"I like to play the real Smash Bros."

[Deleted member 189823]

What's happening, forum.

Yesterday on Facebook a friend of mine (which happens to be one of the best in my country. SSB tag is "Joak") got in an arguement with another player on the SSB FB group. What did this arguement consist on? Well, it was Joak telling that guy (which we will now refer to as "Leker", because that's his username) that he won't likely find an opponent at the group if he keeps activating Items and illegal stages. Leker stated that he is constantly bored of people playing 1 vs. 1 without items and on FD, and that he wants to play "the real Smash Bros.", not a Street Fighter. Joak stated that people on the group prefer to competetively, because it's a match of sheer skill. Leker stated that SSB by itself is a competetive game, whether it's with items or not, saying that Joak doesn't know how to play how the game supposed to be played "because he will likely lose first", that it's the player's lack of skill for not being able to avoid the items and the others beating up on him on a Free-for-All.

I just think this was an interesting arguement. I don't question what is supposed to be competetive.

 

[Orion*]

I'm pretty confident that most top players have put enough time into this game... but genuinely still enjoy playing for fun with items on. However after so many years of playing this game and breaking it down into a science, something so inconsistent and many times game breaking as items can really ruin the game from a competitive standpoint.

Everyone has different ways of interpreting what this is though. For example there are many people that believe stages like rainbow cruise, brinstar ect hold similar principles in their inconsistency and over centralizing game play. Many people still believe this is not the case because either A) it just doesnt cross "their" boundary of what is to much or B) they just aren't a level of play to realize it.

/skip long read
Either way learning to enjoy everything I think is very important... but when it comes to tournament. I have no interest in random events.

 

[Ussi]

We have free-for-all with all items on side events at some tourneys. Items are heavily random (some items with skewed risk/reward), and random makes the game less skillful

There is a ruleset that have competitive items only, but not many people like it.

I'm gonna say there is no real way to play smash brothers. You just have fun with it.

 

[NTA]

Explosives and bats ;D

 

[Cassio]

This is a subject Ive actually spent time reading through and thinking about. Theres some very great threads on this subject both on SRK and on this forum from when the original items debate occured. Prior to that I was a firm believer that items and many of the current illegal stages greatly reduced the competitive value of the smash series. Since then my point of view has shifted to believe that while items do slightly increase randomness, the game is still (and arguably more) competitive when you consider the entire metagame. I know there are a few prominent TOs who've expressed their interest with competitive item play as well including Keitaro and Alpha Zealot (some even saying items were banned too soon).

At this point the community has become so familiar with a traditional itemless, small stagelist ruleset that its a difficult if not impossible task to shift away from this within the existing community (although I think it would be possible to do this outside the existing community with enough effort, I doubt anyone has the desire to do so). Additionally many in the smash community have associated the word random as the opposite of competitive (its true counterpart is skill), and believe any (or almost any) randomness makes the game uncompetitive. So its a change thats not likely to occur, but I sympathize with the sentiments of the individual you quoted.

Possible additional benefits of introducing items to gameplay include:
1. Instantly solving every controversial issue Metaknight creates from lgl to idc
2. Creates a less campy, slow paced game from a spectator and player perspective
3. Vastly simplifying and standardizing the ruleset
4. Reducing tournament match times
5. A game thats more easily accessible (structurally) to the broader community of smash players

Small sidenote: The reason I find the popular argument that "mk needs to be banned because we cater our ruleset to him" BS is because it was ruleset tampering to begin with that made him so powerful. A perfectly competitive version of brawl exists without powerful scrooging and and ledge abuse mechanics, yet people want to argue that making relatively minor adjustments like an lgl steps over the line after we basically nuked the stagelist and gutted a defining aspect of smash for what boils down to personal preference? Yeah, no...

All that being said people should play how they want.

 

[Roller]

Items were obviously banned too soon for brawl. It was a big debate in melee, and Brawl as we all know is a very different game, with a different flow, and different mechanics/gravity.

It deserved it's own debate.

I would not hate trying items, but I do like the game how it is right now and don't really see a need to destroy the status quo right now in this case. Especially after half the country just made a similarly huge change. The longer a ruleset has to develop a meta game, the more competitive the game will be played under that ruleset. With this in mind I'd rather not undo ~4 years to start a new metagame.

 

[infiniteV115]

Though I can see where he's coming from, I don't like the last statement (avoiding random items and avoiding being teamed up on in a FFA take skill). I'm not saying there isn't skill involved in AllBrawl (I believe that there is, which is why we didn't see many randoms in the top spots at AllBrawl at Apex) though.

And lol @ FD only. But yeah, playing the game either way is fine, and though I play this game competitively I can still enjoy it on janky stages with items and ****. I just prefer it without so much randomness cause I feel the non-random game requires more intensive thought.

 

[TreK]

On that topic, there was a rumor about DDD able to spawn dragoon parts with his side B if items were left on. Was it true or just a rumor ?

Edit : just to make it clear, it's not the brokenness of items that made us ban it, it's the general idea of random spawning places and random spawning timers for items. If bobombs, as broken as they can be, spawned on a tree every 50 seconds, we'd still consider using them. But since it can spawn at your opponent's feet when you're camping him because you're leading, or right in your charged fsmash that was supposed to put an end to the match, or even in a more or less random fair you threw out to zone your enemy as Marth, they bring bad competition.
Some items are broken, like pokéballs, bobombs and fans, but we could still allow some like food, traps etc. We don't because it'd be bad.

Oh, and don't think items only bring joy to your face and cheerleaders to your bed. They allow for some new infinites also.

 

[Cassio]

Well heres the thing about items, they do increase the amount of skill you need to play the game, they just also increase randomness as well. The example I came up with in my head awhile ago is kind of like a mixture like coffee and cream, chocolate milk, etc. where in the end X% will be element A and Y% will be element B. In this case the drink is "competitive value" and the elements are "skill" and "randomness".

The existing smash community for the most part dislikes randomness, so anything that is added or exists as part of the games competitive value will either have none or next to no randomness. Usually if its not eliminated its because its not feasible. So removing the mechanics that have a hint of randomness you had a mixture of close to 100% skill and next to no randomness, and consists almost entirely of skill. Theres no units for this, but for the sake of argument lets say this mixture achieves 70 units of competitive value (like a drink may be 70 mL) with 60 units being skill and 10 units random so a ratio of 6:1.

Lets say items have 20 units of skill and add an entire 10 units of random. This new mixture has 80 units of skill compared to 60, a competitive value of 100 units compared to 70, and a skill to random ratio of 5:1 compared to 6:1. So in this example items increase competitive value and skill, while also decreasing the ratio of skill to randomness.

This ratio is what the community finds important. Compared to early 2000 our acceptance of a higher ratio has fallen, while back then they were more accepting but their options were limited to either a high ratio or low one. This ratio is the key to why items and stages do or don't exist.

Lastly, there are several other things to take into consideration, but this was a simplified example to get a specific point across.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Dedede can spawn capsules that could contain the Dragoon Parts, but only if items are not set to None. It doesn't matter which items are active, as long as its not on none he can spawn any item from his capsule.

I've heard people mention only turning on the food option, sounds interesting to me. I'd like to see how a match of that would work out.

 

[Wizzrobe]

Just look at Metaknight, he is overpowered and broken and thats why he got banned. Items are even worse than Metaknight so items should definitely be banned. Imagining getting the Smash ball with someone like Sonic. Even if your opponent is ahead of you in stocks all you have to do is get the smash ball and you will probably get a stock off him and you barely did any work for it. Items just aren't balanced and fair.

 

[Life]

Somebody please justify the ban on food for me.

 

[Captain L]

I think it was because banning all items is easier to do than examining each one and banning them individually.

 

[Ghostbone]

Dedede can spawn capsules that could contain the Dragoon Parts, but only if items are not set to None. It doesn't matter which items are active, as long as its not on none he can spawn any item from his capsule.

It's the other way around, Dedede can spawn any item that's turned on, the frequency doesn't matter.

 

[Hippieslayer]

I wonder how much new ****ed up **** like infinites and weird bugs items could cause. Furthermore; I don't think having items on makes the game more accesible, rather it would shut out noobs to an even higher degree because the learning curve until would be a lot longer and steeper.

 

[-LzR-]

There are definitely items that are perfectly acceptable and competitive without any random bull****. Mr Saturn and Franklin Badge come to mind. Also sandbag would add an interesting strategy to the game as you can use it as a cover against a projectile heavy character and even get food if he tries to shoot you. Items are awesome, but people don't want to try them and I'm not sure if I want to either. I think they deserve a side event with items that aren't broken or too random.
The problem is that the spawn points are random

On topic: I like scrubs like that with the "real smashbros" attitude. They entertain me for a while.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Explosives and bats ;D

you guys need all-soccerballs events

not even joking

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I wonder how much new ****ed up **** like infinites and weird bugs items could cause. Furthermore; I don't think having items on makes the game more accesible, rather it would shut out noobs to an even higher degree because the learning curve until would be a lot longer and steeper.

This

If we actually combed through and picked out the items that are legit, and banned the OP ones, scrubs would still say **** like "Oh, but Pokeballs and Assist Trophies are the best items! Why don't you allow them? Yall aren't playing the game right cuz pokeballs R 2 FUN!"

On top of that, they'd have to not only learn basic concepts like spacing, MUs, advanced techs, etc. They'd ALSO have learn way more stuff about how certain items affect those aspects.

 

[Cassio]

Thats the point? If the concern was that people have "more to learn" then the game would devolve into the whole "FD, MK only, Final Destination" shiz. Higher learning curves generally mean the game is more competitive.

No one cares if people complain that someone is too good at the game. Even people who've never played the game would think thats dumb. The complaint is that the competitive ruleset is structurally different and lacks intuitiveness from how the game is played normally and by the majority of brawls owners. However even in terms of gameplay, the argument can be made that having a game thats likely to be less of a campfest would make the game more accessible to potential players and viewers.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

Even a few years back when I started playing the game, I found not having items to be fun. I wasn't even playing competetively back then.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I'm not saying we couldn't add items because it'd be harder to learn. I'm just saying that people who refuse to play competitive smash because they prefer to play with items on hyrule temple are usually scrubs who would never learn everything they needed to learn anyway. Usually.

 

[DarkSimorgh]

I like how there are one or two people who are speaking directly to the people they are debating with, and then everyone else is either speaking in third-person representing other people they support or speaking for and slandering those they oppose.

On topic: Items aren't good or bad for a metagame in my opinion. To be honest, I couldn't see items ever being accepted by a Smashboards community. It would definitely have its own circuit if items were ever considered "tournament legal" in any form. I put tournament legal in parenthesis because there really is no set legality to tournaments except for those placed by TOs.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Whenever I turn on items playing with casuals they always end up screwing me over due to luck one way or another.

The question is just whether you are willing to take that risk for the sake of a different gameplay experience. Its not like we go out of our way to eliminate randomness (we eliminate some randomness that we deem is "too much", but not all of it).

 

[Wizzrobe]

Another thing about items is that if they are turned on, you can rely on them a lot. rather than rely entirely on your own skill with the character.

 

[Sol9000]

even a few years back when i started playing the game, i found not having items to be fun. I wasn't even playing competetively back then.

my thoughts exactly

 

[Destiny Warrior]

Now I haven't touched the game of Brawl in 3 months, but I thought I'd weigh on on the subject, considering I'm a casual player who understands the competitive game.

I don't deny that items are random, and hence are inherently uncompetitive. But items are actually what set Smash apart from other fighters, and it is how smash is known to the casual player(along with wacky stages). Basically, games like Street Fighter are entirely built around PvP, while Smash is *inherently* built in a different style. The mechanics etc. are made considering items and weird stages. Also, the CP system that we developed is again something external(which isn't a bad thing, I don't say that). So under the rules we impose to make our game competitive, since we remove things we deem "uncompetitive", we're naturally going to run into balance issues.

Now I'm no high-level player, but I think in an environment with items, MK's planking would never be an issue. Sure MK can stay at the ledge planking away, but you control the entire stage, which is where items are going to spawn. So rather than being helpless, you can get things like Proximity Mines for instance, and fling them where MK is planking. The sheer threat of an PM covering his ledge should making him come back to the stage, but if he decides to risk planking further, just chuck the mine at the ledge(space appropriately that it lands there obviously). The Mine will explode when he comes within range(should be before MK grabs ledge I think), and voila, you broke the planking. You can even use other items like the Bumper creatively to stop his planking.

There are a lot of options that open up in an items environment that counter several "gay" tactics. Planking gets beaten by items, camping gets beaten by items etc. They key in an items environment is to use them creatively. Fire Flowers are easy to DI out of, true, but you can use them to say, cover a retreat. A lot of items are throwable. You can use these to an extent to cover for characters that lack projectiles. It gives some lower tier characters a better chance against higher tiers. Yes, it reduces how much difference in skill is observed in matches, but it also punishes runaway tactics, which are a cause of a lot of stage bans.

Item management is a skill in itself. Items force you to consider the possibility of another element entering play when you attempt to attack your opponent. You have to be prepared for possible counterattacks. Sometimes, alternative approach avenues can get fleshed out under items. Items only being crapfests at higher rates of appearance. Moderate rates promote additional thinking in my opinion. I'd say it's somewhat like Pokemon; the chances of something stupid happening are relatively low, but over time WILL happen. It's up to you, the player, to know the odds, and take calculated gambles. If you choose to keep running away, you have to accept the consequence that your opponent has more stage access than you do. If you then whine that "he got a capsule with a sweet item", well, you took the gamble of sacrificing stage access in exchange for trying to avoid damage, you shouldn't be complaining.

I'll end this argument by stating once again, that I am not a random "FFA all items scrub", but I have actually played Brawl and attempted to learn some of the more technical things. I have seen how items can be uncompetitive, but I also observe they solve some problems in competitive play.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The problems they solve do not make up for the problems they create.

Sorry.

 

[Cassio]

They were never thoroughly tested though, 'problems they create' is theory-crafted non sense and is the same argument used for lgls. If we actually did care to play the 'real brawl' then they would've been given the benefit of the doubt. However it was never in our communities interest to do so, something Ive come to accept by being a part of the smash community.

 

[Sol9000]

But items are actually what set Smash apart from other fighters, and it is how smash is known to the casual player(along with wacky stages).

I thought Casuals knew SSB because it's a crossover of Nintendo's Franchises...

Hmm...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

They were never thoroughly tested though, 'problems they create' is theory-crafted non sense and is the same argument used for lgls. If we actually did care to play the 'real brawl' then they would've been given the benefit of the doubt. However it was never in our communities interest to do so, something Ive come to accept by being a part of the smash community.

1. They were tested for years in Melee. The influence they had on the game easily carries over to Brawl.

2. EVERY item adversely affects fair results. I play with items on often (casual friends) and I think I have taken a stock with every single item just because it spawned near me as I was edge-guarding.

 

[Cassio]

Those both fit under the aforementioned theory-craft. The first Ill assume I dont need to explain (also in a bit of a hurry). The latter are casual friendlies which =/= competitive tournament play, which is worse than using will vs rich to argue against lgls.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sure, its Melee - but the situations transfer almost seamlessly over to Brawl.
Sure, its friendlies - but I'm a competitive player and I can tell what would work in tournament and what wouldn't

Can't dismiss things that easily

 

[Cassio]

Sure, but such subjective reasoning can be used to justify any sort of change in the game, and frequently is. It essentially makes any ruleset a 'good' ruleset. However as I mentioned its something Ive come to accept being part of this community.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I think it was because banning all items is easier to do than examining each one and banning them individually.

Meh, it wasn't that hard for me to do.

Seriously, though. This thread makes me sadface. It's like no one here remembers my hard work at all...

 

[Lukingordex]

But,food doens´t make to much difference...

I think...

 

[Sol9000]

Meh, it wasn't that hard for me to do.

Seriously, though. This thread makes me sadface. It's like no one here remembers my hard work at all...

 

[UltiMario]

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.

 

[The Ben]

2. EVERY item adversely affects fair results. I play with items on often (casual friends) and I think I have taken a stock with every single item just because it spawned near me as I was edge-guarding.

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.

 

[Lukingordex]

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.

I agree with you The ben.

Different from the infinite grabs thread

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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"?