Items Deserve Consideration for Brawl Tourney Standards

[TheBuzzSaw]

Comparing items to a coin flip isn't fair. Flipping a coin is pure chance, whereas items have some strategic value.

I'll admit that making items worthy for tournaments is daunting. They have to spawn in different spots and often enough (but not too often, otherwise it becomes too hectic) for there to be a relative 50/50 split of the items between the players. Even if the amount of items are shared evenly, the power and advantages of all the items have to be close to equal, in order to not up set the balance.

No, it is a coin toss. Even if I know an item is about to spawn where I am about to attack, I need to do the attack in order to finish my opponent. I have a 50/50 chance of the item offering no resistance (thus me finishing my opponent) and the item exploding (thus finishing ME off). There is nothing fair about that. It is literally gambling. The DOJO update only made it worse stating that explosives don't go off 100% of the time anymore. You can't depend on anything! It's hopeless! It is TOO RANDOM.

What if items spawns were preceded by a blinking arrow, with the type of the item over it, 5-10 seconds before they actually spawned ? Would that remove the randomness of items ?

Yes! I actually discussed this with someone recently. If the items would just announce that they are coming, not only would this cut down on the random factor, it would be more fair for slower characters. Even though Fox is faster than Bowser, Bowser would at least have a few seconds to get over there and at least attempt to secure the area before the item arrives. I would love items if they had this option.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Sliq, that graph is amazing

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Sliq wins.
Double Flawless.
F A T A L I T Y

 

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it is a coin toss. Even if I know an item is about to spawn where I am about to attack, I need to do the attack in order to finish my opponent. I have a 50/50 chance of the item offering no resistance (thus me finishing my opponent) and the item exploding (thus finishing ME off). There is nothing fair about that. It is literally gambling. The DOJO update only made it worse stating that explosives don't go off 100% of the time anymore. You can't depend on anything! It's hopeless! It is TOO RANDOM.

I didn't say it no chance, just that it isn't pure chance. The situation you gave isn't 50/50 either. The odds for the item to have appeared in the necessary spot in the first place would be much higher, and the ratio of explosive items to non isn't 50/50.

I do believe that explosive items would need to be turned off, and items being announced would be good too. But as you said, you agree with this also. I guess we aren't really arguing.

 

[Classic-Black]

I didn't say it no chance, just that it isn't pure chance. The situation you gave isn't 50/50 either. The odds for the item to have appeared in the necessary spot in the first place would be much higher, and the ratio of explosive items to non isn't 50/50.

I do believe that explosive items would need to be turned off, and items being announced would be good too. But as you said, you agree with this also. I guess we aren't really arguing.

you're right, the rate of getting explosive items is probably about 70/30 in my exp.

 

[Erimir]

There's an easy way to account for the randomness people. It's called larger numbers.

On one stock, obviously someone getting a bomb-omb at just the right time could cost you the match, and very early.

To make it glaringly obvious, if you each start with 99 stock, then you'd have to be extremely evenly matched if you both got down to the single digits and a single item cost you the match. Most likely, however, one person would emerge as superior and win by a fair number of stock. Because the chances of a player getting lucky dozens of times in a match while his opponent gets no luck, is pretty much nil.

I used 99 as an example because you have to be pretty stupid to not understand that having items on isn't going to cause someone to lose that match randomly. But the same idea works with lower numbers. Playing with 4 stock might be inadequate, but increasing the stock to just 5 also significantly reduces the influence of randomness too. Going up to 6 or 7 or more reduces it even more. Now, this introduces the problem of time - fortunately, items KO at lower percentages, and so would reduce the length of matches.

At any rate, it certainly is quite easy to make item matches, even in Melee, actually represent skill. As far as how you set up the match. In practice, maybe they'd take too long.

The factor that matters the most is how much randomness there is, and thus how high the stock has to be to make chance negligible in determining the outcome of a match (and if even negligible chance really pisses you off, then I guess you should ban Peach, G&W and Luigi), and thus whether the matches can be completed in a short enough time. Now, how much you need to increase the stock by would vary depending on what the items are, and a number of other factors. But if we get the option to turn off exploding containers (or containers in general) and any other features that help in that regard, it could be feasible.

I'm not optimistic, but it's at least theoretically possible.

 

[Sliq]

There's an easy way to account for the randomness people. It's called larger numbers.

On one stock, obviously someone getting a bomb-omb at just the right time could cost you the match, and very early.

To make it glaringly obvious, if you each start with 99 stock, then you'd have to be extremely evenly matched if you both got down to the single digits and a single item cost you the match. Most likely, however, one person would emerge as superior and win by a fair number of stock. Because the chances of a player getting lucky dozens of times in a match while his opponent gets no luck, is pretty much nil.

I used 99 as an example because you have to be pretty stupid to not understand that having items on isn't going to cause someone to lose that match randomly. But the same idea works with lower numbers. Playing with 4 stock might be inadequate, but increasing the stock to just 5 also significantly reduces the influence of randomness too. Going up to 6 or 7 or more reduces it even more. Now, this introduces the problem of time - fortunately, items KO at lower percentages, and so would reduce the length of matches.

At any rate, it certainly is quite easy to make item matches, even in Melee, actually represent skill. As far as how you set up the match. In practice, maybe they'd take too long.

The factor that matters the most is how much randomness there is, and thus how high the stock has to be to make chance negligible in determining the outcome of a match (and if even negligible chance really pisses you off, then I guess you should ban Peach, G&W and Luigi), and thus whether the matches can be completed in a short enough time. Now, how much you need to increase the stock by would vary depending on what the items are, and a number of other factors. But if we get the option to turn off exploding containers (or containers in general) and any other features that help in that regard, it could be feasible.

I'm not optimistic, but it's at least theoretically possible.

A large tournament already takes a full day to complete with 4 stock. Increasing the amount of stock by 25% would drag the tournament on for way too long.

Furthermore, luck is inherently built into the moves of those characters. I could explain why your logic is flawed, but it would take too long, and I feel like being lazy.

Frequency plays a big role, though.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Orrrrrrrrr... we could just disable items so we don't have to bother. :D

 

[YoukoisaHOMO]

No random explosive crates = Happy Items Supporters

 

[lilparadise]

I would love items if they had this option.

But acording to the gameplay footage we've seen they don't. (And don't give me that it was a demo thing that every one uses as an excuse to raise thier hopes) Because alot of the things in the demo could be in the final version of the game. (They atleast have been put on the web-site as updates, right?)

 

[Erimir]

A large tournament already takes a full day to complete with 4 stock. Increasing the amount of stock by 25% would drag the tournament on for way too long.

Furthermore, luck is inherently built into the moves of those characters. I could explain why your logic is flawed, but it would take too long, and I feel like being lazy.

Frequency plays a big role, though.

Errrmmm... my point was more theoretical than asserting that items will be feasible for regular use in tourneys.

Namely the point being that the complaint should be that using items in tournaments would take too long, not that everyone would complain because a bomb landed on them. If you were going to have such a tournament, you would obviously set the matches up such that randomness would have a low chance of determining the outcome. You can make the matches fair. The question is whether those matches could be completed quickly enough.

I already said that I wasn't optimistic that it would be feasible due to time constraints. Do note, however, that items would probably lead to more KOs/time, so it's debatable whether 5 stock w/items would be slower than 4 stock w/o items. I don't know how much of a difference there is, tho, since I have not paid attention to that in the past. Probably the matches will take too long. But why assume, when for all we know, Sakurai has included features intended to make items more feasible for competitive play.

I know that luck is built into the moves of those characters. Why do you think I brought them up? My point is that *****ing about even the slightest amount of luck logically leads to the conclusion that we should ban Peach, Luigi and G&W. But people don't want to ban any characters, hence people tolerate that element of chance.

So either you were criticizing my logic for a point it didn't make, or I really don't see what the supposed flaw in my logic is.

 

[Shiekyerbouti]

you have actually swayed my opinion on this matter. that is actually an impressive feat. you should feel special.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

OK, but it's just 1000x easier to disable them altogether. Items are fun for party play, but they are just unnecessary gameplay mechanics when it comes to competitions. Why go to all the effort to change all these factors so that "items balance out"? There is an off switch. Let's use it!

However, in defense of items, I will host a few tournaments with items enabled and make some genuine observations in Brawl. If the items behave and prove to add some real depth to the competition, they can stay. If they randomly promote luckily positioned characters, they won't be around too long.

 

[E-Z-MONEY]

Personally I think all items should be legal. I get the "What if you were playing for 10,000 dollars and a bomb crate spawned" argument but I would have to disagree. Not that I play in tournaments but if I was in that situation I would be muther freaking pissed. I would grab a drink, cry, bemoan my fate, punch my pillow and whine to everyone who would listen. I still do think the game is more exciting with luck involved. Items do add deptha nd strategy. little but still some. I find matches without items boring myself and not very exciting. They never have "OMIGOSHNOWAI" moments as good as item matches. I don't mind laughing when items spawn and splode on me. I was unlucky. It could just as easily have happened to my opponent or even more likely to no one at all. But it happened and it gave my opponent an advantage. Now I have to catch up. Makes the game interesting. Although that is just my opinion. Also since it seems that most tournie players don't like items they can play it however they like. Just like I have a right to items they have a right to not use them.

 

[Red Exodus]

Personally I think all items should be legal. I get the "What if you were playing for 10,000 dollars and a bomb crate spawned" argument but I would have to disagree. Not that I play in tournaments but if I was in that situation I would be muther freaking pissed. I would grab a drink, cry, bemoan my fate, punch my pillow and whine to everyone who would listen. I still do think the game is more exciting with luck involved. Items do add deptha nd strategy. little but still some. I find matches without items boring myself and not very exciting. They never have "OMIGOSHNOWAI" moments as good as item matches. I don't mind laughing when items spawn and splode on me. I was unlucky. It could just as easily have happened to my opponent or even more likely to no one at all. But it happened and it gave my opponent an advantage. Now I have to catch up. Makes the game interesting. Although that is just my opinion. Also since it seems that most tournie players don't like items they can play it however they like. Just like I have a right to items they have a right to not use them.

Do you pay to enter tournaments? Do you pay to travel to tournaments? Do you pay for a place to stay while you move to the place the tournament is?

If the answer is no then you obviously don't know how important it is that tournaments rely on SKILL and no LUCK. Why on earth would ANYONE go through all of that trouble just to lose a deciding match because of an exploding capsule or crate?

I don't have a job. I'm barely [legally] old enough to get a job and I'm just starting to learn how important every dollar is. You cannot honestly tell me that it's fine and dandy to pay over $200 [estimation, including entry fee, food, accommodation, gas etc.] to lose in a tournament, where you could possibly win $2000, because of luck/random events.

If you only play at home with your friends then you shouldn't care. Personally? When I play at home I turn items on once in a while, when I'm playing with friends and we're playing give-ups we turn them off so people don't die easily to random crap [which is hard, FFA is random enough].

Been there done that.

 

[Jazriel]

Something that some of you might find ironic, and the lesser intelligent of you might find stupid:

Wikipedia has a great article detailing the difference between luck-based games and skill-based games. It also goes into detail explaining how little children, people without fully developed minds, prefer luck based games because they are unable to understand a serious game fully. It also says why older, more mature, people prefer skill-based games because (isn't it obvious).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game#Luck.2C_strategy_and_diplomacy
Here's a part of it, though I could've sworn they had an actual detailed article on the topic.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Personally I think all items should be legal. I get the "What if you were playing for 10,000 dollars and a bomb crate spawned" argument but I would have to disagree. Not that I play in tournaments but if I was in that situation I would be muther freaking pissed. I would grab a drink, cry, bemoan my fate, punch my pillow and whine to everyone who would listen. I still do think the game is more exciting with luck involved. Items do add deptha nd strategy. little but still some. I find matches without items boring myself and not very exciting. They never have "OMIGOSHNOWAI" moments as good as item matches. I don't mind laughing when items spawn and splode on me. I was unlucky. It could just as easily have happened to my opponent or even more likely to no one at all. But it happened and it gave my opponent an advantage. Now I have to catch up. Makes the game interesting. Although that is just my opinion. Also since it seems that most tournie players don't like items they can play it however they like. Just like I have a right to items they have a right to not use them.

All competitive players were casual players at one point. Very few of today's casual players are former competitive players. In other words, I just don't think you fully comprehend how much more exciting item-free matches are. When something amazing happens, it is because someone had the cunning to pull it off. Skill and technique are required, and players seem much more impressive. With items, you are essentially forcing excitement into the game. "We cannot be exciting on our own, so we'll add some junk to make it exciting." Random occurrences in item matches just make me roll my eyes. Sweet combos in item-free matches excite me.

Granted, fun is all relative, so I cannot define what is fun for you, but I just don't think you understand the competitive mentality to its fullest.

 

[Sliq]

All competitive players were casual players at one point. Very few of today's casual players are former competitive players. In other words, I just don't think you fully comprehend how much more exciting item-free matches are. When something amazing happens, it is because someone had the cunning to pull it off. Skill and technique are required, and players seem much more impressive. With items, you are essentially forcing excitement into the game. "We cannot be exciting on our own, so we'll add some junk to make it exciting." Random occurrences in item matches just make me roll my eyes. Sweet combos in item-free matches excite me.

Granted, fun is all relative, so I cannot define what is fun for you, but I just don't think you understand the competitive mentality to its fullest.

 

[2.72]

Pretty much my thoughts, Sliq. That's exactly why I don't play with items (casually, mind you, I am definitely casual). They just aren't fun, and Buzz very elegantly explained why not.

 

[Adi]

Props Buzz. You pretty much ended the argument there and then. Casual players simply don't have the full scope of what they're dealing with when they try to discuss tournament legality/advanced techniques/ect..

 

[kenkowtow]

There's an easy way to account for the randomness people. It's called larger numbers.

On one stock, obviously someone getting a bomb-omb at just the right time could cost you the match, and very early.

To make it glaringly obvious, if you each start with 99 stock, then you'd have to be extremely evenly matched if you both got down to the single digits and a single item cost you the match. Most likely, however, one person would emerge as superior and win by a fair number of stock. Because the chances of a player getting lucky dozens of times in a match while his opponent gets no luck, is pretty much nil.

I used 99 as an example because you have to be pretty stupid to not understand that having items on isn't going to cause someone to lose that match randomly. But the same idea works with lower numbers. Playing with 4 stock might be inadequate, but increasing the stock to just 5 also significantly reduces the influence of randomness too. Going up to 6 or 7 or more reduces it even more. Now, this introduces the problem of time - fortunately, items KO at lower percentages, and so would reduce the length of matches.

At any rate, it certainly is quite easy to make item matches, even in Melee, actually represent skill. As far as how you set up the match. In practice, maybe they'd take too long.

The factor that matters the most is how much randomness there is, and thus how high the stock has to be to make chance negligible in determining the outcome of a match (and if even negligible chance really pisses you off, then I guess you should ban Peach, G&W and Luigi), and thus whether the matches can be completed in a short enough time. Now, how much you need to increase the stock by would vary depending on what the items are, and a number of other factors. But if we get the option to turn off exploding containers (or containers in general) and any other features that help in that regard, it could be feasible.

I'm not optimistic, but it's at least theoretically possible.

Deeper analysis on the topic... (I affirm the truth in your post and just wanted to clarify some things, I do believe with Sliq's reasoning that these matches would take far too long, therefore items should be banned)

What you were talking about is formerly known as (in statistics) as the Law of Small Numbers or the Poisson Distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution). Basically, what I want to derive from that is that there is a possibility of variation from the expected results.

Try this little activity. Get a coin, any coin that has around 50/50 chance of getting heads/tails. If you are paranoid of a US coin being weighted on the heads side and under weighted on the tails side then feel free to take out your Graphing/statistics/etc calculator and do this. Write down H or T in any order in any frequency 10 times, but do it so it seems random. For example: H H T H T T T H T H. Observe your data and check to see if you have a streak of 3 heads/tails. If you do NOT then you are considered an outlier as the "chance" of having a streak of 3 heads/tails is ~80%. Go ahead and try it with your coin.

Basically what is being established is that chance is not reliable if there are only a few values. A possible rebuttal is that there are a vast number of items (Mr. Saturn and co) that are not as advantageous as say a Ba-Bomb. The reality of the matter is that it would not be until a really long time until the chances are averaged out. This is where the Law of Large Numbers comes into play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers). Go to that wiki link and check out that picture. Notice that not until ~350 rolls did the Dice roll somewhat align to the average roll of "3.5". This basically means that not until you play with an absurd amount of lives (at least 50 I would say), would you be able to declare it as "fair".

Now let me put this into perspective. Let's take... Azen vs "Not-So-Great". Clearly, Azen should win his games. Now if they played only with one life, the chance of "Not-So-Great" winning is anywhere near as low as with 99 lives. In fact out of 99 lives, Scrub would loose for sure. So let's say "Not-So-Great" gets Azen for the first stock of 4 with the aid of a ba-bomb. The chance of him getting another great item is in fact not low.

Naturally the chances of getting a kill item would be different depending on how many items there are in the first place. But the point still remains, not until a vast number of games (even 100 may not be enough) you cannot ascertain the true victor.

This argument may be able to be reversed in perse Azen vs ChuDat matches. Both players are good and perhaps ChuDat could have won Smashacatalysm (or however you spell it) if they had played 1000 matches. But that is simply not practical. The truth of the matter is, is that with fewer variables (maps elements, items, mindgames, etc) the sooner the average will be reached. Therefore, tournaments try to eliminate all sort of randomness that could possibly explode in to one player's favor while at the same time maintaining the fruits of being good at the game.

I mean, think about it. If soccer players were randomly given stuff while playing, such as lets say... Chuck Norris can RANDOMLY com from the stage and roundhouse kick the ball into the goal... fictional but gets my point across, it would be madness. (this is not fun by the way)

OK I said all this but I didn't bother reading all the pages of this, only the first 2 and last 3.

Well there's my input for you and my first post as well.... (lurkmoar?)

 

[Sliq]

Deeper analysis on the topic... (I affirm the truth in your post and just wanted to clarify some things, I do believe with Sliq's reasoning that these matches would take far too long, therefore items should be banned)

What you were talking about is formerly known as (in statistics) as the Law of Small Numbers or the Poisson Distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution). Basically, what I want to derive from that is that there is a possibility of variation from the expected results.

Try this little activity. Get a coin, any coin that has around 50/50 chance of getting heads/tails. If you are paranoid of a US coin being weighted on the heads side and under weighted on the tails side then feel free to take out your Graphing/statistics/etc calculator and do this. Write down H or T in any order in any frequency 10 times, but do it so it seems random. For example: H H T H T T T H T H. Observe your data and check to see if you have a streak of 3 heads/tails. If you do NOT then you are considered an outlier as the "chance" of having a streak of 3 heads/tails is ~80%. Go ahead and try it with your coin.

Basically what is being established is that chance is not reliable if there are only a few values. A possible rebuttal is that there are a vast number of items (Mr. Saturn and co) that are not as advantageous as say a Ba-Bomb. The reality of the matter is that it would not be until a really long time until the chances are averaged out. This is where the Law of Large Numbers comes into play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers). Go to that wiki link and check out that picture. Notice that not until ~350 rolls did the Dice roll somewhat align to the average roll of "3.5". This basically means that not until you play with an absurd amount of lives (at least 50 I would say), would you be able to declare it as "fair".

Now let me put this into perspective. Let's take... Azen vs "Not-So-Great". Clearly, Azen should win his games. Now if they played only with one life, the chance of "Not-So-Great" winning is anywhere near as low as with 99 lives. In fact out of 99 lives, Scrub would loose for sure. So let's say "Not-So-Great" gets Azen for the first stock of 4 with the aid of a ba-bomb. The chance of him getting another great item is in fact not low.

Naturally the chances of getting a kill item would be different depending on how many items there are in the first place. But the point still remains, not until a vast number of games (even 100 may not be enough) you cannot ascertain the true victor.

This argument may be able to be reversed in perse Azen vs ChuDat matches. Both players are good and perhaps ChuDat could have won Smashacatalysm (or however you spell it) if they had played 1000 matches. But that is simply not practical. The truth of the matter is, is that with fewer variables (maps elements, items, mindgames, etc) the sooner the average will be reached. Therefore, tournaments try to eliminate all sort of randomness that could possibly explode in to one player's favor while at the same time maintaining the fruits of being good at the game.

I mean, think about it. If soccer players were randomly given stuff while playing, such as lets say... Chuck Norris can RANDOMLY com from the stage and roundhouse kick the ball into the goal... fictional but gets my point across, it would be madness. (this is not fun by the way)

OK I said all this but I didn't bother reading all the pages of this, only the first 2 and last 3.

Well there's my input for you and my first post as well.... (lurkmoar?)

I like this guy. His first post involves a **** ton of research and pwnage.

Let's make secks.

 

[Erimir]

For the record, I'm not that invested in whether items are used. I certainly enjoy playing matches without items. But I enjoy the theoretical discussion, and I think people are making too many assumptions.

Try this little activity. Get a coin, any coin that has around 50/50 chance of getting heads/tails. If you are paranoid of a US coin being weighted on the heads side and under weighted on the tails side then feel free to take out your Graphing/statistics/etc calculator and do this. Write down H or T in any order in any frequency 10 times, but do it so it seems random. For example: H H T H T T T H T H. Observe your data and check to see if you have a streak of 3 heads/tails. If you do NOT then you are considered an outlier as the "chance" of having a streak of 3 heads/tails is ~80%. Go ahead and try it with your coin.

I understand that you might want to include this for other readers, but it's not necessary to talk to me as if I have never taken statistics. Excluding math majors and math-heavy majors (chem, physics, etc.) I've taken much more math than the large majority of people.

This basically means that not until you play with an absurd amount of lives (at least 50 I would say), would you be able to declare it as "fair".

Well, I rather doubt the idea that it would require playing on stock 50. For one, you're evaluating it as if I'm suggesting keeping bombombs on, which I'm certainly not foolish enough to do. Obviously you would take out items like hearts, bombs, hammer, pokeballs, etc. In fact, it might have to be limited to a very small set of items (4 or less) of similar power, or even just one item, since besides the randomness of just getting an item, playing with a large amount on introduces the randomness of getting a great item vs. getting a Mr Saturn. So to be the most charitable, your examples should be more in mind of an items match where only the beam sword is on (or the beam sword and bat and green shell, or something like that). With that in mind, playing Smash with items on is nothing like dice. There is an element of randomness, but getting an item doesn't guarantee you anything.

So in other words, you're stating that number "50" as if there's any basis whatsoever for it. There isn't. I get your point about dice, but Smash Bros is not dice. Smash Bros is far too complicated for you to be able to calculate what amount of stock is necessary. Basically, you'd have to do it by experimentation. You can't treat items as if they're equivalent to a coin flip or a die roll, since it's not completely random who gets an item (sometimes you fight for an item, rather than it falling into your hands), and it's certainly not random what the outcome of getting the item is (since skill in using and evading items comes into play).

And at any rate - the variable of interest is not the likelihood of a player getting an item at any particular time. It's the likelihood that a player will get more items than the other player to an extent that it makes up the difference in their skill levels. To overly simplify things, if we have a skill 9 vs. a skill 5, basically the question is how likely it is that the skill 5 is going to 4 or more points worth of items that the skill 9 didn't get. The chance of him getting lucky once tells us very little.

So I'm basically saying neither of us knows what amount of stock would make it fair. You certainly can't point to a graph concerning dice as if it demonstrates that it would have to be above such-and-such number.

If it seemed that I was suggesting that a number in the range of 5 to 7 would be enough, I apologize, since the only point that was to make was that increasing the stock that amount would significantly reduce the effect of random events (since it's a large increase relative to 4 stocks). But I certainly don't claim to know what the right number is.

And, of course, as I said earlier, for all we know there are features that will be introduced that are meant to make items more feasible for competitive play, so that should be kept in mind as well.

I like this guy. His first post involves a **** ton of research and pwnage.

Eh. His post didn't involve a ton of research. He's just taken statistics. Probably about the same amount as I have.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I only play with Items if I'm battling with people who aren't as good as me at Melee. I even put Handicaps on Auto then.

I'm sure I'll do the same thing when Brawl comes out.

Technically, Diddy could be so annoying in Tournies.

 

[Red Exodus]

It's funny how no one [who supports items] tried to counter my argument of the resources needed to actually make it to the tournament [i.e. time and money]. I'm going to assume I am right.

 

[M3D]

honestly guys, if Items do work and don't increase luck by a huge margin in Brawl, we'll figure it out when the game comes out. Tournament Organizers will be able to gauge local interest and set rule sets that will draw people in. If the rule sucks and the tournaments have random winners, then people won't want to use those rules anymore. With such a large community of gamers and online play available to us, the rules should standardize very quickly.

If its possible to take a lot of the "random" out of random item spawns, then items might work and give Brawl a very unique character. If they work the same as Melee, then you can bet serious tournament players won't want them turned on for events, even if they use them for fun online. I don't think we really need to worry about it for months after Brawl comes out.

 

[kenkowtow]

For the record, I'm not that invested in whether items are used. I certainly enjoy playing matches without items. But I enjoy the theoretical discussion, and I think people are making too many assumptions.I understand that you might want to include this for other readers, but it's not necessary to talk to me as if I have never taken statistics. Excluding math majors and math-heavy majors (chem, physics, etc.) I've taken much more math than the large majority of people.

Oh yeah for the record I wasn't directing all that at you, it was intended more toward the rest of the community.

Well, I rather doubt the idea that it would require playing on stock 50. For one, you're evaluating it as if I'm suggesting keeping bombombs on, which I'm certainly not foolish enough to do. Obviously you would take out items like hearts, bombs, hammer, pokeballs, etc. In fact, it might have to be limited to a very small set of items (4 or less) of similar power, or even just one item, since besides the randomness of just getting an item, playing with a large amount on introduces the randomness of getting a great item vs. getting a Mr Saturn. So to be the most charitable, your examples should be more in mind of an items match where only the beam sword is on (or the beam sword and bat and green shell, or something like that). With that in mind, playing Smash with items on is nothing like dice. There is an element of randomness, but getting an item doesn't guarantee you anything.

So in other words, you're stating that number "50" as if there's any basis whatsoever for it. There isn't. I get your point about dice, but Smash Bros is not dice. Smash Bros is far too complicated for you to be able to calculate what amount of stock is necessary. Basically, you'd have to do it by experimentation. You can't treat items as if they're equivalent to a coin flip or a die roll, since it's not completely random who gets an item (sometimes you fight for an item, rather than it falling into your hands), and it's certainly not random what the outcome of getting the item is (since skill in using and evading items comes into play).

I roughly agree with you on the take-out-super-good-items point, but as far as competitive play goes, if all the [non-destructive] items are enabled, like Mr. Saturn, then it seems almost meaningless to have them in the first place. I never really played with items on so I can't comment on this too critically, but I debate if they would really add depth to gameplay (I'm pretty sure in Melee it would not but Brawl, I don't know). This would probably mean that FS is out (I'm assuming you think FS is overpowered... if not then, it's another argument for another thread).

Yeah 50 was just an arbitrary number that I came up with. But the point of coming up with 50 is that it would take a ton of stocks to "even it out".
And yes, Smash and life are indeed to complex for a simple 6 number system. If all the variables in Smash gave an output value of 1 (whatever the value is...) then items would inevitable even themselves out (perfect world statistics...). I was simply dumbing down many many many of the possible variables so that it would be easier to describe. Like I said before, the main point of brining up the dice was assuming the dumbing down of many variables and simply to make the point that it would take many stocks to find the "average" (and this was intended to the community, not you specifically).

And at any rate - the variable of interest is not the likelihood of a player getting an item at any particular time. It's the likelihood that a player will get more items than the other player to an extent that it makes up the difference in their skill levels. To overly simplify things, if we have a skill 9 vs. a skill 5, basically the question is how likely it is that the skill 5 is going to 4 or more points worth of items that the skill 9 didn't get. The chance of him getting lucky once tells us very little.
So I'm basically saying neither of us knows what amount of stock would make it fair. You certainly can't point to a graph concerning dice as if it demonstrates that it would have to be above such-and-such number.

If it seemed that I was suggesting that a number in the range of 5 to 7 would be enough, I apologize, since the only point that was to make was that increasing the stock that amount would significantly reduce the effect of random events (since it's a large increase relative to 4 stocks). But I certainly don't claim to know what the right number is.

And, of course, as I said earlier, for all we know there are features that will be introduced that are meant to make items more feasible for competitive play, so that should be kept in mind as well.

No qualms here.

Eh. His post didn't involve a ton of research. He's just taken statistics. Probably about the same amount as I have.

Or here .

 

[lilparadise]

My mastering of the non wave-dashing style and my supier dodging will give me the rank of smash god.

(Experts don't complain about changes to the match like items, they learn to deal with it.)

 

[ValiantVernon]

im personally for only smash balls maybe.... thats just me

 

[h1roshi]

good ish on making a GOOD item thread. but i still believe that items will not be used for tourney play...peace

-hiroshi

 

[Sliq]

im personally for only smash balls maybe.... thats just me

Bend over and I'll show you my smash balls.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

I think they should be reconsidered as to ensure that nothing is overlooked, but it's almost inevitable that they will be banned for the same reasons as they are banned from Melee tournament play.

 

[E-Z-MONEY]

All competitive players were casual players at one point. Very few of today's casual players are former competitive players. In other words, I just don't think you fully comprehend how much more exciting item-free matches are. When something amazing happens, it is because someone had the cunning to pull it off. Skill and technique are required, and players seem much more impressive. With items, you are essentially forcing excitement into the game. "We cannot be exciting on our own, so we'll add some junk to make it exciting." Random occurrences in item matches just make me roll my eyes. Sweet combos in item-free matches excite me.

Granted, fun is all relative, so I cannot define what is fun for you, but I just don't think you understand the competitive mentality to its fullest.

With tech, you are essentially forcing excitement into the game. "We cannot have to much excitment, so we'll take some cool stuff out to make it less exciting." Tech in item matches just make me roll my eyes. Sweet items in matches excite me.

See what I just did thar? I respect your opinion and the opinion of all tournament players but neither of us can refute each others opinion about which is more enjoyable. Even if one of us is the majority it does not make us right.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

With tech, you are essentially forcing excitement into the game. "We cannot have to much excitment, so we'll take some cool stuff out to make it less exciting." Tech in item matches just make me roll my eyes. Sweet items in matches excite me.

See what I just did thar? I respect your opinion and the opinion of all tournament players but neither of us can refute each others opinion about which is more enjoyable. Even if one of us is the majority it does not make us right.

Except... you ignored other large portions of my post... >_>

Like I said, you are entitled your own opinion, but I just believe you would change your mind if you were to actually partake of actual competitive goodness.

 

[lilparadise]

Well I've tacken part in "Competitive goodness" and I play the game great with items or without. All in all it's just a matter of opinion, which means their is no right or wrong, and yet people continue to dwell on the subject.

(Words like "Competitive" make me want to play brawl. As a matter of fact all words make me want to play brawl)

 

[E-Z-MONEY]

Except... you ignored other large portions of my post... >_>

Fine.

All tournie players were casual players at one point. Very few of today's casual players are former competitive players. In other words, I just don't think you fully comprehend how much more exciting item-free matches are. When something amazing happens, it is because someone had the cunning to pull it off. Skill and technique are required, and players seem much more impressive.

Don't et the first part. If what you are saying is that once you go tournie you don't go back I would have to wonder if that is because of itmes. I doubt people are willing to drive long ways and pay entry fees just because they are to lazy to turn off the items at home. I also disagree that itmes could possibly take away anything. You can still use tech you jus have items as well.

Like I said, you are entitled your own opinion, but I just believe you would change your mind if you were to actually partake of actual competitive goodness.

To lazy. No transportation. Little disposable income.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Fine.


Don't et the first part. If what you are saying is that once you go tournie you don't go back I would have to wonder if that is because of itmes. I doubt people are willing to drive long ways and pay entry fees just because they are to lazy to turn off the items at home. I also disagree that itmes could possibly take away anything. You can still use tech you jus have items as well.



To lazy. No transportation. Little disposable income.

Fair enough. Fun is different for everyone.

As for whether items take anything away, it is totally debatable. Items add some depth at the cost of other kinds of depth. When items enter the scene, there is suddenly that much less emphasis on character control and more on chasing down powerful items.

 

[Sliq]

Fine.


Don't et the first part. If what you are saying is that once you go tournie you don't go back I would have to wonder if that is because of itmes. I doubt people are willing to drive long ways and pay entry fees just because they are to lazy to turn off the items at home. I also disagree that itmes could possibly take away anything. You can still use tech you jus have items as well.



To lazy. No transportation. Little disposable income.

His point was that we know where you are coming from, because we were you at one point. But then we went competitive and realized how foolish/ignorant we were.

 

[E-Z-MONEY]

His point was that we know where you are coming from, because we were you at one point. But then we went competitive and realized how foolish/ignorant we were.

Well that is a bit harsh. Just because we like different things does not make us foolish. Regardless of whether you have tried both.

 

[E-Z-MONEY]

Fair enough. Fun is different for everyone.

As for whether items take anything away, it is totally debatable. Items add some depth at the cost of other kinds of depth. When items enter the scene, there is suddenly that much less emphasis on character control and more on chasing down powerful items.

I suppose that could be true. I think we can agree on the point of this thread though. We should try the new items to see if they are more balanced then they were in the past.