Is All-Brawl the future competitive standard?

[kr3wman]

Without them, Brawl is really plain compared to Melee. They add a layer of complexity and entertainment without changing the results.




Again, show me the video or bracket evidence. Those statements are empty without examples.

1. I don't really find them entertaining. Most people don't find them entertaining in a serious environment. Stop thinking like Keits and defending his points of view even if you know and he knows they are wrong.

2. They are logical and rational statements. They do not need any. Even if I chose to give you examples I am sure you could find them yourself.

 

[Animeko]

Most people don't find them entertaining in a serious environment.

And some people do, which is why these rules were formed, and why people have played it. What's your point?

Stop thinking like Keits and defending his points of view even if you know and he knows they are wrong.

I can and everyone else can think any way they please, especially when evidence can back their opinions. The more All-Brawl tournaments I see the more I know the rules work.

If anything, Keits thinks like me and is defending my point of view by running the tournaments. The tournaments speak for themselves.

You're beginning to troll.

2. They are logical and rational statements. They do not need any.

Oookay, good luck writing research papers and the like. Maybe I should remind you what trolls are. I think the general consensus is,

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

Even if I chose to give you examples I am sure you could find them yourself.

No really, I can't find them myself. That's why I believe the rules work.

 

[Yuna]

*cough* Let me link you both back to post 226 and 228 of the thread: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5646541&postcount=226
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5647868&postcount=228

Melee requires a different set of technical skills that are not needed or present in Brawl. Melee’s a different game. Honestly, it doesn’t matter if people have played Melee or not. I thought we already came to that conclusion.

Pray tell, what changed in the game mechanics and item mechanics that make Items On an entirely different game in Brawl compared to Melee to such a degree that we have to give it another few years of evaluation before banning items altogether?

We know that Brawl is different from Melee. The question is: How is it different in regards to items and is it different to such a degree that items are now no longer broken?

On-paper facts do not prove anything, either. Do you play Brawl on paper?

On paper facts is all that matters when you do not have comprehensive scientific experiments to go by.

Actually, two tournaments have run All-Brawl (MN Meltdown and SB3). A minor All-Brawl tournament was held online ages ago as well. (You should do a little research first before contributing to the discussion). All-Brawl will probably be run at Final Round in Atlanta as well, so we’ll see what happens there.

You mentioned Online. You lose.

So far, the best players have won All-Brawl. Also, the bracket results were consistent with regular brawl.

Doesn't matter. There are strong chances for the best players to not win. And what happens when two players of equal play each other and fight tooth and nail, where it's a toss-up, only for a random item spawn to screw it all up and voila, they just lost the final match in a totally BS:y way?

How do you know those winners were the "best" players, anyway? Do you mean best "Items On" Brawlers? Best Brawlers in general? Best Brawlers with Items Off?

You realize that Season's Beatings III only had 68 entrants for regular Brawl, right? Was that an unsuccessful tournament as well? Even so, what does 100 people have to do with a successful tournament?

Number of entrants is irrelevant. Level of skill is all that matters. A 16-man tournament can beat a 200-man tournament if the 200-man tournament is consisted mostly of newbies and the 16-man tournament consists of the 16 best players in the world.

I could get 100 of my relatives together for a big ol’ game of Brawl and it wouldn’t be much of a showcase of skill. kr3wman, I don’t want to call you out but you’ve been making dumb post after dumb post in this thread. Think about what you're saying before posting, please, you're not really contributing to the discussion.

What kr3wman is talking about is probably the fact that the All-Brawl ruleset do not attract very many entrants. Or at the very least, All-Brawl attracts many newbies and itemnites, while at the same time repelling the vast majority of the best Smashers in the world as they do not feel like traveling long distances and spending a lot of money to play 2 stocks, 3 minutes and All items/All stages.

For the most part I agree with that. However, the next major All-Brawl tournament will probably be held at Final Round in Atlanta. From what I hear, the competitive scene in Atlanta has already abandoned Brawl and is now back to playing Melee.

(If it is true) they abandoned Brawl because they felt it was too broken. Do you really think they'll think All-Brawl is less broken?

People, like myself, are unwilling to ban something simply because it appears broken. After playing around with items on, most if not all the items I thought were broken were actually pretty easy to deal with. Saying that other "people never or are unwilling to learn" is hypocritical when coming out of your mouth, dude.

We've actually experimented with items. We've actually looked at items in depth. We've actually analyzed things. We've actually spent hundreds of hours playing with items on.

I've clocked more game time with items on than the vast majority of All-Brawl players. I know more about items than the vast majority of All-Brawl players. I know why items are so very broken and chance-based. They don't just "appear" broken, they "are".

Just because you were wrong does not mean we are. All Items and All Stages will never be acceptable for the vast majority of the Competitive gamers on SWF. For one thing, the SBR had lengty debates and experiments involving stages, thus was the banned stage list.

Items as a whole were swept off the table because of their very premise, the very engine that drives them (which is random, favours the loser, etc.). Even if individual items aren't broken on their own, we'd be stuck with very few items if we wanted to remove everything broken and that can tip the scales of balance "too much".

There has been testing on Hyrule Temple, New Pork City, and 75m. If you look at the Minnesota Meltdown and Season's Beatings III videos, there is not that much runaway occuring on those stages (so far). Either players are unable to run away effectively or they are just not aware of that tactic.

They aren't aware of it. Which is in no way a good defense for those stages! There has been testing on those stages... by the SBR!

The fact that random nobodies unaware of the runaway tactics elect not to does not mean it's not possible and wholly broken. Why the hell are you ignoring the findings of the SBR for, um, videos where players don't do the broken stuff?

At the very least, give us videos where they do engage in these tactics but fail instead of videos where they just don't bother.

Unfair, hell yes! Broken, no. No one has won a tournament, much less a set, with those items alone. The whole premise behind All-Brawl is to test to see if certain items are truly broken before banning them.

No one has done it =/= It cannot happen

If it's possible, it will happen. And we do not want that. There has been testing. We even have a team on Smashboards testing items! Pokéballs, broken.

Because there are several Pokémon which leave you no choice but to run away and try to dodge the Pokémon. Meanwhile, your opponent can still chase you, so you're fighting both the Pokémon and your opponent.

That’s not random, that is where the thread ended up going after 15 pages, when AlphaZealot said All-Brawl would be a good side tournament.

The point I was making is that I never once stated that All-Brawl can never ever be played, yet I was lumped into that crowd.

All I’ve seen you post is preconceptions. Theories are worth nothing compared to evidence. Show me example videos, show me example brackets that prove these rules are ludicrous. Better yet, enter an All-Brawl tournament for yourself and tell me what you experienced, as you are this “Yuna” that “has a hands-on, visceral approach to discussions”.

I've clocked more items time that you, most probably. I know more about items that you, most probably. Pre-conceptions? I have hands-on personal experience with items. What videos, really? Videos where we show that overpowered items can spawn randomly and turn the tide around?

Why must we have video evidence of everything when it's not even uncommon? A Bob-Omb spawns over someone's head right when they initiate a Smash, it explodes, they die. We know this can happen. We know this can happen with any explosive. We don't need a video to prove it, just boot the game up.

I'm so sick and tired of the "We need videos!" crowd. No, we don't. All stages, all items, that's wholly ridiculous. Smash Balls, Bob-Ombs, Timers, Fans, broken BS which literally break the game.

At this point, I don’t think you have the right. You have shown no concrete evidence as to how All-Brawl is preposterous.

I can pull up statitics, game data, frame data, item data, stage data, etc., etc. No, I cannot pull up videos showing All-Brawl is ridiculous because there exist were few videos of that in the first place and those videos most often do not involve players of the highest skill.

So not only aren't they really, really good avoiding items, they also do not know how to best utilize them.

My thoughts exactly.

Don't you think you're being a little irrational?

Why? It's a perfectly valid analogy.

We had 4 years of Melee with items on. Videos, brackets, results, everything eventually pointed to how items were broken. Pray tell, how has Brawl changed in such a way that we need to turn them back on again and give them a new chance? The items themselves have, if anything, gotten even more broken.

It's ridiculous to think that every time a new Smash is released, we have to give items another chance, even if the gameplay elements concerning items are pretty much largely the same (or worse). So for every single new Smash, we have to spend 1-2+ years "analysing" things?

Do you want me to record a video showing off just how broken the Dragoon and Smash Balls are? Apparently, words aren't enough, you need concrete evidence, despite it being quite easy to go into Training Mode and see that Marth can combo into his Final Smash (which is a One-Hit KO at 0% on almost every single stage in the entire game) from at least 4 different moves, guaranteed.

 

[ftl]

People, like myself, are unwilling to ban something simply because it appears broken. After playing around with items on, most if not all the items I thought were broken were actually pretty easy to deal with.

Something "appearing" broken is the only possible way to ban something; the question is how much evidence you want before something "appears" broken enough to be banned. In all-brawl, regardless of how broken an item is, it'll appear rarely enough that it'll take ages for us to accumulate enough tourney matches to conclusively say that something appears broken in tournament results.

However, we know how items work pretty well, and can discuss and test them without tournaments.

Again, I'll point you to the Item Standard Play project if you want to play with broken items banned but still play with items. The whole point of All-Brawl seems to be ban nothing, ever, including broken things.

ISP, on the other hand, wants to keep as many items as possible, while banning 'broken' ones - in their current ruleset, they have a number banned, a number allowed, and a number as counterpick (including some which are counterpick because they're not sure whether they're broken or not - a way to find out whether they ARE broken in tournament play, without requiring everyone to play with a potentially broken item!)

Unfair, hell yes! Broken, no. No one has won a tournament, much less a set, with those items alone.

Unfair + powerful = broken. What more is necessary to deem something broken? Especially in 2-stock games, even a half-stock advantage (50% or so, or an early KO) can decide the game. (Well, ISP have their own definition of broken, which isn't quite that. You can use that instead, if you'd like.)

And of course nobody can win a tournament solely on luck alone. You'd have to get insanely lucky to go through a bunch of matches in a row without the luck working against you.

However, how can you so confidently say that nobody has won a set based on item luck? Have you really seen all the matches played? I've seen plenty of games on youtube where the result has been heavily influenced by luck, and where I have no idea whether the better player won or not. Are you really denying that that happens?

SO exaggerated... If you think it's that simple, then enter All-Brawl. You could win some cash with that kind of confidence.

Um, no, you couldn't win cash on that. You can't win cash on randomness; the people who benefit most from it are those who are worse at the game, and they're unlikely to be placing in the money regardless. (Higher probability of it, certainly, but not high enough to "enter and expect to win money by getting lucky"). If I claim the lottery is random and nobody's any better at it than anyone else, "so enter and use that to win money" isn't a reasonable rebuttal.

 

[Bocom]

He can think whatever he wants, I guess. You can think the world is flat and I couldn't stop you. I guess what I meant to say is that he doesn't have the right to state that All-Brawl is a joke. A good argument has evidence to back it up, not feelings- and at this point, his opinion IS based on feelings, not reality. An opinion based outside of reality and fact is not an opinion I am going to care about, and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way.

Erm alright, you're a moron...? I've backed up my opinion with videos and brackets as evidence. I've done my part. It would be fair to have the 'no items' side of the argument do the same.

Why? You people say that it shouldn't take over as the competitive standard, so does he. Should he have to show people "evidence" why he thinks it's a joke? He stated before that he thinks ANY ruleset with items is a joke. I assume that he thinks so because *gasp*, he doesn't like items! Shocking, I know, could it really be that simple? If he thinks it's a joke, then let him think so, instead of craving evidence before letting him say such things. It's kinda like forcing someone who doesn't like something to admit that it's a good thing anyway, even if the person in question completely detest the thing in question.

And you have some nerve to claim that it would be "fair of the no items side" to present evidence. Why, there's plenty of information on SWF, and it seems like you've been ignoring most of it thus far. Just because two online tournaments showed some results that were positive, do you think that the decision of no items was decided in a matter of minutes? If you have, then you are greatly underestimating the SBR. In fact, it's the same kind of insult that SRK did with the EVO 2k8 ruleset. You can't say that for example Yuna has no right to speak his mind, when you then later crave evidence that is easily found on this forum from him.

And I have to agree with Yuna on his point about video proof. If something can happen, and it's uncommon, then is a video really necessary? If it would, then there would probably be a video link in every post more or less to prove their point, and that's just dumb. Everything doesn't need a video proof to be proven. How come? Well, no items is the (current at least >_>) competitive standard, it's been tested and analyzed for years. Most of the proof can't be proven using videos, because it's mostly data, as in, stuff written down, and not recorded.

 

[ph00tbag]

I wouldn't say that. There has been a lot of heated debate over a number of stages, as well as the growing crowd that wants to ban Meta Knight. Inside of one year of the game's life. With this game, here alone, there's been a lot of anger from those who were never gonna leave Melee, those that had all intentions of leaving Melee, and those that wanted to give Brawl a chance. There is some truth to the belief that a lot of people may ditch this game for others (in SWF's case, Melee), but while the numbers dwindle over the community's split on Diet-Brawl, it would seem All-Brawl is growing in harmony, both with the All-Brawlers and the Diet-Brawlers. There's no proof that the future is All-Brawl, but watching things turn out over here, it's not nearly as far fetched of an idea as you might think.

As a fan of All-Brawl, I neither see it, nor want it, to become the de facto standard if competitive Brawl as it stands under SWF's ruleset peaks early. I want both of 'em to be played side by side. It's hilarious, and a little sad, to see that there's not a single All-Brawler not willing to play Diet-Brawl, but the inverse is exactly that. My hat is off to AZ for recognizing All-Brawl, especially considering he still doesn't like it.

Diet-Brawl? Who's the biased one here?

My impression of your response is that you have not been paying attention to anything I'm saying, so I will break it down.

Yes. There is a divide in the SWF community. This divide (often exaggerated) is between Melee players and Brawl players. First of all, it should be noted that the primary cause of any tension is people that don't really know anything about either game, who exacerbate it by trolling the other parts of the website.

First of all, you seem to have completely ignored my assertion that among those people who are not exclusive Melee players, that is to say those who play Brawl competitively on a regular basis, the majority do so because they actually like the game, Brawl. That they think MK should be banned, or certain stages should or should not be allowed has very little to do with this basic opinion. You do them a disservice to suggest that their distaste for one element of the game makes them hate the whole game.

Second of all, the only people who hate Brawl are those people who don't play it. And they don't play it because they, you know, hate it. Why would you play a game you hate? That's totally counter intuitive. So if these people hate Brawl without items, what kind of head trauma would you have to have suffered to imagine that they would want to play it with them?

I'm not trying to denigrate All-Brawl here, and it's really insulting that you seem to want to paint my argument as such. I'm saying that from everything I've seen, All-Brawl has an uphill battle among the SWF community. It has encountered harmony thus far on SRK, because that's not SWF. Here on SWF, as you can see, it's hard to suggest that the growth is harmonious. But then again, you've already shown a penchant for denying the obvious when it suits your argument.

 

[Animeko]

We know that Brawl is different from Melee. The question is: How is it different in regards to items[?]…

In Brawl, ledge grabbing can be done while facing in the opposite direction, air dodge can be performed more than once in the air, and there are characters that can fly…to name a few things. Oh and Wario can eat items haha.

Is it different to such a degree that items are now no longer broken?

That’s what’s being tested in All-Brawl. We’ll find out what, if any, items are truly broken in a competitive setting.

On paper facts is all that matters when you do not have comprehensive scientific experiments to go by.

Comprehensive scientific experiments, eh? I think bracket results and video examples are more than enough.

You mentioned Online. You lose.

I also mentioned “minor”- as in, negligible in importance. (Love the 'You lose' emphasis... )

Doesn't matter. There are strong chances for the best players to not win.

Just how strong?

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5627236&postcount=86
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5627437&postcount=92

And what happens when two players of equal play each other and fight tooth and nail, where it's a toss-up, only for a random item spawn to screw it all up and voila, they just lost the final match in a totally BS:y way?

By toss-up, you mean the set is at match 4/5 right? Then that player will just have to accept being second for the day. If you cannot accept that minor possibility, then playing these rules isn’t for you. All-Brawl is inherently a high risk game where any mistake can lead to punishment.

How do you know those winners were the "best" players, anyway?

First of all, the bracket results were similar to the results of items-off, as I've stated (twice now). That and I saw the tournaments for myself, in person.

The best players were excellent at character vs. character, had knowledge of items and how to use/endure them, and had knowledge of how to use the stages to their full potential and control the spacing.

Number of entrants is irrelevant. Level of skill is all that matters. A 16-man tournament can beat a 200-man tournament if the 200-man tournament is consisted mostly of newbies and the 16-man tournament consists of the 16 best players in the world.

Thank you. Couldn’t have put it better myself!

What kr3wman is talking about is probably the fact that the All-Brawl ruleset do not attract very many entrants.

Again, that’s an exaggeration. At SB3, nearly half of the regular Brawl crowd entered All-Brawl. At MN Meltdown, more people entered All-Brawl than regular Brawl. Even so, I don’t think it matters how many people enter, and you appear to agree.

Or at the very least, All-Brawl attracts many newbies and itemnites

What’s wrong with that? More money for the winners right?

While at the same time repelling the vast majority of the best Smashers in the world as they do not feel like traveling long distances and spending a lot of money to play 2 stocks, 3 minutes and All items/All stages.

Thus far, All-Brawl has been run along-side regular Brawl and Melee tournaments. If by traveling long distances you mean across the room, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Same with this “spending a lot of money” business. All-Brawl was $5 dollars at SB3 and it was also $5 at MN Meltdown.

(If it is true) they abandoned Brawl because they felt it was too broken. Do you really think they'll think All-Brawl is less broken?

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost....&postcount=226
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost....&postcount=228

I asked earlier what people thought was wrong with Brawl. It’s not that it’s broken, it’s just that it’s missing the level of skill required to play Melee. Items and stages add some complexity to the game.

I've clocked more game time with items on than the vast majority of All-Brawl players. I know more about items than the vast majority of All-Brawl players. I know why items are so very broken and chance-based. They don't just "appear" broken, they "are".

Alright. What are your thoughts on how to deal with the fan? Regular hammer? The dragoon? The starman? Sudden Death bomb-ombs? What about pokemon, like electrode? What about assist trophies, like Isaac, lakitu, metroid, Jeff, excite bike, Andross, Mac, Greyfox, Lynn? What about final smashes, like Marth’s, Pikachu’s , Kirby’s, Peach’s, Gannondorf’s, Link’s, Olimar’s? etc.

I know more about items that you, most probably.

Alright, then I’d gladly like your advice on how to deal with the above.
(The above list can be dealt with, and it has been proven.)

The fact that random nobodies unaware of the runaway tactics elect not to does not mean it's not possible and wholly broken.

Oh trust me, I’m aware of that. I’m waiting for someone to prove that runaway is a broken, tournament winning tactic. I’m just saying for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened yet.

At the very least, give us videos where they do engage in these tactics but fail instead of videos where they just don't bother.

I didn't link to those videos for the very reason they had no examples. And I did provide a video where there was a good example of runaway. Did you read my post?

Here I’ll remind you:

There is one really cool instance of runaway, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L174gTSrT10
2:33 / 3:42

Sooo hilarious.

We'll have a better discussion if you read my posts a little more closely.

Because there are several Pokémon which leave you no choice but to run away and try to dodge the Pokémon. Meanwhile, your opponent can still chase you, so you're fighting both the Pokémon and your opponent.

How long do the pokemon assists last (and on average)? How often do they decide a match? How often do they decide a set? How often has someone won a tournament by using pokemon assists?

I'm so sick and tired of the "We need videos!" crowd. No, we don't. All stages, all items, that's wholly ridiculous. Smash Balls, Bob-Ombs, Timers, Fans, broken BS which literally break the game...

Maybe you don’t need proof, but I don’t think it’s that’s ridiculous to want proof that something is broken. For something to be banned, I have to see it to believe it. I have to see that a total scrub who doesn't know what he's doing can use a specific item and win against a skilled player consistently.

Apparently, words aren't enough, you need concrete evidence, despite it being quite easy to go into Training Mode and see that Marth can combo into his Final Smash …

Surprise! I’m not a sheep that believes only what people say. And going into Training Mode against a CPU is not the same as playing against a skilled opponent in a tournament. I want to see these items and situations tested in a competitive environment, not in Training Mode.

BTW: Fan’s aren’t broken and neither are most final smashes. (I have a feeling you won't be able to answer my list above...)

...do not involve players of the highest skill.

Hm. I hope Forward, AlphaZealot, and D. Disciple all know how horribly unskilled they are at Brawl.

Videos, brackets, results, everything eventually pointed to how items were broken.

All I’m saying is that Brawl should be treated in the same way.

Why? It's a perfectly valid analogy.

oh lord…why do I even bother... Oh well...

 

[Animeko]

it'll appear rarely enough that it'll take ages for us to accumulate enough tourney matches to conclusively say that something appears broken in tournament results.

So basically… you’re just lazy. Really.

However, we know how items work pretty well, and can discuss and test them without tournaments.

You can test items against a CPU, against a casual player, or against the best competitive Smash player in the room. I guarantee you wouldn’t get the same results. Skilled players have pulled some crazy stuff never thought possible on paper or theorized on forums. It's much more valuable to see items used in a competitive setting than at home.

Just because two online tournaments showed some results that were positive

Um, what? "two online tournaments", really? Did you even read my post, or the thread in general? MN Meltdown was a live tournament, as was Season's Beatings III.

And you have some nerve to claim that it would be "fair of the no items side" to present evidence. Why, there's plenty of information on SWF, and it seems like you've been ignoring most of it thus far.

Let me clarify: I would like the no items side to present evidence in the discussion, as I have in the discussion. Sorry to have offended you. I agree, there is plenty of information on SWF, and as I've said in the past, I go to SWF for information on character tactics. However, I have found better items tactics and strategies outside of SWF. Perhaps that's changed from when I first looked. But, judging by this items expert Yuna, fans are still thought to be "broken".

Um, no, you couldn't win cash on that. You can't win cash on randomness;

Thanks, that's partly my argument regarding items.

do you think that the decision of no items was decided in a matter of minutes?

In fact, no items was decided before Brawl was even released in the states.

 

[kr3wman]

1.In Brawl, ledge grabbing can be done while facing in the opposite direction, air dodge can be performed more than once in the air, and there are characters that can fly…to name a few things. Oh and Wario can eat items haha.


2.By toss-up, you mean the set is at match 4/5 right? Then that player will just have to accept being second for the day. If you cannot accept that minor possibility, then playing these rules isn’t for you. All-Brawl is inherently a high risk game where any mistake can lead to punishment.


3.I asked earlier what people thought was wrong with Brawl. It’s not that it’s broken, it’s just that it’s missing the level of skill required to play Melee. Items and stages add some complexity to the game.


4.Oh trust me, I’m aware of that. I’m waiting for someone to prove that runaway is a broken, tournament winning tactic. I’m just saying for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened yet.


5.Maybe you don’t need proof, but I don’t think it’s that’s ridiculous to want proof that something is broken. For something to be banned, I have to see it to believe it. I have to see that a total scrub who doesn't know what he's doing can use a specific item and win against a skilled player consistently.



6.Surprise! I’m not a sheep that believes only what people say. And going into Training Mode against a CPU is not the same as playing against a skilled opponent in a tournament. I want to see these items and situations tested in a competitive environment, not in Training Mode.

BTW: Fan’s aren’t broken and neither are most final smashes. (I have a feeling you won't be able to answer my list above...)

1. Some characters can grab the ledge both ways in Melee too. What's your point? Brawl and Melee are basically the same game even if you think they are completely different.

2. High Risk|High Reward play is fun when it matters on skills. Not when Random factors are in play.

3. Wow. Just wow.

4. If you can't think abstractly, it's not our problem.

5. The problem is not that it can happen consistently, it's the fact that it can happen, when it shouldn't. Playing more games in a set doesn't fix that problem and everybody knows it.

6. Who tests on CPUs?

Wouldn't you agree the average skill level of the participants in All-Brawl tournaments is not really high, so your 'skilled opponent' and 'testing in a competitive environment' argument is kinda flawed?

Oh and, Fans are clearly not broken. True, you can get out of it, but it's an un-punishable 40 to 60% regardless. Take it how you want, it's still stupid.

 

[Animeko]

Shouldn't feed the troll but I'll bite.

Some characters can grab the ledge both ways in Melee too. What's your point?

Some, but not all. Now all characters have a better chance of recovery. That's big difference. That's my point.

Playing more games in a set doesn't fix that problem and everybody knows it.

So if the rules were set at 1/1, the brackets would have had the same results?

Who tests on CPUs?

Yuna, apparently.

Wouldn't you agree the average skill level of the participants in All-Brawl tournaments is not really high, so your 'skilled opponent' and 'testing in a competitive environment' argument is kinda flawed?

Not at all. So far All-Brawl has been run at the same venue as regular Brawl and Melee. The majority of people that entered All-Brawl also entered regular Brawl. Therefore the average skill level is quite equal, actually.

Oh and, Fans are clearly not broken. True, you can get out of it, but it's an un-punishable 40 to 60% regardless.

Heavy and light characters change launch behaviors at different percents. A Jigglypuff at 40/60% is going to be a lot easier to KO than say, Ganondorf at 40/60%.

That and, to get trapped by the fan you have to be almost on top of your opponent. I see a lot of players running at an opponent with a fan than away. Spacing is even more important in All-Brawl.

 

[IvanEva]

I think that the biggest problem with this thread is its title. Claiming to possibly usurp a message board's choice game/ruleset with a currently unpopular one just isn't the way to do it. I like both SBR-Brawl ("Diet-Brawl" sounds rather insulting and does SBR-Brawl a disservice) and All-Brawl. I'm currently of the belief that All-Brawl isn't "broken" or overly "unfair" and thus presents a very viable tournament ruleset, one that calls for increased adaptability, creativity, and risk/reward judgement skills in exchange for an acceptable increase in luck's influence on a match.

What All-Brawl needs to pick up is some much better PR. If something is fundamentally broken with it, as some claim, it will show up eventually. To say that it's broken right now seems like a bit of an assumption. 3/5 rounds along with better counterpicking rules (winner can't change anything - I don't get why that isn't so in SBR-Brawl) are there to balance out the luck factor. To say that such things have been thoroughly tested by now in a competitive setting using All-Brawl rules (rounds/counterpicking style/etc.) is a claim that really does require some backing as it seems unlikely at this point.

My goal, as far as All-Brawl goes, is to hopefully convince enough people to play it so that I can get some serious money-on-the-line matches/tournaments in one day.

 

[ftl]

So basically… you’re just lazy. Really.

No, it's not that. It's the fact that to get tournament data, we'd have to make people play a bunch of TOURNAMENTS with what we think is an inferior ruleset. If we already have reason to believe that it's an inferior reason based on past experience with items in SSB and SSBM, if we remember what arguments were used to justify them being banned before and see that they still apply... why on earth would we want to make top players waste their time and money 'testing' a ruleset when we think we already know what the answer is? People are more than happy to 'test' without money on the line (c.f. ISP).

Thanks, that's partly my argument regarding items.

Is it? I thought your argument was that with items the more skilled player would ALWAYS win, as opposed to just often.

"Often" is good enough to guarantee that a newbie who would never place in the money would still never win money. "Often" is good enough to ensure that the top bunch of players would stay the top bunch of players, and would still win money. It's NOT good enough to ensure that the best player in a particular week is the one who wins the tournament, or that the three players who win money in a particular week are the best three that week, or that people only lose when their opponent plays better as opposed to when their opponent gets lucky.

AZ cited 9-9.5/10 as the fraction of the time that he won sets that he felt he should win. That's 1/10-20 that he didn't; which means that, in matches close enough so that every set matters, one out of every 10 or 20 will go to the person who isn't playing better. (Assuming AZ's number guesses are correct, which is all that I have right now.) This isn't enough to make random scrubs win tournaments or to make M2K lose them, but it's definitely enough to matter - that means in every tournament, there'll probably be at a bunch of those matches.

That and, to get trapped by the fan you have to be almost on top of your opponent.

It has about the range and speed of many characters jabs, and lots of people get hit by jabs.

I see a lot of players running at an opponent with a fan than away.

So the only answer to a fan is to run away and not fight? And that's supposed to be an argument that it's NOT broken?

Spacing is even more important in All-Brawl.

Is it more important? I'd think it's likely to be a lot LESS important, because everyone will have the option to throw something, which is a lot less sensitive to spacing... but I guess that depends on which items come out - if you've got better spacing than your opponent and the items that require great spacing come out then you're lucky, and if the other ones come out then your opponent has the advantage again

2.By toss-up, you mean the set is at match 4/5 right? Then that player will just have to accept being second for the day. If you cannot accept that minor possibility, then playing these rules isn’t for you. All-Brawl is inherently a high risk game where any mistake can lead to punishment.

Yes, but the punishment depends not only on how good your opponent is at punishing and how good you are at surviving, but ALSO on what items happened to spawn and where.

Oh trust me, I’m aware of that. I’m waiting for someone to prove that runaway is a broken, tournament winning tactic. I’m just saying for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened yet.

How long do the pokemon assists last (and on average)? How often do they decide a match? How often do they decide a set? How often has someone won a tournament by using pokemon assists?

For the zillionth time, they're too random to expect tournament wins based on only luck factors. I would, however, expect individual set or match wins based on those.

You ask "how often". AZ gave an answer - approximately 1 in 10, overall. In his case, 0.5 to 1 in 10 'unlucky' set losses did not result in any match losses. But 1 in 10 is still pretty high, and it'll make the biggest difference in the close matches - it means that approximately 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 close matches will be won by the lesser-skilled player. That's often enough that it's likely to be encountered by everybody if they go to these tournaments consistently.


And, again, if you want items-on play, I'm much more of a fan of Jack's ISP project. It adds in items, but, instead of saying "everything on, even things that are obviously broken but haven't decided a major recorded match yet" they put everything that seems fair in neutral, everything obviously broken banned, and things they're unsure of in counterpick. This both creates a ruleset which is our best guess at a reasonable one in the short term and creates the opportunity for learning more about items we think are broken but aren't sure of without making everyone in the tournament play with them so that in the long term the ruleset will keep improving. That seems like a much saner way of going about making an items ruleset, rather than discarding everything that's been learned from previous incarnations of Smash.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPcek8Q4kVM

That video should seriously be all you need to see.

 

[Aran]

By toss-up, you mean the set is at match 4/5 right? Then that player will just have to accept being second for the day. If you cannot accept that minor possibility, then playing these rules isn’t for you. All-Brawl is inherently a high risk game where any mistake can lead to punishment.

Oh trust me, I’m aware of that. I’m waiting for someone to prove that runaway is a broken, tournament winning tactic. I’m just saying for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened yet.


How long do the pokemon assists last (and on average)? How often do they decide a match? How often do they decide a set? How often has someone won a tournament by using pokemon assists?

1. You say "All-Brawl is inherently a high risk game where any mistake can lead to punishment." The point is there doesn't even HAVE to be a mistake if one person just happens to run into a bomb as it pops up and chucks it at someone for the win. The other guy didn't have to do anything wrong to get put in a disadvantageous position. If this sounds competitive to you, then I can tell you nothing.

2. What on earth do you need proof of? If you have a Sonic match against someone else, sonic immediately has a gigantic advantage. You hit the person once and run away, and he can never catch up to you to hit you. He can do the Hyrule jump or reverse Hyrule jump to stay away from whoever's following him, and if they can perform the jump, then he can just run the heck away from them on the other side of the stage. What if he gets hit first, you say? NOTHING. He just has to bring the damage back up in his favor (which is NOT hard with sonic), and noone can run away from him for the entire match. I say this as a man who seconds Sonic, and would love to see Sonic improve in the tiers, but this is not the way to do it. It's extremely anticompetitive. You don't need a video to see that this would work, clearly. I could probably do it any day to anyone if I really wanted to.

3. "How often do they decide a set? How often has someone won a tournament by using pokemon tactics?" That is the worst reasoning I've ever seen to include pokeballs. Seriously. Stop and think about what you're saying. You are inherently agreeing that pokeballs are unfair. You say they don't decide the outcome OFTEN, but that it does happen. We ALL know it can happen and WILL happen eventually. Even if it only happens in 5% of matches, that's 5% of matches that were not competitive. If you can eliminate that obstacle to competitiveness, then why would you NOT do it?

EDIT: Also, swastikapyle, that video is incredible. The guy who tried to defend it on youtube is just grasping at straws. "While the bob'om may seem random, its interesting to note that AZ put Delta in a position where his recovery options were limited. Knowing an item spawn window was open, Delta chose to tornado back onto the stage and paid the price. This was a situation he was put into, and he made a poor decision based on what we know about item spawns." That's priceless. In all-brawl, there are over 30 items, only a few of which blow up on contact. There are any of 10 spawn points on that map that would not have caused an explosion near enough to kill. Yes, you're SUPPOSED to think that it'll happen RIGHT there. The possibility space is ridiculously large.

 

[Animeko]

You hit the person once and run away, and he can never catch up to you to hit you.

Re-read the rules. % advantage does not win a match, stock does. In fact, re-read the thread before jumping on in with that kind of statement.

Eugh, I'll side with AZ on this one: most people don't know what they are talking about when they talk about the All-Brawl rulesets/items debate. See it for yourself I guess and I'll leave it at that.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Yeah dude, I'd quit the argument after I watched that video too.

 

[Revolver Roosevelt]

Re-read the rules. % advantage does not win a match, stock does. In fact, re-read the thread before jumping on in with that kind of statement.

Eugh, I'll side with AZ on this one: most people don't know what they are talking about when they talk about the All-Brawl rulesets/items debate. See it for yourself I guess and I'll leave it at that.

Ok, Ok, he made a mistake. He should have read Keits's thread. I'll correct it:
You don't even NEED to land the first hit. you simply need to run away from the opponent and force a sudden death. Now the match is determined by a single hit. The standard deviation has risen dramatically to the point of being comical. You force your opponent to endure a 3 minute game where nothing happens(though a smash ball might appear somewhere onstage and reward the person being stalled...or the person stalling) and now you have a nearly 50/50 shot of winning.

Oh, and to you people mentioning that the 3/5 set prevents the "little luck [that]comes into play" from deciding things: what about pools? a single match in pools is often enough to allow a player to advance out of pools and to keep another from advancing. To the average smasher(IE rough 5/8 of the people in the pool) this can be a serious downer.

Oh, and why has Keits banned 3 of the 44 stages?

 

[Xenesis]

Oh, and why has Keits banned 3 of the 44 stages?

Um what? Which stages would those be?

All stages are allowed as random starters AND counterpicks.

 

[Dustlord]

He's talking about the custom stages. Those don't count because they're, more or less, tech demos of the stage builder more than something trying to be an actual stage.

And on that MK video, that MK could have stayed out of Diddy's range the entire time he was small by gliding. While small, gliders get an advantage in that their gliding becomes much faster. Sure Diddy could of grabbed the bomb, but than what? His best bet to hit would have been during the growth stun, but depending on how MK positioned himself, it could have been avoidable.

What I find interesting is that a lot of the arguments against items boil down to "What if...?" While sometimes a valid point, eventually there needs to be an argument against it besides the "What ifs." Two tournament results posted thus far have shown that this ruleset doesn't help newbies consistently win. Also, I think it's noteworthy to show that some of the more skilled players, are also some of the more creative. Also, there are some techs that can't be done without items, like glidetossing.

Also something I wanted to mention is that even if items weren't random, it doesn't mean characters will be broken. Look at Diddy and Peach, they have a never ending supply of their own items at their disposal, and they aren't top tier. Sure, the items they produce may not be as powerful as a Golden Hammer, but we've already seen how clever use of these items separate good Diddy and Peach players from bad ones (and I mean more clever than hunting down "stitch-face".) So, good players using items would actually be more obvious than a poor player using items.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Please dude, just, don't even try to defend that. That MK recovered in what would have been a perfectly acceptable way in any real competitive match.

Also something I wanted to mention is that even if items weren't random, it doesn't mean characters will be broken. Look at Diddy and Peach, they have a never ending supply of their own items at their disposal, and they aren't top tier. Sure, the items they produce may not be as powerful as a Golden Hammer, but we've already seen how clever use of these items separate good Diddy and Peach players from bad ones (and I mean more clever than hunting down "stitch-face".) So, good players using items would actually be more obvious than a poor player using items.

Where exactly are you going with this? Many characters have character-specific tools (snake's grenades, Rob's gyro). They use these because they are part of the character's moveset, it's not an additional spawn or something.

We saw the result of the 'what if' argument. "What if a bomb spawns right on top of a guy?" It happened, he lost because of it. Purely random chance.

There's your proof. It's right there, dude. The argument has been proven, there's no more fighting against it. It's done.

 

[DRaGZ]

He's talking about the custom stages. Those don't count because they're, more or less, tech demos of the stage builder more than something trying to be an actual stage.

And on that MK video, that MK could have stayed out of Diddy's range the entire time he was small by gliding. While small, gliders get an advantage in that their gliding becomes much faster. Sure Diddy could of grabbed the bomb, but than what? His best bet to hit would have been during the growth stun, but depending on how MK positioned himself, it could have been avoidable.

What I find interesting is that a lot of the arguments against items boil down to "What if...?" While sometimes a valid point, eventually there needs to be an argument against it besides the "What ifs." Two tournament results posted thus far have shown that this ruleset doesn't help newbies consistently win. Also, I think it's noteworthy to show that some of the more skilled players, are also some of the more creative. Also, there are some techs that can't be done without items, like glidetossing.

Also something I wanted to mention is that even if items weren't random, it doesn't mean characters will be broken. Look at Diddy and Peach, they have a never ending supply of their own items at their disposal, and they aren't top tier. Sure, the items they produce may not be as powerful as a Golden Hammer, but we've already seen how clever use of these items separate good Diddy and Peach players from bad ones (and I mean more clever than hunting down "stitch-face".) So, good players using items would actually be more obvious than a poor player using items.

Lol, a Diddy with never-ending bananas would be gloriously stupid.

And Peach's item whoring is limited by the time it takes to pluck them, not to mention that they're not exactly the most powerful items ever.

And there are no "what-ifs". There are mainly "this has already happened, it was stupid, we are telling you why it happened that way, and we are telling you how we can stop it from happening that way again".

And lol at Keits trying to defend the Bob-Omb by saying the MK put himself at that disadvantage.

 

[Aran]

Ok, Ok, he made a mistake. He should have read Keits's thread. I'll correct it:
You don't even NEED to land the first hit. you simply need to run away from the opponent and force a sudden death. Now the match is determined by a single hit. The standard deviation has risen dramatically to the point of being comical. You force your opponent to endure a 3 minute game where nothing happens(though a smash ball might appear somewhere onstage and reward the person being stalled...or the person stalling) and now you have a nearly 50/50 shot of winning.

Oh, and to you people mentioning that the 3/5 set prevents the "little luck [that]comes into play" from deciding things: what about pools? a single match in pools is often enough to allow a player to advance out of pools and to keep another from advancing. To the average smasher(IE rough 5/8 of the people in the pool) this can be a serious downer.

Oh, and why has Keits banned 3 of the 44 stages?

Yes, I did forget what it said in that thread. I read it a couple of days ago and assumed I still remembered all the rules. Clearly I didn't have that one. Your post has a much better scenario.

 

[IvanEva]

That video looks like an excellent argument against All-Brawl and it nicely sums up all of the arguments against All-Brawl. However, just how valid is this argument?

In All-Brawl, Metaknight's tornado, a move very much hated by a lot of people in SBR-Brawl, becomes rather dangerous, losing its 100% safe rating. In the middle of that match he tornados into a capsule (which ultimately caused his doom - that bomb wouldn't have killed him if he wasn't tiny).

As the All-Brawl metagame develops, I suspect that players will eventually aquire a sort of mental timer where they expect an item to appear at a certain time (as the rhythm is fairly predictable) and will pull back their splashy moves at those times. Once you know what to look out for, random bomb kills will happen as often as Game and Watch 9 or Peach Zombie Turnip kills. Hopefully...

 

[MorpheusVGX]

Why do all Item related posts turn out like this? I am a pro-item player and I understand this forums are 90% item haters. I do think item combat is another kind of competitive playing, more deep and interesting. I didn't like Keits rules. I think matches should be longer to diminish luck factor. A single match seems too random to be attractive to watch. I don't care if there are less rounds, but a longer match would be appropriate. Lives are more easily lost on item play.
But, after reading the reasons for many rules. I now think is quite interesting to try. I really love everything is in play. Every character and every stage. That takes a lot of Brawl overall knowledge to dominate. The counterpicking thing.. well I don't like it. I think players should keep with their characters, but well. Multi-maining is common these days.
If you really like item play you should look in another forum. That's what I am doing. I am tired of this crappy discussions against item haters that will never open their minds. My two cents. ^^

 

[Sesshomuronay]

The falcon is broken with a beam sword.

 

[ftl]

That video looks like an excellent argument against All-Brawl and it nicely sums up all of the arguments against All-Brawl. However, just how valid is this argument?

In All-Brawl, Metaknight's tornado, a move very much hated by a lot of people in SBR-Brawl, becomes rather dangerous, losing its 100% safe rating. In the middle of that match he tornados into a capsule (which ultimately caused his doom - that bomb wouldn't have killed him if he wasn't tiny).

As the All-Brawl metagame develops, I suspect that players will eventually aquire a sort of mental timer where they expect an item to appear at a certain time (as the rhythm is fairly predictable) and will pull back their splashy moves at those times. Once you know what to look out for, random bomb kills will happen as often as Game and Watch 9 or Peach Zombie Turnip kills. Hopefully...

So now you're the one arguing over hypotheticals. You got an example of a video where MK was killed by getting unlucky - a capsule, then a bomb, both spawned right on top of him. (Not anywhere else on screen, not 1 second earlier or later, right on top of him.)

So now you're saying that MAYBE, as people get better, this will become less common.

But hey, then we can argue the exact opposite. There are matches where MK tornadoes, and DOESN'T get hit by a bob-omb, even though he wasn't keeping track of the time. In that case, he just got **** lucky, especially if he goes on and wins!

...or do you need a video of that too, to prove that it's possible for an MK to safely tornado?


(BTW, G&W 9-hammer kill AND Peach Zombie turnip kills can't happen without one player intending to do it. 9-hammer and zombie turnip kills are much more like an item spawning on the stage near a particular player and then being used rather than a bomb dropping from the sky to kill someone.)
(BTW, we can argue hypotheticals too. I can say that a lot of things will "maybe" happen

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

So now you're the one arguing over hypotheticals. You got an example of a video where MK was killed by getting unlucky - a capsule, then a bomb, both spawned right on top of him. (Not anywhere else on screen, not 1 second earlier or later, right on top of him.)

So now you're saying that MAYBE, as people get better, this will become less common.

But hey, then we can argue the exact opposite. There are matches where MK tornadoes, and DOESN'T get hit by a bob-omb, even though he wasn't keeping track of the time. In that case, he just got **** lucky, especially if he goes on and wins!

...or do you need a video of that too, to prove that it's possible for an MK to safely tornado?


(BTW, G&W 9-hammer kill AND Peach Zombie turnip kills can't happen without one player intending to do it. 9-hammer and zombie turnip kills are much more like an item spawning on the stage near a particular player and then being used rather than a bomb dropping from the sky to kill someone.)
(BTW, we can argue hypotheticals too. I can say that a lot of things will "maybe" happen

I agree with your logic but not how you're applying it. Hypotheticals can't prove anything. Until facts prove the theory, it's pure speculation. One can hypothetically state that explosion deaths can be avoided given more time with items play, while the same could be said regarding Dragoon killing. We can make assumptions all we want, but before making a decision to remove anything from play, the facts need to be seperated from the theory. For the longest time in MvC2, a hypothetical player of Strider/Doom would've been the undeniable victor. What's on paper doesn't mean much when reality kicks in and shows that no one was able to prove it. Of course, MvC2 went on years later and found a way to unbreak Strider/Doom even at the theory level to the point of uselessness in competitive play.

 

[ftl]

I agree with your logic but not how you're applying it. Hypotheticals can't prove anything. Until facts prove the theory, it's pure speculation.

You can't have it both ways. If you disallow speculation then hey - we've got videos, right there, where MK died because he got unlucky because of where the items spawned and what they were. That's a fact, confirming the theory. Game, set, match.

If you DO allow hypotheticals to discount that video example, then I can take it one step further and use them against items.

That was what my point was. I'm not quite sure what your argument against it is.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

You can't have it both ways. If you disallow speculation then hey - we've got videos, right there, where MK died because he got unlucky because of where the items spawned and what they were. That's a fact, confirming the theory. Game, set, match.

If you DO allow hypotheticals to discount that video example, then I can take it one step further and use them against items.

That was what my point was. I'm not quite sure what your argument against it is.

Where I'm arguing against it is you're drawing concrete facts from a shred of evidence, especially in the face of all the evidence in the contrary. You're only looking at one side of the coin. I actually am looking at both, which is why I don't totally agree w/ Keits' current ruleset, but at the same time I can tell that the downsides don't outweigh the benefits. At least not yet. I'm pretty sure down the line the rules will be amended to some degree, once people figure out how to truly break the game as it is. Right now, no one's doing it. If no one's breaking what's theoretically broken, why remove it? Typically, outside rules are only supposed to be put in place to prevent a problem that's been shown time and time again disastrous to the game's competitive play.

 

[ftl]

Where I'm arguing against it is you're drawing concrete facts from a shred of evidence, especially in the face of all the evidence in the contrary.

From that video, I am drawing the concrete FACT that it is possible for the outcome of a 2-stock, 3-minute game to be decided by lucky item spawns. I feel that I am justified in drawing that conclusion from that video, because that's what happened there. It was a close match, until a capsule and then a bomb fell on MK. How much more evidence do you need to concede that it happens, past the observation that it actually happened?

You're only looking at one side of the coin. I actually am looking at both, which is why I don't totally agree w/ Keits' current ruleset, but at the same time I can tell that the downsides don't outweigh the benefits. At least not yet. I'm pretty sure down the line the rules will be amended to some degree, once people figure out how to truly break the game as it is. Right now, no one's doing it.

Yes, people were doing that, for quite a while. Jack's ISP project, which I keep mentioning, is the outcome of trying to figure out what items are reasonable and which ones aren't. It also includes ways for testing items for their bannable nature without having ALL matches use them (i.e. by having them in counterpick, and thus letting the people who believe them to be unbroken be the ones using them). It's not like All-Brawl is the only items-on ruleset out there.

If no one's breaking what's theoretically broken, why remove it? Typically, outside rules are only supposed to be put in place to prevent a problem that's been shown time and time again disastrous to the game's competitive play.

That video was an example of something which was broken in that game. Are you denying that? That's a video of the 'breaking' in practice and not in theory. It's no longer theorycraft - it HAPPENED.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

From that video, I am drawing the concrete FACT that it is possible for the outcome of a 2-stock, 3-minute game to be decided by lucky item spawns. I feel that I am justified in drawing that conclusion from that video, because that's what happened there. It was a close match, until a capsule and then a bomb fell on MK. How much more evidence do you need to concede that it happens, past the observation that it actually happened?

Here's where we're gonna probably just have to agree to disagree. People have said before that once someone gets into the mindset of items play, they get a feel for the rhythm of the spawns. If you can expect an item to spawn, why take the risk of performing an unsafe move? The sheer fear of the possibility of explody death makes you second guess whether you should spam out those "safe" moves under the pretense of them being safe.

Yes, people were doing that, for quite a while. Jack's ISP project, which I keep mentioning, is the outcome of trying to figure out what items are reasonable and which ones aren't. It also includes ways for testing items for their bannable nature without having ALL matches use them (i.e. by having them in counterpick, and thus letting the people who believe them to be unbroken be the ones using them). It's not like All-Brawl is the only items-on ruleset out there.

I think we're all quite aware of ISP, and Jack Keiser's been actually one of the few that have been giving the game closest to the fair shake over here. However, it's in our belief that it's being done the wrong way. It's really difficult to make a judgement call on an item's strength when it's not compared to everything else first. The mesh between all items can possibly eschew the balance when certain ones aren't in place. Meanwhile, with everything on and cherry-picking off, you can see how the balance is shifted with each removal.

That video was an example of something which was broken in that game. Are you denying that? That's a video of the 'breaking' in practice and not in theory. It's no longer theorycraft - it HAPPENED.

I have to say yes. He died a quick death due to an item spawn, yes. Was it truly unavoidable? There's no way to make that call. What you need for proof is not one instance, multiple varying instances, or debateable instances, but consistent instances that proves something to be too detrimental to the game to warrant leaving it in. I believe your theory that it's broken may be correct, but I'm not about to make that call until it's thoroughly explored.

 

[Dustlord]

I'd like to say that 1 video of a good Captain Falcon player beating a good Metaknight player once doesn't mean that Captain Falcon will consistently beat Metaknight.

 

[kr3wman]

I'd like to say that 1 video of a good Captain Falcon player beating a good Metaknight player once doesn't mean that Captain Falcon will consistently beat Metaknight.

It proves it can happen.

 

[GofG]

It proves it can happen.

Infinite Monkey Theorem.

 

[maXXXpower]

I have to say yes. He died a quick death due to an item spawn, yes. Was it truly unavoidable? There's no way to make that call. What you need for proof is not one instance, multiple varying instances, or debateable instances, but consistent instances that proves something to be too detrimental to the game to warrant leaving it in. I believe your theory that it's broken may be correct, but I'm not about to make that call until it's thoroughly explored.

That's not how it works. The All-Brawl ruleset is susceptible to instances of dumb luck; such factors as luck have little place in a competitive environment. What the video demonstrates is that anytime there are items present, luck may play a factor.

Further exploration is not needed regarding this subject. It has happened once, therefore it can happen again.

Now, I am not denouncing no-items play; it's pretty fun. However, regarding the query of the original poster, just because SRK (a respected Street Fighter competitive community) wants to play with items, doesn't mean that will become the tournament standard. The question didn't really need to be asked, especially on SWF. It will probably be the tournament standard at EVO though, but pretty much everywhere else, it won't. So if you guys want to play with items, head on over to EVO!

Basically, you are putting more priority on the competitive aspects of Brawl according to a community that plays Street Fighter; SWF has been testing this game for a while, so I think they know what they are talking about when they talk about Smash. Just like I don't go to SWF to learn to play SF correctly, I don't suggest going to SRK to learn to play Smash.

I'd like to say that 1 video of a good Captain Falcon player beating a good Metaknight player once doesn't mean that Captain Falcon will consistently beat Metaknight.

No, but it means that the Captain Falcon player is better than the MetaKnight player. Ergo, the CF player might be able to beat MK players more consistently. He wins because he put more work into the matchup, not because a bob-omb dropped on MK's head.

Take Taj for example: his Mewtwo beasts against sheiks and falcos. He's beaten good players with m2. This doesn't mean I can pick up mewtwo and beat people like forward with it. I have to work hard at it. See? No luck involved.

Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Except that this monkey took less than three minutes to fulfill the theory. And it will happen again tomorrow and the day after--not in an infinite number of years.

 

[Jewdo]

Spoiler

.....................................................................................

Spoiler

angry, angry words

 

[ph00tbag]

So I hear this Jewdo kid is pretty awesome. You know, people talk.

 

[Lord Yawgmoth]

Hmm, I heard something similar.


Must be true.

 

[Yuna-Maria]

I officially declare this argument OVER.

Oh no, you guys, a March 2008 member officially declared the argument over. Now we have to stop talking about it, lest we incur his wrath.
I'm not saying to judge someone by their join date or anything, especially given mine, but it doesn't make much sense for someone who hasn't been a part of the community for very long to have so much unwarranted self-importance. I haven't been here for long either, and am still a lowly scrubadub, but I don't have my head up my rear end, nor do I hold myself up on a pedestal like this moron.


Now, for the topic at hand. I adore All-Brawl. I don't want to play Brawl any other way(although I will if I'm bored enough). I think that the items do add a great deal of strategic depth, and in Brawl, there's a noticeable degree of certainty to the item spawning. Even someone lowly such as myself can tell you when an item is going to appear with a one-second window of accuracy. Items are random, but I don't feel that they're random enough to turn the game into Super Russian Roulette Brothers Brawl. Granted, the environment becomes quite chaotic, but at the same time, the chaos can not only be dealt with, but controlled, effectively making every character in the game into Shadow the Hedgehog. I'm disgusted with myself for making a joke pertaining to the worst video game character design I've ever seen.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Dear Christ, I just shot myself in the foot!

See the edited quote.

Edit: I still love ya, My. <3

Smooth Criminal