Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

[raul]

if ifnd that items can only be a more useful weapon to any players arsenal of attack.s they help greatly for those player with out projectiles and make players with projectiles even more deadly. they can be used to set-up traps and are useful for self defense when on the run.

In the hands of a player that is skilled with his character, weapons could only make them more fierce.

 

[Nobie]

Gilgamesh, you said the person would have to get very, VERY lucky to get a Judgement 9 to hit. That was basically my point. If you ban items because they randomize things too much, why not ban Judgement? Hitting a Judgement 9 is partially skill, but much of it is luck and probability and randomness and whatever. However, much like how tournaments don't take away Judgement, they really shouldn't take away items.

And I know you're on the pro-item side, Gligamesh. I'm just using "you" to say "anyone."

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

the point

Items don't ALWAYS decamp a camper. They don't even USUALLY decamp a camper. However, attacking a camper with items gives you a chance to damage him, and he can't damage you. The only outcomes possible from this are that you will tie because the game never ends, or he will lose. He needs to kill you to win. As a result, camping becomes a useless strategy. He knows that you can get some items that WILL root him out (Pokeballs especially, but stars, cloaking devices, and others as well), and he can't do anything. Because he knows this, he won't camp because it is useless to him.

Camping isn't unbeatable. It just gives such a big advantage to the camper than it would be insurmountable among players that are reasonable close in skill levels.

Judgement certainly should be banned by those wishing to eliminate randomness. So should Peach's turnip move, which can pull out beam swords, bob-ombs, and ultra-turnips. But I believe the rebuttal to this would just be 'that's not an option in the game to change'. Of course, then you wonder why the no-items side proposes extra rules not coded into the game to deal with campers. So maybe their rebuttal would be that judgement is not random enough? I'd say it's pretty random...

NJE, as I expected and predicted, you couldn't answer a single one of my questions. But what the ****, here's another. If you "don't like videogames, or any videogame site. Not at all.", why are you here? This is a videogames site. Face it- you like videogames, and there is nothing wrong with playing them. You're going to have to define what "unhealthy level" is. What is unhealthy about what we're doing? I get plenty of exercise, I don't stay inside all day. What makes me playing video games more than the average person unhealthy? You can't answer this, because the only reason you think it is because that is the negative stereotype video game players have in society. Don't be stupid and prejudiced.

-B

 

[terrakalar]

In regards to GW's Judgement: true that the number that comes out is random, but a player can circumvent this randomness and make Judgement work to his advantage. The #9 comes out about 10% of the time, so if you execute around 10 Judgements over the course of a match, you should be able to get a #9 somewhere in there. Do 20 and the chances increase even more.

The thing is that the actual execution of those 10 Judgements does NOT have to be random. It's a pretty easy move to hit with, especially if set up beforehand. And especially in a low stock match, all it takes is a #9 on someone at 10% to completely turn the tide of a game. So it's not totally random luck that someone will hit the 9; it's kinda like Peach's sad faced turnips, even if they come out rarely a Peach player may turn up dozens and dozens of turnips thru-out a match; a sad face will turn up eventually.

So while I say that Judgement/turnips should stay in the game, I actually disagree with Gilgamesh in that hitting someone with the 9/sad face is not total luck; you can actually incorporate both into a valid strategy. Things like a full flare blade or Gdorf's upA are much rarer to hit.

Furthermore, the Judgement is balanced out by Gdub's horrible endurance...like Gilgamesh said, Gdub needs that move. Peach is a better character, but the sad faces aren't instant death, and I think they come up more rarely than a #9. While dope-a$$ moves, both don't break the game.

 

[1psemet]

Well, the issue at hand seems to be camping, on which I have something to say. I think that bbt and Matt and most of you who bothered to read it didn't really get the gist of the playing to win and scrub articles at www.sirlin.net . They pertain and are obviously geered for (to an extent) tactics such as camping in SSBM. There is no evidence that the camping tactics mentioned (DK on Onnet, Link on Jungle Japes, etc.) are in any fashion insurmountable. It directly correlates to what he says about scrubs and whiners saying certain tactics are "cheap" and, if not completely unbeatable, conferring of a huge advantage. Instead of challenging yourself to formulate and incorperate counter-stratagies, the people in the item camp would seem to want to depend on items to make the situation go away. That's the epitome of Scrubish behavior as portrayed at that site.

There is a countertactic to anything the camping man can do. If he's shield grabbing, make sure to land slightly behind him at the last moment. If he's guarding a platform and when you try to jump over there doing some up move (Links up B or smash up A for instance), you can double jump at the last moment and come down on them while they are recovering. Or air dodge to the side as they start the move. If you opt for the simple, less skill based solution of turning items on, I contend that you are taking out a decent chunk of the game. It takes a good deal of skill and stratagy to counteract these tactics, but if you put your mind to it you often find that if they are going to try something so predictable as small platform camping, you often have the advantage over them. Such strategies are part of any competetive game (though mostly fighters and FPS's), and you will notice that, though they don't have the crutch of items to depend on, they are never dominated by them. In my experience, like EvilEvencar's, camping most often backfires if your opponent is competent. I suggest rereading those articles.

And, as a side note to BBT: I would appreciate it, as would all of my fellow no-itemers, i'm sure, if you didn't say such asinine things as "But I believe the rebuttal to this would just be 'that's not an option in the game to change'. Of course, then you wonder why the no-items side proposes extra rules not coded into the game to deal with campers.". As terrakalar points out, there are actually several good reasons why this belief that Judgement and it's ilk should be taken out is stupid. It was never proposed by anyone on the no-item side: probably because they, like me, thought the differences too painfully obvious to need pointing out. And only NJE did anything akin to suggesting arbitrary rules and rulings. I certainly didn't. Don't lump us all together and make unwarranted assumptions about our communal beliefs.

 

[Novowels]

hunka hunka burnin love

Heh, wait a minute.

You're saying that items play is cheap. Albeit in a highly roundabout fashion using as many big paragraphs as possible to obsfucate the whining as an 'argument.'

Meanwhile, you're saying that Bee and the no-itemers are calling certain tactics- free camping for example- cheap, because they feel it is what is unbalanced by playing with items off.

Pot; kettle.

 

[1psemet]

Ah Novowels... uh, simply put, you're insane. I didn't say in the last post, nor have I EVER said, that items are "cheap". I've said the exact opposite many times, in fact. All I was saying was that people who say camping is cheap are scrubs, as defined at sirlin. Items fix camping, but in a fashion that is less in-depth and strategic than without. To reiterate for you, as you seem to have low reading comprehension, you can either fix camping by being skillfull, and playing a complex mind-game, or you can fix camping by adding items, which make it a non-viable tactic, meanwhile adding a slew of problems in the form of balance issues and randomness. This makes the game less complex in a way, while also adding complexity in another.

And, because I am so terribly disgruntled by such inaccurate and unfounded statements, I will go on to point out that you made additional mistakes besides missing the entire point. First of all the statements were directed to Bee and her fellow ITEMERS, though a few of the no-itemers that you mistakenly referred to are also included if they happen to share such delusions. And Bee and the others do, quite clearly, say that camping is "cheap", not in exactly those words, but close enough. For instance, take this statement by Bee "It just gives such a big advantage to the camper than it would be insurmountable among players that are reasonable close in skill levels.". While I have never directly stated, nor alluded to, that items were such.

 

[Scamp]

Scrubs?

What you have done is bent the meaning of the article to suit your argument. Still, you didn't bend it that much, so I'll have to explain in detail. This takes work. I don't like work.

Anyway, just to make sure I want you to know that I'm not speaking for anyone else, just my point of view.

Depending on items to make the problem of camping go away is NOT the epitome of scrubbish behavior as defined by Sirlin. It's simply relying on one tactic that's in the game to take care of another tactic. In fact, items (if they're on, of course) are probably the best counter-strategy there is. I don't know if it was both you and Eoraptor, or just Eoraptor, but when we presented the problem of camping on Jungle Japes with Link vs. Zelda/Shiek, the main argument against such a scenerio was to use Zelda/Shiek's projectiles. That's how the whole Din's Fire sucking argument got started.
Scrubbish behavior would be to call camping cheap and make player rules that you couldn't do that ever.

As for countertactics, why would turning items on eliminate a huge chunk of the game? This makes no sense to me. If someone is camping you can still go gung-ho on his butt without bringing any items with you.
And, while you bring up some good counter-tactics against a camping character, I'm still not convinced. Even with such tactics the camping player has the advantage. The point was never that camping was insurmountable, it was just that the camping player had a huge advantage. Trying to break through it is not to your advantage.
Well, anyway, that was my point. I don't speak for Bee.

 

[Novowels]

moogly googlies.

Ah Novowels... uh, simply put, you're insane.

Yes.

But at least I'm not campaigning for people to stop using their forward-B attacks in Tournaments or something similarly nonsensical.

By the way the phrase "less in-depth and strategic" is the MARK of the SCRUB.

Beware it.

Camping is not cheap sans items. It does change the game rather fundamentally. Luckily, that is easily mended. First, you remove your head from your as.........

(and yes, calling Bee no-items was a typo. My brain was all moogly googlied from reading Vanderdrivel all night.)

Quite simply, No Items Super Smash Bros. Melee is not the same game as Super Smash Bros. Melee. Nor should it be. If this pale imitation of the game is to be played at tournaments, one would hope that people would take any rankings accrued from it with a grain of salt the size of Utah.

I have read many of the articles on the subject, and while articulate, they do seem to be simply large words covering a small whine.

Did yoo get beaten wid the widdle Star Rod? Awwww!

 

[SultanOfSamitude]

First of all the statements were directed to Bee and her fellow ITEMERS

..........


bee's a she?


a bee-she?



maybe you and snap pop could go video game shopping or something.


hey.. instead of a mod... we should call her a maude!


im so effing funny.


like maude.. from the simpsons.


but she's dead.


items are gamebreaking and cheap!


whoever uses items is cheap because they're cheap therefore you're cheap you big ol cheapy. scamp only lost to miscalleneous yoshi player #4 because... wait.. we were playing no items. i guess scamp just sucks.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Who's the scrub?

Camping isn't cheap. It just makes the game dull without items. Taken from the perspective of a gamer, with items off the game degenerates into camper wars. It is to your advantage to camp, it is to your disadvantage to attack a camper. Thus everyone that plays to win will camp. This makes characters that can't camp useless.

Because I think the normal settings, with items on, is a much more in-depth game. Not because camping is cheap. By eliminating items you change the dynamic of the game entirely and start playing your own make-believe version of the game. That's being a scrub.

You claim we should develop "counter-strategies" for no-item play against a camper. We have- camp yourself. This of course results in a stalemate. That's why no-item play is not acceptable- the viable counter-strategy results in a stalemate. Attacking a camper is stupid. Someone who "plays to win" does not play stupidly, they play to win. Thus they will also camp, and your game is broken.

Have you ever fought a good camper?

And no, I'm not a female. For some reason though I give off that impression. WTF? There are like 3 females out of 10000 members. Why would ANYONE ever assume someone was a female unless they had seen pretty obvious proof of it? I will never understand it. It's frightening, really, that I give off such a feminine impression. It's funny, of course, that you decide Novowels has "low reading comprehension" (LOL!) because he mistakenly said I was a no-itemer, and yet here you are mistaking me for a girl. Guess your reading comprehension sucks, too. Or do you have a double-standard when it comes to reading- you can make a simple mistake, but nobody else is allowed?

-B

 

[Gilgamesh]

But wait, BBT has a girlfriend... OMG BBT is a lesbian!

Uh.. no. Well. I used to think he was a female, but that's because i'm latin and in spanish, the female gender names for things usually end with "a". But i quickly found out that "she" was a "he".

Regarding Items vs. No-Items: I admit no-items play is completely different. It makes the game alot slower. I know, because i used to play no items ALOT. With no items, as others have pointed out already, camping becomes much easier- come on, no one has said that camping is invincible, but it's much easier to mantain with no-items mode. With items ON, the players must move much faster, and react to multiple events at one time.

There is a countertactic to anything the camping man can do. If he's shield grabbing, make sure to land slightly behind him at the last moment. If he's guarding a platform and when you try to jump over there doing some up move (Links up B or smash up A for instance), you can double jump at the last moment and come down on them while they are recovering. Or air dodge to the side as they start the move. If you opt for the simple, less skill based solution of turning items on, I contend that you are taking out a decent chunk of the game. It takes a good deal of skill and stratagy to counteract these tactics, but if you put your mind to it you often find that if they are going to try something so predictable as small platform camping, you often have the advantage over them. Such strategies are part of any competetive game (though mostly fighters and FPS's), and you will notice that, though they don't have the crutch of items to depend on, they are never dominated by them. In my experience, like EvilEvencar's, camping most often backfires if your opponent is competent.

This is what i mean. You seem to think items-on defenders think camping is invincible without items, which is not true.

 

[NJE789]

You know, "Bumble Bee", I don't know why anyone assumes you're a girl, either.

Before I get to my little conclusion over the items debate, I have one more thing to add,

If you "don't like videogames, or any videogame site. Not at all.", why are you here? This is a videogames site.

"Sarcasm" is an interesting word, isn't it?
I think the only thing anyone here's managed to do is give their opinion. Items prevent stalemates, but only if there's powerful ones like the pokeball or stars, which shouldn't be in a tournament unless no one really cares about the most skilled person winning. If you're going to let that kind of randomness in a match that could easily be watched by someone that could break up the stalemates, why not just do that? Why do you care at all about a situation where one person has an advantage if there's a good chance some item is going to turn the tide in a match anyway? I was on the no-items side, then switched from it because of the camping advantage, only to eventually come back to it because there's a better option than the items. Item-less matches can work with a little supervision. It's that too hard to do-some guy viewing the match and ordering the players
to quit camping when they stalemate? If, for some reason you really can't see this working, then the items side wins, since there's no other way to prevent stalemates without items. That's it, the debate will be over unless someone has a better idea.
Most of the people still in this debate are just flaming and don't seem to really care about it.-You people SUCK!

 

[EvilEvincar]

It looks like the camping section of this debate is rounding down. Now most (if not all) people have given up on calling it broken, but instead have taken the route that it slows the gameplay down. I'll just say stand-off's happen in any game. It just happens more if people think that they have no options open. And as 1psemet outlined, people have more options then they think. (S)He (sorry, had to do that) only just pointed out a few stratagies you can perform against campers. And unlike what NJE says, I don't think supervision is nessisary, because camping isn't broken. Or as BBT said, it even isn't cheap.
Now for what people are saying about the changes when items are turned off. The metagame does change. In case for those with low vocabulary, metagame means what goes on outside the immeadite game, such as what people think, how to build a Magic deck, ect. Without the items, the game in my opinion becomes more stratigic because now you have less options then with items on. You will only have yourself to rely on, and luck is lessened to who your opponent is. The speed of the game doesn't really change, it's just you have less to consentrate on.
Now to reiterate the question I would like everyone to answer. Is it more difficult for you to play with or without items?
"The best things in life are free. Money, for instance." From Rishadan Footpad

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

to reply to an earlier post-

No, I don't think the differences between items and judgement are that different. I can only go by Terrakalar's defense of keeping Judgement in the game.

Terrakalar claims that Judgement is different, because the player can use it to his advantage because he's the one controlling the move and it's easy to land. This point seems weak anyway, but how is this different from the fact that you can control the randomness of items by controlling the stage and the fact that it takes your skill to use them and avoid them?
The only real argument here is that the G&W player controls the randomness to some extent (just like any player has control over the item randomness). So that doesn't differentiate Judgement from items. Could you elaborate as to how this constitutes "several reasons" why Judgement is different? It looks like one reason to me, and a poor one at that. Sounds awfully familiar, actually, to the "combined effect of the multiple reasons" or whatever you cited earlier when you were really just talking about one thing, randomness.

And I just need to quote terrakalar- "And especially in a low stock match, all it takes is a #9 on someone at 10% to completely turn the tide of a game."

Completely turn the tide of a game? A move that can do this, and occurs 10% of the time? This is huge! I rarely see people claim that items completely turn the tide of the game that often at all! The rare bob-omb or crate tends to be MUCH rarer than that. If we accept Terra's idea of 10 Judgements per game, I have some trouble accepting the idea that items could possibly be more game-influencing in their randomness than G&W's hammer. Now, I'm no statistician, but it seems like with a 10% chance of getting the 9, you'd be pretty likely to get 1 per game...you'd also be pretty likely to get 2 in a game or none in a game. Since the move is pratically a free kill, getting 2 in one game (a frequent occurence) vs. getting none in a game (also a frequent occurence) would be HUGE, and definitely completely alter the results.

And don't claim that other games have camping tactics and they don't experience this problem, so SSBM must be no different. Games are designed to discourage camping, because camping is not fun. Offense is encouraged by the programming so that camping does NOT give an advantage. In SSBM, the programming to make camping not a viable tactic is ITEMS. Also, other games have uniform stages that do not really provide some unique location that is difficult to assail. SSBM doesn't, and that's why camping is viable. The programmers did make it so that offense is good enough to overcome defense on, say, FD, because otherwise you'd have people just sitting around not fighting. This is why items are in the game, aside from the fact that they add fun and depth.

So Judgement is more random than items...why not ban it? The only argument I'm left with is the one I mentioned earlier- that's not an option in the game to be toggled. But then I wonder how someone could maintain the anti-camping rules necessary to add if you get rid of items. There's certainly no "no camping" toggle in the game. And please, 1psemet...

only NJE did anything akin to suggesting arbitrary rules and rulings. I certainly didn't.

The solution to this may sound somewhat arbitrary, but is still preferable to items in most cases from my viewpoint. Thinking on this situation, you'll 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.

What's that? you never suggested arbitrary rules? ****, you even said yourself your imposed rules may sound somewhat arbitrary. As in, they ARE arbitrary external rules.

Please, if you're going to start pulling a Christian on me and as soon as your beaten on one point, renounce it and take up a second point that contradicts the first one...I might as well not bother.

I think that's about it, aside from a quick response to NJE:

Pokeballs and stars aren't all that powerful. I'd certainly rather have a lot of other items than those ones.
You can't have someone force people to attack each other, because then you're not playing SSBM, you're playing a made up version of it you invented. And you certainly can't tell someone- "put yourself at a disadvantage or you're disqualified!". The whole strategy of the game is maximizing your advantages and avoiding disadvantages. If you force someone to neglect an advantage, your results will be bunk. I could go into it more, but because 1psemet already brought that up and had it rebutted, you can just read the old topic instead.

-B

 

[EvilEvincar]

BBT: I thought the Judgement thing was over. What Terrakalar means is that while you can pull 10 or even 100 Judgements, items fall only once every few seconds. But I think this a mute point anyway since few players use G&W, much less use the Judgement just due to it's delay.
Now the camping problem. It seems that you still don't get the point. Items are not the only way around camping. Heck, you can pull off many attack with minimal, if any, disadvantage. And it's still appearent that items help little because only a few items discourage camping. And that goes back to the randomness arguement. Plus, you made the arguement that items are the anti-camping measure the programmers made. But it could be argued that the programmers made this as a multi-player game, not a 1v1 game. And thus, because of the frenzy in a multiplayer game, camping could not be an issue. Just because you use items as an anti-camping measure doesn't really make them the programmer's anti-camping measure.
As for your bash on 1psemet, I believe what he meant by arbitrary was something like "You can't go there." or "You can't use that move or tatic.", not by time limits. Actually, isn't time constrants the reason tournies are set at 3-stock.
Sorry, no Magic quote today, have to go.

 

[Nobie]

It's not that items are the only way to discourage camping, but they're one of the best ways. As long as the camper chooses to stay in his position, he or she will both 1) not be able to get the items as easily and 2) will be attacked by them, and by staying in that camping spot, will be an easier target. "Why doesn't the camper just move out of the way then?" Well, hey, look at that, you just de-camped the camper. Item-less de-camping is certainly possible, but it generally puts the de-camper at a disadvantage. It's kind of like if your opponent had a bob-omb, and you were Mewtwo and instead of staying back and waiting for the right time to dodge, you chose to charge straight at the opponent and use Confusion right as your opponent throws the Bob-omb. Certainly, it's possible and can lead to spectacular results, but it's wholly unnecessary and risky. Actually, there's the key point right there: How much at risk is a player going to be if he attempts to de-camp a camper using his or her chosen method?

But it also seems you don't realize the root of the G&W judgement thing. What I essentially presented is that, if one of the reasons items should be banned is because they randomize things too much, then all forms of randomness should be banned. Remember that while Judgement 9 is immensely powerful, everything else in between is below mediocre and Judgement 1 does significant damage to G&W instead of the opponent. Most items, on the other hand, tend to be at least average in terms of effectiveness. And if G&W is such a poor character that he should get beaten down by the higher tiers, then it is all the more a matter of luck if G&W scores a Judgement 9 or two and wins the match because of it. "But it's the ability of the character!" you might say. Well, the way characters use items are part of their character as well.

Examples?

The way Link puts away his shield when carrying an item, making him unable to do the projectile-block thing. The fact that Mewtwo is tied for the fastest barrel/crate pick-up speed in the game. The fact that Captain Falcon's bashing item smashes are far different from other characters with the "holding a" thing. Donkey Kong's ability to jump with a crate/barrel in hand. Samus's incredibly fast bashing item swing.

You also cannot argue that items are pointless. I could say the same thing of a number of aspects of Smash Bros Melee. Why should tourneys allow the use of all B moves that aren't recovery moves? Why shouldn't they ban rapid-a combos? And who's to say you can't play the game without rolls? "But these are a part of the characters!" Well, yeah, so are the way they use items.

 

[Scamp]

Hmmm.....

I dunno why I'm still posting on this. I guess maybe for old times sake?

If you believe that you can pull off many non-projectile attacks with minimal, if any, disadvantage, then you simply haven't faced a good camper.
1psemet mentioned some good tactics but there are still far more (and easy, too) countermeasures and options that the camping player has to balance this out.

The whole party argument is simply wrong. FFA may be a frenzy but if someone is off camping to the side then they're not going to be in the middle of it all. In fact, an easy way to win FFA is to run away and let the other guys hurt each other, then go get everyone after they've been beaten up. The only way to counter this is to gang up on the camper.

But, it's true. We don't know what the programmers intended. We just feel that items are the most effective way to beat a camper in a 1-on-1 situation.

Hmmm....this thread has gone on long enough. Unless something new comes up, I'm probably done.

 

[NJE789]

Hey- wait a minute, that isn't true.

In response to bbt's reply to my last post:
If you make both players stop camping, where's the disadvantage? They both move in, they both lose the advantage, which by the way is useless if they both camp in a stalemate, so the only problem with this is if you have a problem with "playing a make-believe version". Isn't any version you play your own, since you customize the in-game rules?

 

[Nobie]

The basic problem with rules that aren't a part of the in-game rules is that they're too hard to enforce. If both players are trying to camp, tell them to get a move on? How do you know that they're trying to just stand there and camp? Maybe they've decided to take a brief breather or something. And how would you determine how long would be too long to stay in a position ideal for camping? And no matter what the time limit is, one player will exploit it.

Basically, added rules cannot be truly enforced properly.

 

[NJE789]

what does that have to do with it?

Some of your points don't even make sense. How does having someone break up stalemates stop the players from requesting a quick break? As for the time limit, there is none on camping, just when both players do it, and they aren't on a moving platform(all moving stages will stop), which is stalemating. I think 10 seconds makes a nice limit on stalemating. The stalemate's time limit can't be exploited. If you have to make the characters walk away and then move in, that'll take care of that problem.

 

[Nobie]

But what about the fact that certain characters play better defensively? You're forcing both players to get in and start attacking, and the one with the more aggressive character will usually win (provided skills are equal).

And will you have a big list of designated camping spots? And will you tell the competitors what they are and warn them in advance. What if someone discovers a new camping spot?


Also, this 10 second time limit on camping, how will the players know about it? Will you set up a large clock that counts to 10 whenever there's a stalemate? Or what? If it's a large clock, then the player has to divert his or her attention.

And what about corrupt judges?

 

[Gilgamesh]

Nobie's right, non game rules are too hard to inforce. Contestants will start arguing wheter or not they did/didn't break the rules, that they counted different seconds, that the judges may be corrupt or stupid, and it'll just end pissing everyone. And if you can make the character walk one step, and then return, you're technically not breaking the camping rule, yet still camping?

Now really, non-game rules are just too Scrubby to be used. Well, unless it's a national scrubs tournament where everyone is honorable and follows millions of stupid rules, because remember, one rule leads to anothere eventually.

 

[NJE789]

Hey- what are you talking about?

Who said the players would be looking at the clock? I said have a judge that would do that. But, there's no need for me to go on, I'm afraid he's got me with the "currupt judges" point..

 

[Nobie]

Now, it's not that I don't mind out-of-game rules in a video game, nor do I prefer the "win-or-nothing" mentality of tournament-goers, but it's simply that this particular out-of-game rule isn't needed.

Let me give you an example from Pokemon, because it's something I know far better in Melee. In a Pokemon tournament, time limits have to be set, though particularly, a time limit for choosing a move. Otherwise, if even one player decides to just sit around and not choose an attack, it just wastes time. There's no strategy aspect aside from possibly pissing off your opponent, and whether you choose the moved 5 seconds after or 5 minutes after doesn't make a difference in the result of that turn (with a few exceptions). And if there is a large clock, players can afford to look away from their screen and look back, because the game isn't played in real time.

This really isn't the case with Melee, as it already has items to break stalemates programmed in.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

it's simple

you just can't declare a certain tactic to be invalid and not allow people to use it simply because you don't like it. It's a valid tactic, and if someone comes to your tournament that has built their strategy on it, and you tell them they can't use it, that's simply wrong. Camping is also useful a lot of the time when one player thinks it's his only hope against a more-skilled opponent. How would this arbitrary rule work? A guy is camping on the side of Japes, and neither one is attacking or they will both be disqualified. The lesser-skilled player knows he would lose if he lost his camping advantage anyway, so he stays where he is. This means the other player has no choice but to attack if he wants to win. And of course, attacking puts him at a serious disadvantage. Who are you to declare that he has to do that? It's ridiculous. You can't make up rules in a tournament. You have to pick settings, of course, but in doing so you need to follow the same code- Pick the set of rules that is the fairest and most "standard". No 200% damage mode because that's not the norm. It just takes some common sense. If you don't have an obvious reason to change a base setting, then you don't. You NEVER invent rules outside of the game settings unless the game would be broken otherwise and there are no other options (i.e., if there's a bug that crashes the game, you ban it, because otherwise whenever someone is about to lose they just crash it and start over. There is no solution other than an extra rule outside of the game). In SSBM, of course, there is a rule inside the game, AND it's a default setting. Items. these prevent any game-greaking situations from within the standard game mechanics, so you don't want to invent rules. It's simple. It s the way competitive gaming works. All fighting game tournaments worth a **** will not invent rules unless the game is broken otherwise.

If you want to run a scrub tournament, fine. The results won't be worth ****, though.

-B

 

[NJE789]

You've insulted other people for not reading posts, but you apparantly didn't read my latest posts on this. I've already quit trying to debate this, but I think I should clarify on a few misunderstandings. I didn't say ban camping, just stalemating. No one has a disadvantage if they both are told to stop camping when they stalemate. Items take care of this problem, but they create another- randomness. That was my argument.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

stalemating comes from camping

The only way you can get a stalemate is when both players camp. When one player camps, the other (if he's at all smart) will not attack, and camp as well. This will be the way stalemates happen. Thus, the only way to ban stalemating is to ban camping.

So if you tell both guys to fight, and one is on the platform on Japes and the other is in the middle...who is supposed to jump to whose platform? How do you arbitrarily decide? What if the guy on the platform stays where he is. He's willing to risk getting disqualified because he thinks he'd probably lose if he stopped camping. So then the other guy is forced to attack or they both get disqualifed. If he attacks, he will probably lose due to his disadvantage. Basically I already typed up this whole scenario in my last post which you of course ignored.

How do you make both characters attack at once? At what point does the game stop being a match between two players and instead changes into a match where both sides are being controlled by the same guy, the judge? You can't make this work, nor is it fair, which is why you need items.

-B

 

[EvilEvincar]

NJE: Stop trying. You're the only one on either side trying to insert the anti-camping rule. While each side has different reasons for this, you seem to be the only avocate for the rule. Plus, there are many good points being put out there against the rule anyway.
Now that we (hopefully) have that done, let's try to settle this camping arguement. Everyone seems to agree that there are other methods, but are just being stuborn to try them. I would like to ask your goal in attacking the camper in any method. Nobie seems to just want to decamp him, as in just move him so he can't camp. Items, except the star, will not actually move a camper. Nobie in his rhetoric sarcasm simply didn't think of one thing, the shield. Not Link's shield, but the one you generate from holding L or R. Some items may get it down to a small size, but rarely will it break it (note: rarely because there will be some idiots who hold their shield all the time). The ray gun might break a shield, but does so little damage if not charged (I doubt anyone will allow charged shot to even hit their shield) the camper will just take the hits.
By the way, just a tip for everyone on how to anti-camp. Stay unpredicable. I can understand this may be hard for some. It sounds like people are just walking or dodging into the camper's attacks. If you vary your movement, the camper will have a much harder time camping. Even campers will have to time attacks. And if you are good at being unpredicable, you can land a kill or start a combo against the camping *******.
And Nobie, think of Judgement in this way. In a game of Yahtzee, you get three rolls to get 5 of a kind. But with Judgement, you could roll as many time as you want. With items, you just get the three rolls because tournaments that have items on will keep them on medium. A G&W player will use Judgement until it works, where as I doubt you can wait for a good item to appear. Plus, I just think you're making a bigger deal of this then it really is, since there aren't that many G&W players.
What do you G&W players have to say about this? Please respond, mostly because I would like to know if there are people who use G&W as their main character.
"Isn't he on our side?"
"Yep."
"Why's he spyin' on us"
"Don't ask." From Goblin Spy

 

[Nobie]

The amount of G&W players isn't the problem. Well, actually, it might even help the argument even more.

Think about it: If there are little to no G&W players, and they manage to win their matches because of Judgement 9, then the results are even more skewed than usual.

 

[CORY]

rice fairy

there also seems to be a problem with your rhetoric, evincar, the same problem you pointed out to us. the camper can shield, then grab when you attack him, then take a few potshots off of you and then throw you back out or off the screen depending on character and stage. no matter what you'll be at a disadvantage to attack a camper head on if he has a good head on his shoulders and a good spot to camp from. even if you attempt to be unpredictable you'll still be at a disadvantage because all the camper has to do is react while you have to instigate the action.

the reason items help decamp is because they force the reaction on the camper without immediate danger to you. and you can use fake outs while throwing the items as well. i play against a turtle peach quite often (**** you silas!) and for a while he'd just dodge any items i'd throw at him. so i started to use the first step of marth's dance to throw his dodge off and catch him when he recovered. needless to say he quickly learned to react a lot faster so he wouldn't get caught in that.

the same thing can be applied to a camper. you can use the item to trick him out into doing something leaving him open for you without as much immediate danger to yourself.

gah! work! gotta go, f00z!

 

[Stition]

I've been lurking around these boards for quite some time now, so I have a relatively firm grasp of both sides of the debate (hopefully, at least).
I think it was Matt Deezie who said that the core of playing with items (the central point of his argument) was to prevent camping (could be wrong, but eh). It seems as though this point has been soundly disproven, but I'll share my opinion on the subject.
Camping sets tight restrictions on the options available to a player, putting them at a major disadvantage. Contrary to popular opinion, even a semi-decent opponent can exploit this.
Like the options listed by 1psemet, if you're having problems with shield-grabbing, land behind them, take advantage of their lag. If it's a small platform and they stand close enough to the edge to prevent this, use a powerful aerial attack to send them off the platform or land on the opposite edge. For each option available the the camper, there's many more available to the aggressor, therefore it's much more difficult for the camper to predict what the aggressor will do than the reverse.
We could go into agonizing detail on specific examples, but I don't think that's required.
If both players are camping, it shows just how little they think and adapt during a match.

Smash with and without items are two very different games. This gets rather abstract, but hang in there: With items on medium, they're almost half of the game, so someone who's half as skilled as I at the melee aspect but twice as skilled as I with items, would have an almost 50% win ratio with items (on medium), and near zero with none. Turn them on very high and it's reversed. I know that skill can't be classified into distinct values, but the point should be easy enough to grasp.
If you just like them because they add "depth" and "fun" then turn down the frequency, make them a less vital part of the game. Is medium items really better than low? The two are much easier to compare than medium vs. none, and we'll be able to more accurately dissect the differences.

 

[Click Here]

well, you've certainly started a riot lol

Hal put items into the game to balance out SSBM, for example, if you gave samus projectiles, and bowser none, than bowser would be at a disadvantage. But a bowser with a superscope kind of matches up with samus's projectiles, having items in the game, balances out the game, people who say it's unfair obviously are either too lazy to shield, powershield, etc. In reality, items can easily be countered, if you think about it, bowser's B (fire breath) and the flame thrower are basically the exact same, the both run out similarly, and so therefore, items were meant to enhance the lower tiers. If a higher tier gets an item, it is still the same, as the lower tier can easily powershield or Shield, in fact, you can even catch the item, so it makes the game balanced.

The debate about breaking SSBM's rules, I'm not going to read all the posts, but with wot I've read so far, I've come over one questions, how do you break the rules in SSBM?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

To make your point...

you have to prove that decamping a camper isn't just possible....but advantageous. The point is that a good player will only do things that are to his advantage. If decamping the camper is not, he will not attempt it and both players will camp.

You have not convinced me that decamping a good character is easier than the alternative. I don't think such a thing would be possible over an internet forum, unfortunately. I'd have to see it for myself (or more likely, hear about a match with someone whose camping skills I trusted, as I base most judgements on this game on the play of others).

Yeah, it's also POSSIBLE for a tiny Pichu to not get killed by a giant metal bunny-hooded Peach...but the chances are pretty low. Same goes for camping (though you won't hear me contend it's quite to this extreme).

-B

 

[1psemet]

Several things. First, some minor things that annoy me. BBT, calling you a female was just a typo. Me and Eoraptor actually had a discussion about this a long time ago, because you just struck me as so for some reason. We decided to look at your profile and from thus determined you were in fact male. Heh. Anyway, I wasn't berating Novowels for his typo. God knows we all make enough of those. It would be petty and meaningless to do so. I was insulting him because he completely misunderstood the entire point of my rather straitforward paragraphs.

This goes into the camping argument. Camping is, in my opinion (and I'm obviously not alone. EvilEvincar and Stition at least agree with me), not actually advantageous. The person attacking has more options. With unskiled people, yes, camping can be a problem. But played at high levels, camping doesn't work. I ask you, have you ever tried to camp against a person with good anti-camping skills?

As for stalemates. Items DO NOT END STALEMATES. If the players both choose to camp, they don't have to go after the items. They may decide not to. Thus the game could go on forever with, or without. Say at tg, two people simply decided that attacking wasn't advantageous, no matter what they had. What would you do? The only way to prevent this is to impose a time limit. The statement I made that BBT quoted was referring to the problem that if there isn't one, the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to end the game is through arbitrary rules. Obviously, there are huge numbers of problems with that. So, In your stock match, you can set a time limit. You can make it exceptionally high, so basically it only serves to make it so that stalemates aren't possible. In the stock 3 tg settings, say, twenty minutes would be more than enough. This makes it so that stalemates AREN'T POSSIBLE, unlike items. It also add's a plethora of new stratagies and mind games. It's that simple. Add a time limit, all stalemating problems go away. There is no need for items to do this.

As for the discussion on Judgement... First off, BBT's attack of it used figures that Terrakalar pulled out off his ***, and coupled with his asserting that it could "turn the tide of the game". Judgement's randomness differs from items in several important ways. Here is a list of what I could think of.

Judgement:
-Only GW can use it.
-He can use it at will.
-It has very distinct, calculable odds for each effect.
-Number nine is balanced by number one, with everything else in between. The damage he inflicts with nine will probabalistically be balanced by the damage he recieves from one. He kills at reasonably low percent with nine... But he dies at reasonably low health, being like the third lightest in the game.
-As part of his moveset, it fills a niche, and is balanced with the rest of him. If you took it away, it would leave a gaping hole that would leave him crappier than he is.

Items:
-Appear at random times. (on medium, with an average of 12ish I believe. Exact figures can be dredged up if anyone cares. It varies wildly however.)
-Appear at random locations about the stage. (something like 20~ for each stage, I belive.) Thus they can help or hinder (even instantly kill) anyone.
-Vary wildly in utility. (with thirty or so items.) All of them, however, are beneficial. They go from barely worth anything (Mr. Saturn) to tide turning (Hearts, Stars, Pokeballs, etc).

A few other things. Judgement can't kill most characters, in most situations with a nine when they are at really low health. And landing Judgement isn't a cakewalk. It isn't the speediest move, either in implementation or recovery time. If you run around trying it all the time, you will get the living crap kicked out of you. You can, however, use it strategically. You make calls as to whether it's worth the risk at the time. Do you take the chance that you get a nine to kill him, knowing that if you get anything else he'll recover and hit/kill you? You cannot do anything of the sort with items.

In conclusion: no, obviously Judgement is fine, and should be allowed. Though it's one of the reasons why it isn't possible to be all that good with GW, in my opinion. He doesn't have that much killing potential, so you are tempted to depend on it, only, it's undependable. No matter how good you are, only about a tenth of your hits are worth crap. You COULD get exceptionally lucky... but on average it's simply not worth it.

 

[Nobie]

And the more you say that G&W has Judgement because he needs it, and the more you point out that Judgement 1 has recoil, the more you prove my point.

After all, isn't winning because of Judgement mainly a matter of luck? Even if you connect with the hammer itself, there's still the chance you don't get the KO power of Judgement 9.

Even more, because only G&W can use it, doesn't that make the results more skewed?

G&W being a good or bad character is not an issue. It's the matter that Judgement is about 80% luck. What, if Fox or Falco had this move, you'd ban it instantly?

 

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Nobie
And the more you say that G&W has Judgement because he needs it, and the more you point out that Judgement 1 has recoil, the more you prove my point.

After all, isn't winning because of Judgement mainly a matter of luck? Even if you connect with the hammer itself, there's still the chance you don't get the KO power of Judgement 9.

Even more, because only G&W can use it, doesn't that make the results more skewed?

G&W being a good or bad character is not an issue. It's the matter that Judgement is about 80% luck. What, if Fox or Falco had this move, you'd ban it instantly?

the point is... fox and falco DO NOT have this move, for obvious reasons.

 

[1psemet]

I really can't fathom your line of reasoning. You have no real point. Obviously, yes, Judgement is random in several ways. These ways are fundamentally different in both nature and scope than the ways items are random. Judgement is LESS random. Items basically randomly favor whoever happens to be closest to them. They are always beneficial and often turn the tide of the match. They play a huge, often primary, role in any battle with them on. This is inimical to fair, tournament play. Judgement, on the other hand, is a built in part of GW. It helps balence some of his weaknesses. While each number has about a ten percent chance of happening, you can do it at will, and keep track of all the numbers to make intelligent decisions about whether to use it over the long run. Winning because of Judgement isn't because of luck. It's because the player of GW uses it again and again, and sometimes gets lucky. It's because he strategically decides to do it when the benefit outweighs the risk. It doesn't instantly kill them. It's hard to pull off.

If you play GW, and rely heavily on Judgement, then indeed, your matches have a larger element of luck than any other char (besides perhaps peach). This is part of the character selection process. You know that you will have some **** skippy times, and some crap ones. You know that this isn't a big part of whether you win or not (that would be the rest of your moves and techniques), and that it evens out in the end anyway. Even during the course of a single match it mostly evens out. Using Judgement is skill based as Items existance is not. You can chose to take the risk (or not) any time. With items on the randomness uncontrolably effects the match.

Your last sentance... WTF? Where in gods name did you come up with that? No, obviously, is the answer. First, if Fox or Falco had this move, they would scoff at it and rarely if ever use it. It's stupid to depend on luck when you have more effective moves handily available. And if for some reason it was made more effective to possibly have a place in their repertoire, then the same would go for them as for GW.

 

[Nobie]

Two different types of luck is still luck and "randomization."

Using Judgement is a part of strategy as you find the right time to hit with it, as you said.

This is sounding a lot like items.

Items appear at a regular rate and you can choose whether or not to get the item, if the benefits outweigh the risks. Is the item right for your character? If you chase after the item, do you put yourself in danger or lose your position?

Where the items fall is randomized to a certain extent (though the items always drop from the same set of locations), but still is in the realm of probability. Likewise, Judgement does not work in any fashion that increases the probability of getting a 9 the more you use it. Yes, if you do it enough times, a 9 will probably appear, but each use of Judgement is an isolated incident. I could flip a coin 50 times and all 50 times it could land on tails, but just because I've gotten 50 tails in a row doesn't determine the outcome of the next coin flip.

Players do not rely mainly on items, as the reason they win is generally because of their skills, not how much they use items. Are you saying that with items on, use of items outweighs everything else, including skill?

 

[NJE789]

I can't believe this.

G&W is one of the worst characters, yet people are actually debating if one of his moves should be banned from tournaments? I'll admit judgement ends more matches than it should if you do what I do- knock your opponent away and use judgement a few times until it's probable #9 will hit in the next few judgements, but it's still unreliable. Personally, I think if judgement did #9 every time, G&W would then just be considered a decent character, even though he would arguably have the best finisher in the game.