Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

[1psemet]

Looking through the items vs. no-items thread, I almost committed suicide wading through the dross between the sporadic meaningful posts. There were several people there who tried valiantly to debate (Recipherus, Terrakalar, Matdeezie, etc.), but they were overwhelmed. I could post this in that thread, but I would like to try to start fresh for several reasons. First of all, once a thread reaches a certain critical size, it's dead for all intents and purposes. People will rarely bother to read all of it so that they can respond usefully (I barely had the will to do so). So you get an ever-increasing amount of spam, as if it weren't actually supposed to be a debate but some sort of poll. So, I would like to make a more concise, meaningful post. Furthermore, I would like to make sure that key people actually read it, for I will try to make a case for No-Items, despite the heavy opposition, by trying to counter several of the reasons that I think were flawed in the last post. And lastly, I have a more focused goal in mind. The items vs. items thread started out with Matdeezie specifically trying to convince people to use items for tournament purposes, but it seems to have strayed from that to a pseudo-discussion of whether certain items are gcheaph, and other things that donft relate directly. Concisely, itfs become unfocused. This is intended to be a discussion of the pros and cons of having items on as it relates to 1 vs. 1 tournaments. Thus I wish to make sure that people have a chance to see the other side of the argument, as almost everyone in the other thread was Pro-Items.

Okay then. Before I start, I have to make a plea to the board members at large. This may sound somewhat disparaging, but I think it must be said. Please people, don't post here if you are only going to post your preferences or opinions on the different aspects without actually using reasoning. This isn't a poll. Try to be constructive, and not simply clutter things up with statements of concurrence or disagreement, random meaningless stories, or insults. That being said, I will now begin.

Now, Ifm not saying that it doesnft require skill to use items. Indeed, as has been stated, it takes skill to get items, to use items, and to thwart people doing such. What I am saying, is because of the way that they were integrated (the appearance of random items in random places at random times), they, overall, are negative to any attempt to prove comparative skill. This is for a variety of reasons, most of which will be addressed at length (be prepared). First, however, I will go over some of the primary reasons used by item fans and ramble on about why I think they arenft entirely valid.

One of the primary reasons used to defend the use of items in general (and in tournaments specifically), was that items are a gpart of the gameh, and that mastery of the game includes the mastery of items. Since having items on or off is an option, playing with items is itself merely an option to the greater game. I say that the opposite is not true, because the vast majority of the game physics, animation, and complexity is separate from and not reliant on items at all. Turning off items has no effect on the game other than their existence. They are an added extra, a consideration, a method of playing many different modes and extending the lifetime of the gamefs enjoyment, but they are in no way integral. They provide variation and randomness, they are there for fun. Itfs like saying that Slow Motion Melee, HP mode, Turbo mode, or any of the others are gpart of the gameh in this sense (as obviously they exist within the game). They are just there to add variety. So, though the default is items on, this means nothing. SSBM is the great game that it is due to itfs finely tuned fighting engine, and general play balance, the items add nothing to this.

This leads directly into one of the other primary reasons used. That they add the gthird elementh to the game that distinguishes it from other fighters. The fact that the game physics are completely different has already been addressed and isnft what is under discussion. Refer to the items vs. no items thread for what this means. Anyway, I refute that this is a pointful thing to say. Though it is indeed true. Other fighters donft have this element to them, the utilization of randomly appearing items. There is however, a reason why most games donft do such things. All of the other elements (throws, dodges, multiple recovers, jumping, combos, etc.), the elements that are fundamentally integral to and basically define a fighting game (at least a good one), are parts of a tried and true, integrated system. They contain all of the layers of complexity that are meaningful (I recommend reading this http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Yomi.htm, which is a rather good article and somewhat pertinent), and adding additional ones arenft helpful. Change isnft always good. They donft do certain things because they would be blatantly bad. They also donft do some things, like in this case, because it just wouldnft help. The items do indeed make it more entertaining, especially over the long runc but they donft have any part in the gestalten whole of the system. If it was an experiment to try to add something to the genre that complemented it and increased the skill needed to master such, then it has in my opinion failed.

Its also been said that items serve as an equalizer for Hal-given disadvantages. I find this to be one of the more ludicrous arguments. While itfs not possible to conclusively prove without contacting the designers (as Recipherus mentioned), there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Itfs said that they help the characters without projectiles, making it so that they donft always have to play the offensive game. I disagree for several reasons on this. First of all, this just makes it so that fifty-percent of the time they are even more disadvantaged in this respect. Secondly, there are already numerous ways to do this without items. Everyone can dodge any projectile (by either jumping or actually dodging), often capable of taking advantage of the recovery time from firing such to damage you. Everyone can powershield, basically using your seeming advantage against you. And lastly, every projectile has a predictable trajectory, which can be rather simply avoided (on any stage but FD) by simply getting in a situation where it canft hit you. And its rather obvious to everyone that the speedier characters, being able to grab the items faster, are helped out more by items. Does ANYONE, anyone at all, truly believe that the game designers were stupid enough to think that the speediest characters need any more advantage? Hmmc Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth, compared to Bowser, DK, Peach, Ice Climbers. Do you think it even remotely possible that they considered the later to be superior, and that the former needed something extra merely to help balance them out? Judging from the competence which they demonstrated otherwise in the game, I think not. From these alone I believe that you could conclude that Hal intended it to be a stand-alone fighter, with items as an added bonus. A bonus to which not as much effort was put into balancing.

Itfs been said that this random element is a part of the game, as you can see from the hazards in most stages. Hazards, though, differ in one major respect. They arenft, in fact, actually random. There are always clues and warning far before they occur. If you watch a stage for long enough you will realize that in almost all cases, there are not only warnings, but that the hazards only occur at distinct times, or after distinct intervals. Thus you can easily avoid all of them with simple memorization.

Everyone sane admits admits that items both increase randomness, and require skill to use.
So the question is where these balance out. In my opinion, at low levels of skill, they make the battles almost totally random. As skill increases, the randomness and uncertainty decreasec but only to an extent. If you admit that items confer an advantage to their wielder at all, and their placement is random, then it simply CANNOT be as purely skill based, and thus representative, as without items. They, though largely skill based, and since random will doubtless mostly even out in their positive and detrimental effects to players of near equal skill level, will vastly increase fluctuations on a small scale, the scale pertinent to tournament play. As an example, we have Player A, and Player B. Player A is distinctly better than player B is, though not by much. He usually wins a little less than two thirds of the time. Therefore him and player be quite often go to the third match before he wins, but he very rarely loses the set. Say in the tournament, Player A gets unavoidably screwed by the proverbial bomb-omb in the first match. Now he has to win the next two matches in a row to demonstrate the fact that he is superior and claim the prize that is rightfully his. His odds of winning went down distinctly from what they should be, through no skill of either himself or his opponent. It might not happen all that often at high levels, it still happens, and that is enough to render it counterproductive.

This is aside from the fact that even all but the most hard-core item fans would say that certain items (ie Tomatoes and Hearts) arenft fair in the least. So most of the time a case is being made for only SOME items being good overall. And this varies from person to person. This is a simple matter of scaling. These items merely have the biggest ratio of unfairness to skill required to use. The items only differ in this, fundamentally.

I will end it here for now, as i've exceeded the character limit. More later.

 

[Eoraptor]

Good post 1psemet, and I agree with most you say. I feel items increase randomness primarily because as you state, they appear at random times in random areas of the level. If items always appeared in identical pairs (assuming a two player match) at equal distance to the players, that would make them more fair in my opinion. It would give each character the same possible advantage, which would be their choice/fault to use or not. It would be disorienting and probably annoying in the heat of battle, but if some program were made where items are deposited next to characters only at times when they were relatively far away from each other and/or stationary (happens in most 1v1 battles), I think it would work out well. Do you agree?

I think your examples of items not being a part of the game are too extreme. Items are certainly part of the game, in the same sense throws, dodges and B moves are. You can delete these in single button mode, and the game is still playable. ****, we all played SSB without dodging and multiple other added features of SSBM. Indeed, one could argue these add to character inequality, due to their high variation between characters. You could take away any of these aspects and the game mechanics remain intact, but surely you agree they increase the complexity of the game. They add another level so to speak, like items. This level is just as meaningful as the above examples, though it does add randomness.

I can state with near certainty that HAL did indeed design items to help equalize characters. Before the game was released, HAL wrote updates on their SSBM website- http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/nus_p_nalj/smash/flash/index.html . One such update concerned the star rod, which they explained shot four stars when used by Captain Falcon because he was unbalanced in the projectile area. The exact update is probably-
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/nus_p_nalj/smash/flash/0802/index.html .
Unfortunately, I cannot quote it nor verify it due to the Japanese it's written in. The translation was done by Zethar II at the IGN boards, whose website is now down. Why else would only two characters be able to shoot multiple stars? This is proof HAL took items into consideration when balancing characters. Personally, I think Captain Falcon does fine without projectiles (his main problems are attack speed and jumping, which I suppose the bunny ears solve, but at the price of increased difficulty to control). So by playing without items, you are in fact unbalancing characters in ways HAL did not intend. Sure, the game's complexity allows one to compensate for these imposed disadvantages (though you'd have to admit dodging and powershielding are much harder than shooting a star rod), but HAL did utilize items in character balance.

In conclusion, items are an important part of the game's gestalt (nice verbiage there) and were designed at least in part to equalize character effectiveness by HAL, but are random in which character they give the advantage too, so should not be used when skill is being judged, as in tournaments.

 

[senpyou]

ipsemet: again, nice post. i fear i might have completely missed the point of your argument in asking this question, if so please let me know. anyway, are you saying that items are unnecessary for tournament play or that items are detrimental, and thus should be banned, to tournament play?

 

[1psemet]

Your first suggestion would indeed be helpful towards taking out the randomness of it, but strikes me as impossible to implementc unless perhaps it can be done with the gameshark when it comes out.

Eoraptor, this statement that Hal admitted to making equalizers intrigued me, so I decided to look around that site. Not speaking Japanese, I utilized Altavista's translating tools, which while laughable, get the gist across. All that was pertinent from that second link was this text:

Only captain * ƒtƒ@ƒ‹ƒRƒ“, shock weapon having
" Continuing to push the button, " when it does ƒXƒ}ƒbƒVƒ… attack side,
It becomes special 2 step attacks.
Because type changes with the item, attention!

New ƒƒU " ƒtƒ@ƒ‹ƒRƒ“ƒiƒbƒNƒ‹ (side +B)" ,
The ƒƒU which it thrusts with fierce dash, inside it lifts the partner.
Being aerial, when you use, it becomes the meteor, but risk is large being
Main point note!



- Necessary shooting! Star rod 4 running fire!
Normally, it can also use.

Accompanied with a picture of Captain Falcon shooting the star rod. Though garbled, it seems clear to me that Hal is admitting no such thing here. This article you refer to could of course be somewhere else on the site, but I navigated it for a good half-hour, and perused the majority of it in detail, but alas found nothing. I am not doubting that an article existed at one point that said something vaguely similar to what you claim, I am however saying that I do not trust the specifics of your translation of this article without seeing it myself. Too many other reasons lead me to believe that Hal intended the game to be balanced otherwise. And for the reasons listed in my prior post, it just strikes me as laughably improbable. Ifm sure it much more likely that the Easter egg esque differences in item usage are there more for flavor than for making the game in any important way more balanced.

As I stated, I believe that there are distinct reasons why this added level of complexity is not as meaningful as the others. First of all I would like to say that SSB 64 was by far the inferior game in terms of complexity and balance. Because, as you say, you couldnft dodge, powershield, charge up smashes, etc., it was worse on almost any imaginable scale of fighting games in terms of balance and skill required to play. There were also many other problems with it that are outside the scope of this topic. The difference is that these other features are FUNDAMENTAL to the game. All characters have them, and can use them at any given time, thus making them an addition to ones arsenal, and adding a meaningful layer of complexity. They are, most of them, obvious extensions of the game mechanics, methods that fighting games use to approach the limits of useful complexity. Taking any of these out impoverishes the game much more than adding items enriches it.

And Senpyou: Ifm saying something more akin to items are detrimental to tournament play. What is the point of a tournament? To prove the comparative worth of the participants at the activity being performed. Ifm saying that items detract from this by slurring the results, and, in my opinion, shouldnft be used in tournaments.

 

[game and kirby]

I agree with you about many of the points you raised, ipsemet, and one of the things I find most distasteful about these boards is the utter incapacity of many people to read other people's opinions before posting their own trite one line phrases, usually either modeled after their friends, or simply spam to try to kick up their post counts. This does indeed make threads which are over two pages long a total waste to post on, apart from the aforementioned reasons. Of course , polls are different, but that is off topic. Indeed , most items, especially the weapons and the throwing items, take skill and precision to use quickly, while the recovery items, the starman and such do not ,although strong cases could be made for the skill required to exploit a metal box or bunny hood. However, the randomness of their appearance is not necessarily a factor which makes them unindicative of the skill levels of a player. Apart from the aforementioned starman and recovery items, many weapons do not constitute an unfair advantage for the user. The beamsword is a good example. It's main purpouse is to provide increased range for the character using it. It otherwise has minimal knockback and mediocre damage. Thus it could be argued that it takes another skill to be able to exploit the increased range afforded by a beamsword, and that it does not put a character without it at an unfair advantage. It simply forces the itemless character to switch tactics, from attempting to counter a short range melee power strategy, such as ganondorf's, to a long range melee combo strategy, such as a beamsword user's. The problem of items which do constitute an unfair advantage can be simply resolved by taking them off on item switch. That more or less sums it up.

 

[Scamp]

Intentions?

I keep hearing you mention HAL's intentions based on interpretations. Personally, I think HAL intended SSBM to be a party game, with everyone going for the kill at all times. Hence the default 2-minute time setting. Thus, I don't see the items as an added bonus, as you say. I believe that HAL fully intended for items to be an integral part of the game. The reason you have the option to turn items off (IMO. Again, I can't ask the designers themselves, so opinion it is.) is because SSBM is a console game, and HAL is a smart gaming company. The reason for all the different modes of play is that HAL knows that variety makes the game more fun, because it adds to the replay value immensely. If SSBM Melee were released in arcades (I would play it) then I'm willing to bet the game would be time-mode with items on, and no way to turn them off.

I'd like to argue that items primarily help out the aggressor, not simply the faster character. It's true that if Fox and DK are standing on opposite sides of the level, and an item appears in the middle, then Fox will probably get it. However, unless you're playing on Hyrule Temple, whoever the item appears closer to should get the item. Thus, when playing with items on it is important to try to cover as much space as possible, so you can have your run of the best items that appear.

Also, since you're mentioning skills, there are a whole run of skills that go with items being on. Catching items, powershielding, dodge'n'dropping, Fox/Falco's reflector, Ness' absorbtion, and so on. IMO HAL fully intended items to be an integral part of the gameplay, as you can watch examples of advanced item techniques (different combos and two DKs playing catch with a bob-omb) in that special movie.

Finally, I hear you mention tournaments. You don't really talk about them much in your rambling, but the point is about them so I should speak on it. First of all, a no-items tourney is fine by me, as long as people realize that it's basically a different game that way. As is, level 3 super combos in CvS2 (and don't get me started on MvC2, sheesh) greatly affect who is going to win the match. Unless one player has much more skill than the other, then it's basically going to come down to who lands more supers. Thus, should level-3 supers be banned from tournament play?
This may be an off-kilter example, but my point is such: I don't think items slur the results that much. It may give some fluke victories to the less skilled player, but it'll also give the more experienced player a win during the times that the less skilled player outperforms the more skilled player. Tournaments are about winning, yes. But for me the tournament is much more than that. It's an event. The only reason I'd want to win the tournament is the prize I get for winning. Other than that, for me it's about playing well and playing with the best. It's also about meeting a buch of people who share the same interest as you. I really didn't mind having to play JR in the first round of TG3 (who was the TG1 champion) because I wanted to play against the best people anyway. Now, I would have preferred to have played some scrub and taken an easy road to the finals, but c'est la vie.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit off topic. But I'd like to close by saying that I don't think I've ever seen a player win by only jumping around and using items, except against a computer.

 

[Recipherus]

Good post 1psemet although i still disagree with you.

Turning off items has no effect on the game other than their existence. They are an added extra, a consideration, a method of playing many different modes and extending the lifetime of the gamefs enjoyment, but they are in no way integral. They provide variation and randomness, they are there for fun. Itfs like saying that Slow Motion Melee, HP mode, Turbo mode, or any of the others are gpart of the gameh in this sense (as obviously they exist within the game). They are just there to add variety. So, though the default is items on, this means nothing. SSBM is the great game that it is due to itfs finely tuned fighting engine, and general play balance, the items add nothing to this.

Well, this is your opinion.Designers of video games have realized that players of video games like it when they can change how a game is played to their liking. Because of this more an more games have increased the amount of options or variables you can tweak. This is why items being an option shouldn't be used as an argument for or against items. It's simply the designers trying to please their audience.

With skilled players, random appearing items don't randomize the results of a match (btw the apearence of crates and maybe other/all items are not random, they apear in only certain places on the stage). Poker is a good example. The cards are random, with unskilled poker players whoever gets the best cards by chance will probably be the person who wins the most money. But then there are those world champions who consistently win tournaments, Why? Because they play in such a way that even with random cards they will win in the long run, this also applies in ssbm. When ever i play my brother one of the things i consider ( along with other things) is my position on the board relative to where an item may appear. I try to position myself so that I will have a better chance at reaching an item then him.

Its also been said that items serve as an equalizer for Hal-given disadvantages. I find this to be one of the more ludicrous arguments. While itfs not possible to conclusively prove without contacting the designers (as Recipherus mentioned), there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Your right, you can't make a conclusion on this argument without contacting the designers, arguing for either side is futile.

Itfs said that they help the characters without projectiles, making it so that they donft always have to play the offensive game. I disagree for several reasons on this. First of all, this just makes it so that fifty-percent of the time they are even more disadvantaged in this respect. Secondly, there are already numerous ways to do this without items. Everyone can dodge any projectile (by either jumping or actually dodging), often capable of taking advantage of the recovery time from firing such to damage you. Everyone can powershield, basically using your seeming advantage against you. And lastly, every projectile has a predictable trajectory, which can be rather simply avoided (on any stage but FD) by simply getting in a situation where it canft hit you.

Are you actually using strats to validate an argument? Strats have no place in a good argument as we may disagree on how well a strat works or there may be a strat out there that very few people or no one knows about. All that needs to be said here is that with items on the strats change between two players, with one player having projectiles and the other not. We can't prove who has the advantage.

Does ANYONE, anyone at all, truly believe that the game designers were stupid enough to think that the speediest characters need any more advantage? Hmmc Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Marth, compared to Bowser, DK, Peach, Ice Climbers. Do you think it even remotely possible that they considered the later to be superior, and that the former needed something extra merely to help balance them out? Judging from the competence which they demonstrated otherwise in the game, I think not. From these alone I believe that you could conclude that Hal intended it to be a stand-alone fighter, with items as an added bonus. A bonus to which not as much effort was put into balancing.

Well HAL may have intended the game to be primarily a 4p ffa game, which IMO, heavier characters have the advantage. Perhaps giving speedier characters the item advantage was their way of balancing it out. Neither of our conclusions can be proven. BTW, IMO even with out items the speedier characters haven an advantage over the slow. Perhaps certain characters were ment for ffa and others 1on1.

ran out of space, i have one more thing to add

 

[Recipherus]

Everyone sane admits admits that items both increase randomness, and require skill to use.In my opinion, at low levels of skill, they make the battles almost totally random. As skill increases, the randomness and uncertainty decreasec but only to an extent. If you admit that items confer an advantage to their wielder at all, and their placement is random, then it simply CANNOT be as purely skill based, and thus representative, as without items. They, though largely skill based, and since random will doubtless mostly even out in their positive and detrimental effects to players of near equal skill level, will vastly increase fluctuations on a small scale, the scale pertinent to tournament play. As an example, we have Player A, and Player B. Player A is distinctly better than player B is, though not by much. He usually wins a little less than two thirds of the time. Therefore him and player be quite often go to the third match before he wins, but he very rarely loses the set. Say in the tournament, Player A gets unavoidably screwed by the proverbial bomb-omb in the first match. Now he has to win the next two matches in a row to demonstrate the fact that he is superior and claim the prize that is rightfully his. His odds of winning went down distinctly from what they should be, through no skill of either himself or his opponent. It might not happen all that often at high levels, it still happens, and that is enough to render it counterproductive

It seems like the main reason you want items off is that you want the supposed best player to win every game every time. In all sports the number 1 seeded team/player doesn't always win. Things happen. If they took certain things/ "cheap"strategies out: aces in Tennis ( a non-returnable serve), rushing in football, slam dunking in basketball (all shaq does is camp in the key waiting to slamdunk), homeruns in baseball, etc. These games would be played drastically different, the very thing that defines "the best" would be changed. The reason, IMO, these things are left in is because they increase the variety of skills needed to play the sport competetively. Which is exactly what items do. If they took out these things it would simplify the game. Baseball is an example of a game so simplified that strategy is a very little part of the game, 90% of the game is technique(throwing, catching, batting, pitching, etc. It's clear how the game needs to be played, it's just a matter of perfecting the technique. Football however is different, It's not always clear what needs to be done ( rush, punt, go for a touchdown or a field goal, should the team try to run it for TD or throw it. Football is a great combination of technique and strategy, however the supposed "best team" doesn't win consistently. Here's a good Q which sports video game is funner/ more challenging to play well, baseball or football, IMO football.
Sorry if i went off topic i just wanted to prove a point. I guess in conclusion i can say this: no items=baseball, items=football.

 

[1psemet]

First of all I will say that, as Scamp pointed out, I didn't address several aspects, nor have a conclusion which brings it all back around to tournaments. This is because I hit the character limit, as well as the fact that I was tired and went almost immediately asleep. I plan on rectifying this, of course. And also note, I thoroughly appreciate all of your responses, and am glad that you have spent your time doing such. My statements are merely trying to defend my points, and not intended to be surly.

Game and Kirby: This is a good point. In fact, this is what the last paragraph of my initial post was meant to eventually address. There may indeed be some items that so exactly even out with the amount of skill required to get and use, and the advantage conferred, all the while taking into account the random placement (Hearts don't on one end, and Mr. Saturn is on the other end as too worthless to be a consideration), that they add depth. But a consensus as to which these are will never be reached, and as it's a rather hard thing to quantify, it strikes me as preferable and easier to simple turn them all of.

Scamp, items do indeed favor the aggressor, but within that framework the faster are still more favored. Anyone who plays with items on regularly, and there is a big discrepancy in the speed of the participating characters, can attest to this. On most stages, in most situations, fox can simply get far more items than DK.

Of the skills that you list that relate to items being on, the majority could obviously be seen to effect the majority of peoples projectiles in general, and so would have a place without items.

And you admit that indeed there are fluke wins. That's all that it takes, and all that matters. If there is an increased probability of unreliable results, then it has no place in a tournament. Any increase at all is simply pointless to add. As you said, it's a different game... my point is that one of these games is more suitable to high-level tournament play than the other. The fact that it's a **** good party game doesn't effect the fact that on certain settings it is worthy of real competition. One of the settings contains aspects that aren't appropriate (basically randomness), while the other doesn't.

Recipherus, you say "With skilled players, random appearing items don't randomize the results of a match...hc interesting. So are you saying that though they are admittedly random, this somehow doesn't effect the outcome in ANY way? Your poker example can easily be used for my side of the argument. There is a distinct and quite random aspect to poker. Over the long run the players who are skilled and intelligent will in all probability pull ahead, make a good deal of money. However, at any given time, in any given sitting, itfs very uncertain whether or not any player will win. Even the best poker player in the world can lose to the lowliest shmuck that just picked up a deck on any hand. This isn't true with any real sport or competitive enterprise. You take the best tennis player in the world, against some random guy who knows the rules, and the laterfs chances of winning are basically 0%. As it should be, this is what separates competitive games from party games.

And as to your statements that arguing intentions is futile, and using strats in arguments is meaningless, I must disagree with both. It is entirely valid to argue intentions, in my opinion, if you are presented with or can present enough contextual evidence to support your assumptions. And as for strats, some are simply more effective than others. That's all there is to it. This is up for debate, of course, but you would be hard-pressed to make a case for certain ones. I can firmly say that it is more effective and optimized to powershield projectiles than to shield regularly for instance, and peoples ignorance of the terms have nothing to do with the cogency of the argument.

I agree, they may indeed have intended it as a party game. And it is the consensus that the speedier characters are intrinsically advantaged. If this was intentional, it's still meaningless as far as tournaments are concerned. FFA tournaments are a joke (once again I point to Mattdeezie's thread.), as in so many ways they aren't conducive to the tourney environment. If the slow characters are disadvantaged in one on one, then they simply make crappy tournament characters, and you aren't optimizing your chances if you take them to such. Likewise, their potential party game intentions have no effect on how the game is most optimally configured for tournament play. I realize that this reiterates what I have said in a prior paragraph to an extent, but I think it must be stressed.

And finally, no, the best player shouldn't win every time, as that's not the way the world works. I'm better than my brother. Do I win every time? No, I win a large percentage of the time. It is the same way with sports. The best team, or man, will sometimes be felled by mediocrity... but as a general rule, the obvious instead happens. Items simply slur the results by wildly effecting the probability of flukes occurring.

Simplify? This statement is comparative. It decreases the complexity very slightly. If you take into account the complexity lended by each of the features and their integration, taking out the items is like the inverse of adding the proverbial drop to the ocean. The game is already so complex without that I think your baseball analogy totally inappropriate and indicative that you don't truly appreciate the game for what it is otherwise.

 

[Eoraptor]

Okay, 1psemet. I've done some digging. First of all, both Zethar II's website and his pertinent posts on the IGN boards have been taken offline. So his translations are lost. As you note, Altavista's translation is of little help, but doesn't indicate anything that would suggest Captain Falcon's star rod abilities are to balance out his character. After some research, I discovered that the idea originated with IGN, in their article based on HAL's update-
http://cube.ign.com/articles/097/097087p1.html
In this, IGN says "Since he's primarily a hand-to-hand combatant, Nintendo has given him the added ability of having a two-stage attack with projectile weapons (at least the Japanese Smash Bros. website makes no indication of this for other characters, so bear in mind this is an assumption)." So it appears IGN has added purpose to what HAL reported. I retract my statement regarding evidence of HAL utilizing items to balance characters. A good question to ask would be why only Captain Falcon and Sheik have extra item abilities. Or are there others? And are these abilities associated with character qualities in any way? If so, we might infer they were used to balance those qualities.

The other issue may well be insoluable, it resting on concepts such as "meaningfulness" and "fundamentality". These are subjective of course, so I could not prove items to possess more of these traits than other aspects. What makes an aspect more meaningful or fundamental? You claim the difference is because "all characters have them, and can use them at any given time". All characters can use items as well. All characters cannot wall jump though. Nor can all characters spike. All characters cannot triple jump. All characters cannot use projectiles. Are these aspects any less meaningful or fundamental because of this? Similarly, you cannot utilize many aspects "at any given time", as many require certain conditions just as items do. In the case of items, you must grab the item first of course. In the case of spike recoveries, you have to be spiked first. To tech, you have to be flying at a surface. Other actions have randomized results that don't let you choose when to use them. Peach's >Asmash and Mr. Game and Watch's B are examples. Not that any of this matters of course, because meaningfulness and fundamentality are subjective and not the main issue at hand when tournament play is concerned. And when it comes to the latter issue, I agree with you that the randomness added by items makes them unpreferrable.

 

[Scamp]

Ooh! More points!

I'm no poker expert, but from a few books I've read from professional poker players they say the odds for the random schmuck winning s practically zero. If you meant the random schmuck can win one hand, well that's true. But the person playing against the best tennis player in the world can win one point as well. Just as the schmuck won't ever win a series of games, the weaker tennis player won't win a series of games.

This argument seems kind of silly.

Anyway, since we're arguing strats and situations now, what about this: We're on Fourside, I'm Fox and my opponent's Mario. Mario is on the lower right building at 100 percent and one life left. I'm on the right side of the central building with 100 percent and one life left too. Neither one of us wants to move. Neither of us does move. What happens now?

Another point I'd like to make reflects one of your own points. You say items don't belong in a tourney environment because of flawed results. Well.....

"It's been said that this random element is a part of the game, as you can see from the hazards in most stages. Hazards, though, differ in one major respect. They aren't, in fact, actually random. There are always clues and warning far before they occur. If you watch a stage for long enough you will realize that in almost all cases, there are not only warnings, but that the hazards only occur at distinct times, or after distinct intervals. Thus you can easily avoid all of them with simple memorization. "

Copied and pasted! Yeah!
Hazards, timed or not, change the results of a game. Are you going to tell someone that they lost on Big Blue because they didn't memorize he stage well enough, or that they got shot by an arwing on Corneria because they weren't listening for audio cues? And we can make the argument that one stage isn't equally fair to everyone, so what can you do about the stages to not skew the tourney results?
Also throw into the mix human error. Accidentally airdodging off the stage, holding down and pushing A trying to crouch cancel but instead you do your down A arial attack to your doom, missing the edge for some inexplicable reason, falling to your death because you thought you had a third jump, and so on. These all are player errors, and they'll greatly skew the results of a tourney, just like a random bob-omb will.

There is a reason I'm bringing this all up! My point is this: Items don't slur the results that much. I believe the change is basically negligible. If the results will vary that wildly because of items, then I'd argue against them in tournaments. But I don't believe they affect the outcome of the game that much. Basically the only modifier I look at is this: The more stock you play, the less randomness you get. In Cello's 10-stock best of three single elim tourney, only 5 matches went more than 2 rounds in the entire tournament.

Also, as I mentioned in my earlier post but perhaps not so well, while the items give a chance for a flawed victory, they can also help the better player come back from such an event. Or, they could help the better player get a flawed victory as well if the worse player is just having one of those games where he's actually winning. You make it sound like flawed victories only favor the weaker player.

But, you make some very good points, and for the record I didn't take any hostility from your arguments and I hope you don't see any in mine. As is, I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that a player that is the best ever at 1-on-1 with the items off might not be the best ever at 1-on-1 with the items on as well. If you prefer to play with the items off, that's fine by me, I just don't think they are erratic enough to exclude from all tournaments or to make it so that the results of a tourney with items aren't noteworthy.

 

[1psemet]

Well Eoraptor, thanks for bothering to make sure that all of the claims that you make regarding tangible documents and numbers are actually backed up. Faulty information and non-existent documentation have doubtlessly been the downfall of many an argument.

In regards to my statement "all characters have them, and can use them at any given time", I was perhaps too vague. I was referring to dodging, powershielding, triple jumping (all characters but Yoshi fall into this, and he was obviously balanced to some extent by his amazing double jump, and the fact that he can dodge in place of triple jumping), teching, charging smashes, things independent of the characters move repertoire. And at any given time meaning at any given time that it's applicable. These follow simple rules (on ground for shield, hitting ground for tech, etc.) and can be easily anticipated. I'm sure you see how this distinguishes them from items.

Of course, however, the argument is fundamentally insoluble, as it isn't firmly enough grounded in facts to prove or disprove rigorously (though I still think I'm right... not surprising). I would still be interested in seeing a refutation of the above paragraph, for debatefs sake.

We are fundamentally in the same camp though, as long as you admit, as you have, that items do increase randomness to some extent, so upsetting the balance at any given time, and thus slewing the results. I would like to stress once again: I'm not saying items are bad. I'm not saying items don't require a good deal of skill to use properly. I'm not saying that they even effect the odds by a huge extent, but merely that they do, and so aren't appropriate.

Well Scamp, when you get down to it, any argument utilizing analogies is fundamentally flawed and can be proven inappropriate on some level. Ah well, such is life. Ignoring this, I will continue trying to defend mine:

I'm doubtless much less of a poker expert than yourself (judging from the fact that you've apparently read books on such), but it is, Ifm sure a consensus can be gathered, still distinctly more random than tennis. The difference is that this shmuck has a basically zero chance to pull ahead in the long run, but the tennis noob has a zero percent chance of winning a single match. In poker the only time scale used that Ifm aware of is the hand. How this pertains to tournament is thus: We have the poker champ and shmuck, the tennis pro and chump. Theyfre in a situation like the finals of a tournament. For poker, they'll play best of three hands, and for tennis they'll play best of three matches. If you had to wager your life on the outcome of one of these, your survival is much more assured with the latter, betting on the pro, than any other option. This I correlate to matches with items, and matches without.

And for your situation, Ifve been in equivalents many times (Ifve actually been in that exact situation, only it was Samus and Fox). There are multiple ways for either player to get an advantage on the other. These mostly include being the aggressor, dodging or otherwise avoiding the campers attack, and retaliating. I've found that in these situations, while not certain, the aggressor usually triumphs. I can see your argument, however. On a stock match without items or time limit, then there is fundamentally no incentive for either to do anything (though I do truly believe it to be most effective to be offensive). The natural urge is to not act until one has a distinct advantage. This is by far the strongest argument for items in tournaments in my opinion, and also one against it.

The Pro-items side is, of course, that it helps to break any stalemate. The No-items side is that, when this happens with items, it happens because one player is given an advantage of some sort by an item happening to appear next to him instead of his opponent.

The solution to this may sound somewhat arbitrary, but is still preferable to items in most cases from my viewpoint. Thinking on this situation, youfll find that it's necessary to provide external impetus. I believe that the best thing to do, when confronted such is to tell the contestants that unless they finish the match (or at least break any stalemate) within a certain time that they both forfeit the match. If it's the last one, then the winnings go to the third and fourth place finishers instead. This is distinctly different than merely imposing a time limit, for reasons that Ifm sure all of you realize.

Your next paragraph prompts a few in response. First, in regards to the hazards. Yes, you could, and should tell a player that if they lose. They will realize that they only have themselves to blame, from not knowing the stage intimately enough, and ignoring cues. If, on the other hand, a bomb-omb appears and screws them... they have some sort of random item generating unit inside the cube to blame. Basically, the hazards represent something that can depended upon to be in the stage, and obvious ways to avoid them all exist. Not so with items.

And as for stages skewing the tourney results, I havenft addressed this here due to the fact that I went over it extensively in my other thread ("which settings most fairly determine comparative skill"), and it doesn't directly relate to items in tournaments. The thread referred to above argues for all of the other variables, but since items are by far the most controversial, they got their own topic. I will however give a synopsis. The solution to this is to have the first stage random, followed by which the loser picks. The only real improvement that you could have is either having an agreement between players on the stage to play on, or which stages to eliminate from the random stage select. But, as said, this doesn't really relate to items.

The difference between player errors and bomb-ombs is the same as the difference between hazards and items. This is the playerfs fault. If he loses because of this, he has only himself to blame. Essentially, he deserves to lose because he made a mistake, while in the other situation his loss is through no fault of his own.

I agree on high stock matches (once again though, please refer to my other thread for debate on this, Ifm trying to keep this focused, so it does not fall into the same sad state as the prior items thread), and think that they should be mandatory, at least in the finals.

This is the reason why we differ fundamentally, and the real stem of this argument, our perception of how much items make matches fluctuate from the norm. I believe it high, you believe it low. My belief on this is grounded in my experience with items, as presumably yours is. When I turn them on, the results just go out the window, but more importantly, it seems to bring everything to more of an uncertain outcome. The results of the matches move towards the 50% side of the spectrum. I would like to hear how you have experiences that differ, for perhaps that will help this debate. I will explain my experiences, and I would like to hear what others are.

In my playgroup, we have a pretty good idea of how skilled everyone is compared to each other (besides two of us, who rarely play each other). Sheik beats Pikachu about 66% of the time, Samus beats Sheik 80 something percent, Pikachu and Samus both beats Falcon around 75%, Fox beats Samus around 50%, and so on. This is spread throughout the majority of the stages, and pretty **** consistent. We usually play stock ten, but recently have moved to stock three and the results remain the same. Always best two of three no-items. When items are turned on, the uncertainty skyrockets, and it's mostly anyonefs guess as to who will win. I would like to preemptively say that NO; this is not because we are all incompetent with items. We have plenty of practice with them, as we play FFA and Teams with them, as well as the challenges and single player. Its not that this shifts the balance of the apparently superior playerc it simple makes it much less discernible who they are. The results arenft consistent to the same level, or even close, that they werec for anybody.



PS: I never said that they should be banned from all tournaments, nor that they obviate the results entirely. I think in team tournaments or FFA that they're fine. 1 vs. 1 is simply a different story. And if someone wins a big tournament, and they had items on, you can still conclude that they were probably the best... just without the same certainty as you could have otherwise. I still have respect for the winners of the TG's for instance, but I don't think that the data is as reliable as it could be.

 

[game and kirby]

Well, Ipsemet, I must admire the amount of time you spend arguing, and that you argue even after the debate has been denigrated to a discussion on poker and other such interminably thick matters. I would simply like to point out a few things:
The amount of skill needed to use for items is actually rather easy to observe. All of the weapons, as in bashing items(Home Run Bat, Beamsword, Parasol, Lip's Stick, Fan.) and any thrown item (bob-omb, crate,and yes, Mr. Saturn) shooting items(Super Scope, Ray gun, Fire Flower) And some miscellaneous items as well (warp star, metal box) are all indicative of skill by the simple fact that it takes some measure of skill to effectively wield them. Per se, items like the starman and the cloaking device take no skill to use . Pick and go. (There are myriad arguments which could be raised on how to get to them, or how to exploit their advantage, but the effect is basically the same.) All recovery items favor who gets there first, but in my opinion, even speedy characters will be beaten at a race to an item by teleporters. Thus these items should be removed. It is quite simple.
On the note of stages, all stages are also indicative of skill, and although the player who has memorised the stage will sometimes avoid hazards, cues and camera changes will always alert even a newbie what is happening.If he is incapable of acting on that information , he is not very skilled. The hazards happen at strategic intervals which ensure that the memoriser will never have an advantage which skews the skill curve of the player compared to the opponent.
As for HAL and the producers, speculation is futile, unless one of us actually goes out and asks them, an unlikely occurance. Refer to my comments about Pichu in other threads.

 

[Recipherus]

hmm, i have a few things to comment on.

This is the reason why we differ fundamentally, and the real stem of this argument, our perception of how much items make matches fluctuate from the norm.

I believe we're trying to argue what is the norm.

I'm doubtless much less of a poker expert than yourself (judging from the fact that you've apparently read books on such), but it is, Ifm sure a consensus can be gathered, still distinctly more random than tennis. The difference is that this shmuck has a basically zero chance to pull ahead in the long run, but the tennis noob has a zero percent chance of winning a single match. In poker the only time scale used that Ifm aware of is the hand. How this pertains to tournament is thus: We have the poker champ and shmuck, the tennis pro and chump. Theyfre in a situation like the finals of a tournament. For poker, they'll play best of three hands, and for tennis they'll play best of three matches. If you had to wager your life on the outcome of one of these, your survival is much more assured with the latter, betting on the pro, than any other option. This I correlate to matches with items, and matches without.

best out of three hands are you kidding me? I also read a book on poker (specifically texas holdem) and the usual way of deciding a match is when one player is out of money, this is why the schmuck has a 0% chance of winning. This is why the best players make it to the end of a tourny year after year.

anyway, i made a sort of discovery. I don't know if this is common knowledge or not but items don't apear at random places only random times (and even that remains to be tested). This is huge. That means you can play in such a way that at any given moment an item is more likely to apear closer to you then your opponent. I'm definitely going to incorporate this into my game now. yes that's right, i'm going to memorize exactly where items apear on every stage.

Simplify? This statement is comparative. It decreases the complexity very slightly. If you take into account the complexity lended by each of the features and their integration, taking out the items is like the inverse of adding the proverbial drop to the ocean. The game is already so complex without that I think your baseball analogy totally inappropriate and indicative that you don't truly appreciate the game for what it is otherwise.

We both agree that it does simplify the game, it's a matter of opinion on how much. I used the baseball/football analogy because it was a simple analogy, although i do believe turning items off significantly simplifies the game. Let me give you yet another analogy. The best checkers cpu can win or draw everygame. The best chess cpu rivals that of the best human player. The best GO cpu can't even touch the best human player, why? GO is played on a 19x19 board, the possibilities are too great for even the strongest of cpu's. When a game is played to a hardcore mastery extent even just a few extra variables make the game sooo much more complex.

And as to your statements that arguing intentions is futile, and using strats in arguments is meaningless, I must disagree with both. It is entirely valid to argue intentions, in my opinion, if you are presented with or can present enough contextual evidence to support your assumptions. And as for strats, some are simply more effective than others. That's all there is to it. This is up for debate, of course, but you would be hard-pressed to make a case for certain ones. I can firmly say that it is more effective and optimized to powershield projectiles than to shield regularly for instance, and peoples ignorance of the terms have nothing to do with the cogency of the argument.

No, you can't conclude whether items give any advantage at all to either characters with/ without projectiles because you'd have to provide strats to do so and you can't use strats in a good argument, let me explain why. OK, here's the situation a bunch of players that SUCK are playing streetfighter against each other. All they do is mash the buttons when they fight. Because of this results of matches are usually split. One of these players eventually get wise and picks up a simple yet effective ( at least between these players) strat. Let's say the strat is using only fierce punch ( just for argument's sake). Suddenly, the player who is using this new strat is winning most of the matches. Between these players the best strat is going up to your opponent and fierce punching him. Now if this strat was tried in a different gaming community it would probably not fare that well. This is why strats can't be used in arguments, you can't conclusively prove their effectiveness. You can never say
" some strats are just more effective then others" sure, maybe in your gaming environment. What would be ok to say is " From what i've seen this strategy tends to do better then others" A good strat to you may be laughed at somewhere else. The best human player could get creamed by some martian who busts out a strat never even thought of before. remember, this argument ( at least for me) is for tourny's with hardcore comp. if it were a newb tourny then fine, turn off the items.

This brings me to my next point, the apearence of randomness. Ok, so we go back to the sucky players. As we watch two particular players play we ask them "so, out of you two, who usually wins" and as they are sitting there mashing the buttons they say " eh, it's usually 50/50, this game is pretty random". Well, of course it's random to them, with the way they play. I don't want to offend anyone but when someone tells me they play without items religiously i consider them kinda noobish ( btw before TG1 i was anti-items as well). It just tells me they haven't challenged themselves to reach that next level.

another point, we can't even prove that items given an advantage to the holder( save items like stars, hearts, and tomatoes) you'd have to provide strats to do so and we know that that isn't allowed, hehe. how many times at TG did i see someone holding an item get rocked because he couldn't block throw or do smash attacks.

As for the stalemate, i would think that one player is more likely to get items then the other ( i can't prove this yet because i haven't memorized all the places where items apear on everystage). If both players aren't confident enough to fight eachother and both want to wait on the ends of the map waiting for an item then fine. When they do this they both should realize that they're leaving the result of the match to chance ( to some extent) and should not be dissatisfied with the results regardless of who wins. Although the player who is on the side of the stage that has more item drop points will have a better chance of getting an item.

 

[1psemet]

Thank you game an kirby. It's my opinion that anything worth arguing about, is worth doing so to the bitter end. The only reason why this isn't the case is when your opposition actually stops arguing, and closes their ears. As, though Ifm distinctly in the minority, everyone is remaining coherent it's still not done.

For your first statement, perhaps. If a consensus could be reached on the validity of this (I personally agree), then it would vastly improve the tournament environment. I've avoided this train of thought as it adds another layer of complexity to the argument, not to mention that "discussion" of this exact sort is what made the old thread so intolerable for me, and doubtlessly others. All that needs be said is that even among those items you leave, there is still a disparity in utility that would make them nearly impossible to agree on. Otherwise you and me seem to be in complete synchrony of beliefs.

And, of course, your comments spark an energetic point-for-point rebuttal. First of all, as to that first statement... our quotes are remarkably similar in both a grammatical sense and obviously in meaning as well. The point of this statement is confusing.

Back to the analogies. Did I ever say that this was how it was done in the poker world? Certainly not. It's probably not done so in the tennis world either. This isn't the point. Obviously you can see how I drew the simplest parallel between these games and the way that SSBM tournaments, which are quite fundamentally different in several ways. Perhaps we have reached the level at which this particular analogy breaks down, as is inevitable. In which case I suppose it should be dropped. Different games, different methods.

And for your item discovery, this would indeed add some more strategy. However, if items still appear at random (though distinct) spawn points scattered throughout the stage, at random times, it still doesn't effect much. Already the tactic to use if you are trying to maximize your potential to get items is make sure that the majority of the stage lies at your back, and this would presumably remain unchanged, as the spawn points are probably fairly evenly distributed.

Well, we once again run across this fundamental disparity, so back we go to the war of analogies, eventually, no doubt, simply proving to everyone how meaningless they are. Anyway, as to your statement: you seem to ignore the fact that, between those games you speak of, there is a progression not of small increments in complexity, but multiples. Checkers is ridiculously simplistic compared to chess, and chess to go. Go more than doubles the size of the playing field, and the combined effect of the MANY extra elements make it the vastly more complex game. So you are saying that the addition of items is as important as all of the other factors combined? That it is equivalent to a multiple of complexity? Even the most hard-core (though still rational), item fan is guaranteed to disagree with that assessment.

This concept you have of strats to arguments is truly confusing. You CAN say, "this strat is more effective than that one". There are fundamentals, methods obviously inferior to others. Compare this mans simple one button punching strat. You can say, without fear of contradiction, that the strat of "Utilizing all of the moves at different times, when I have concluded that they are most effective. Observing my opponents playstile, taking advantage of obvious weaknesses and tendencies to repeat strategies by employing the counter strategy that is built into the game mechanics". Strategies aren't, by definition, either simple or rigid. And on a smaller scale, certain ones can be empirically proven to be superior. Take "whenever I am about to get hit with a projectile, and am on the ground, I shield.h compared to "whenever I am about to get hit with a projectile, and am on the ground, I powershield it.". If you have the skill to pull off the later, you can easily demonstrate that it is superior in every way, and in no gaming community would this change. Therefore they are valid targets for argumentation, as they can be tested. You can go through just about every possible play-style and opposition that it might encounter, and see it's weaknesses.

You could also go to two greatly, and equally, skilled people, and ask them "so, who wins most often?". They could then say "well, when you account for the random fluctuations caused by items, it's about fifty-fifty, with me being favored slightly due to my characters innate speed.". Of course it's not completely random to them, they are aware of all of the different aspects that effect it, one of which is randomness. This isn't a valid argument, for either of us, so strikes me as meaningless. And your statement that no-items are noobish is likewise pointless. Conversely, I could say that I consider people who use items regularly to be noobish, never realizing how the randomness messes with the results, and havenft challenged themselves to play without said crutch. I havenft, though, and I won't, because it isn't constructive.

Refer to the above paragraph on how allowable strats are. You can still block while holding items, and it is perhaps provable that those people were simply inferior to their opponents, or that this was entirely situational, can't say without information that is unobtainable.

And the stalemate again... indeed, this is what you would say to them with items on. With items off, and my solution, you would say "you both knowingly forfeited the match when you refused to do anything, and so should not be dissatisfied with the results". Once again though, this isn't really an argument for either of our cases on the subject at hand.

 

[Recipherus]

you keep insisting that you can strats in a argument but i still say you can't. Let's use your powershiel example. you say whenever you're about to get hit with a projectile powershielding is better then just strait up blocking, this isn't true. Let's look at the differences. When you block, your shield get's smaller and, depending on the item/projectile thrown you get pushed back a little ways. There are situations where blocking and getting pushed back would be better then p shielding and reflecting the item. like maybe you're near the ledge of a stage and you got a starmie getting ready to fire on you and your opponent throws a green shell at you. if you power shield you'll stay there and then get hit up by the starmie, if you block and the timing is right you'll get pushed off the stage to hang off the ledge while the starmie is shooting above you. You can always find a flaw in a strat no matter how small, this is why so many arguments involving strat in ssbm sound like this
joe: oh, but if you do that then i'll do this
jeb: but if you do that then i'll do this
joe:good, that will allow me to do this... and so on

When you try to prove something with strats someone is going to try to disprove you with their own strats. Then the argument becomes a sort of ssbm online game, except the game isn't played with a GC it's played with words. This is why i refuse to try to refute your ideas of character balance and items using my own strats. Again, the only way we'll be able to make any conclusion about character balance and items is if we contact the designers of the game.

And for your item discovery, this would indeed add some more strategy. However, if items still appear at random (though distinct) spawn points scattered throughout the stage, at random times, it still doesn't effect much. Already the tactic to use if you are trying to maximize your potential to get items is make sure that the majority of the stage lies at your back, and this would presumably remain unchanged, as the spawn points are probably fairly evenly distributed.

IMO you're way off on this. i predict that when the idea of dominating an area of the stage that has more item drop points becomes excepted in the gaming community we'll see drastic change in play ( I get excited at the thought of how intense and precise matches will become). Can you imagine the kind of crazy strats that will become of it. Like, maybe two players who used to just go at it for the entire match and just pick up a item if it was there will now play totally different. For example, maybe a player has pushed the other player towards the edge of the stage, where as he used to run after him hoping to knock him out, he'll now just stand there confident in his odds of getting an item. I already know it's going to be a huge factor in the games against my brother now.

Well, we once again run across this fundamental disparity, so back we go to the war of analogies, eventually, no doubt, simply proving to everyone how meaningless they are. Anyway, as to your statement: you seem to ignore the fact that, between those games you speak of, there is a progression not of small increments in complexity, but multiples. Checkers is ridiculously simplistic compared to chess, and chess to go. Go more than doubles the size of the playing field, and the combined effect of the MANY extra elements make it the vastly more complex game. So you are saying that the addition of items is as important as all of the other factors combined? That it is equivalent to a multiple of complexity? Even the most hard-core (though still rational), item fan is guaranteed to disagree with that assessment.

Again, i used this analogy because it was simple, plz don't take my analogies so literally. It's ment to show that increasing variables in a game exponentially increase the possiblities of play. Which is true for items. Also, what do you know about the most hard-core item fans? guaranteed to disagree, what? Now you're just assuming.

You could also go to two greatly, and equally, skilled people, and ask them "so, who wins most often?". They could then say "well, when you account for the random fluctuations caused by items, it's about fifty-fifty, with me being favored slightly due to my characters innate speed.". Of course it's not completely random to them, they are aware of all of the different aspects that effect it, one of which is randomness.

i don't understand what you're trying to prove here. you go up to two people and ask them their opinion on the game? i'm lost. What i showed in the last post was that what people see as random may not always be so. They just may not be skilled enough to figure out how the supposed "random" game needs to be played.

also, what exactly is your argument? is it that items randomize the game so that the best player may lose to a worse player? In my experience, if i play someone w/o items and beat them and then play them with items i beat them with the same consistency if not more. the same goes for other players i know ( although i don't believe this is valid argument backing information i thought it was worth mentioning). I predict that by incorparating item hogging into the game it will further increase the consistency of wins for the "better" player over the worse player.

 

[1psemet]

Once again I am forced to disagree with your assessment that utilizing strats in arguments isnft valid. Three primary refutations of your rebuttal come to mind. You say that powershielding cannot be said to be fundamentally superior due to the fact that in certain contrived and extenuating circumstances, the reverse is marginally true. First, I note what Ifm sure that everyone agrees with (while this isnft taken from a large sampling, itfs so basic and difficult to disagree with that I feel confident stating it), that in the VAST majority of situations, powershielding beats out shielding. There are probably several others than the one that you named, but they are an insignificantly small percentage. Secondly, simply because it is possible to have the situation reversed, doesnft prove much of a flaw. You will NEVER come into a situation where, playing someone new, he goes gPowershielding, eh? Ifll take advantage of the fact that he has this powershield reflex by making it so that itfs disadvantageous. I will do so by depending on the randomly appearing items to generate a poke-ball out of all of the potential options, for another item to appear in such a way that it will be convenient to grab it immediately after I throw the poke-ball, depend on said pokeball to randomly generate a starmee out of all of the potential pokemon, and for the opponent to stand conveniently near the edge while the starmee aligns so that he is in a situation where he dare not powershieldh. Basically, there isnft a flaw because it cannot be thwarted by any COUNTERSTRAT, but only by a combination of improbable happenings. Whereas the other strat has obvious weaknesses. You can simply say gSo, he shields whenever a projectile comes his wayc Ifll simply continue to pummel him with them until his shield breaks.h. And lastly, I was keeping the strats as simple as possible. You could make the situation even more unbalance in fundamental superiority by saying gwhenever a projectile is about to hit me, I powershield. Except when a combination of situations conspire to make it counterproductive, at which point I will dodge, shield normally, or otherwise extricate myself from said situationh. This is, in every conceivable way, superior to the strat of gwhenever a projectile is about to hit me, I will shield. Disregarding any other consideration.h. As I said, this couldnft be thwarted by a counterstrat, therefore that argument is mute.

Perhaps I am underestimating the impact of your item discovery on the community at large. As Ifve stated, however, the best people already have an intuitive grasp of this and already employ this in their tactics. Only time will tell. Ifm not belittling your discovery, and look forward to seeing the results from it (if you ever post them), merely saying that I donft think that itfs a consideration at the highest levels of competitive play.

I realize the fundamental problem with using analogies, Recipherus, and have stated it a few times already. Using analogies to demonstrate your point thus is a tactic that is meant to confer your side of looking at the situation by presenting a simplified, and exaggerated view of said situation. I obviously have to refute it, however, to demonstrate that it doesnft serve as an unbiased and direct correlation. Any analogy that is false (fundamentally: all of them), should be proved such and not used in a reasonable argument. Simply refrain from using them if you dislike my tacticsc but know that they arenft personal, nor do they stem from being oblivious or stupid.

And as for stating that all but a certain amount of any population is bound to disagree can be firmly statistical. You could say with certainty that all but the most addicted donft think that (illegal, pleasure inducing) drugs are necessary for a happy, fulfilled life. Itfs a perfectly valid argument if the conclusion is indeed sufficiently obvious.

What I was attempting to demonstrate was the reverse of what you were. You were showing that something that seems random isnft always necessarily so. I was arguing that something that may not seem to be random on some levels may ACTUALLY be so, and that some people might simply not be skilled or perceptive enough to recognize this.

For the point of my argument, Ifve already stated several aspects of it in excruciating detail. Please refer above for the details, though I will provide a synopsis. Ifm saying that items randomize the results in such a fashion that the increase the uncertainty of the outcome. My experiences (based off of direct observation of how the matches sway within my playgroup), differ markedly from that (refer to my prior post for details). The only way that we could prove that it was either way would be to test it using a random playgroup that met certain criteria and so make the results unbiased. This could be set up, and I may well attempt to do so (certainly will if I ever run a tourney), it is currently unfeasible and so not pertinent to the argument. I have done so to my rigorous satisfaction using my playgroup, but results may of course vary.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

A simple solution

here's an easy solution. We experiment.

Reciph touched on what the conclusion of the experiment would be, but let's do it for real.

We will begin by making logical assumptions to determine who should do the experiment.

Reciph's argument is that those skilled with items make their randomness negligible. 1psemet says that he is skilled with items, and it does make a difference.

If we assume 1psemet is actually skilled with items, he wins the argument. Items do increase randomness too much, which is evident because good players (1psemet) encounter more randomness with items on. Of course, this would mean that Reciph (who claims that items on/off barely affects his outcomes) must completely suck with them (if he was good than he would be able to use the items to his advantage and skew the results).

So let us assume instead that 1psemet is not skilled with items. Who is, then? Well, TG is the big item community, and Reciph is the champ of it. Thus, Reciph, if anybody can be, should be "good with items".

So...let us experiment. Reciph can play a whole lot of matches with his closest competition. They will use new names to record statistics. Matches will be fought on a specific hazardless stage to minimize all other randomness and make the experiment as specific to items as possible. One name will be for items on, one name will be for items off. At the end, we will see if the win percentages are noticably skewed. I think this would come close to settling the argument.

The only problem I could see with this would be Reciph being "biased" due to wanting items on and subconsciously he makes himself perform equally somehow where he normally wouldn't in the tests. I think this is obviously a slim possibility.

Of course, this all hinges on Reciph actually agreeing to perform the test.

For the record, I agree with 1psemet that strats can be used in arguments...to some degree. Powershielding is obviously a strat which neutralizes the effect of giving the projectileless some balance. The problem is that obviously there have never been any players who can powershield that regularly (except Mista Sinista, who we can't trust due to him never playing anyone else and the fact that he's the ONLY one. It just casts some doubt on his claims). So yeah...a strat argument like that would be viable...except nobody can do that strat, making it moot. Since 1psemet was getting into detailed strategies, let's imagine this one:

"I will never perform any move that leaves me open for a move from the opposing player. Whenever the opponent tries to do a move to me, I will powershield it and counterattack because the powershield has no recovery time."

This strategy could obviously never be hit. Does that mean we can stop debating over which character is better than which, because all characters could do this strategy and thus be unstoppable? No, because the strategy isn't feasible.

Another thing:

1psemet, you said how hazards aren't a problem because they aren't in fact random. Now, I'm not 100% certain, so correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't some random? Isn't Brinstar Depths random in the direction and magnitude of which it spins? (Or else I am too dense and never noticed whatever pattern there is after all this time) Isn't it random as to where the Arwing decides to come from? Don't the tools in Flat Zone fall randomly? etc. etc.
(strike these down if they're wrong, I don't have a whole lot of play experience)
The point is, hazards are mainly non-random but have a certain random element.
I would say items are the same way...
They are random in that you don't know what item will appear...
They are random in that you don't know where they will appear (Only slightly so- you know it will be at a spawn point)
They are random in what time they appear (again only slightly so...they tend to appear every X seconds, give or take a couple. They actually appear with a decent amount of regularity.
So you essentially know when they will appear...you know approximately where they will appear...The only thing you REALLY aren't sure about to a big degree is what it will be. But you do know it will almost certainly be useful...so who cares what exactly it is? You've essentially cut out most of the randomness, if you are on top of things. The only real worries are suddenly appearing bob-ombs, things of that nature...HARMFUL random items.

-B

 

[1psemet]

Well put, and thoroughly agreeable in majority. I would certainly appreciate some empirical data, as, as you said, it would help this argument out immensely. Though there is another possibility that would lead to unreliable results, besides Reciph subconsciously changing tactics. This is not meant as a slur on Reciph's character, nor am I suggesting that he would actually do so, but seeing as how I don't know the fellow I have no evidence that he wouldn't simply be dishonest about the results. I would wish to perform this experiment, and would accept the results as truthful, as he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt. Just thought it worth mentioning.

However, I, having confidence in my ability with items, and my playgroup, will perform an independent test amongst all of us and I will post the results here when I get them (won't be for a couple days. Some of my playgroup actually live quite a ways away and thus experimentation requires time.). These results, if wildly varying from Recipherus's, could be viewed to be of secondary import due to my lack of proven skill... but another set of data never hurt anything, and Ifm willing to be that it will be consistent.

As for the settings that this should be played on, a couple things to say. First of all, it's not necessary that he or his opponent use different names, as long as they clearly distinguish which matches are which. Secondly, I must note that the amount of stock that they play on will effect the results. If they play on stock three (settings of the TG's), then, according to my reasoning, the results will vary more than if they played on, say, stock ten. So, I would suggest stock three for this reason. Furthermore, it would be helpful if this was tested with them using multiple people so that we could see the variance (if it exists) due to character speed that is so commonly cited.

This all depends on, as Bumble bee tuna points out, Recipherus's cooperation. If for some reason he is unwilling or unable to do such, then perhaps someone else would volunteer to do so to offer a comparison to the data that I will produce.

In regards to your comments on strats Bumble bee tuna, we are in complete agreement. I was not utilizing this particular strat as something that was feasible (I certainly couldn't do it), but merely to illustrate that some can obviously be seen to be superior to others, and are thus valid for arguing. Less extreme examples can be considered, and are also valuable, though by their nature of not being as extreme, more arguable. I think that the other example that I cited originally is a perfect example of such.

As to the hazards... you may well have me there. Good points you make. I didn't add enough qualifiers, nor specify enough exactly what I meant as it pertains to the different hazards. Most of them are negligibly random (Onnets car, Mute City's track, etc.), whereas others do have a distinct element of such. I cannot attest to Flat Zone's randomness, as I very rarely play the stage. But barring perhaps that, they are in key ways less random. In Brinstar for instance, the factors are direction, and spin length (perhaps they aren't really random, but we'll assume they are). The first variable has two possible answers, and the second also only has a couple (not sure exactly how many, but the stage only orients itself in certain ways). This is much less of a consideration than the many spawn points an item can appear at, and the occurrence of which item out of the large selection of such (as well as to which pokemon after a pokeball is generated), and the variation in their utility. Some of which are immensely powerful (Hearts), some which can actually be detrimental (bomb-omb).




A side note, if the strategy that you speak of was employed by both characters, what would the outcome be? A very boring match of infinite length, where no one ever got hit. The solution is that first of all, you can't powershield throws (throws entire point being that they are unshieldable, really), and that so you would have to dodge and maneuver, while keeping yourself impervious, and try to throw them, or wait for them to mess up. Incidentally, I believe that the speedier character would prevail, but this isn't really pertinent to the argument at hand.

 

[Scamp]

Testing and such.

I got a good grade in statistics. It was pretty much the only class I liked to stay awake in that semester. People think I'm weird.

Anyway, I cannot begin to get into the factors that'll invalidate this experiment you plan for Recipherus to do. On top of that, Recipherus and his friends would have to play some 100 matches or else there'll be a strong margin of error you'd have to apply to the results.
Plus, there's the inevitable trust issue. Who's to say someone won't change their results to support their argument because of embarrassment? Hmmmm.....?
Finally, what's being proven? If the stats are way off, then it might be because one player is simply better with the items, instead of it being just the items that cause the change.

Also, in general, recovery items are considered too gamebreaking by some, including myself. I also like to take them off for casual play because it's extremely frustrating to rack up damage with 3 or 4 combos only to have everything erased with a heart. 100 percent is killing range, that's almost like an extra life. I bet if you take off the heart and maxim tomato it'll make our arguments a lot closer, as these items are the only ones that'll give a significant advantage to whoever can get them first.

BTW, I don't think the random bob-omb appearing is really that bad. You're only going to die if you're around 70 percent or more, unless you're hanging around the edges or some other dangerous place. Once you get up that high you're only a few hits away from death range anyway.

Are you really going to kick two people out of a tournament just because they refuse to fight? What'll eventually happen is that someone will have to attack, and that person will probably lose and end up mad. (There's a reason why they aren't moving. I don't believe the attacker has the advantage attacking a small platform, especially if the attacker is Fox and the defender is Link.) It hardly seems fair to force someone into a disadvantageous position. But, i guess this is off-topic, like you said. Maybe cause for a new thread?

Anyway, getting back to the point.....wait, I lost track of the point now. Uncertainty of the outcome? Exactly how uncertain is the outcome? You never really mentioned that. If you enter a tourney with items on, are you going to blame the items for your loss? Or do you mean you'd say, "If this item appeared or if he didn't get that item, I'd have won"? Personally, every time I lose I start thinking along the lines of: "I should have done this when he did that." This is the way I think no matter what the setting are.

I'm so confused right now. I don't know what's what. All I know is I'm going to start training with the items off so I can maximize my items-off-effectiveness.

And why not just run two tourneys side-by-side. One with items on and at least 4 stock (but no hearts or tomatos), the other with items off and 4 stock. See what happens. Then do it two more times and compare those results. Then watch the tapes so you can compare styles in detail to make sure none of the results are changed because someone simply got better, instead of general randomness.

This will never end. I don't think there's a sufficeint way to prove how random item match results are.

 

[Recipherus]

First off, let me explain why i think an items experiment wouldn't work. You're not only testing the supposed randomness of items, but also character balance with items and items skill. I know that in the games between my brother and I Adam usually owns more of the stage ( grabbing space with the luigi priority) because of this he tends to get most of the items which really helps him in our matches. If we turned items off i'm pretty sure i win alot more games.

 

[Recipherus]

heh, hit enter on accident.

Once again I am forced to disagree with your assessment that utilizing strats in arguments isnft valid. Three primary refutations of your rebuttal come to mind. You say that powershielding cannot be said to be fundamentally superior due to the fact that in certain contrived and extenuating circumstances, the reverse is marginally true. First, I note what Ifm sure that everyone agrees with (while this isnft taken from a large sampling, itfs so basic and difficult to disagree with that I feel confident stating it), that in the VAST majority of situations, powershielding beats out shielding. There are probably several others than the one that you named, but they are an insignificantly small percentage. Secondly, simply because it is possible to have the situation reversed, doesnft prove much of a flaw. You will NEVER come into a situation where, playing someone new, he goes gPowershielding, eh? Ifll take advantage of the fact that he has this powershield reflex by making it so that itfs disadvantageous. I will do so by depending on the randomly appearing items to generate a poke-ball out of all of the potential options, for another item to appear in such a way that it will be convenient to grab it immediately after I throw the poke-ball, depend on said pokeball to randomly generate a starmee out of all of the potential pokemon, and for the opponent to stand conveniently near the edge while the starmee aligns so that he is in a situation where he dare not powershieldh. Basically, there isnft a flaw because it cannot be thwarted by any COUNTERSTRAT, but only by a combination of improbable happenings. Whereas the other strat has obvious weaknesses. You can simply say gSo, he shields whenever a projectile comes his wayc Ifll simply continue to pummel him with them until his shield breaks.h. And lastly, I was keeping the strats as simple as possible. You could make the situation even more unbalance in fundamental superiority by saying gwhenever a projectile is about to hit me, I powershield. Except when a combination of situations conspire to make it counterproductive, at which point I will dodge, shield normally, or otherwise extricate myself from said situationh. This is, in every conceivable way, superior to the strat of gwhenever a projectile is about to hit me, I will shield. Disregarding any other consideration.h. As I said, this couldnft be thwarted by a counterstrat, therefore that argument is mute.

It just occured to me. proving a strats effectiveness is like proving a mathematical law. If you find one instance where the law is untrue the law is broken. The same goes for strats. If we find one instance where doing something/applying a strat doesn't work then it can't be the best thing to do in that situation. If we find one thing wrong with it there may be countless other things wrong with it that we just haven't thought of yet. The basic thing your doing wrong is presenting a strat in a vague simple form. "if a projectile comes toward me I will powershield it" or "i will dodge, shield normally, or otherwise extricate myself from said situation" basically your listing all the things you could do, not what you should do. A strat is what you should do, ssbm is way too complicated and has way too many possibilities for someone to prove a strat is good simply with words, if you attempted it you'd have to consider everything your opponent could possibly do on every area in everystage with every character. This is actually the reason why people get better with good human comp, what they do is fine tune their "system". This is what i call people's universal strat, what a person does in any given situation.

For the point of my argument, Ifve already stated several aspects of it in excruciating detail. Please refer above for the details, though I will provide a synopsis. Ifm saying that items randomize the results in such a fashion that the increase the uncertainty of the outcome. My experiences (based off of direct observation of how the matches sway within my playgroup), differ markedly from that (refer to my prior post for details). The only way that we could prove that it was either way would be to test it using a random playgroup that met certain criteria and so make the results unbiased. This could be set up, and I may well attempt to do so (certainly will if I ever run a tourney), it is currently unfeasible and so not pertinent to the argument. I have done so to my rigorous satisfaction using my playgroup, but results may of course vary.

so, why exactly do you think items randomize the results?btw, if you memorized the item drop points on a map you'll never get hit by a random bobomb again, unless someone hit you into the bobomb.

My argument is that although random items apear at random times someone who is: skilled at using items, skilled at playing people with items, has memorized the item drop points on all the maps can use them to his advantage to increase his chances of winning. It would be a shame to take out items and reduce ssbm to just non-stop fighting when it could be so much more complex and intense.

 

[game and kirby]

Let me just say to 1psemet: Although you are right in saying that some of the items I left out do indeed cause a game imbalance, that imbalance is generally negligible, and is usually inferior to that provided by a better position or an ambush zone.
Now that we've settled our synchronisation in all other points, let me proceed to the forefront of the discussion, concerning the veracity of an argument hinging on the use of strategies. It is fairly spurious to argue on the reasoning that whatever will be countered by whoever using whatever strategy, unless whoever is not skilled enough. There are only two ways to argue with the use of strats:
1. Assume that both players are total masters. They know every trick, and can do them with 100% accuracy, timing and consistency, unless the circumstances make that impossible. Using this line of reasoning means that items do not really skew the results, since, as has been pointed out, all items have a foil, be it powershielding or dodging, or item catching or whatever. The only way to hit such a player would be to make the attack or combo foolproof, to ensure that it is impossible for him to avoid it. Needless to say, this is fairly unrealistic, since I don't believe any of us can do what I have outlined above.
2. Both players are utter n00bs. They know the attacks, and don't button bash, but that's it. They run around, repetitively use attacks, and can't roll, let alone powershield or L-Cancel. In such a case, Items become much more relevant, as said repetitive attacks become much more lethal when done with the beamsword, as the opposing n00b will have trouble getting around the extra range afforded by it. In this case, neither player can use strats, and this makes items a wild card to a much larger extent. Needless to say, this is fairly unrealistic, as , if you're a n00b who doesn't know how to roll, why are you reading this?
That's my two cents on the argument of strats.

 

[1psemet]

Obviously enough matches couldn't be reasonably played to make sure that the results had only a small margin of error. However, assuming that the difference is indeed as large as I believe it to be, then this should be apparent from the get-go. It wouldn't be definitive enough to, for instance, take to court, but it would still assist in settling the dispute.

For recovery items, I once again say that I agree with you Scamp. But those items are simply the most unbalancing. My brother and me played several matches yesterday in which we turned off all of the grab-and-go items, as game and kirby suggested in his prior post. The results varied a good deal LESS from the norm of what they should, but variance still existed (indeed, also not a rigorous test of ideas as far as statistics are concerned).

And as for the random bob-omb... this situation occurred while playing a week ago or so. One of my friends, playing Pikachu, started doing a thundershock. In the time between the start and finish of the move, a group of THREE bob-ombs appeared within his threat radius. Needless to say, he was thoroughly killed when he set them off simultaneously. Did he deserve that death? Not really, it merely served to slur the outcome.

I've never stated the uncertainty because it isn't a known quantity. There has never been (to my knowledge) a thorough experiment to nail down such. In a tournament, whether or not you can rightfully blame the items is dependent on the exactitudes of the circumstance. If you've gone one and one, in the last match, both of you having one life, you at 0% and him at 100%, and something like the Pikachu thing happens to you, killing you instantly... then yes, you have some right to be disgruntled. In reality, without the intervention of a random factor, you would have won that match. Mostly people are just *****y whiners, but there are circumstances where they are right.

For the breaking of a stalemate: indeed this is probably worthy of a thread of it's own. I would like to say though, that the solution I put forth is still fair according to all of my reasoning. This does depend upon my assumption that the aggressor has the advantage, which isn't conclusively proven. I would just like to mention that since most people (including those two) have projectiles, there is an in-built way to break stalemates. If they are on small platforms that are level, Fox could rack link up to 999% damage if he insisted on sitting there. If on a different level, link could pelt with bombs and arrows (though fox can reflect bombs, I believe that if it impacts the ground right next to him it still hurts him).

For running two tourneys side-by-side, the main factor would doubtless be time being prohibitive of such.

Hehe, I was in the process of writing a paragraph complaining about your terse response Recipherus... good thing I periodically refresh to see if something has happened, I might have seemed right asinine (more so than usual). Anyway:

This strat thing... I'll continue to argue my point (for I believe that I'm correct), but I've long since lost track of whatever relevance that it may have had on the argument at hand. A strat doesn't have to be proven superior in every possible situation for you to state its superiority in general. It isn't, in fact, like a mathematical law in that way. I'm more and more confused that you refuse to except the fact that barring extenuating circumstances, some are flat-out better. In NO gaming community would simply shielding prove superior to powershielding when about to get hit by a projectile. Merely because in a vanishingly few situations would it prove detrimental doesn't obviate the fact that in all other ways and situations it will serve you with much greater reliability. Facing anyone, anytime, the person who powershield would doubtless do far, far better, and at the very least possible he would do equally. This is because there is no proven way that you can take advantage of this latter strat using only moves or tactics that would not render the former moot as well, to a greater extent, without depending on many random factors. And your point about my being vague is well taken, but only applicable to the second part of that statement. In the first part, I AM listing what you should do, "if you can, you SHOULD powershield every projectile that comes your way instead of shielding regularly". Most strategies are indeed immensely too complicated to summarize. Listing key pieces of your overall strat that apply to specific situations (like the powershielding) is fine, and provable.

Ifm sorry to have to disagree with you on such game and kirby, but for the reasons listed above, I still believe strats valid. You donft have to have players either masterful or crappy in most cases. No matter how good or bad your opponent is, powershielding is simply better. There is no way that someone can take advantage of this tactic. As Bumble bee tuna said, it wasnft that there was a problem with this tactic, merely that it requires an unfeasible amount of skill. Other unequivocal examples exist. Say that there are two Captain Falcon players. One of them employs the strategy of always falcon punching. Only falcon punching. He doesnft jump, dodge, or do anything else, as in his mind he believes that falcon punching is the optimal strategy and he thinks that in any situation this is the surest way to come out victorious. His opponent will mop the floor with him by employing almost any other strategy. This is fundamentally a BAD strategy, and can be simply proven as such. This will not serve you well, compared to any complex and comprehensive strategy, anywhere you go (unless you are having some strange inverse tournament).

Why do I think items randomize the results? Ifve already gone over this extensivelyc but basically because items, by nature of their being non-intrinsic, randomly appearing, and worth picking up (conferring some advantage to the wielder.), add an element that serves to, over the reasonably short term at least, make the results unreliable. They make the match not as entirely skill based as simply not having them. Not entirely skill based = unsuitable for tournament environment. You say that someone who is savvy in all of the aspects can use them to his advantage. Assuming that his opponent is nearly as so as he, so can he. It then breaks down to who gets it first, which CAN be skill based, but isnft in certain situations such as where one person has just died, etc.

And lastly, for your statement gIt would be a shame to take out items and reduce ssbm to just non-stop fighting when it could be so much more complex and intense.h. I once again think that you simply fail to appreciate SSBM for what it is without items. Personally, I find it much more intense when I donft have to worry about getting randomly screwed, unfairly helped out, or my opponent being such, but instead have to depend on ONLY my and my enemies skill being the factors. You are both having a close and intense matchc and then one of you, who was just sent flailing, lands by an appearing heart. This doesnft add any intensity to the game in any way. Wow, that sucked for you, and was great for him. He didnft do anything skillful to deserve that, nor you anything incompetent. Items donft simply gadd another layer of complexityh. They arenft firmly enough integrated for that. In a way, they actually decrease it. What they do when they appear is split the focus between the complex and well done fighting mechanics, and the less complex and balanced item mechanics. Itfs not simply additive.

 

[Recipherus]

And as for the random bob-omb... this situation occurred while playing a week ago or so. One of my friends, playing Pikachu, started doing a thundershock. In the time between the start and finish of the move, a group of THREE bob-ombs appeared within his threat radius. Needless to say, he was thoroughly killed when he set them off simultaneously. Did he deserve that death? Not really, it merely served to slur the outcome.

actually, he did deserve. if he does a move that lags that much in an area of the map where he may get bombed then he deserves it.

This strat thing... I'll continue to argue my point (for I believe that I'm correct), but I've long since lost track of whatever relevance that it may have had on the argument at hand. A strat doesn't have to be proven superior in every possible situation for you to state its superiority in general. It isn't, in fact, like a mathematical law in that way. I'm more and more confused that you refuse to except the fact that barring extenuating circumstances, some are flat-out better. In NO gaming community would simply shielding prove superior to powershielding when about to get hit by a projectile. Merely because in a vanishingly few situations would it prove detrimental doesn't obviate the fact that in all other ways and situations it will serve you with much greater reliability.

that's the point, what if your opponent plays in such a way with projectiles that power shielding wouldn't be as good as strait up blocking then it would be advantageous for you to always block instead of pshielding.

Why do I think items randomize the results? Ifve already gone over this extensivelyc but basically because items, by nature of their being non-intrinsic, randomly appearing, and worth picking up (conferring some advantage to the wielder.), add an element that serves to, over the reasonably short term at least, make the results unreliable. They make the match not as entirely skill based as simply not having them. Not entirely skill based = unsuitable for tournament environment. You say that someone who is savvy in all of the aspects can use them to his advantage. Assuming that his opponent is nearly as so as he, so can he. It then breaks down to who gets it first, which CAN be skill based, but isnft in certain situations such as where one person has just died, etc.

first off, we can't even prove that items give an advantage to the holder ( save hearts, tomatoes, and starmen). Ok, let's say i'm playing a 10 stock match against someone. I'm playing in such a way that 75% of the item drop points are withing my grasp, my opponent has the remaining 25%. My opponent may get lucky with an item or two but in a 10 stock match my dominance of the stage will show and i will most surely win ( considering my opponent is just as good as me).

And lastly, for your statement gIt would be a shame to take out items and reduce ssbm to just non-stop fighting when it could be so much more complex and intense.h. I once again think that you simply fail to appreciate SSBM for what it is without items. Personally, I find it much more intense when I donft have to worry about getting randomly screwed, unfairly helped out, or my opponent being such, but instead have to depend on ONLY my and my enemies skill being the factors. You are both having a close and intense matchc and then one of you, who was just sent flailing, lands by an appearing heart. This doesnft add any intensity to the game in any way. Wow, that sucked for you, and was great for him. He didnft do anything skillful to deserve that, nor you anything incompetent. Items donft simply gadd another layer of complexityh. They arenft firmly enough integrated for that. In a way, they actually decrease it. What they do when they appear is split the focus between the complex and well done fighting mechanics, and the less complex and balanced item mechanics. Itfs not simply additive.

btw, i am an advocate for taking out tomatoes and hearts in a tournament match ( although i'm starting to lean towards letting them in). Ok, I have my brother's strategy down to an art, and he may have mine down too. We play exactly the same way every match, the only things that changes the way we play is the stage/ items. It's like that checkers analogy, if we took out items and played on FD ( a simple stage) the variables would be decreased so much that eventually our matches would have the same outcome everytime. If it weren't for items/ diverse stages ssbm would become very dull for me. Once you figure out how ssbm needs to be played the basic fighting mechanics become somewhat simple. The next frontier is items.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Clarifying my experiment

Yeah, I see your points about the experiment...but as 1psemet pointed out, we don't need to go THAT long. Just long enough to see if the difference is veyr large.

So that leaves the issues of trust in Recipherus, the issue of character imbalance, and the issue of player skill with items imbalance.

Character imbalance is easy to solve- make the games mirror matches. Done.
Player imbalance is harder. We need to have two very good players of identical characters play each other. We just have to believe that if they are of similar skill in the TG rankings, they must have similar skill with items (as items are on in the TGs and that's how the people always play).
That leaves trust. Frankly, I don't think it's hard to trust Jeremy. If he encountered results that contradicted his opinions, would he not then just change his opinions? I don't see why he wouldn't. But I guess it might be possible, judging from my experience in religious debates.

For the tests, I do think it would require pretty extensive testing. I myself would want data for stock three matches and then data for longer matches as well to see the correlation between that stuff. The challenge is finding able volunteers...

For stages, a minor point, but I would consider the randomness of Brinstar Depths to be much worse than the randomness of items. Items can be game-changing, but usually not to a huge degree. Meanwhile, on BD it's probably going to be one player controlling the center. If the player not in the center get's cheesed by the random (and he will, 50% of the time), then it will be a severe disadvantage for him because he has to swing around a stage into the other player's trap before his ground goes out from beneath him. Or at least it seems pretty major to me. Sure, there are only two factors...but they have a very big impact.

As for strats...I'm looking back, and the strat that you argued was to disprove the theory that items help balance the projectileless. You said that items were easy enough to dodge or powershield so that negates it. Barring powershielding, as it is agreed that this is not a viable tactic most of the time, that narrows it down. But it says "balance" with the projectiled characters. Not get better than them. You can dodge regular projectiles, can you not? Thus, items give projectileless characters a balancing factor.
It is here that I am aware you will fall back to the other point made, that "this just makes it so that fifty-percent of the time they are even more disadvantaged in this respect. " Well, I think this makes sense for my argument. You are saying that when they don't have items, they are unbalanced...how would that be an argument for turning off items? I don't quite understand your point on this little thing here. (Though I'm aware it is hard to take character balance into an arument because balance is highly theoretical and based on individual experience)

And I didn't really see a response for this, so I will restate:

Items are almost always beneficial. That is a given. Poison mushroom is the only intrinsically bad one, with barrels, crates, and bob-ombs coming behind for their potential for disaster.
Items are random, but not too much so. Someone tested item drop rates and they fall with a pretty decent amount of regularity, every X seconds give or take maybe 2. So you know WHEN items will fall, for the most part. You know WHAT they will be (beneficial). that leaves WHERE...and you know the drop points on the level. So you're down to guessing which of a select few dorp points it might fall into, when in a range of a few seconds it will fall, and exactly how beneficial the items might be.
I fail to see how this is so incredibly random. You have very little range for variance here. Items aren't even gamebreaking. They get rid of grabbing capabilities and are not always THAT beneficial. So even if you get gipped by randomness and it lands near your opponent...so what? it isn't that big of an advantage.
Oh my, looking above, I diluted my point but I will just leave it because I don't have time to fix it.

-B

 

[Jango Fett]

Items are for wussies . They actually need a weapon to kill his/her opponent . so sad... so sad...

 

[Recipherus]

i wanted to repost the post i wrote on matt's thread here.

1. balance of characters- Ok, so we've all heard the argument that items reward the more speedy characters like fox or sheik. I think this is undisputed. Whether this is good or bad, is arguable. Some say these characters are good enough without the advantage of being able to get to items quicker. We'll only know the answer if the programers of the game told us that when they were making designing these characters they intended the game to be played with items on or off. Otherwise, we'll never know for sure.
2.Characters use certain items differently. falcon is the prime example with the amount of stars he fires out of the star rod. When items are turned off it may relieve a disadvantage a character had because he doesn't use certain items as well as other characters ( such as marth). again, whether this is good or bad depends on whether or not the programers intended the game to be played with items on.
3. In a 1on1 game items reward the player who grabs most of the stage. Let's say 1 agresive player player plays another defensive player. If the agresive player plays in such a way that the defensive player is always near the edge of the stage or constantly turtling somewhere the agressive player should be rewarded with a higher chance of getting items. Personally, i like this, and i think it's a big argument for pro items.
4. items reward the player who is most aware of his environment. In most other fighting games you have one thing to focus on your opponent. what makes ssbm so different is the stages/items. Not only do you have to focus on your opponent but also your environment. When you turn off items you basically make ssbm a easier game to master. This, imo, is another big reason why items should be on.
5. the fluke win. Actually this doesn't happen that often to people who are experienced with items. Besides, in a tournament setting with best out of 3 matches and double elemination it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Usually, the person who handles items better has the advantage.
6. the effects of items are more damaging to lightweight characters. Let's say jigglypuff get's hit by a bobomb, even at a low % she may still get knocked out of the stage. If it were ganon however, he would have to be at a fairly high % to be knocked out. You might say that the fluke win % is higher for lighter characters then it is heavy. This is the main reason why i quickly abandoned the idea of taking jiggly to tg3.
7. It takes skill to use an item effectively. This is probably the biggest argument for pro items. Just because you have an item and your opponent doesn't, doesn't mean that your guaranteed to do some damage on him. In fact, just by holding an item you lose the ability to throw, which is huge. I play totally differently when my opponent has an item and usually, so does my opponent.
8. Items break the stale mate. I remember watching the 19 minute match between justing and matt at TG2 and thinking " items are gonna end this match". In case you don't know what match i'm talking about let me explain. the match was at Onnet and both justing and matt were down to there last stock. justing was at a very low % and matt was at like 70%. Matt, afraid of being KO'd turtled at the very left of the stage in hopes of throwing justin out. Justin, not wanting to take a chance let matt turtle there for the entire match. To make a long story short, jusin threw a pokeball at matt which opened up a venasaur which Ko'd matt. Not only is this an example of items breaking the stale mate, it's an example of a player getting rewarded because he owned most of the stage.

although some people say playing in a tourney with items may cause the best player to lose in a fluke loss, i say items are part of the game and can't be avoided. if a tourney is played with a good amount of stock, best out of 3, and double elemination i believe the fluke factor isn't that big.

 

[1psemet]

First and foremost, I feel the need to respond to Jango Fett's intrusion on the conversation. Obviously Jango, you failed to read what I said in my first post:

"Okay then. Before I start, I have to make a plea to the board members at large. This may sound somewhat disparaging, but I think it must be said. Please people, don't post here if you are only going to post your preferences or opinions on the different aspects without actually using reasoning. This isn't a poll. Try to be constructive, and not simply clutter things up with statements of concurrence or disagreement, random meaningless stories, or insults. That being said, I will now begin."

Your comment is distinctly unconstructive and unjustified. It is my desire to keep this type of thing out of this thread. What did your comment prove? What did it add? Nothing, asside from the fact that you enjoy spamming. Please people, let's not have repeats of this.



Well then Recipherus, you say "that's the point, what if your opponent plays in such a way with projectiles that power shielding wouldn't be as good as strait up blocking then it would be advantageous for you to always block instead of pshielding."... Obviously you miss the entire point of my statements. He cannot possibly play in such a way, because IT DOES NOT EXIST. Name a general playstyle which punishes powershielding over shielding. You won't be able to. This is because any situation that makes it so is rediculously contrived, and cannot be said to be "your opponent playing in a certain way", for your opponent has to depend on many random factors to make it so.

Are you denying that items confer an advantage? The insanity... Anyway, I would like to see a match where you keep yourself on one side of the stage, and your opponent near an edge so that you can have 75% of the room. The man that you are playing is obviously NOT as competent as you. Not even close. It's impossible to maintain dominance of the stage, except for when the opposition is nearly dead and you are edge-guarding them off, if you are of REMOTELY equal skill. Therefore one person will still be more subject to better opportunities to grab items due to the vagaries of play.

And, as for your last statement, that matches become repetitive without items, I simply scoff. Once again I am forced to draw the conclusion that for some reason, you simply don't see SSBM for how complex it is, and furthermore have no conception of the nature of fighting games. To basically every stratagy, there is a counterstratagy. I have my brothers playstyle down pat, and he mine. I in general win the matches, but this isn't due to them "always being the same", or even remotely such. I have my methods of thwarting pretty much all that he does. He developes ways around this, and I develope ways to restore the equilibrium. Are you saying that both you and your partner have both reached the level where every move that you do is optimised and uncounterable? That any evolution in playstile would hinder your game? I find this laughable. At the highest level in a good fighting game, play never becomes stagnant. You can observe how playstyle changes over the course of only a few matches. The fighting mechanics, their mastery and integration aren'y, by any means "somewhat simple". If for some reason you still disagree with me on this by next time, I will bestir myself and cite some examples. And obviously you havn't read the article that I referred to earlier, or some of the other ones on that website. You should, it goes into this in detail.

Bumble bee tuna, you make pretty good points about what would be needed. As well as religious debates being the perfect example of people not changing their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Many people, on certain subjects, simply will not allow themselves to be persuaded in any manner.

For Brinstar Depths, I disagree completely. First of all, you can see the big creature in the background preparing to turn the stage, and in which direction. This makes it, at the very least, only psuedo-random. And even if one person controls the center... Oh well, let him. You can simply wait until the stage rotates all the way around so that you are on level ground, or you control the high ground. You can be under the stage, standing on the little platform, safely.

And as for your strat argument... Well put, and I respect your anticipation of my rebuttal, but I must protest it, as I fear that you have taken my argument out of context. When I said "this just makes it so that fifty-percent of the time they are even more disadvantaged in this respect.", I was not conceding that they were disadvantaged or unbalanced. I was arguing from the perspective of someone who believes them to be so. If you think that the projectile characters are unbalanced, they you must agree that they are even more so when they also are in posession of items. I believe, however, that they are not. The game has enough mechanics and methods around projectiles that they would seem to need no extra "balancing factor". You can powershield (agreeably not viable most of the time. Though i'm sure you'd be amazed at the amount of times that i've died because my brother powershielded my blaster or missles when I was Samus.), shield normally, dodge, move out of the range of them (everything has a range at which they dissipate, except for Falco's blaster for some reason.), move onto a different level so that they may not plague you, as with the exception of Final Destination, you can always do so, or, if you are certain characters you can turtle inside a built in reflector, making it counterproductive for the opponent.

It's so random due to the fact that, though both players can anticipate them to the extent that you listed, whoever gets it first still has an unfair advantage conferred upon him, because, as you said, they are almost all beneficial.


PS: Due to time considerations, I cannot respond to Recipherus's most recent post. I refute it and it's claims, for many reasons that have already been gone over (as, when I started this thread, I used it as one of the primary sources for pro-item beliefs), and some other minor points as well. I shall be back late tonight to do so, fear not.

 

[Recipherus]

Well then Recipherus, you say "that's the point, what if your opponent plays in such a way with projectiles that power shielding wouldn't be as good as strait up blocking then it would be advantageous for you to always block instead of pshielding."... Obviously you miss the entire point of my statements. He cannot possibly play in such a way, because IT DOES NOT EXIST. Name a general playstyle which punishes powershielding over shielding. You won't be able to. This is because any situation that makes it so is rediculously contrived, and cannot be said to be "your opponent playing in a certain way", for your opponent has to depend on many random factors to make it so.

can you prove it doesn't exist? no. There may be a strat that does this but we just haven't thought of it yet. At every TG someone brought a new strat that no one had thought of before to the table, this in turn caused everyone else to change there fighting styles.

And, as for your last statement, that matches become repetitive without items, I simply scoff. Once again I am forced to draw the conclusion that for some reason, you simply don't see SSBM for how complex it is, and furthermore have no conception of the nature of fighting games. To basically every stratagy, there is a counterstratagy. I have my brothers playstyle down pat, and he mine. I in general win the matches, but this isn't due to them "always being the same", or even remotely such. I have my methods of thwarting pretty much all that he does. He developes ways around this, and I develope ways to restore the equilibrium. Are you saying that both you and your partner have both reached the level where every move that you do is optimised and uncounterable? That any evolution in playstile would hinder your game? I find this laughable. At the highest level in a good fighting game, play never becomes stagnant. You can observe how playstyle changes over the course of only a few matches. The fighting mechanics, their mastery and integration aren'y, by any means "somewhat simple". If for some reason you still disagree with me on this by next time, I will bestir myself and cite some examples. And obviously you havn't read the article that I referred to earlier, or some of the other ones on that website. You should, it goes into this in detail.

As of now, i believe i'm using the best possible strat sheik can play against luigi. don't comment on the way i play till you've seen me play. I'll be the first one to say that there may be a person out there who plays completely different with luigi then my brother that may make me change the way i play, but i doubt it.

Are you denying that items confer an advantage? The insanity... Anyway, I would like to see a match where you keep yourself on one side of the stage, and your opponent near an edge so that you can have 75% of the room. The man that you are playing is obviously NOT as competent as you. Not even close. It's impossible to maintain dominance of the stage, except for when the opposition is nearly dead and you are edge-guarding them off, if you are of REMOTELY equal skill. Therefore one person will still be more subject to better opportunities to grab items due to the vagaries of play.

Uh, hello, i already told you that in the games between my brother and I Adam owns most of the stage. I can't explain why, as i would have to go into complex strategy explanation, but it is so. By playing like this, Adam gets rewarded with more items then me. It sometimes gets anoying but i respect the strategy and except it.

 

[Scamp]

New fun argument twists!

I personally don't think analogies are pointless, since they help people grasp things that normally they would not. The thing is, the people who are arguing already have a good grasp of what fighting games are about, so in this case the analogies are pointless. However, I wish to use other fighting games as an analogy for this one. Such and such....

Street Fighter!

Still the number one 2-d fighting game series and arguably still the most popular fighting franchise today, the Street Fighter series started way back in the late 80's and has changed many times since then. Each new game brought a bunch of revisions to make the game more balanced and interesting, as well as brought a bunch of new bugs or unforseen techniques which often inspired greater things. (Ryu's red fireball, Dhalsim's teleport, and the entire combo system are examples.)
Anyway, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo was the last of the "old-school" 2-d Street Fighters, and since that time the series has gone on to the "3" series, the Alpha series, the CvS series, and the Marvel "vs." series. Each of these games have introduced a number of new techniques and features (such as air combos, rolling, level 3 supers, custom combos, chain combos, and so on.) that have since been exploited and used to their maximum potential.

Now, for the analogy...

Items off - Super Turbo. Items on - one of the newer games.

This isn't to say that playing with items off is old hat. It's just that while the complexity of the game may go up, it is my belief that it makes the game better. As I mentioned before, the exploitation of items can lead to bad losses for someone. But, this happens in SF also. (Infinite combos in the vs. series, 50 percent level 3 supers in the CvS series, 90 percent CC in Alpha 2 and 3.) However, in this analogy it must be noted that there's still a surprising amount of Super Turbo fans who still hold tournaments regularly. This is because the game, without adding more complexities, is still superb. This is why I respect anyone who argues for no-items, because SSBM is still a great game.

But, I don't think anyone will argue that SSBM without items is a deeper game than, say, Street Fighter Alpha 3. Heck, even Super Turbo is a deeper fighting game. As is, there are several strategies and moves you can do at any given time, as well as several situations that come up maybe 1 match in 100 that you need to be prepared for. However, after playing against the same(usually top-tier) characters for a while even that game gets stale. You have your optimum strategy/movelist, your secondary strategy/movelist, and so on. Doing your secondary stuff does keep your opponent on his/her toes, but it comes at a price in that it's more punishable if your opponent sees it coming. This is why it's secondary. But, in any event, I'd like to read this article you refer to in your last post. Is it at www.sirlin.net?

Whoops, gotta go. I'll be back later.


EDIT: Before I go, I just wanted to say that I thought someone named Jango Fett would be in favor of items. Interesting, no?

 

[raul]

This may have been said, but then again i didnt read all the posts...

no items makes the game very deep like metioned before, the items add elements of surprise, fun, excitement. they make it that party game like the 64 version.

i personally think it is best to learn your character first and then practice with items.

i like to have items off when i play only because i like that deep feeling game that has been mentioned but it is truely about preference.

 

[Recipherus]

when you make a claim can you at least attempt to back it up with something.

 

[1psemet]

I finally have a chance to respond again, and will promptly do so. Recipherus, no, I can't prove it doesn't exist. On the other hand, you can't prove that it exists. Judging from the fact that I cannot think of one, nor, apperantly, can anyone else, i'd say that circumstantial evidence was against it. If it does exist, then obviously it's very obscure and hard to fathom, therefor the powershielding strat will still serve you better in almost every concievable match.

As for the comment about your playstyle, I realise that it was a tad too pointed to be objective, and sounded rather snide. I appologise for that, but I believe that my argument is still valid. Obviously I havn't seen you play... but from my experiences I simply cannot fully trust what you say, as they differ quite a bit. I have yet to see in any suitably complex fighter, between two equally skilled opponents, stratagies reach the equilibrium that you speak of. And I have particularly personal knowledge of SSBM in this regard, as it relates to me and my playgroup. Thus, there are two possible options. Either you and your partner are IMMENSELY more skilled than I and mine (and I concede that you may be somewhat more, as you have demonstrated competence at TG3... but until I see personally I doubt the disparity is incredible), you have either not tried to play a terrribly large amount of itemless stock matches with this person and thus can't percieve the way in which it introduces dynamic playstyles, or you and him are for some reason just recalcitrant in regards to rapid evolution, which could be for a variety of reasons. This thread of the argument wouldn't seem to be proving fruitful, and hinges on unprovable aspects of playstyle, thus I don't belive it would be useful to continue much more with it.

As for your statement that he owns most of the stage with Luigi, considering that you profess to play as Sheik... Well, refer to the above paragraph for my thoughts on that. No offence intended.

Scamp, well put about the nature of analogies in arguments. Couldn't have said it better myself. As i've said before though, I can't simply let an analogy go when I think that it offers a misguided view of the situation, both for the sake of the random people reading the thread, and for us both. Thus, my obligatory in-depth rebuttal:

My revised assesment of the analogy is: SSB 64 = Super Turbo, SSBM = One of the newer games without some of the most blatant exploitations that lead to bad losses, SSBM with items = one of the newer games with the infinite combos, etc., and a twist.

There are several reasons for this. First of all, sorry to say, but I think your statement that Super Turbo is more complex than SSBM is laughable. That game was one of the only games that I had back in the day, and I just downloaded the ROM of it to refresh my memory and make sure I wasn't insane. It is way farther down the evolutionary ladder than SSBM. The meaningfull difference in the moves, the hit detection, the possibilities concerning dodging and countering, ways to get up, spatial awareness and manipulation required... all and more are sub-par by todays standards, in which environment SSBM excels. And I do in fact claim that it is a deeper fighter than Alpha 3. The optimum stratagy and movelist that you mention is the key factor in this consideration. In SSBM there is no such thing (that has come into awareness, at least). The game is less reliant on combos and memorization, and more rewarding to split second fabricating of new stratagies.

If you had said that SSB 64 was comparable to Super turbo... I could see you making a good case for it. Consider how evolved and superior SSBM is than it. It contains all of the key elements in the top fighting games, doesn't rely on combo systems, and adds several novel facets all its own. SSB on the other hand lacks many of these, has poor character selection, is vastly less balanced, has slower gameplay and many less moves. If you say that SSBM is comparable to Super Turbo, then you're saying that SSB 64 is comparable to... What? Rise of the Robots? You would be hard pressed to justify that my friend. SSBM shows all signs of being competetive in the arena of fighters, and SSBM with items is SSBM with a twist.

Consensus on the complexity issue, I fear, will never be reached from within the current framework of debate on items. I am in the process of writing a thread that addresses SSBM compared to some of the newer generation fighters in terms of complexity, and will have it up in a couple days, as I think that this deserves it's own in-depth discussion.

Indeed, tis at www.sirlin.net, under the features section. The article that I was referring to specifically was "Playing to Win: Part 1", insofar as it talks about the constant evolution of playstyle at the highest level. This is what my experiences are, and why i'm dubious (once again, no offense) of Recipherus's statements. If you have any time, i'd reccomend reading some of the other articles as well. It's a site about game design, and brings up some very good issues.


PS: There are doubtless an unusually large number of typos and spelling errors in this post. This would be because I've been up all night and am getting groggier at the second, and am at a friends house who doesn't have any sort of convenient spell checker. In conclusion... You are getting sleepy, very sleepy, much like 1psemet and will thus overlook his mistakes...

 

[Recipherus]

I finally have a chance to respond again, and will promptly do so. Recipherus, no, I can't prove it doesn't exist. On the other hand, you can't prove that it exists.

Like i said in the begining, since neither of us can prove a strat is best it's futile to use strats at all.

If it does exist, then obviously it's very obscure and hard to fathom

Fine. that just means that it would take some genious who is super good at video games. If the top 10 players in the world played against eachother for months on end I bet they would revolutionize the way ssbm is played.

As for the comment about your playstyle, I realise that it was a tad too pointed to be objective, and sounded rather snide. I appologise for that, but I believe that my argument is still valid. Obviously I havn't seen you play... but from my experiences I simply cannot fully trust what you say, as they differ quite a bit. I have yet to see in any suitably complex fighter, between two equally skilled opponents, stratagies reach the equilibrium that you speak of. And I have particularly personal knowledge of SSBM in this regard, as it relates to my and my playgroup. Thus, there are two possible options. Either you and your partner are IMMENSELY more skilled than I and mine (and I concede that you may be somewhat more, as you have demonstrated competence at TG3... but until I see personally I doubt the disparity is incredible), you have either not tried to play a terrribly large amount of stock matches with this person and thus can't percieve the way in which it introduces dynamic playstyles, or you and him are for some reason just recalcitrant in regards to rapid evolution, which could be for a variety of reasons. This thread of the argument wouldn't seem to be proving fruitful, and hinges on unprovable aspects of playstyle, thus I don't belive it would be useful to continue much more with it.

through out this argument I was keeping in mind that you may very well be a better player then me, anyone who I haven't personally met could be. Because of this, I tried to keep out personal experience within my playgroup, as it may or may not be relevant. The only reson i brought up the whole stage grabbing thing with my brother and i was to show you that it is possible to play in such a way that you'll own more of the stage then your opponent. Whether this playstyle is full proof is questionable, but the player who does so gets rewarded for it.

(Personally, I don't think that this complexity argument is going anywhere. Consensus, I fear, will never be reached from within the current framework of debate on items. I am in the process of writing a thread that addresses SSBM compared to some of the newer generation fighters in terms of complexity, and will have it up in a couple days, as I think that this deserves it's own in-depth discussion.)

I don't think this items argument will end either, because before you can make an argument for, or against items, you must first have an agreement with the person your arguing with in regard to more fundamental things in ssbm. This is why I usually never debate on anything in fighting games because it usually never goes anywhere. The reason i'm debating on this issue is because this could actually effect the future of ssbm tournament rules, which i think is worth putting up a fuss.

 

[Tavo_7]

If your playing at home or anywhere, then i don't really care what you use. It's all just up to prefrence and you can play as you wish. But once you get the game out of being a party game, which is the orginal idea. It even says it on the box for god's sake.
It's a whole different story all together.

Thats why there shouldn't even be a discussion because it all comes down to opinions. How is the tournament being run? and accept it. Whats the point of arguing what fair and whats not? Just adapt to the playing style and take it, no need to cry a river over it.

Personally, i would prefer items off. If your in a competition match, and it comes down to you both having 1 stock. I would not want the match to end by a random bat appearing in front of your opponent, he picks it up and kills you. Thats just stupid to me, i'll rather eliminate that since the beggining.

And i also personally would stay away from Hazard stages if it was a competion, make everything come down to skill with ZERO hazards. Having random non-hazard stages with items-off seem to be the fairest way to play. Atleast to me anyways, but like i said, it's all just opinions. Nobody right, and nobodys wrong. If anything, play the game at default, time,pause on, 2 minutes, all items. That way theres no arguments, your playing by the games rules.

 

[1psemet]

Okay, since you've responded so quickly, I can squeeze in a reply before I head of to sleep.

I still disagree with you on the strat thing... but since neither of us are actually trying to use a strat to prove a point any longer, merely arguing about the validity of doing so, I suppose it doesn't really matter and should be left alone.

I realise that this is what you were demonstrating. And I agree with you on the fact that it is indeed possible. My point on this aspect was that I think that it's circumventable on a fundamental level, by changing your playstyle accordingly. And as for our thoughts as to each others skill, I appreciate the fact that you keep such an open mind. Which is partly why I believe that this argument, while not being conclusive, was fruitfull and entertaining.

Anyway, I never expected that this debate would reach a definitive conclusion. They very rarely do, after all. As I stated originally, the point of this wasn't merely for the sake of arguing, but to lay out the facts and different views so that those who run tournaments and bother to read it can make more informed decisions. While you and I maintain the same fundamental standpoint as at the start, perhaps we have effected a good deal of peoples. I would wish for there to be some sort of standardised tournament format (even if it's one involving items), as it would make the results more meaningful when compared, and less hassle for the tournament opperator (so hopefully there would be more thrown). I think that i've brought up some valid reasons for my case, but it would seem that i'm in the minority. It's certainly worth a try, however. I'm somewhat dissapointed that Matdeezie hasn't reared his head in here, or any others who happen to hold tournaments, as I would have appreciated their imputs.

And Tavo, I agree with your basic mindset, but I'm sure that we all realise how horrible it would be if tournaments used the default settings. The problems are so varied and astounding that I don't have the heart to start in on them right now. Basically though, there should be a standard for tournaments, and you can prove that some peoples opinions, while not technically WRONG, are inferior for the purposes that tournaments are meant to serve. Someone who says that tournaments should be run on stock one, one minute time limit, super sudden death, with only tomatoes and hearts on on very high is simply in a bad position as far as justification is concerned.

 

[Recipherus]

tavo, did you read all the previous posts, you should.

And i also personally would stay away from Hazard stages if it was a competion, make everything come down to skill with ZERO hazards. Having random non-hazard stages with items-off seem to be the fairest way to play. Atleast to me anyways, but like i said, it's all just opinions.

Personally, i would prefer items off. If your in a competition match, and it comes down to you both having 1 stock. I would not want the match to end by a random bat appearing in front of your opponent, he picks it up and kills you. Thats just stupid to me, i'll rather eliminate that since the beggining.

OK, 1) just because he picked up a bat doesn't mean your dead.
B) it's not all that random, like i said before there are specific item drop points on every stage, memorize them.
3) turning on items make the game so much more in depth when you play in such a way that you try to maximize the odds of you getting an item, and minizing your opponents odds.
IV) The creators of the game gave certain advantages to certain characters. IMO, these advantages become more dominant in certain stages. When you turn off stages you give certain characters advantages over others. Example: at TG people counter picked with DK at flatzone. DK has a powerfull throw which can knock you out at a low and IMO the falling tools don't pose as much as a threat to DK as other characters.

edit: I agree with 1psemet that there should be a standard, it's good for the ssbm community and it will give us the possiblity of declaring someone the best in US.

 

[Tavo_7]

Well like i said, just adapt and play to that style.

"there should be a standard for tournaments, and you can prove that some peoples opinions, while not technically WRONG, are inferior for the purposes that tournaments are meant to serve. Someone who says that tournaments should be run on stock one, one minute time limit, super sudden death, with only tomatoes and hearts on on very high is simply in a bad position as far as justification is concerned"


And whose call is it to make that it is inferior? not yours. What if me and 40 other people like playing like that. As far as making a standard? no offense, but who are you? Your in a position where it just won't happen. Maybe you'll pursue a few people around here to make it a "standard", but thats not gonna stop me or anyone else from doing what we want.

Like i said, theres no way to prove someone right or wrong, because it's all based on peoples opinions. You already admitted that this isn't going anywhere, so my post won't mean much either. My point is just that there shouldn't even be a discussion of this, nor a debate, nor just stating the views that you did.

 

[Tavo_7]

OK, 1) just because he picked up a bat doesn't mean your dead.

I know it doesn't, i was just giving you an example of someone losing.


B) it's not all that random, like i said before there are specific item drop points on every stage, memorize them.

Yeah, but thats why i wanted to eliminate items before hand. It's still luck if your opponent is recovering and a turtle shell spawns and you throw it at him. Doesn't mean you killed him, just means that it showed up at the worst time. Sure theres skill in dodging it, but who cares.

3) turning on items make the game so much more in depth when you play in such a way that you try to maximize the odds of you getting an item, and minizing your opponents odds.

Whatever turns you on dude, thats just your opinion. I don't like it, and you can't make me like it. It's all just opinions and views, no ones right, no ones wrong.


IV) The creators of the game gave certain advantages to certain characters. IMO, these advantages become more dominant in certain stages. When you turn off stages you give certain characters advantages over others. Example: at TG people counter picked with DK at flatzone. DK has a powerfull throw which can knock you out at a low and IMO the falling tools don't pose as much as a threat to DK as other characters.

Nothings ever gonna be fair, thats why i originally said to play on whatever rules the host is making and shut up. I never said mines were perfect or a standard. All i'm saying is......play Melee!