Is All-Brawl the future competitive standard?

[Animeko]

Even though it's almost unanimous that Items add in a randomness factor, the stages are inherently biased towards specific characters, right?

Definitely! That is precisely why the loser of the match has the option to counter pick the stage or their character. Knowing how to use a stage to its full potential can be the difference between a win or a loss. It's a strategy.

If I were playing against a beastly Sonic that seemed to always get the smash ball, I would change the stage to Mario Bros. This stage inherently counters Sonic's final smash because it is difficult to launch someone straight into the air (unless you're at the top of the stage). Also it is a little more difficult to fly, and the POW interrupts his flight for a second. So run to the POW and you have a good chance of surviving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ml0gGbwbB4
2:28 / 3:43

If I were playing Sonic, however, I would play on Battlefield. First of all it's easy to fly around when you get the final smash. Also if you are a stock ahead, you can try to stall by making use of the stage's glitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mvQac7pmic&feature=related
1:15 / 2:46

Skisonic (Sonic) scored a KO on activation of his final smash. He utilized the stage's glitch to try to stall the rest of the match. He was unsuccessful though as the other player was able to chase after him anyway.

(Also note at 2:18 / 2:46, Sonic the HedgeDawg (Zelda) had no idea how to deal with the fan trap... He could have slipped out by falling off the edge of the stage. oh well.)

 

[kr3wman]

He isn't, but he does think it's better, because he finds no items on boring. He sounds pretty selfish to me. He started playing Brawl as his first smash game and knows nothing of what the community went through in the last years.

 

[Animeko]

I guess all-brawl is fine if you really like items but I heard EVO was absolutely stupid soooo I'm gonna believe them

Good, be a little sheep, sheep. Can I call you sheep? Seriously though, you shouldn't let other people make your decisions for you. See it for yourself and make up your own mind.

On a related note: All-Brawl wasn't the ruleset used at EVO. There were a lot of items turned off for that tournament.

Is Keits pushing the AllBrawl as the SSBB competitive standard?

No. To quote his SRK post #96:

In that interview, I expressly state that no one is looking to replace your favorite format for brawl, but to simply offer something else to be treated as a separate game, and look at how threatened that makes so many people in the thread i linked feel. THAT is the attitude that I cannot understand in this entire situation.

What is so terrifying about playing a different way?

He sounds pretty selfish to me.

I don't see how you can feel that way as he's not trying to replace the regular rules as the standard. I think you're being a little irrational.

 

[ftl]

\
If I were playing Sonic, however, I would play on Battlefield. First of all it's easy to fly around when you get the final smash. Also if you are a stock ahead, you can try to stall by making use of the stage's glitch.

No, you can't stall, then it goes to sudden death and your stock advantage was for naught.

 

[Animeko]

No, you can't stall, then it goes to sudden death and your stock advantage was for naught.

Huh? You only go to Sudden Death if you are tied in stocks. If you are up one stock you win.

 

[Dark Sonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mvQac7pmic&feature=related

That Sonic was terrible. And the Homming stall can easily be stopped by the player on the stage just airdodging or spotdodging. Why did you even use this as an example?

 

[kr3wman]

Sudden death decides the outcomes of a match always in Keits ruleset.... :/

 

[Animeko]

That Sonic was terrible. And the Homming stall can easily be stopped by the player on the stage just airdodging or spotdodging. Why did you even use this as an example?

Yeah.. It's the only video I could find on youtube of a Sonic getting the final smash on that stage. I was only recording matches on station A at SB3 so I wasn't able to capture a better example of the situation. So until I get a better example recorded you'll just have to try it for yourself :D

Sudden death decides the outcomes of a match always in Keits ruleset.... :/

Wow that's not even an exaggeration, that's an outright lie.

 

[kr3wman]

-Sudden death WILL decide the outcome of a match. In the face of a stalemate during sudden death, a judge may force the players to play a 1 stock / 3 minute rematch, where sudden death will count again if it is reached.

No it's not :/

 

[Animeko]

Wait, are you saying matches always end in Sudden Death or that Sudden Death acts as the tie breaker, not percentage? I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

 

[kr3wman]

No, you can't stall, then it goes to sudden death and your stock advantage was for naught.

Huh? You only go to Sudden Death if you are tied in stocks. If you are up one stock you win.

Sudden death acts as the tie breaker, not stocks or %s.

 

[Dark Sonic]

So until I get a better example recorded you'll just have to try it for yourself :D

Try what for myself? Stalling with Sonic?

I just said that the stall doesn't work. If the opponent spotdodges, airdodges, or rolls, then the homing attack does not go towards the stage, but instead acts as if it's not locking on to anything and just pushes Sonic away from the stage. It's not even a legitimate stall, and most competent players would know this.

 

[OmegaXF]

This thread is implying suicide.
With NO LOTION!!!!

 

[Animeko]

Sudden death acts as the tie breaker, not stocks or %s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG8T99Zt1wA

...

yes, you do win if you are up one stock.

 

[ftl]

Yeah, so I had a question to AZ or other people who have played in an All-brawl tournament about sudden death. It's been talked about surprisingly little in this thread. The two questions I have are

1) How difficult is it to stall the match to sudden death? Most people who come from the regular ruleset won't have practice doing that, but to me it seems like, if someone who's reasonably good wants the game to last 3 minutes, they can make that happen, even if they're playing against a better player.

2) How consistent are the results of sudden death? Does the better player win most of the time, or is it a tossup with only a slight advantage in favor of the better player? AZ mentioned that he won "90-95%" of the sets he thought he should have won. What's the percentage of sudden deaths that you won that you "thought you should have won"?

I was thinking about it, and the reason I'm concerned is that it seems like it would be possible (or likely) for it to come up a lot in the early rounds - a worse player coming up against a top-name player, consistently stalling the match out to sudden death, and then hoping to capitalize on the sudden death to get that risky win. It's not a way to consistently win matches, but it MIGHT be a way to take down better players a higher percentage of the time than should be possible.

So, to those who have been to these tournaments - how does that work? Or has the issue just not come up yet?

 

[Animeko]

Try what for myself? Stalling with Sonic?

Nono, I mean playing against Sonic on that stage. It doesn't render his final smash useless or anything, but it helps.

 

[Onomanic]

I lol'd at that rule set. "Two stocks" yeah can't take em serious lol

 

[Man of Popsicle]

Items=No skill
Dragoon parts, Smash balls, and bombs? :/

 

[kr3wman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG8T99Zt1wA

...

yes, you do win if you are up one stock.

There's no mention of it in his ruleset.

 

[Animeko]

There's no mention of it in his ruleset.

I guess not, but it's kind of common sense... Honestly... is there a setting that makes Sudden Death appear at the end of every match, no matter what, in basic Brawl?

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

I guess not, but it's kind of common sense... Honestly... is there a setting that makes Sudden Death appear at the end of every match, no matter what, in basic Brawl?

Playing sudden death is pretty lame though don't you think? It's like playing another match with a completely different ruleset. Should it really be allowed to decide the entire set? I mean, does anyone actually care who's better at sudden death? If we wanted to do that we'd just host a brawl sudden death tournament, a.k.a. the shortest tourney of all time.

 

[Steeler]

the main problem with sudden death is that it encourages stalling at the end of matches, which is banned in tournaments that don't run this "ruleset". And if someone can't see the problem with stalling to sudden death to steal a victory that they should not have earned, then something is wrong.

 

[Animeko]

And if someone can't see the problem with stalling to sudden death to steal a victory that they should not have earned, then something is wrong.

1.) The more skilled player will be able to kill off their opponent, therefore no Sudden Death.

2.) If someone is that skilled at running away and stalling, then I think they have earned Sudden Death. It is very hard to run away successfully against a skilled opponent. Items help defeat runaway strategies as many items may be thrown.

3.) Sudden Death starts out at 50/50, as far as percents are concerned. There is still a great deal of skill involved with Sudden Death. Even if the less skilled person won, they still must win two more times in order to take the set. If they are able to take the set in this way, then I'd say they're skilled, if in an unconventional way.

I mean, does anyone actually care who's better at sudden death

I do, as it is a very tense, high risk situation. There is a ton of strategies involved with Sudden Death. Do you play offensively or defensively? Are you quick to go after your opponent? Do you run away and hope to outlast your opponent in the rain of bomb-ombs?
Did you know you can catch and throw these bombs at your opponent?

 

[ph00tbag]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that using Sudden Death doesn't really prevent stalling. It just encourages stalling differently depending on stocks. Someone who's winning still gets the advantage out of stalling (even moreso than in standard because of the lower time limit), unless they're only winning by percent. However (and this happened in Ravepulse's first match against 56k at MN Meltdown), if one player has a massive % disadvantage on their last stock, but no stock disadvantage, then it definitely behooves them to stall until sudden death. What other games say that the clear loser can be given carte blanche when time runs out?

And before you suggest that the winner simply kill the loser, I suggest you really do some testing on stages like Hyrule Temple and New Pork City, and tell me that those stages don't make it really hard to KO someone who knows how to run away.

So yes, Sudden Death can discourage stalling situationally. But even then, on the wrong stages, it can just promote more stalling and yield absurd results.

 

[Animeko]

Honestly, Sudden death is the one thing that should not be debated in any ruleset, as it is it one of the few things that there is no option at all to turn off or change in any way. Smash is designed differently than conventional fighting games. Damage doesn't count toward your win, only kills do. There is a severe imbalance in the game already if you choose to play without sudden death. I think we can all agree that doing 80% damage to Wario is not the same as dealing 80% to MK (heavy vs light), but ignoring sudden death, MK would win if were just a few percent lower than Wario, even though I'd argue that Wario is winning (he is closer to getting a KO thanks to percent x weight). Of course, you can die at 0% in smash, or at any given time, which is part of what makes it terribly unique and exciting. I don't have a preference either way, but it is worth stating again that Sudden Death cannot be turned off in the game, and the whole point of all-brawl is to apply as few external rules to the in-game rules and settings as possible.

I would also like to add that Double Elimination is a highly random format to begin with. It only guarentees accurate results for the top 2 players in the bracket (a few more if the bracket is large enough). Seeding based on previous results helps to ensure the top players all make top 8 again, but for everyone who is not seeded, the format is absurdly random. If the goal were really to make sure as much randomness in results as possible were to be eliminated, it would be wise to switch to round robin style play. Round Robin play take a long long time, though, even if you do small pools of Robin play and pass the winners forward to new pools.

Lastly, 'skill' is a very arbitrary thing to define. A tournament gathering's purpose is not generally to see who the 'most skilled' is, but it is in fact to see 'who can win the contest in question most consistently'. The game doesnt know 'skill'. It only knows who won and who lost. That is the mindset behind all-brawl. Win in whatever way is most effective, no matter how 'unskilled' it may be to other people.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

Honestly, Sudden death is the one thing that should not be debated in any ruleset, as it is it one of the few things that there is no option at all to turn off or change in any way. Smash is designed differently than conventional fighting games. Damage doesn't count toward your win, only kills do. There is a severe imbalance in the game already if you choose to play without sudden death. I think we can all agree that doing 80% damage to Wario is not the same as dealing 80% to MK (heavy vs light), but ignoring sudden death, MK would win if were just a few percent lower than Wario, even though I'd argue that Wario is winning (he is closer to getting a KO thanks to percent x weight). Of course, you can die at 0% in smash, or at any given time, which is part of what makes it terribly unique and exciting. I don't have a preference either way, but it is worth stating again that Sudden Death cannot be turned off in the game, and the whole point of all-brawl is to apply as few external rules to the in-game rules and settings as possible.

I would also like to add that Double Elimination is a highly random format to begin with. It only guarentees accurate results for the top 2 players in the bracket (a few more if the bracket is large enough). Seeding based on previous results helps to ensure the top players all make top 8 again, but for everyone who is not seeded, the format is absurdly random. If the goal were really to make sure as much randomness in results as possible were to be eliminated, it would be wise to switch to round robin style play. Round Robin play take a long long time, though, even if you do small pools of Robin play and pass the winners forward to new pools.

Lastly, 'skill' is a very arbitrary thing to define. A tournament gathering's purpose is not generally to see who the 'most skilled' is, but it is in fact to see 'who can win the contest in question most consistently'. The game doesnt know 'skill'. It only knows who won and who lost. That is the mindset behind all-brawl. Win in whatever way is most effective, no matter how 'unskilled' it may be to other people.

Saying it "can't be turned off" is not good enough. The game doesn't control us, we control the game. If you don't want to play sudden death, you just...don't play it. Nothing's preventing you from doing so. If you decide a normal match based on a sudden death match, you are not deciding who can win the contest that was previously agreed upon, you're judging the winner on a completely different contest with different rules. What's wrong with just playing another normal match? Or at least a 1-stock? Is there an actual reason why there should be sudden death instead of 1 stock?

 

[ph00tbag]

Honestly, Sudden death is the one thing that should not be debated in any ruleset, as it is it one of the few things that there is no option at all to turn off or change in any way. Smash is designed differently than conventional fighting games. Damage doesn't count toward your win, only kills do. There is a severe imbalance in the game already if you choose to play without sudden death. I think we can all agree that doing 80% damage to Wario is not the same as dealing 80% to MK (heavy vs light), but ignoring sudden death, MK would win if were just a few percent lower than Wario, even though I'd argue that Wario is winning (he is closer to getting a KO thanks to percent x weight). Of course, you can die at 0% in smash, or at any given time, which is part of what makes it terribly unique and exciting. I don't have a preference either way, but it is worth stating again that Sudden Death cannot be turned off in the game, and the whole point of all-brawl is to apply as few external rules to the in-game rules and settings as possible.

I don't disagree. However, I think that the utility of stages like Temple and 75m for stalling makes them inherently favor the person who was losing if the match comes down to a tie, but with a massive % difference. And I'm of the viewpoint that Sudden Death was meant to be, first of all, a balancing factor for time matches, and not stock matches, and second of all, a rare occurrence. For this reason, I don't think a strategy that focuses on holding off until the Sudden Death should be encouraged. Thus, there is a reason that, at the very least, stages that encourage stalling should not be set to random.

A further argument can be made to remove other stages that provide massive advantages from the random set. I don't think that's here or there, though, as All-Brawl is primarily intended determine a lot of this empirically.

 

[Yuna]

The SRK ruleset was a joke. To ban camping if a TO deemed it excessive is idiotic.

No, their rules will never be any kind of standard. How the hell did this thread reach 21 pages?!

 

[ShadowLink84]

*blames AZ*
*runs for the hills*

 

[Yuna]

1.) The more skilled player will be able to kill off their opponent, therefore no Sudden Death.

2.) If someone is that skilled at running away and stalling, then I think they have earned Sudden Death. It is very hard to run away successfully against a skilled opponent. Items help defeat runaway strategies as many items may be thrown.

Stalling and running away does not require great skill. It's quite easy to do depending on the stage and character.

3.) Sudden Death starts out at 50/50, as far as percents are concerned. There is still a great deal of skill involved with Sudden Death. Even if the less skilled person won, they still must win two more times in order to take the set. If they are able to take the set in this way, then I'd say they're skilled, if in an unconventional way.

We don't play Sudden Death for good reasons. To be able to win sets by abusing the most broken stages with the most broken (for those stages) characters is not winning by skill, it's winning by brokenness that we ban for a good reason.

 

[aeghrur]

*blames AZ*
*runs for the hills*

WOOOOOOOT, GO AZ. Yeah man, beat Yuna at this. LET'S GO ALL BRAWL STYLE, ITEMS ON!!! You can do it, SMASH BALL HIS ***.

But in all truthfulness, I agree with Yuna. I can't believe this rule set discussion actually made it this far. >_>

 

[Xenesis]

But in all truthfulness, I agree with Yuna. I can't believe this rule set discussion actually made it this far. >_>

Remember - if you don't agree it must be ridiculous.

 

[aeghrur]

Remember - if you don't agree it must be ridiculous.

That is so far from the truth, it's not even right. It's if YUNA doesn't agree with it, it's obviously ridiculous. Come on man, get in the game.

 

[Yuna]

Remember - if you don't agree it must be ridiculous.

I'm sorry, have you been here since Brawl was first released? Have you been arguing the pros and cons of items since then and even before that? Have you clocked hundreds of hours of game time with Items on? Do you have experience with items on tournaments? Do you have deep knowledge of how items work and how Brawl works in general?

 

[ftl]

hell[/B] did this thread reach 21 pages?!

Because AZ, who had actually *played* in a tournament with the ruleset, said that it was not nearly is broken as it looked.

At least, that's why I'm still here. Sure, I agree that on paper, the ruleset is broken, but apparently it didn't work out that way.

 

[Yuna]

Because AZ, who had actually *played* in a tournament with the ruleset, said that it was not nearly is broken as it looked.

At least, that's why I'm still here. Sure, I agree that on paper, the ruleset is broken, but apparently it didn't work out that way.

1 tournament is hardly enough to prove anything. And since we only have on-paper facts for this besides that one tournament with highly flawed rules that ultimately didn't random the results too much, that's really all we can discuss, the on paper aspects.

If I stab someone in the chest and they don't die from it doesn't mean I can declare that it's safe to stab people in that particular spot.

 

[aeghrur]

Hmm, Deoxsys, Groudon, and Suicune out of a pokeball vs. a munchlax out of a pokeball is so fair right? Not broken at all. =/ Hitting a timer with random chances is soooooo fair right when one guy gets to slow down his opponent and the other gets slowed down. Seriously, there are items-on brawl with a more fair set of items... =/ You can always try to use those...

Dang Yuna, what's with all the grim analogies lately? First sending a guy to prison for 6 months, now stabbing a guy in the chest. Someone wants to see pain...

 

[Korpocalypse]

"When Melee came out, it took 3-4 years for the community to agree to turn items off. So why isn't Brawl allowed the same amount of testing that Melee had, seeing as the two are almost completely different games, with different physics, and many other things leading the balance of the games to be different"

The only thing is, the reasons that items were taken out the first time are still evident, and if items as they are (randomly spawning) were in ANY competitive fighting game, I'm sure they would be banned. You're right that stages should be tested again, since physics changed and all, but some stages still have randomly/changing things, and that doesn't work in competitive fighting games.

 

[aeghrur]

Not to mention some stages are simply toooooooooooooo big for actual... fighting...

 

[XienZo]

Hmm, Deoxsys, Groudon, and Suicune out of a pokeball vs. a munchlax out of a pokeball is so fair right? Not broken at all. =/ Hitting a timer with random chances is soooooo fair right when one guy gets to slow down his opponent and the other gets slowed down. Seriously, there are items-on brawl with a more fair set of items... =/ You can always try to use those...

Dang Yuna, what's with all the grim analogies lately? First sending a guy to prison for 6 months, now stabbing a guy in the chest. Someone wants to see pain...

He's saying that it apparently is fairER than it seems.

I was thinking that till I saw a MK get 2 stocked, 1 by Corneria's lasers which were out of screen(not entirely their ruleset fault but 2 lives doesn't let you take that), and then the second by a rolling crate running MK over. He looked pretty good compared to the other guy...