"I like to play the real Smash Bros."

[Cassio]

Honestly Food is about the extent of what items could work in competitive smash and not horridly break the game.

At the same time, Food really doesn't bring anything new to the table and isn't worth the effort trying to revolutionize the entire competitive scene to accept something so unimportant.

More still, I recall in some ancient item debate that, as long as the two players have the same stocks, items favor the one that has higher percent, by doing something by checking hundreds of item drops (and another one with just food, I think) over the course of a 99 minute Brawl. Decent statistics, I'd say. A random mechanic that favors one player over the other (by dropping items closer to them), of which really should be a completely random (and thus, neutral) system... not really competitive.

Nope, all claims in this post are false.

@Grim Id say it sounds like you played characters with poor recoveries, recovering is pretty mindless in this game as is and the ledge is extremely safe. Even your peach example would have lots of variables to it (i.e. certain characters with counters or reflectors would make it unwise for peach to just throw bob-ombs willy nilly), the examples likely need to be more specific

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You missed the point.

Items, even the "harmless, strategic" battering ones affect results too much.

 

[The Ben]

Excuse me but who are you to tell me what did and didn't happen?

I've knocked opponents off-stage into situations where I know they could recover, only for a beam sword to appear next to me. Item thrown up/down > grab ledge is amazingly safe for edge-guarding and happens really frequently.

Yes, but you already had control since they still needed to recover. If the item didn't spawn odds are you'd be able to place them back in a similar situation. You outplayed the opponent and got rewarded for it.

I'm not using superior stage control to my advantage or any bull**** like that. If you lost to a Peach player who pulled 25 Bob-ombs in a row are you going to turn to them and say "Oh, silly me, guess I shouldn't have given you an opportunity to use down-b, gg"?

Not in those exact words, but I'd say something like "good game" knowing that RNG is part of the game and I shouldn't put myself in a position where I can lose to it.

 

[Pikaville]

Funny thing is, me and my friends played items like all day every day for YEARS before we heard of "tournament" rules.

We still got really competitive anyway.

Some of the stuff you can pull of with items is extremely awesome.

It just sucks that sometimes you go for a tilt or jab and a bomb spawns in your face.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yes, but you already had control since they still needed to recover. If the item didn't spawn odds are you'd be able to place them back in a similar situation.

...

I've knocked opponents off-stage into situations where I know they could recover

Your move.

You outplayed the opponent and got rewarded for it.

I got rewarded doubly. I out-played my opponent, which is a reward in itself because it gives me the chance to take a stock and then I got a random reward which I used very little skill to obtain.

I shouldn't put myself in a position where I can lose to it.

Your opponent is randomly rewarded to the nth degree and "you" put "yourself" into a position to lose?

Nuh-uh, try again.

 

[Cassio]

Well I dont think anyone denies that items affect results. Character and stage traits affect results too. "too much" is an opinionated statement though. Its fine if thats your opinion, but if you wished to present a case for this it requires something less vague.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Items, even if they are perfectly balanced, spawn at random times and in random locations. This, in my opinion, is enough to justify a ban. I can't go into specifics right now, but I'll add more tomorrow.

 

[The Ben]

Hammer is random so we should ban Game & Watch. Tripping is random so we should ban running.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well I dont think anyone denies that items affect results. Character and stage traits affect results too. "too much" is an opinionated statement though. Its fine if thats your opinion, but if you wished to present a case for this it requires something less vague.

You're right, "too much" is just my opinion. It definitely affects results more than the other random game elements that are universally legal.

Hammer is random so we should ban Game & Watch. Tripping is random so we should ban running.

That isn't a double standard, lol.

Why does it have to be all or none? We ban randomness to a degree, not "randomness" in general.

----------

Tournaments are supposed to be a test of skill. If we assume a round-robin style, 1st place should go to the most skilled player, 2nd to the second best, etc...

Nothing is actually truly, purely random; randomness just means "too difficult to understand" basically. Peach's turnip pulls are determined by a complex formula that takes in irrelevant information like the last input from both players, the third digit on the timer, etc... to spit out a number that corresponds to a turnip. So look at it like that.

Now if you and a friend are playing a game for the first time where you don't understand the objective or controls; you have no way of knowing who will win (assuming an unrealistic perfectly controlled scenario).

Making the match between you two a competition would be pointless. It'd be as good as gambling.

So if you have too many random things in the game, making the game too difficult for the players to play and messing with results; its no longer a competitive game.

tl;dr If the unpredictability of items makes the game so difficult than people can't consistently win at it, then it is no longer competitive.

I have no way of proving that this would happen, its just what I believe. It doesn't really matter whether I am right or wrong because Item play will never, ever be standard.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well I dont think anyone denies that items affect results. Character and stage traits affect results too. "too much" is an opinionated statement though. Its fine if thats your opinion, but if you wished to present a case for this it requires something less vague.

[yt]7EFx0-Zkn54[/yt]

It's opinionated but there is a reasoning behind it even if he didn't flesh out paragraphs to explain why.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Why does it have to be all or none? We ban randomness to a degree, not "randomness" in general.

Didn't you know? Everything has to be black and white, all or nothing, because otherwise it's a double standard and a slippery slope. Unless, of course, you were to say otherwise, because double standards are only okay when you make them (you is referring to whoever reads this, not just GT). That's how SWF debates work.

[yt]7EFx0-Zkn54[/yt]

It's opinionated but there is a reasoning behind it even if he didn't flesh out paragraphs to explain why.

I wish I knew about this earlier because it explains my point perfectly, that point being that whoever the item spawns closest to will have the advantage.

 

[Cassio]

[yt]7EFx0-Zkn54[/yt]

It's opinionated but there is a reasoning behind it even if he didn't flesh out paragraphs to explain why.

Arguments constantly refuted, Brawl isnt melee.

 

[Lukingordex]

Hammer is random so we should ban Game & Watch. Tripping is random so we should ban running.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Arguments constantly refuted, Brawl isnt melee.

There is no reason why this wouldn't happen in Brawl.

 

[Cassio]

you can turn off exploding containers for one thing...

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh my god, the mis-/dis-information in this thread is mind boggling. Why do people post when they don't know what they are talking about?

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

you can turn off exploding containers for one thing...

Okay, then replace the exploding containers with whatever you think should be legal. Either way, the Shiek in that situation would win.

 

[Cassio]

Like...I dont know what you want me to say. You and every other anti-item person arent even bothering to argue your position, but at least Grim admits theres no point since items are very unlikely be unbanned in brawl (which I agree with).

Objectively though, the problem is it's your argument to prove since my argument is that we maintain in game mechanics until they are proven to be detrimental. You didnt see us banning anything else straight out of the box or without thorough testing. With your last post and many others like it in this thread its like you want me to explain to you why items arent broken when my argument doesnt require me to do so. However your position's central argument is that items are broken, and that requires that you actually support your claim instead of relying on my inability to prove the opposite which I do not need to do.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

You do have to argue your stance, because we argued ours. My stance is "items are bad because they spawn at random times and in random locations, giving disproportionate advantages to whoever they spawn closest to". Your counter argument is that I should be arguing your point for you. If you seriously expect to come into an item argument and say "no you're wrong", and then follow up with "you have to absolutely prove your argument, whereas I can just keep saying 'no it isn't' over and over again", no matter what stance you are taking, you have lost the argument.

 

[Cassio]

My argument:

we maintain in game mechanics until they are proven to be detrimental

if you disagree feel free to tell me why. atm Im assuming youre fine with this statement. The fact that most people would agree with this statement is what makes my position easier.

And yes Im aware of your stance...its high in repetition and low on evidence/proof.

 

[Lukingordex]

OMG a flamewar...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Arguments constantly refuted, Brawl isnt melee.

Do you support items being legal, if not you should stop trying to play devil's advocate.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

if you disagree feel free to tell me why. atm Im assuming youre fine with this statement. The fact that most people would agree with this statement is what makes my position easier.

I do agree, but items were proven to be detrimental at EVO 2008 in Melee, and the item spawning system in Brawl is not different enough from Melee for there to be a argument that it would work in Brawl.

And yes Im aware of your stance...its high in repetition and low on evidence/proof.

What proof do you want? Logically, whoever is closest to the item when it spawns is going to get it first, unless it's Sonic vs Bowser or something. Am I wrong about this?

 

[Jack Kieser]

*sigh* Alright, looks like it's time once again for...

Jack Kieser's Philosophy Corner!

*This week’s episode is brought to you by the letter "B": "B", as in "biases".*

For today's lesson, I'd like to focus on this exchange:

No you haven't. You didn't win because the item spawned near you while edge guarding, you won because you carefully edge guarded until an item spawned. Those are entirely different things.

Excuse me but who are you to tell me what did and didn't happen?

I've knocked opponents off-stage into situations where I know they could recover, only for a beam sword to appear next to me. Item thrown up/down > grab ledge is amazingly safe for edge-guarding and happens really frequently.

I'm not using superior stage control to my advantage or any bull**** like that. If you lost to a Peach player who pulled 25 Bob-ombs in a row are you going to turn to them and say "Oh, silly me, guess I shouldn't have given you an opportunity to use down-b, gg"?

This exchange exemplifies a main point of contention in the items debate: how, exactly, do we quantify the effects items have on a fight? The answer, of course, is simple:

We, as humans, will quantify them however suits us best.

I'd like everyone to think about that for a moment. We, as people, are already predisposed to interpret data in whatever manner best fits our preconceived notions. It's why early humans assumed that sacrifices ensured good harvests, it's why a Catholic will interpret a trippy experience as "evidence of the Holy Ghost" while an Atheist will interpret the exact same experience as "a bad batch of shrooms", and it's why the scientific method is crafted so carefully to be "objective". Let's look at a couple of things and how they related to both our propensity to introduce bias and the items debate.

Chapter 1: Language and Bias:

Look closely at The BEN and Grim's exchange above. They are both attempting to describe the same series of events:

* Two players are on a stage
* Player A knocks Player B off
* Player B attempts to recover
* Item spawns on stage
* Player A obtains item
* Player A uses item on Player B
* Player B dies

This is a finite series of events. Grim and Ben are both describing the same series; this they both admit to. But, look at how different the descriptions are:

BEN: Player A knocks Player B off the stage, and due to his superior positioning is rewarded with an item, which he then uses to KO Player B.

Grim: Player A knocks Player B off the stage, then is given an item through no boon of his own, which is used to KO Player B unfairly.

Now, which one is right? The answer:

BOTH!

You see, the language that is used to describe a situation is just as important to human understanding as the event itself, and the very choice of language that both Ben and Grim use colors the interpretation of the same events. There, of course, is good reason for this.

Humans are wired to use language in interesting ways, but of real note is that language can affect us right back. The syntax and structure of the language one chooses to use colors and biases interpretations of events by their nature. For instance, take this series of events:

* There is a bed.
* Someone is jumping on the bed.
* One of the legs cracks.
* The bed falls apart as the jumper lands from a jump.

Now, show this event to two people speaking different languages, and see how it's described. This actual experiment has been performed! It turns out that the English language is steeped in blaming terminology in ways that many other languages are not. It turns out that English speakers are more prone to blaming events on people than Japanese or Spanish speakers, for instance. If a Japanese speaker sees the above series of events, she might say "The bed broke.", while an English speaker would say "That person broke the bed."

See the difference? In one statement, the bed merely broke; it wasn't anyone's fault, but a bed DID break. In the other, a particular person actively broke the bed. Did the jumper take a hammer to it? Was it her intention to break the bed? In English, it's irrelevant; our language is biased towards assigning blame, and so the jumper actively broke the bed.

This is what is happening in Ben and Grim's exchange. In one statement, Player A actively gained superior positioning, and thus anything that happens as a result of superior positioning (like, being closer to an item spawn) is a direct result of Player A's action, and is thus an earned event. As far as Ben's interpretation is concerned, Player A earned the item through action.

Grim uses different language, however. In Grim's eyes, the item spawn is independent from Player A's act of knocking Player B away. The item spawn does not happen because of anything the player did, and so the player didn't earn the spawn.

Who has the more correct interpretation? Again, the answer is both, because the answer is determined by both the viewer's language biases AND the players metagame biases. Ben is correct in that if Player A hadn't knocked away Player B AND if Player A hadn't been where she had been (for instance, if Player A had decided to leave the stage to intercept before the spawn), then Player A wouldn't have had the item to use. Grim is ALSO correct that Player A did not take a direct action that CAUSED the item to spawn. Both are correct.

So, how does this influence the discussion?

Chapter 2: Bias and the Item Debate:

So, where do we go from here? Obviously, the main issue at this point is one of definition. We actually have a much more fundamental issue than we think: we don't currently agree on a definition of the verb "to cause".

Ben thinks that "to cause" means that "to make such a state of affairs that an event could not be obtain as true without said state". In other words, Player A caused an advantageous state of having an item to use because without taking certain actions (knocking Player B away, staying on the stage, etc.), such a state of affairs as Player A having an item to use could not obtain as true; if Player A hadn't done what she did, she wouldn't be in an advantaged position, and so she caused her position. Of course, this comes with baggage: in this sense, Player B also caused Player A's advantageous position by being in such a place as to allow Player A to knock Player B away in the first place. Keep in mind that causation is, by its nature, a chain, and so this is NOT as big of a problem as one would first assume.

Grim, however, thinks that the verb "to cause" means "to take an action in which a certain state of affairs may obtain if and only if said action is to occur". Sure, Player A was in an advantageous position because of her (and possibly Player B's) actions, but Player A could have been in an equally (or possibly the same) advantageous position in any number of ways. The item was caused by Player A if and only if the item could not have existed without Player A's acting. If the item could exist without Player A's action, it wasn't caused by it, and the item (theoretically, we can't know for sure) would have spawned regardless of Player A's action, therefore it was not caused by Player A. This is a more stringent definition of causation, of course, but also comes with problems. For instance, this definition of causation requires absolute knowledge in order to be certain of an event. We don't fully understand item spawning, so it's possible that Player A's actions caused the portion of memory that controls spawns to be in the state that it was, and this allowed the item to spawn as it did, and this would mean that the item would only spawn if and only if Player A had acted as such.

So, where do we go from here?

Personally, I do not think either definition is mutually exclusive. However, regardless of such considerations, no item debate can conclude (or even progress) without taking into account such matters as this. I tend to side more with Ben on this one, mainly because there are a plethora of times events obtain that could happen with or without player input in gradients of ways (GW Hammers are a good example, as the actual hammer couldn't have happened without input, but the number may or may not have anything to do with anything the players did; tripping is the same). Ben's definition allows for these grey areas to exist, while Grim's definition, by its own stringency, would not actually allow us to say that a player "caused" a 9, because we don't know the mechanics well enough to say.

Keep in mind that this doesn't even touch the problem of "amount of random influence", although such a matter also is affected by the same kinds of biases that I talk about here.

------------------------------------

And, that's it for this week's episode of Jack Kieser's Philosophy Corner! Tune in next time, whenever someone is being a silly goose, wherever someone is being a silly goose! See you all next time.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Items are different with how you can turn them off, and they are different in effect from melee, yes. But the problem remains, which is still the same "main" reason they were banned in melee, is the random spawning.

Before someone mentions it, since I know someone will, Peach pulling an turnip, G&W Hammer, Olimar pikmin pull, D3 waddle throw are not the same.

That is random chance by choice that a player chooses to make. An item will spawn independent of player interaction. Yes while the random number generator peach and co have no control over what happens they do control making the permutation happen. Items on will drop and randomly without any form of input from the players.

 

[The Ben]

That isn't a double standard, lol.

Why does it have to be all or none? We ban randomness to a degree, not "randomness" in general.

I think you're misinterpreting my point. I wasn't saying that banning some random things and not other random things is a double standard. I'm saying that simply being random is not valid criteria for banning a thing. To what extent do you ban random things? What does it have to do to the game to make it ban worthy? I have yet to hear a valid reason as to why some random things are bad and some random things are good. All I was getting at is that whatever game state the items create has to be detrimental for their random appearance to possibly be considered bad.

Tournaments are supposed to be a test of skill. If we assume a round-robin style, 1st place should go to the most skilled player, 2nd to the second best, etc...

No, not necessarily. There are plenty of tournaments for games that have a lot of random luck involved. I think I've even mentioned the world Rock Paper Scissors championship. It happens every summer.

Why do you believe Smash should strictly be a test of skill when there is so much variance built into the game you can't get rid of (tripping, Peach, G&W)?

Nothing is actually truly, purely random; randomness just means "too difficult to understand" basically. Peach's turnip pulls are determined by a complex formula that takes in irrelevant information like the last input from both players, the third digit on the timer, etc... to spit out a number that corresponds to a turnip. So look at it like that.

Now if you and a friend are playing a game for the first time where you don't understand the objective or controls; you have no way of knowing who will win (assuming an unrealistic perfectly controlled scenario).

Making the match between you two a competition would be pointless. It'd be as good as gambling.

With the top paragraph of this quote block you've totally nullified your own point. What you're saying is that we haven't gotten good at understanding the game yet, not that the variance in the game is the thing preventing us from being good at it. The variance is just part of the thing we should become good at.

So if you have too many random things in the game, making the game too difficult for the players to play and messing with results; its no longer a competitive game.

tl;dr If the unpredictability of items makes the game so difficult than people can't consistently win at it, then it is no longer competitive.

Two problems with these. First you're saying you know everything everyone will ever learn about the game. Who are you to say someone will never learn how to manipulate items, turnips, or hammers perfectly? If someone wants to dedicate that time to that aspect of the game the only thing that would stop them is their own intellect. Do you know how intelligent everyone who has ever played Smash ever is? I'm going to assume not.

More importantly though, that isn't what competitive means. Competition simply means two or more people trying to best each other at something. A biggest foot competition is just as valid as an arm wrestling match. It's a mind set, not a rule set.

Monopoly world championship. A game where rolling dice determines almost everything and the person who goes first is at the largest advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwmPBP2JHI

You mentioned gambling specifically. Poker World Series is a thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U-8bjjP-Aw

 

[Cassio]

Items are different with how you can turn them off, and they are different in effect from melee, yes. But the problem remains, which is still the same "main" reason they were banned in melee, is the random spawning.

Before someone mentions it, since I know someone will, Peach pulling an turnip, G&W Hammer, Olimar pikmin pull, D3 waddle throw are not the same.

That is random chance by choice that a player chooses to make. An item will spawn independent of player interaction. Yes while the random number generator peach and co have no control over what happens they do control making the permutation happen. Items on will drop and randomly without any form of input from the players.

The only thing demonstrated by this example is that a random event in and of itself isnt bad, the only difference is an issue of degree. However the fact that you drew the line where you did is arbitrary since you never explained or gave any proof for why random spawning is "bad". Nor was that the main issue with items in melee (see my response to Dr Robotnik below).

Do you support items being legal, if not you should stop trying to play devil's advocate.

-_- Its in the thread. It shouldnt matter anyways.

I do agree, but items were proven to be detrimental at EVO 2008 in Melee, and the item spawning system in Brawl is not different enough from Melee for there to be a argument that it would work in Brawl.



What proof do you want? Logically, whoever is closest to the item when it spawns is going to get it first, unless it's Sonic vs Bowser or something. Am I wrong about this?

Youre not wrong, but you didnt explain why its game breaking either.

Also exploding capsules was the main reason items were banned in melee. So the difference is significant enough considering the main issue no longer exists.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

There have been multiple explanations as to why randomness is bad for competitive play, I'm not going to repeat what everyone else has already stated.

 

[The Ben]

But there haven't been. They all rely on accepting the premise that skill = competitive which is fallacious. Nobody has proven that Smash should necessarily be played in a way that measures something outside of item manipulation (which is still giving the anti-item people too much credit). Hell, nobody has proven that Smash should be played in a way that measures any specific thing period.

 

[Cassio]

In this thread or elsewhere? If you mean in this thread there hasnt, feel free to quote anything I may have overlooked. If you mean elsewhere, thats not very helpful...lol.

The first post or two I made in this thread gives the counter-argument on random being bad, as did red ryus example.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Poker is a lot less about the cards dealt, and is far more over reads and reactions. Aka knowing how to bluff and when to bet your hand is better than anyone elses.

Yes there is a random element to the game but what truly separates the skill of players is knowing how to bet properly and such based on what you get and figuring out what others have.

The only thing demonstrated by this example is that a random event in and of itself isnt bad, the only difference is an issue of degree. However the fact that you drew the line where you did is arbitrary since you never explained or gave any proof for why random spawning is "bad". Nor was that the main issue with items in melee (see my response to Dr Robotnik below).

-_- Its in the thread. It shouldnt matter anyways.


Youre not wrong, but you didnt explain why its game breaking either.

Also exploding capsules was the main reason items were banned in melee. So the difference is significant enough considering the main issue no longer exists.

Pretty sure people have been very distinctly clear that random spawning too randomly favor players is bad because it rewards players in a way that skews results to where it's not competitive.

Banning always will be arbitrary, it's never a 100% objective thing to do even with criteria because even the criteria can be objective.

The community wants nothing to do with them because they know that a lot of items will heavily skew results. Even if ones like Food could make minimal impacts it still affects results and people want it gone as much as possible.

Because we have the option to turn it off, and we all like it off because we don't like the influence it presents to a competitive environment.

Random isn't inherently bad, I agree it's very doable. The difference is items do it in a bad way where as Peach, Mr. G&W and co do it the right way.

But there haven't been. They all rely on accepting the premise that skill = competitive which is fallacious. Nobody has proven that Smash should necessarily be played in a way that measures something outside of item manipulation (which is still giving the anti-item people too much credit). Hell, nobody has proven that Smash should be played in a way that measures any specific thing period.

This is incorrect.

Competitive play tests a skill they are looking for. Smash can be played in a number of ways, without items is a valid one and one that this community accepts for the reasons I've outlined.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

But there haven't been. They all rely on accepting the premise that skill = competitive which is fallacious.

A fallacy is a set of mind that is always wrong. If you're going to accuse skill = competitive of always being wrong, you better have some serious proof to back it up.

Nobody has proven that Smash should necessarily be played in a way that measures something outside of item manipulation (which is still giving the anti-item people too much credit). Hell, nobody has proven that Smash should be played in a way that measures any specific thing period.

People pay money to play Smash Bros. at tournaments, and the people who place the highest win that money. This, when played in a way that best determines skill, is a reward for the person who preformed the best. But, if it were not a test of skill, it would be gambling, which is illegal.

 

[The Ben]

Pretty sure people have been very distinctly clear that random spawning too randomly favor players is bad because it rewards players in a way that skews results to where it's not competitive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrdT5y12kA
Not competitive? There is literally more support and money for Rock Paper Scissors than the thing you insist is competitive.

It isn't that items are so random that they aren't competitive. Randomness has nothing to do with how competitive a thing is.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Rock, Paper, Scissors, on a professional level, is about mindgames and predictions, as are all other "luck based" competitions. You can't use mindgames and predictions to control items.

 

[The Ben]

A fallacy is a set of mind that is always wrong. If you're going to accuse skill = competitive of always being wrong, you better have some serious proof to back it up.

I'm not accusing "skill = competitive" of always being wrong. I'm accusing the idea that competition necessarily takes skill as being wrong.

People pay money to play Smash Bros. at tournaments, and the people who place the highest win that money. This, when played in a way that best determines skill, is a reward for the person who preformed the best. But, if it were not a test of skill, it would be gambling, which is illegal.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph it's funny.

1. Gambling isn't illegal in any state that I know of.
2. There is player input and interaction that can result in a win regardless of item spawns. By law this is considered a test of skill and not random.
3. Most states have an upper gambling limit where any non-licensed person can run "gambling" events. I don't know about your state but in Iowa it's 50 dollars.
4. Items are not inherently less skill intensive than non-item play. It just tests them in a different way.
5. If we used your definition of gambling, which has no legal weight, tripping is random so all Brawl is gambling.
6. Items reward the player who is in the best position at the time of it spawning. Being in the best position takes skill to get to.
7. Your definition of competitive is still wrong.

 

[Cassio]

Poker is a lot less about the cards dealt, and is far more over reads and reactions. Aka knowing how to bluff and when to bet your hand is better than anyone elses.

Yes there is a random element to the game but what truly separates the skill of players is knowing how to bet properly and such based on what you get and figuring out what others have.

Rock, Paper, Scissors, on a professional level, is about mindgames and predictions, as are all other "luck based" competitions. You can't use mindgames and predictions to control items.

Im going to hope I dont have to bother arguing against these. Im just going to quote them and hope you or at least others realize the sillyness of stating that poker and r-p-s' are less random then item play. Or the fact that many of the elements you stated as "proof" that theres skill in these games can be applied to just about any competitive event including item play.

Pretty sure people have been very distinctly clear that random spawning too randomly favor players is bad because it rewards players in a way that skews results to where it's not competitive.
Proof? Its what Ive been asking for. Where are all these tests and inconsistent results youre talking about?

Banning always will be arbitrary, it's never a 100% objective thing to do even with criteria because even the criteria can be objective.
Yes, the difference is when we ban or alter the ruleset its the results of considerable amount of testing and analysis, not pointless theorycraft which is the only reason items were banned.

The community wants nothing to do with them because they know that a lot of items will heavily skew results. Even if ones like Food could make minimal impacts it still affects results and people want it gone as much as possible.
Proof?

Because we have the option to turn it off, and we all like it off because we don't like the influence it presents to a competitive environment.

Random isn't inherently bad, I agree it's very doable. The difference is items do it in a bad way where as Peach, Mr. G&W and co do it the right way.

Response in red.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I'm not accusing "skill = competitive" of always being wrong. I'm accusing the idea that competition necessarily takes skill as being wrong.

Even then, the word fallacy would be implying that that mindset is always wrong.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph it's funny.

1. Gambling isn't illegal in any state that I know of.

Parimutuel gambling, the kind that Item Bros. would be, is illegal in 10 states and D.C.

2. There is player input and interaction that can result in a win regardless of item spawns. By law this is considered a test of skill and not random.

So a coin flip would be a test of skill? And, even if it was still legally skill, many venues wouldn't want to risk the potential legal action.

3. Most states have an upper gambling limit where any non-licensed person can run "gambling" events. I don't know about your state but in Iowa it's 50 dollars.

That would restrict it to no more than 10 people with a $5 pot.

4. Items are not inherently less skill intensive than non-item play. It just tests them in a different way.

It's not the kind of skill people want to go to Smash Bros. tournaments to test.

5. If we used your definition of gambling, which has no legal weight, tripping is random so all Brawl is gambling.

Tripping, contrary to the *****ing and whining of Melee fans with nothing better to do than yell at Brawl fans, does not happen often enough, nor does it cause a large enough effect for it to determine the outcome of matches. If you feel differently, go play something else.

6. Items reward the player who is in the best position at the time of it spawning. Being in the best position takes skill to get to.

"The best position" could very well just be whoever is closest to where it chooses to appear. Plus, it would mean that being off of the stage could randomly be the end of your stock.

7. Your definition of competitive is still wrong.

I'm getting tired of you and a lot of others taking literally everything at face value, so I'm just going to say this; when we say competitive, we mean an environment that allows for skill to be the main factor, not the dictionary definition.

Im going to hope I dont have to bother arguing against these. Im just going to quote them and hope you or at least others realize the sillyness of stating that poker and r-p-s' are less random then item play.

Are you seriously using an insult as a counter argument? That's it, I'm done with you.

 

[The Ben]

Even then, the word fallacy would be implying that that mindset is always wrong.

Actually, yes it is, and I am. If you think that competitive can only be a measure of skill you're wrong.

So a coin flip would be a test of skill? And, even if it was still legally skill, many venues wouldn't want to risk the potential legal action.

"Regardless of item spawn" meaning that the items themselves don't make the game random enough to be considered gambling.

However, if you were going for the reductionist argument, all competitive video games are nothing more than player input and hoping the other player's input doesn't beat yours. You could argue that press square while they press triangle is no more random than them choosing scissors when you picked paper. So by reduction couldn't it be argued that whenever money enters into the equation video games are gambling regardless of what game it is?

The answer would be no, still. Legally speaking a game of skill is a game where players are capable of calculating informed judgements, are given the opportunity to act on those calculations, those judgements have a sufficient impact on the results, and they know the standard of skill before the game starts.

So now let's look at Brawl with items on. Can a player calculate the risks vs the rewards of his actions? Yes, he can try to maintain any position on the given stage. Does controlling an area where an item is likely to spawn increase the chances of getting an item? Most definitely, the more space you control the better the odds of an item spawning where you can access it. Is the impact sufficient? I don't know, I'm not a judge, but I'd be willing to bet that they'd rule in favor it being sufficient. Lastly, do players know about random item spawns before the competition starts? I'd certainly hope so. I don't see how you could say items being on is the same thing as gambling in the legal sense of the word, which is the only one that matters as far as tournament legality is concerned.

That would restrict it to no more than 10 people with a $5 pot.

No. It would restrict any number of players from losing more than $50 in one night.

It's not the kind of skill people want to go to Smash Bros. tournaments to test.

Thanks for speaking on behalf of everyone! Without you I wouldn't know that there was absolute nobody on Earth that prefers items on.

"The best position" could very well just be whoever is closest to where it chooses to appear. Plus, it would mean that being off of the stage could randomly be the end of your stock.

If you choose to be off stage and get punished for it that is your fault. You made the calculated risk of going off stage and were punished for. If you were knocked off stage by an opponent they were controlling the stage and doing what they needed to do to control item spawning in their favor.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Actually, yes it is, and I am. If you think that competitive can only be a measure of skill you're wrong.

See my response to #7.

(a ton of stuff regarding the definition of gambling)

Still, venue hosts are still not going to want to risk it, due to them owning the property and being liable.

Thanks for speaking on behalf of everyone! Without you I wouldn't know that there was absolute nobody on Earth that prefers items on.

Thanks for proving my point about how you take literally everything at face value. Anyway, most people go to Smash Bros. tournaments to play against other people in a competition of skill. We know this because most people clearly do not agree with you about anything you have ever said regarding your naturalist stance on the subject, and how most people almost never play with items on in friendlies. If you have seriously not picked up on this after this long, then you're either in denial or completely oblivious.

If you choose to be off stage and get punished for it that is your fault. You made the calculated risk of going off stage and were punished for. If you were knocked off stage by an opponent they were controlling the stage and doing what they needed to do to control item spawning in their favor.

You have not responded to the main subject of my response, which was that the wrong position could still be on stage and you would have no way of knowing when that will be.

Anyway, I'm done with this whole thread because everyone on the pro-items side is just saying "no you're wrong and dumb" and expects us to refute that statement over and over again.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Lol'd so hard at RPS and Poker being random.

Jack's post was amazing, nothing else needs to be said.