not unbeatable, but a big problem when counterpicking is supposed to be a thing and you have one super safe pick available -- and if you're talking about spectator interest (the casual players who can't win tournies but could attend and swell the numbers) having half the players be MetaKnight and the rest mostly losing to him isn't exciting either.
The refusal to learn skills to deal with random items and stage hazards is utterly different.
How can something be countered when we don't have the data either way? It would need a lot of serious play (ie, tournament level) to figure it out for sure.
I don't think the point (At least, not my point) was that items will certainly fix things. It's that they could, and the community never gave them enough of a shot to find out.
Introduction of items should
not be because it presents a favorable solutions to fix inherent balance problems, regardless if we have hypothetical or tangible data to work with. I also think the hypothetical argument is flawed so I'll address that too.
The idea of fixing balance or design issues with items from a logical perspective could seem that if there is a problem with the design of the game and how it plays, if you put more emphasis on how the items work and are used as opposed to the characters, then it will put less strain on how character match ups play out and how prevalent damaging bugs and design problems are. The problem with this is that this would only be the case if profound, heavily influential items were allowed at a higher spawn rate. If we're talking about introducing balanced items with minimal effects to completely swing a match, then the game is still going to revolve around character balance and
who can utilize the items better. In short, it doesn't fix anything. It might change the tiers around very slightly, but it doesn't suddenly absolve problems like why there is no consistent combos, or why a character can infinitely change grab you safely behind broken shield mechanics.
I would also like shine the light on the hilarious note that the idea of using luck as a means to balance out games is the
exact mentality Sakurai used for tripping. And we all know how thrilled the community was about that.
This isn't an argument for adding item tournaments to Brawl -- I still think it's past time to worry about that. But even if items continue exactly the same in the future as they are in Brawl, this outlines why I believe they're worth giving a solid test to before deciding whether to disable them entirely or not. Note that "items" here means "carefully selected subset of items set to low spawn rate", not "all items at default rate".
It's debatable that items set up properly involve large amounts of luck. I'll do that right now:
Items in Brawl have the following properties, off the top of my head:
- They spawn in generally known locations (Not at the very edges of the map).
- They spawn at a generally known rate.
- By controlling the center of the map when items are likely to spawn you get the items (You may not want to clear someone off stage until right before an item is expected) -- depth.
- This creates tension between edge guarding and making sure to claim an item sometimes (If an item spawns and someone successfully recovers past you, they'll get it instead) -- depth.
- This creates tension between using ledge strategies (ie, planking) and fighting for control of the stage -- depth.
- This adds options (Using the items themselves) as the match goes on, increasing both the technical skill you need to use the item you got and to avoid/catch the one your opponent just got -- depth.
It may prove to be far more useful to already high tier characters than to others, that's something that can only be determined through testing and would be a problem. But it won't make games hinge on
luckif the items are carefully selected, because where and how often they spawn (Even if not the exact locations) is known, so skilled players will maximize their opportunities to get the items -- and will then get more items than their less skilled opponent (And in the cases they don't get the items, will have the opportunity to catch/retaliate against whatever their opponent does.)
The selected items are carefully chosen to not be uncounterable -- you can read through some ISP threads for details and analysis, I can track them down for you if needed.
A large portion of your argument hinges on the idea that we as players have good general knowledge on item spawns, times, and locations. I'm just going to argue that we don't. For one, I do not personally. For two, you haven't provided and actual data to support that. If you gave me coding scripts from the game or whatever to show the variables that define when an item can and can't spawn, or where it can and cannot spawn, etc... You know, stuff we as players can use. Then I might take this point with more consideration. For now I'm assuming you're wrong, or at best have a misdirected understanding of the variations of how items will work and thus impact a match.
Something else I would like to mention since you used depth numerous times is that depth is not an addition of content within a game. It's the inclusion of relevant options that the player can use based on intelligent decisions. If option A is always better than option B through Z, it doesn't matter that you have 26 options to choose from. And even though another game might only have options A, B, and C, if all of those options are relevant under different conditions in which the player can take advantage of them in, that game is indeed deeper then the former.
Adding items does not automatically make the game deeper just because you added an element. That all depends on the use of the items and the impact they have from moment to moment. You can't make the argument that they'll provide depth on the basis that they're an extra feature. You need to provide context. You also need to do this with each individual item to make a case.
If I allow something like a Smart Bomb, or a Homerun Bat (obvious extremes), those remove depth because of the nature of those items. They're almost always going to be the immediate priority the moment they spawn because they're too powerful to ignore. This not only removes depth from the game because the options present to you as a character are narrowed down to a single purpose, but the game becomes less about how I can out match my opponent with my variable set of moves and more about whether or not I get to the item first. If we talk about something minimalistic like food, exactly what does that add to the game? It increases your health by a very small %, nothing more. I'd argue it adds basically nothing, even though it could be weak enough to be legal.
This whole depth thing is skewed and you need to make stronger points for it to stick.
You kinda lost my point.
It is much easier and more reliable to simply ban a factor that adds any luck whatsoever then allow it and risk a detrimental effect towards the competitive scene. I am not just referring to brawl either, I am referring to every single smash game or every single fighting game in general that has such things.
I have read the thread, and none of it addresses the initial luck factor, which is the main problem people dont seem to understand. Controlling the stage does not guarantee you an item if they are on and the times they spawn are quite odd at times as well as their placement not being confined to a small area, especially on somewhat larger stages.
This.
I didn't lose your point so much as I disagreed with it. I think that the game is shallower that way, and balance among the characters is quite possibly worse. The chance for luck is also balanced by a large enough sample size -- enough items spawn over the course of a match that missing one (Because you misjudged the timing/position) won't end it for you (This is looking at it from the worst-case view). If you lose multiple item spawns to your opponent because you're just never in the right spot when they spawn, you've probably failed at your zone control anyway -- it's not bad luck if you're not in the positions you should have been, that's just getting outplayed.
This argument doesn't work because of the way tournament matches are played in fighting games. I'll use Smogon and their laddering system as a comparative example because it fits the situation you're describing.
The way competitive Pokemon works outside of tournament matches is through a laddering system. In order to be successful in competitive Pokemon based on how well you do against your peers, you need to ensure that you win consistently more than you lose, and there is a lot more emphasis on that then how much one individual match matters. This is in fact why its based on a ladder system. Even though luck is an intrinsic factor in Pokemon, and you can lose a match you should have definitely won because you lost from a critical hit, it does not matter in the long term because you will still climb the ladder if you perform better than your peers.
However, it is absolutely true that each and every given match is ultimately out of your control, because even the best player can and will lose to the worst player if the RNG screws you hard enough.
This is unacceptable in a tournament setting that fighting games use because it is all based on single elimination, two of three, or three of five rounds.
Every single stock, and every single round matter. The idea that 'luck is okay because your opponent will be as lucky as you in the long run' doesn't cut it here when matches are so tight and a single variable not in control of either player can turn a win from a loss or vice versa.
The other part of this is that it doesn't matter how well you zone your opponent or keep them off the stage, you still don't control when the items do and do not spawn, and you can't reasonably be expected as a player to play immaculately to a point where the influence of items could never negatively impact you. If you play the match well enough to keep up, but each item spawn you were capable of grabbing doesn't help your odds, and suddenly your opponent happens to have a crucial item he needs spawn near him to clutch out a game (like an item to make you waste your double jump while being thrown off stage), that isnt' a sign of fair play. That's a sign of the RNG favouring one circumstance over another.
What makes all of this worse is that if you get lucked out of a win in a single round, but can still win the next two, it's harder to come back in Smash because of counterpicks.
Also, a small amount of luck is permitted already since Peach, Luigi, DDD, Olimar and G&W aren't banned (And could be, they have factors that add luck). Their random isn't a problem for the same reason carefully chosen items wouldn't cause problems.
It comes down to this: There's skill in controlling for unexpected events. Over a full tournament (And even over one set of games), this will be shown as player ability rather than luck.
But you can turn off characters, same as you turn off stages: You say "You're not allowed to select this."
Smash Bros. is
not about the items in either a casual or a competitive context.
It's about the characters. The closest association you could make is that it is about the characters and how they interact with the items and stages (which we choose to control in competitive play anyway.)
These characters are a fundamental part on why we play this game in the first place, and the luck they introduce is not so impactful that we would ban them for the sake of preserving competitive integrity. Bans are a last ditch solution to a very real problem, not something you whip out to satisfy a fallacy and cater to casual players who don't know better.
I would also like to point out that even if these moves have randomized elements, they are still within a controlled setting. While Peach can pluck bombs and beam swords and death turnips, we know that she is the source of these threats and we know when she can and cannot pluck. We also know when she is plucking the item, and are aware of the threat the moment she obtains it. There's a lot of information given to the player to help cope with these otherwise uncontrollable elements. Dedede is the same.
Luigi is slightly different because of the nature of the move, but there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to misfires that make it a gamble for both the Luigi and the other player. What this means is that not only are misfires less commonly relied upon (and thus less impactful), but the situations a misfire would be used it should it go off are limited, and a smart player can predict when the other player might try to use Side B to invoke the misfire. This allows for counterplay despite the random element presented.
I could make similar arguments for other random elements like G&W and friends, but I don't feel like it. They all share the same principles. They're random, and they are not perfect. They
do swing matches on the rare occasion. But they are not so prevalent that we need to ban the character as an extreme measure to satisfy competitive play. This would actually be anti-competitive as it would be an unjustified and unfair removal of a part of our player base for anyone who plays these characters competitively, and we would have less participants for it.
Random elements from characters are far less random and more accountable, and less impactful, then the nature of items by themselves.
"Your point is wrong because there are other examples to the contrary that I wont say, but they are there (just trust me on this."
The reason I point out Poker is because it has randomness throughout it and it is still played for more money, watched by more people, and has more prestige than Smash Brothers does. I could also list other games that have tournaments like Monopoly or Majong (as someone pointed out in this thread). Or other video games like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 have random elements and people still hold torunaments for those. Alll sports have a random element called weather (and wind in golf). The stock market is hit with random events. Battles and wars have random elements in them. Life is random. Also, the original reason items were banned had to do with not being able to ban containers, not because they were random. That was just an excuse.
You can't legitimize a fact based on association just from comparing one medium to another. That's a fallacy. We're not talking about poker, or the weather, or life. We're talking about what is acceptable within competitive play and how that pertains to random elements.
Look to the second page. It has already been mentioned that items nerf the top tier and buff the bottom tier as well as minimizing unfavored strategies.
Except you're completely assuming that, and have no data as a basis to go off of to prove that's even correct.
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
