HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
Hello. I created this thread after a debate I had with others in a local tourney thread. I think the idea of items in Brawl tourneys has not been sufficiently explored, and the more I consider it, the more I really think it is something that demands attention and testing.
NOTE TO MODS, et al: I put this in the Pac West Forum because we have a similar thread in the SBR, and I wanted feedback specifically from regional people. Also Brawl discussion is an abomination.
So, I personally think that we should have items ON in tourneys for now, or at least TO's should seriously consider it and not wave it off, so I'm going to start by listing my arguments, listing the arguments against items, and then my response to the arguments.
But first, just so it's clear what I mean by "items," this is the list of items that I have come up with that I think are reasonable. Open to change:
NO SMASH BALLS OR ASSIST TROPHIES
Food
Beam sword (still not sure on this one)
Fan
Lip's Stick
Star Rod
Super Scope
Fire Flower
Freezie
Hothead
Mr. Saturn
Green Shell
Banana Peel
Spring
Team Healer
Franklin Badge
1: Items can make the game faster. You have more approach options. Picking up items is easy and can be done in the middle of a move. You can be a ****ing ninja with items. If we let ourselves run with items maybe we'll see things like this in tourneys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ggN9xBvAI
2: Items allow more edgeguarding. As we're all well aware, the edgeguarding game is not as deep as most people would like it to be. You CAN still edgeguard sure, but with items you have so many more options possible.
2.5: This is kind of a combination of 1 and 2, but a lot of people's gripes with Brawl is that you're just trading hits back and forth until one guy dies. The fact that we have to work so long to get a KO through reiterating the process of mindgaming/strategizing/whatever for 1 or 2 hits at a time makes it TEDIOUS, and not interesting, as you would seem to have it. Trading hits for 4 minutes is not fun. It is anathema to the concept of momentum in the game, which was I think probably the most enjoyable aspect of Melee for me; figuring out how to make one correct move extend into maintaining pressure/dominance over a long period of time. If we have to mindgame each and every hit, there is no momentum, there is no long-term strategy (by long-term I mean like 10 seconds or however long runs last) beyond thinking about hit decay. Items most definitely introduce a greater emphasis on momentum. When you knock someone off the stage, items are all yours for that time. You can build on your advantage instead of just waiting for the opponent to come back and autograb the edge (I'm oversimplifying here but the wording is meant to appeal to people who find the edgeguarding game lacking).
3: Items are ANTI-CAMPING. I notice that campiness is another common complaint. Camping is sacrificing control of the stage for defense and safety. If you give up stage control with items on, your opponent is going to get more items and you'll be punished for it.
4: There are NO EXPLODING CONTAINERS. This was the one thing that pro- and anti-items people agreed upon was just too much back in the day when the decision to ban items was finally decided.
Arguments against:
1: Items imbalance the game. In Melee, Fox was even better with items, and he was already top of top.
2: Items are random. If you introduce randomness, you increase the variance in the game, and you give lesser skilled people more of a chance to win.
3: Items prevent us from advancing Brawl's metagame. They aren't a true test of skill.
4: The new way of picking up items is inconvenient. Sometimes you pick up items when you don't mean to, or it gets in the wat of what you were trying to do.
5: Items were off in Melee. Turning on items changes the fundamentals of the game and we shouldn't mess with it.
6: Items change the game in a way that is unappealing.
Rebuttals:
1: No argument can be made about balance in Brawl yet. We all have some predispositions as to what we think the tier list is, but we are all so ignorant of what the metaknight...I mean....metagame...is at this point that it doesn't even make sense to ask whether balance is better or worse with or without items. All you have is outright theorycraft right now. Hell, items could make it MORE BALANCED for all we know. In fact this is not just true for items. I think at this point balance is not an excuse to ban ANYTHING in Brawl. Not items, not tactics, and not stages. Bans must come from other reasoning. One of them is randomness:
2: I don't deny that item spawn time and places are basically random. Maybe the spawn points are fixed but the pattern that they appear in those points, if there is one, is so obfuscated at this point that it's random to us. However clearly we don't just ban ANYTHING random. Peach can get zero stitches or ****ing 3 stitches and a bob-omb in one match. That's a pretty **** big variance. None of the items I would propose to be in are as powerful as stitches or bob-ombs. So why didn't we ban Peach, who's already the 5th (or so) best character? We didn't ban because although yes her ****e was random, it was simply not worth removing a character to solve this problem. That is to say, if we remover her, we lose depth, and that loss of depth outweighs what we have to put up with from the randomness of her items. I say that taking out items altogether removes MUCH more depth than removing a single character. And for what? Like I said none of the items I propose can swing a match more than a stitchface can, so removing items is because of randomness is overreacting. If you say something like "I don't care what, anytime there's randomness it's a horrible thing," then either you're forced to ban Peach, or reconsider my argument.
Smash balls and assist trophies, to address them separately, are too powerful, on average. A one SB difference in a match...is basically the match. Getting one more item than your opponent is hardly anything. Please realize this has nothing to do with any FS being more overpowered than any others. It's about FSs in general. There is another argument against them I'll come to in the next point.
3: The argument that "items don't test skill." This is a loaded phrase, because it presumes a definition of "skill" already. That is to say, "without items" is the Status Quo of Brawl and the "true test of skill." But of course there is no reason to automatically assume that should be the case. You can't just declare by absolute fiat that this is the way it is, unless you demand that we should transfer the Status Quo of Melee over to Brawl as much as possible, which is clearly a silly thing to do. What defines a game? Well, a game is defined by what skills are tested. Coin matches are a perfectly legitimate game that DO take skill. They just don't take the SAME kind of skill that is in stock matches. The getting and the use of items is clearly a skill, and it's not a simple and shallow skill like running around and collecting coins in a coin match. You have to evaluate whether it's worth it to stop what you're doing to go and try to get the item. You have to fight your opponent over the item. I think that is the greatest part. All of a sudden that one hit means so much more. It's not just one unremarkable hit in your 4 minutes of trading hits with one another. And once you get the item you have to know what to do with it. The fan in particular has a lot of potential for comboability, etc.
Now of course you might say, "well ****, I could make you have to juggle every time you took a stock off me. Does that take more skill. Obviously it does. But who cares about juggling? It doesn't complement the skills in Smash at all!" This, I would argue, is valid for Smashballs (we have to address this because getting and using Smashballs is still a skill), but not for items in general (or at least the ones I've listed). The acquisition and use of Smashballs is simply not a very interesting skill to test (subjectivity alert!). Items are deeply ingrained into the nature of Smash. Even with items off, a good number of characters still have "items," and your items skills are still tested, albeit to a smaller degree. Point being, calling ability WITH items "skill" is relevant and justified.
To summarize about SBs to get it out of the way, If we allow SBs, "skill" becomes largely definied by your ability to get and use them, and "balance" becomes largely defined by a character's ability to get SBs, and the strength of their FS. This isn't because they are items, or because they are random. It is because, in general, they are very strong. The validity of this statement is precisely as valid as the strength of the item/tactic/etc in question. Why is what I just said a bad thing? Because the acquisition and use of SBs is not a very interesting skill to test or interesting aspect of game balance, and does not complement the other skills that Smash tests. The alert reader will point out that I've said SBs are too strong, but earlier I said we have no concept of game balance right now, so it would seem to be a contradiction. This is resolved by saying it's that SBs are so powerful compared to everything else in the game, i.e. a relative as opposed to an absolute statement.
To be quite honest, I wouldn't be 100% convinced by that last argument if I were a random (but reasonably intelligent) community newb. Call me crazy, but I think that there should be at least one major tourney WITH SBs and the like just to REALLY have solid evidence about all this stuff in the tourney setting. I don't like playing with SBs and I wouldn't be enthusiastic about going to a tourney where they were on. But as much as I hate them, I detest blatant conjecture and people saying "oh it's just so OBVIOUS" and people using anecdotal evidence as if it were proof even more. The Gamestop tourneys don't count, because the rest of the rules changes completely invalidate everything else. Anyway, you can disagree with me on this point but it has no effect on the points I make about items.
4: This argument just sounds like "We aren't perfect with the mechanics, so we're going to take it out." You're not going to learn the mechanics of items overnight. Items "get in the way" because we're not used to the Brawl system, because the whole point of Brawl is that it's a new game with new mechanics. So personally I disregard any complaints about mechanics. If you're an aware player, you are aware where items are, and know what's going to happen when you come in contact with them.
5: As I have said before, this is just proclaiming by fiat that the status quo of Brawl IS Melee. If that is truly your opinion on how things should be, you're perfectly allowed to think that way. But there is no reason to not just build Brawl up from the foundation; you will bottleneck the community and the growth of the metagame as well. Some say that introducing items interferes with the "true" metagame. I say that removing items just completely because you feel like it is willful ignorance, and you're already writing off a huge potential of what the metagame could be.
6 and Summary:
Well, that's really the bottom line isn't it? All these points, about randomness, balance, blah blah, can really all be summarized by "because it changes the game in a way I don't like." What if Hyrule somehow were perfectly balanced, and you couldn't runaway camp? It would STILL be banned, because it practically ceases to be Smash and becomes the game of the Cave of Life. That is a legitimate game believe it or not. But it's banned because it's so extraordinarily different from they way we play the game anywhere else. Mute City, Brinstar, etc change the game as well, but they aren't banned because we perceive the change to not be great enough. Note this is subjective. We can have objective facts about a game, like some of those that I have presented about Brawl, and come to differing opinions about what's "good" or "imbalanced" or "too much" randomness or game change.
So, all I'm saying is, maybe ITEMS is really the way we're supposed to go to give this game some depth. Maybe we'll find a vast metagame that items will show us. Maybe items will actually BALANCE the game and make it FASTER and more enjoyable. Maybe NONE of those things will happen. I'm saying this is a huge unexplored area that could potentially open up a lot of stuff, and I really think we should give it a shot. Again, this is not ITEMS FOR LIFE! This is "Let's test it to see which way is better."
I ask you to leave your prejudices and keep an open mind before you post.
NOTE TO MODS, et al: I put this in the Pac West Forum because we have a similar thread in the SBR, and I wanted feedback specifically from regional people. Also Brawl discussion is an abomination.
So, I personally think that we should have items ON in tourneys for now, or at least TO's should seriously consider it and not wave it off, so I'm going to start by listing my arguments, listing the arguments against items, and then my response to the arguments.
But first, just so it's clear what I mean by "items," this is the list of items that I have come up with that I think are reasonable. Open to change:
NO SMASH BALLS OR ASSIST TROPHIES
Food
Beam sword (still not sure on this one)
Fan
Lip's Stick
Star Rod
Super Scope
Fire Flower
Freezie
Hothead
Mr. Saturn
Green Shell
Banana Peel
Spring
Team Healer
Franklin Badge
1: Items can make the game faster. You have more approach options. Picking up items is easy and can be done in the middle of a move. You can be a ****ing ninja with items. If we let ourselves run with items maybe we'll see things like this in tourneys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ggN9xBvAI
2: Items allow more edgeguarding. As we're all well aware, the edgeguarding game is not as deep as most people would like it to be. You CAN still edgeguard sure, but with items you have so many more options possible.
2.5: This is kind of a combination of 1 and 2, but a lot of people's gripes with Brawl is that you're just trading hits back and forth until one guy dies. The fact that we have to work so long to get a KO through reiterating the process of mindgaming/strategizing/whatever for 1 or 2 hits at a time makes it TEDIOUS, and not interesting, as you would seem to have it. Trading hits for 4 minutes is not fun. It is anathema to the concept of momentum in the game, which was I think probably the most enjoyable aspect of Melee for me; figuring out how to make one correct move extend into maintaining pressure/dominance over a long period of time. If we have to mindgame each and every hit, there is no momentum, there is no long-term strategy (by long-term I mean like 10 seconds or however long runs last) beyond thinking about hit decay. Items most definitely introduce a greater emphasis on momentum. When you knock someone off the stage, items are all yours for that time. You can build on your advantage instead of just waiting for the opponent to come back and autograb the edge (I'm oversimplifying here but the wording is meant to appeal to people who find the edgeguarding game lacking).
3: Items are ANTI-CAMPING. I notice that campiness is another common complaint. Camping is sacrificing control of the stage for defense and safety. If you give up stage control with items on, your opponent is going to get more items and you'll be punished for it.
4: There are NO EXPLODING CONTAINERS. This was the one thing that pro- and anti-items people agreed upon was just too much back in the day when the decision to ban items was finally decided.
Arguments against:
1: Items imbalance the game. In Melee, Fox was even better with items, and he was already top of top.
2: Items are random. If you introduce randomness, you increase the variance in the game, and you give lesser skilled people more of a chance to win.
3: Items prevent us from advancing Brawl's metagame. They aren't a true test of skill.
4: The new way of picking up items is inconvenient. Sometimes you pick up items when you don't mean to, or it gets in the wat of what you were trying to do.
5: Items were off in Melee. Turning on items changes the fundamentals of the game and we shouldn't mess with it.
6: Items change the game in a way that is unappealing.
Rebuttals:
1: No argument can be made about balance in Brawl yet. We all have some predispositions as to what we think the tier list is, but we are all so ignorant of what the metaknight...I mean....metagame...is at this point that it doesn't even make sense to ask whether balance is better or worse with or without items. All you have is outright theorycraft right now. Hell, items could make it MORE BALANCED for all we know. In fact this is not just true for items. I think at this point balance is not an excuse to ban ANYTHING in Brawl. Not items, not tactics, and not stages. Bans must come from other reasoning. One of them is randomness:
2: I don't deny that item spawn time and places are basically random. Maybe the spawn points are fixed but the pattern that they appear in those points, if there is one, is so obfuscated at this point that it's random to us. However clearly we don't just ban ANYTHING random. Peach can get zero stitches or ****ing 3 stitches and a bob-omb in one match. That's a pretty **** big variance. None of the items I would propose to be in are as powerful as stitches or bob-ombs. So why didn't we ban Peach, who's already the 5th (or so) best character? We didn't ban because although yes her ****e was random, it was simply not worth removing a character to solve this problem. That is to say, if we remover her, we lose depth, and that loss of depth outweighs what we have to put up with from the randomness of her items. I say that taking out items altogether removes MUCH more depth than removing a single character. And for what? Like I said none of the items I propose can swing a match more than a stitchface can, so removing items is because of randomness is overreacting. If you say something like "I don't care what, anytime there's randomness it's a horrible thing," then either you're forced to ban Peach, or reconsider my argument.
Smash balls and assist trophies, to address them separately, are too powerful, on average. A one SB difference in a match...is basically the match. Getting one more item than your opponent is hardly anything. Please realize this has nothing to do with any FS being more overpowered than any others. It's about FSs in general. There is another argument against them I'll come to in the next point.
3: The argument that "items don't test skill." This is a loaded phrase, because it presumes a definition of "skill" already. That is to say, "without items" is the Status Quo of Brawl and the "true test of skill." But of course there is no reason to automatically assume that should be the case. You can't just declare by absolute fiat that this is the way it is, unless you demand that we should transfer the Status Quo of Melee over to Brawl as much as possible, which is clearly a silly thing to do. What defines a game? Well, a game is defined by what skills are tested. Coin matches are a perfectly legitimate game that DO take skill. They just don't take the SAME kind of skill that is in stock matches. The getting and the use of items is clearly a skill, and it's not a simple and shallow skill like running around and collecting coins in a coin match. You have to evaluate whether it's worth it to stop what you're doing to go and try to get the item. You have to fight your opponent over the item. I think that is the greatest part. All of a sudden that one hit means so much more. It's not just one unremarkable hit in your 4 minutes of trading hits with one another. And once you get the item you have to know what to do with it. The fan in particular has a lot of potential for comboability, etc.
Now of course you might say, "well ****, I could make you have to juggle every time you took a stock off me. Does that take more skill. Obviously it does. But who cares about juggling? It doesn't complement the skills in Smash at all!" This, I would argue, is valid for Smashballs (we have to address this because getting and using Smashballs is still a skill), but not for items in general (or at least the ones I've listed). The acquisition and use of Smashballs is simply not a very interesting skill to test (subjectivity alert!). Items are deeply ingrained into the nature of Smash. Even with items off, a good number of characters still have "items," and your items skills are still tested, albeit to a smaller degree. Point being, calling ability WITH items "skill" is relevant and justified.
To summarize about SBs to get it out of the way, If we allow SBs, "skill" becomes largely definied by your ability to get and use them, and "balance" becomes largely defined by a character's ability to get SBs, and the strength of their FS. This isn't because they are items, or because they are random. It is because, in general, they are very strong. The validity of this statement is precisely as valid as the strength of the item/tactic/etc in question. Why is what I just said a bad thing? Because the acquisition and use of SBs is not a very interesting skill to test or interesting aspect of game balance, and does not complement the other skills that Smash tests. The alert reader will point out that I've said SBs are too strong, but earlier I said we have no concept of game balance right now, so it would seem to be a contradiction. This is resolved by saying it's that SBs are so powerful compared to everything else in the game, i.e. a relative as opposed to an absolute statement.
To be quite honest, I wouldn't be 100% convinced by that last argument if I were a random (but reasonably intelligent) community newb. Call me crazy, but I think that there should be at least one major tourney WITH SBs and the like just to REALLY have solid evidence about all this stuff in the tourney setting. I don't like playing with SBs and I wouldn't be enthusiastic about going to a tourney where they were on. But as much as I hate them, I detest blatant conjecture and people saying "oh it's just so OBVIOUS" and people using anecdotal evidence as if it were proof even more. The Gamestop tourneys don't count, because the rest of the rules changes completely invalidate everything else. Anyway, you can disagree with me on this point but it has no effect on the points I make about items.
4: This argument just sounds like "We aren't perfect with the mechanics, so we're going to take it out." You're not going to learn the mechanics of items overnight. Items "get in the way" because we're not used to the Brawl system, because the whole point of Brawl is that it's a new game with new mechanics. So personally I disregard any complaints about mechanics. If you're an aware player, you are aware where items are, and know what's going to happen when you come in contact with them.
5: As I have said before, this is just proclaiming by fiat that the status quo of Brawl IS Melee. If that is truly your opinion on how things should be, you're perfectly allowed to think that way. But there is no reason to not just build Brawl up from the foundation; you will bottleneck the community and the growth of the metagame as well. Some say that introducing items interferes with the "true" metagame. I say that removing items just completely because you feel like it is willful ignorance, and you're already writing off a huge potential of what the metagame could be.
6 and Summary:
Well, that's really the bottom line isn't it? All these points, about randomness, balance, blah blah, can really all be summarized by "because it changes the game in a way I don't like." What if Hyrule somehow were perfectly balanced, and you couldn't runaway camp? It would STILL be banned, because it practically ceases to be Smash and becomes the game of the Cave of Life. That is a legitimate game believe it or not. But it's banned because it's so extraordinarily different from they way we play the game anywhere else. Mute City, Brinstar, etc change the game as well, but they aren't banned because we perceive the change to not be great enough. Note this is subjective. We can have objective facts about a game, like some of those that I have presented about Brawl, and come to differing opinions about what's "good" or "imbalanced" or "too much" randomness or game change.
So, all I'm saying is, maybe ITEMS is really the way we're supposed to go to give this game some depth. Maybe we'll find a vast metagame that items will show us. Maybe items will actually BALANCE the game and make it FASTER and more enjoyable. Maybe NONE of those things will happen. I'm saying this is a huge unexplored area that could potentially open up a lot of stuff, and I really think we should give it a shot. Again, this is not ITEMS FOR LIFE! This is "Let's test it to see which way is better."
I ask you to leave your prejudices and keep an open mind before you post.
