Items vs. No Items: A rambling essay

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

wow, talk about reading incomprehension

1psemet, I'd reply to you, but it appears I already have...My counterpoints to what you just said have already been mentioned! Basically, they boil down to:

1. your idea that the 1 "balances" the 9 is silly, that's just saying it's even more random because sometimes it can randomly hurt you instead of your opponent...thus making it twice as volatile.

2. Your idea that Judgement requires "skill" thus negating it's randomness is silly, because items require skill as well. I just don't see how you could possess the cognitive dissonance necessary to pretend that Judgement is somehow more skillful than items. Your post comparing judgement to items is so nonsensical I find it hard to believe I once believed you were a capable debator. I think you need to think a little harder about this particular point.

3. On stalemates- Stalemates occur because it is on both players advantage to camp. As much as you'd like to hypothesize that a stalemate COULD occur with items on...it won't. It IS in a players advantage to get the items and attack the opponent with them, thus they will do it if they're trying to win. Nobody will stalemate in an items match unless they're intentionally trying to **** with your tourney because they're assholes. Meanwhile, in the real world, stalemates HAVE occurred that items broke in real tournament situations. And no-items tournaments have even occurred where the players almost stalemated with no hope for a final result on fourside but due to neither player wanting to ruin the tournament, they both essentially took turns attacking the other person's entrenched position and getting their asses kicked for it through an informal unspoken agreement.

Ugh. even when I don't want to reply I still end up replying. This really is getting to be just like the religious debates, where I encounter enough circular logic and fallacy to make my head explode. I might have to follow the crowd and give up trying to explain things to you. You're like a fundy that uses big words, which makes it all the more nerve-racking because I think "Someone who knows the meaning of 'obfuscate' and actually uses it in their speech should be smart enough to see the simple holes in this logic...right?" Wrong, unfortunately.

-B

 

[BeeboW]

Why do people think that the only finishing move for GAW is judgement 9?

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.

He has plenty of killing potential doesn't he? His forward smash is very strong as is his parachute. His down+a in air is a good move and im sure he has plenty of other moves at his disposal that can KO.
Sorry that was off topic...even though i suck at items, i think the points made for items are much better than the ones made for anti-items....
Since i haven't read all of this post, i might be repeating something but im pretty sure that the pro-item camp acknowledges the fact that items are random, but they are saying that this randomness is justified because it breaks stalemates?

 

[Stition]

It seems as though some of you are simply too fundamently slow to understand certain concepts. If you can't see the differences between Judgement and Items (disregarding analogies) then it's useless debating with you. I was under the impression this whole time that it WAS a simple analogy, but it appears that it's taken as a serious point. How dissapointing.
Most of you understand that items favor the higher tier (quick) characters. At least I hope you do, items aren't a balancing factor. The upper tier characters are usually the aggressors (cover more of the stage), they're faster (can get to items faster), and can more easily use an item to their advantage than a slow character (due to their speed, and inherent ability to be more unpredictable).

The only valid argument supporting items play (in tournaments at least) is that they require skill to use (which is rather vague, and fallable). The "3rd element" and that are one and the same and the camping isn't really an issue for items to decide, it's the players.
Does the skill required to use items (catching mostly) counter-balance the randomness involved (where they are placed, and what appears). I don't think so, Items may add some strategy to the game, but they also detract a certain amount. With items, a defensive game becomes much less effective.
When you're killed, not only do you lose a stock but your opponent gets to run and grab without interference until you respawn.
Edgeguarding becomes much easier, so the characters with a good edge guarding game lose one of their prime advantages.
Likewise, the characters with good recovery lose some of that advantage.
The characters with projectiles suffer much the same, most items, whether thrown or ranged are better than most of the in-built ranged attacks.
Items make the game much more generic. Instead of several possible play strategies and techniques, the game boils down to the person who controls the majority of the stage, aquiring the majority of the powerful items (lucky pokeballs, exploding pills (or not, all depending), etc (quite a bit of randomization)), wins. The optimal strategy is all too apparent, and is only possible with a few of the characters.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by Stition
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.

I said I wasnt going to post anymore, and I still dont want to, but some of the stuff said is effing killing me.

"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."

What you think we're effing ******* over here?

You just explained to me a cross up, and a knock back. Granted yes these are a few tactics you use to get a camper off, yet did you ever think you could effing ground dodge them both, thus putting the agressor at the disadvantage? (just one option, cause you shouldnt be stupid enough to get yourself in that position.)

What if you stand on the rock on kongo jungle, not fully in the middle, but close to the edge. Far enough that you wont get knocked back to hang on the ledge, but enough that you wont get crossed up. (Which is what you should be doing if you were bright...) Then what are you going to do. Get block thrown. And then you will be at an extreme disadvantage, cause the camper just threw you backward, and now you have to get edge-guarded like a mofo.

The camper with no items, ALWAYS has more oppourtunites. Because he is safe. He is standing on an effing rock. If a character does not have a 45 degree projectile, you HAVE to jump in after him to get him to move. How is this MORE options when the camper can either sit there, go for an anti air move, jump and intercept, ground dodge, or block throw?

"Been soundly disproven..."

Its been soundly disproven by people who have little to NO outside competition, and no tournament experience. Its like me trying to debate polotics when i ran for class president.

The BEST argument I had to read for the no items case was my friend 1pmset. He turned around my favorite gaming site sirlin on us, and said that we were shallow minded by turning items off.

The only problem is that camping is unlike anything else in other fighting games. No other game can give you a huge advantage for staying in one section of a level. It would be like playing street fighter, and then if you stay on the left side of the screen you get twice the health, and do twice the damage. Could a really skilled player beat a scrub camping in the corner? Yes. Could a really skilled player beat a really skilled player camping in the corner? No. The guy was at effing double health and deals out twice the damage you do. You wouldnt fight him in the corner. You would throw projectiles until he leaves to corner, or use the projectiles to help set up how you will take the corner from him.

Now if you took projectiles out, you would have to always take the disadvantage of trying to get the guy out of the corner. The camper doesnt want to lose his advantage, and the agressor doesnt want to be disadvantaged. So again, stalemate.

items dethroning camping has not been proven flawed. You guys cannot see the fact that camping is a tactic that is really hard to beat. Its useless to argue, cause most of the people have no idea what they are talking about, and time will be the thing that determines the rule set. Once you get good players playing in no items tournaments, they will ban stages, or they will add stupid player made rule sets to prevent camping.

PS it isnt only stars and pokeballs that dethrone a camper. Its basically every item in the game. It gives you a means on attacking the opponenet from a distance, or throwing something to set up how you will take the position.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Dammit, I read the next post and got pissed off again. Yes I am double posting. Im too lazy to edit my last post and quote this guy.

Originally posted by Stition
Most of you understand that items favor the higher tier (quick) characters. At least I hope you do, items aren't a balancing factor. The upper tier characters are usually the aggressors (cover more of the stage), they're faster (can get to items faster), and can more easily use an item to their advantage than a slow character (due to their speed, and inherent ability to be more unpredictable).

This I disagree with. I agree with the fact that speedier characters get more items. However I think that items benefit the middle tier characters the most.

Yes Fox/Falco/Sheik can grab probably more than half of the items. Yet the benefit of their getting the items is less than the benefit of the middle tier characters. The item, let use the beam sword for example, kills part of these characters game. Their dash attacks now do not launch. (A pretty big part of the FFS characters game.) They now have the beamsword range game. A game that is pretty much fundementally the same when almost (key word almost) all the characters grab a beam sword.

I think the top tier characters get benefits from throwing the items, yet using them is pretty much the same as the other characters.

Now middle tier characters have not nearly as good of a base game. This means when they grab a beam sword, their game has been increased a notch. It may be a factor that can help them fend off a character with a better game.

Now I realize that this argument is flawed. Most people think that the better characters still get the better advantage. However I look at it this way. DK vs Falco with no items, Falco has a huge advantage. However throw items in there, and if DK is a smarter player, he will have a better chance to beat Falco through smart item use.

The only valid argument supporting items play (in tournaments at least) is that they require skill to use (which is rather vague, and fallable). The "3rd element" and that are one and the same and the camping isn't really an issue for items to decide, it's the players.

Nobody understands the effing third element, and why it makes the game of SSBM a great game. Maybe I havent explained it well. In my mind it is more of a concept than just "items are there."

The third element is the factor that items have in making the game progress. This means it effects a lot of things, in a lot of different ways.

Items make the game progess. When an item drops in between you, the players switch playing style, and a new mind game is created. The conflict between those two characters that meet up going for the item would not have happened without the item. Without items they would have continued the same game.

Without items dropping, often there is no way that the game is going to progess. People will continue to use the same tactics. They dont need to adapt to new situations. The mindsets and strategies used in item play change constantly. The mindsets and strategies used in no item play often stay similar, because you dont have other factors that make you adapt. Any good item player can play without items. Not every good no item player can play with items.

The third element brings new set-ups, new strategies, new incentives. It requires much more thought than no item play, and as a benefit is a lot more fun.

Does the skill required to use items (catching mostly) counter-balance the randomness involved (where they are placed, and what appears). I don't think so, Items may add some strategy to the game, but they also detract a certain amount.

Catching is skillful, but often not practical at all. I player could have hot hands, yet suckass at item play.

With items, a defensive game becomes much less effective.
When you're killed, not only do you lose a stock but your opponent gets to run and grab without interference until you respawn.

Isnt that the point? If you have two players only playing defense. Items give a player an incentive to play agressive, whicn in return makes the game progress. And yes, they get the whopping 2 seconds of control of the level. You also get 2 seconds of inviciblity when you come out. You get control of the board any time you throw someone off the ledge at any percentage. You just lose the edge guarding game.

Edgeguarding becomes much easier, so the characters with a good edge guarding game lose one of their prime advantages.
Likewise, the characters with good recovery lose some of that advantage.

Isnt this also the point? The characters with the good edge guarding games are usually the good characters. It gives a bonus to the characters that dont have good edge guarding games to even things out.

Also adding an element doesnt make the game easier. It makes it harder to come back. You just need to use a bit more thinking, to keep yourself safe from item throws. If you use items well, it will help your edgeguarding game, which nullifies the fact that it hurt your comeback game. They even out. (I think it just adds strategy...)

Yes people with good recovery lose some of that advantage. But then again you could argue that their advantage with items off is too good. Like I said above, you just need to be smarter getting back on the edge.

The characters with projectiles suffer much the same, most items, whether thrown or ranged are better than most of the in-built ranged attacks.

Again usually most of the characters with good projectiles are the good characters. It helps the little guys out by giving them a projectile.

Items make the game much more generic. Instead of several possible play strategies and techniques, the game boils down to the person who controls the majority of the stage, aquiring the majority of the powerful items (lucky pokeballs, exploding pills (or not, all depending), etc (quite a bit of randomization)), wins. The optimal strategy is all too apparent, and is only possible with a few of the characters.

I think this statement shows how little you know about the game. Enter TG with this "all too apparant" strategy. I guaruntee you'll get owned for free.

 

[Stition]

I know it's pointless to start discussing specific strategies, but I feel obligated to show just how little the tent-pitcher can do to someone attempting to route him.
It could just be Fox and C. Falcon that are great at anti-camping, but a person can't be where you said on the rock on KJ, it's not large enough. Falcon's knee will send them off if they're anywhere beyond the midpoint, or if this fictional point existed, he could grab the edge. From there there's quite a bit he can do, if at low health he can roll behind them, or do fall jump thing (don't know the exact term) and push them off with a knee. Or jump, they'll bring up their shields, do a double jump and right before you touch them falcon kick (it'll go through almost anyone's shield after they've held it for that long). It could just be Falcon, but I doubt it.
Go to KJ and try to camp against someone around your skill level. You'll see just how difficult it is to predict what he'll do, while it'll be relatively easy for him to predict your moves.

Items make the game progess. When an item drops in between you, the players switch playing style, and a new mind game is created. The conflict between those two characters that meet up going for the item would not have happened without the item. Without items they would have continued the same game.

This is what I mean by saying items make the game more generic. Instead of an evolving match, items make both players rush for the item, it disrupts the game. Kind of like getting randomly zapped at intervals during the match. More explanation following:

Without items dropping, often there is no way that the game is going to progess. People will continue to use the same tactics. They dont need to adapt to new situations. The mindsets and strategies used in item play change constantly. The mindsets and strategies used in no item play often stay similar, because you dont have other factors that make you adapt.

I think items actually prevent the loser from adapting. Instead of picking up new tactics to counter-balance his poor play, he waits for items or simply blames items for the loss. It's much easier to see why he's getting reamed without them, so it'll be easier to change.
No items make for a much more dynamic match. In a high stock game (around 10), you'll see the loser (if he's any good) evolve around the winners game, he'll develop a metagame around his opponent. People usually roll in certain directions, double jump in certain situations, etc. Without items it becomes easier to spot these things, the game evolves faster, both player get better more quickly.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by Stition
I know it's pointless to start discussing specific strategies, but I feel obligated to show just how little the tent-pitcher can do to someone attempting to route him.
It could just be Fox and C. Falcon that are great at anti-camping, but a person can't be where you said on the rock on KJ, it's not large enough. Falcon's knee will send them off if they're anywhere beyond the midpoint, or if this fictional point existed, he could grab the edge. From there there's quite a bit he can do, if at low health he can roll behind them, or do fall jump thing (don't know the exact term) and push them off with a knee. Or jump, they'll bring up their shields, do a double jump and right before you touch them falcon kick (it'll go through almost anyone's shield after they've held it for that long). It could just be Falcon, but I doubt it.
Go to KJ and try to camp against someone around your skill level. You'll see just how difficult it is to predict what he'll do, while it'll be relatively easy for him to predict your moves.

One move. it can be ground dodged. How many other characters have a move that sends back like the knee? I was thinking of adding that, but since its a feature only one character has, i thought it was pointless.

You can grab the edge, however the person hanging on the ledge is almost always at a disadvantage.

This is what I mean by saying items make the game more generic. Instead of an evolving match, items make both players rush for the item, it disrupts the game. Kind of like getting randomly zapped at intervals during the match. More explanation following:

This also shows how little you know. "both players rush for the item" Seriously, if you blatently run for the item, you deserve to lose.

I think items actually prevent the loser from adapting. Instead of picking up new tactics to counter-balance his poor play, he waits for items or simply blames items for the loss. It's much easier to see why he's getting reamed without them, so it'll be easier to change.
No items make for a much more dynamic match. In a high stock game (around 10), you'll see the loser (if he's any good) evolve around the winners game, he'll develop a metagame around his opponent. People usually roll in certain directions, double jump in certain situations, etc. Without items it becomes easier to spot these things, the game evolves faster, both player get better more quickly.

Good players dont blame items. Scrubs blame items.

It is easier to see. Its less complex. You are only concentrating on one thing.

I think they make a much more boring match. Players will probably evolve around 3 times around other players playing styles in a match with no items, whereas they would have had to evolve their playing style around 20 times in an item match.

Again, Im no longer posting in this thread. Its useless to argue. No item players are going to have to be shown that the play style is flawed. If there were more of a solid community of good players like that of other games then this probably would have happened already.

 

[terrakalar]

Pls allow me to clear the air...

...about my earlier Judgement post. Seems like its causing a few problems.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
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).

"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.

So Judgement is more random than items...why not ban it?
-B

First of all, 1pesemet, about pulling figures outta my a$$: the only figure that I presented was that #9 comes out 10% of the time. Sure I didn't do any empirical tests to prove that, but it sounds pretty logical, and I didn't get the impression that you disputed that 10% occurrence.

But if you (and BBT) are talking about that one quote I posted:

"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."

...let me correct it, I wanted and should have said:

"And especially in a low stock match, all it takes is a #9 on someone *at low health* to completely turn the tide of a game."

So sorry about the confusion. Still, BBT, your above paragraph (about the frequency of being killed by #9) seemed like a blatant attempt to twist words to fit your view. You imply that because the 9 APPEARS 10% of the time, that being killed by it happens alot. Of course you're not gonna connect with Judgement all the time. And when you do connect, it's not always going to be the 9. So you're more likely gonna have zero #9 kills in a game than you would having *two* #9 kills.

So if GW KOs a guy with a #9 and ends up winning, is the win skewed because of that 9? No, because GW has control over that move, and you got KOed by it because you either were set up to get hit with it (skill from the GW user) or you were unskilled/stupid enough to run into it.

Now of course you're thinking that using items also requires skill, which is true for most items. But there are situations where an item's influence cannot be controlled by either player. I'm talking about situations like the appearing bombomb/crate as you are executing a move, or the pokeball (with a Snorlax or some legendary pokemon) appearing right beside your edgeguarding opponent just as you are trying to comeback/recover, or the opponent getting a heart right as you die (of course which some items users concede to, but hearts are items so I'll use the example just to show the point). Say what you will about controlling the stage and whatnot, but in those situations, neither player truly has control over the appearing item.

So BBT, I don't know how you can conclude that Judgement is more random than items. I don't mean for this thread to become a debate about GW, but it seems that pro-item people were using the move to help argue against no-item people, just because it has the word "random" associated with it.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

not true

I used YOUR figure that you will land 10 judgements per game on average. I never use GW so I rely on your figures. If you land 10 judgements per game, chances are you'll get a 9. Chances aren't bad you won't, either. And they aren't bad that you'll get 2. Because of this, you could easily get 0 one game and 2 another. Simply due to randomness, with no different skill between the games. Now, I personally think getting 2 instant kills (essentially) in one game and zero of them in another is pretty random and would definitely majorly influence the match. The 10 landed judgements is the figure you "pulled out of your ***", but as long as the number of judgements landed per match isn't downright tiny, the point still stands.

Meanwhile by making your judgement skill point you concede that only item randomness that doesn't involve skill is a problem (exploding bombs appearing in front of attacks, your pokeball example is involving the skill of keeping someone off the edge and controlling the stage and is tremendously rare anyway). This is a pretty rare thing. I don't know if a anti-item player would really want to make the point that that is the only randomness that matters if they're also trying to make the point that the randomness has the capacity to greatly skew matches.

The sad thing about this judgement debate is that for the most part item fans can't see how pretty much every argument they make for judgement can apply to items. Maybe my next reply should be quoting you guys and changing key words to demonstrate that point. Unfortunately, I have class.

-B

 

[1psemet]

Heh, this is mostly a response to Mattdeezie, because though he will apparently (and unfortunately) be leaving this monstrous and undying thread, there are still others who frequent it and I feel deserve some counter-points. Not to mention that he is the only one on the item side to actually bring up any points for a while.

First a few words on BBTfs insanity. Bumble Bee Tunac I had more faith in you than that, breaking down to unwarranted and asinine parallels with fundamentalists. Really. Ifm quite confident that, though you for some reason donft agree, almost everyone else here can see the flaws in your Judgment case. Terrakalar went over them again for you in pretty basic and irrefutable terms. I simply canft see how you can maintain your stance in the face of all the blatant differences. You might as well try to make a case for Luigifs forward B being outlawed because it can grandomlyh misfire. Itfs the same thing, to a more extreme extent. The Luigi player knows about what percent chance it has of doing so, and plays his game accordingly. The misfire helps balance his crappy returning ability by making his normally easily edgeguarded flop unpredictable. He knows when to risk it and when not. As terrakalar pointed out, you are simply blatantly twisting words about trying to fabricate a case out of thin air. If either of us had the right to label the other as an inept arguer trying to defend an untenable position, it would be me.

Well then, on to Mattdeeziefs multitude of arguments. This will be pretty lengthy because, if some of you havenft noticed, not only do I not bother with trying to be the soul of brevity, unlike almost everyone else my arguments and counter-arguments are inclusive. That means that I respond directly to every point implied or stated by the opposition, as well as exhaustively defending any that I happen to bring up. If Ifm going to bother posting, I refuse to respond as most people do, to only selective and easily picked apart statements and not bother really backing up anything I say, but being content with my twisting of the words to make it seem as if I did. Nor will I fling about gratuitous insults or meaningless opinions. This is a warning for all of you who apparently canft handle this.

Your first post basically breaks down to two things. That the camper always has more options and that since it is so difficult overcome, the stages where itfs possible are basically unplayable in a no-items tournament setting. The first is easily found out. Ifll try to make a list of all the options that both parties have, plus extra concerns.

Camper:
Block throw
Intercept
Ground dodge
Anti air move
(I donft consider gsit thereh an option. Itfs an obviously stupid, useless thing to do. Itfs like saying that the other guy has the option to jump in on the most predictable course, ant attempt neither evasion nor offense. He COULDc but Ifm only talking about viable options.)

Anti-Camper:
Projectile (most donft have a suitable one. On the other hand, many do, including some of the most common characters: such as Sheik/Zelda, Mario and Doc, Samus etc)
Ground hitting move
Air dodge
Grab edge (this opens up several other options for him as well.)
Retreat/Fake-out

Those are just the bare moves. I state that the anti-camper has a strategic advantage as well. The camper, by definition, is staying on one small space waiting for his opponent. The anti-camper chooses when to come in, on what trajectory, at what speed. And while hefs coming in, by being the aggressor, he forces the camper to act. The camper has to make a decision about what to do, at which time the anti-camper has the ability to respond to such. In example, if hefs going to try for an anti-air move (say an up smash), the opponent can see this being initiated and before it actually executes can air dodge or double jump or somesuch. The camper, having put himself on such a small platform, has limited his defensive options. He canft dash away. Rolling to the side not only doesnft cover much distance, but is slow enough that that being the case, your opponent can easily hit you as you come out of it if hefs coming in on you. You are basically rooted in place. Their air dodge, unlike your sidestep, is highly controllable and unpredictable, while your sidestep is both difficult to do, and lasts for such a short time that many moves that are started as you dodge, will still hit you when you come out of it (basically everyonefs neutral airial A for instance). If you jump, they can respond to whatever you do in various fashions. If you donft, they are aware of your few options and the limitations of each. They can just keep jumping in close, wait to see your response, and choose to retreat or attack in some way.

And as for the second partc even if camping in those certain places WAS highly advantageous, it would still be valid and not in need of items for fixing. Say that whoever controls the rock has a big advantage. Okay then, it becomes a fight to get to and establish yourself on the rock first. Then when one player dies, the other has to hold the rock for a couple seconds against an invincible man, or abandon it. So the battle becomes a battle for the camping ground, which isnft in any real way less meaningful than a normal battle. How to make sure they donft stalemate indefinitely? Once again, I suggest a time limit (within a stock match, of course). This gives whoever is winning a deal of control over the match, and forces the loserfs to be the aggressor. It involves more strategy, eliminates stalemates, and doesnft raise any of the thorny issues of items.

Next there is a discussion of the old gtop tier characters benefit more from itemsc or noth aspect. This is a complicated issue, but very important to the whole thing, so Ifll go on at some length. First off, I can see what you are trying to get at Matt, but I heartily disagree. Ifll use your example of DK vs. Falco. Falco has a (basically) undisputable advantage without items. And when they both actually have items, DK is closer Falco than he is when they both donft have items, I agree. However, there are several considerations that you donft mention that make it so that DK is even more disadvantaged in an item match. DK is a bigger target, so itfs easier to hit him with items. He moves more slowly through the air, with a much more predictable trajectory, so itfs easier to hit him with items (especially screwing them by edgeguarding with). Falco has the additional item defense of the reflector, meaning that DK has to be far more careful than he does when chucking them about. DKfs slower movement, worse recovery time, and slower jumping and dodging all make it so that no matter how gsmarth he plays, if Falco is playing equally so than hefll get a good deal less of them. What percentage more does Falco have to get before it outweighs DKfs getting comparatively more use? Ifd say Falco would get sixty some percent. That being the case Ifd say that a two thirds of the time even-more-overpowering Falco outweighs a one third closer-to-par DK.

This applies to most of the mid-tiers. Without items, besides the very top and very bottom, everything is pretty fuzzy. Most characters are really very close, and a lot of the biggest differences are simply particular character combinations: even FFS arenft all that far above everyone. But the tiers become much more blatant and the gaps stretched out with items. For examples Ifll use Jiggly and Zelda as I have a lot of experience from my playgroup here. If you get good with her, Jiggly can be **** good, certainly upper mid tier. When items are on though, Jiggly sucks ***. This is because of A: her slow running and falling speed, and (most importantly) B: shefs so light that almost any thrown item will kill her at middling health if near the edge, and melee weapons and explosives pack enough wallop that they will oft instantly KO her, making it so that she canft use her saving grace of returning to balance her lightness as was obviously intended. And her returning, while very good in general, is of the nature that itfs easy to line up thrown items against and there is next to nothing she could do about it. While Zelda is formidable without items as few can match her killing death kicks when played skillfully. In a Zelda vs. Sheik match with equal skill, Sheik has a slight advantage. But when you add items, Zeldafs slow gliding fall and pathetic run, matched against Sheikfs will lead to a slaughter. This makes it so there is simply less variation seen in an item tournament, as playing the slower characters becomes stupid. If you ran a no-item tournament youfd find that the top-tiers arenft nearly as dominant. This can be tested by looking at all the decently big tourneys and averaging the results. From what I recall, there were some funky *** winners and placers in the East Coast no-item tourneys. You wonft see that with.

Also, you say that (in agreement and response to Stition) that characters with good comeback abilities are at a disadvantage comparative to ones without with items. WTF, I say, WTF? Letfs take DK and Falco again. Falco can either illusion or up-b. Onefs fast and onefs unpredictable. DK can up-b, which is both slow and predictable. Thus Falco can easily edgeguard DK with items, but DK canft do the same to Falco. Once again they decrease balance, as generally the top-tier and good chars have good returns (part of what makes them such is this, after all).

Will finish later

 

[terrakalar]

BBT

OK, thanks for pointing out the disputed quotes/points. I went back, and this is what I said about executing 10 Judgements per game:

Originally posted by 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.

Notice how you conveniently substitute a word to better fit your argument:

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
I used YOUR figure that you will land 10 judgements per game on average. I never use GW so I rely on your figures. If you land 10 judgements per game, chances are you'll get a 9. Chances aren't bad you won't, either. And they aren't bad that you'll get 2.

Notice how I never said anything about LANDING the 10 Judgements. Sure I was talking about EXECUTING 10 Judgements, but that's quite different. My point was that if you execute 10 forward-B motions, 10 Judgement ATTEMPTS, then a 9 will pop in there somewhere.

LANDING those Judgements is a different story. OK, maybe I threw you off by saying "It's a pretty easy move to hit with," but of course you're not gonna don't miscontrue that as thinking that people with some inkling of skill will allow themselves to be hit with that many Judgements. While it's a pretty easy KO move compared to moves like the Flare Blade and Gdorf's tilt up, it's definitely not a given that a GW player will land that many in, say, a 3-4 stock game.

And even if someone does land two #9 HITS, how many of those are of the game-turning variety? When I talk about game turning, I'm talking about KOing the opponent when he's at low health. Yah, that threat is there, but chances are also good that you'll land the #9 when the opponent is at, say, 90-100%, making it a glorified KO move since a smash attack can have the same effect, at that high health.

 

[Scamp]

Since Matt hopefully won't reply to you, I will. Hopefully I can show you where you're wrong, or at least where I think you're wrong.

Originally posted by 1psemet
If either of us had the right to label the other as an inept arguer trying to defend an untenable position, it would be me.

What about me? I noticed you stopped trying to call the itemers scrubs after twisting the meaning of the Sirlin article.

Your first post basically breaks down to two things. That the camper always has more options and that since it is so difficult overcome, the stages where itfs possible are basically unplayable in a no-items tournament setting. The first is easily found out. Ifll try to make a list of all the options that both parties have, plus extra concerns.

Camper:
Block throw
Intercept
Ground dodge
Anti air move
(I donft consider gsit thereh an option. Itfs an obviously stupid, useless thing to do. Itfs like saying that the other guy has the option to jump in on the most predictable course, ant attempt neither evasion nor offense. He COULDc but Ifm only talking about viable options.)

Anti-Camper:
Projectile (most donft have a suitable one. On the other hand, many do, including some of the most common characters: such as Sheik/Zelda, Mario and Doc, Samus etc)
Ground hitting move
Air dodge
Grab edge (this opens up several other options for him as well.)
Retreat/Fake-out

I cut out your explanations as I hate when people quote really, really long passages of text. Wastes too much space. Anyway, number of options doesn't mean jack. It's effectiveness that counts. Take, for example, your example of grabbing the edge. It may open up several new options (I count 4) but it takes away everything else. If you think it's better to be grabbing the edge than the guy chilling on the platform, you're nuts.
From what you wrote, you seem to need some defensive practice. Yes, the attacker gets to choose how to attack as in what trajectory and speed. However, after he camper initiates his attack the attacker shouldn't have the reflexes to respond to it unless the camper is doing a blatantly obvious move. You failed to mention the intercept, why is that? It makes attacking a lot harder if your opponent has the ability to leap out and strike you at any moment. It's almost impossible to react to this with an arial move of your own, you have to predict it.

You think ground dodging is difficult to do? And if you ground dodge a neutral A it shouldn't hit you when you're coming out of it. Even if it's the fastest dodge-type against the slowest faller. I'm willing to bet you don't use the dodge much. You really should try it out more.

Rolling is a viable option. Especially with a ranged throw such as Link's. Also don't forget the camper is able to move from his spot. He doesn't have to stay on the platform. If you don't like the situation, jump off and go somewhere else. So, basically, the defender CAN dash away.

How in the world can you put "Projectile" on the anti-camper's side and not on the camper's side? I'm pretty sure you can throw them the other way too.

Regardless, I'll put everything in a nutshell. Your arguments seem to be based on the theoretical side, where as in execution certain things become much more clear. All of your options and techniques sound great, but in the game don't work as well as you say. Don't believe me? Make the camper Falco and the attacker Ganondorf. If Ganon has it in his mind that he must go and attack Falco, he should lose. Period.

And about everything else, I'll put that in a nutshell too. You knowest not what you talketh about.
From my experiences, the only characters that get a bad disadvantage with the items on are the big characters. (Ganon, DK, Bowser, Mewtwo.) And, since all but one of those characters sucks, it's really not an issue.

Funky-*** winners in the East Coast tourney? Well, in NY the tourney winner was Fox and second went to Samus. Overall there were lots of Shieks and Falcos played. The only character played in the 1-on-1 that did unusually well was someone's Pikachu. I can't think of any other tourneys worth mentioning from the East Coast, so I'll assume you meant the NY ones.

And, you won't see variation in item tounaments? Let's look at the top 5 in TG3.

1- Recpih: Shiek
2- Adam: Luigi
3- Vien: Dr.Mario
4- Sam: Falco
5: Matt: Mario/Fox
5: Justin: Falco/Peach

Looks like variety to me.

And, honestly, judging by the way you describe your Zelda/Jiggly and their disadvantages with items, I'm willing to say that you're not very good at this game. While you often bring up interesting points that are usually well-thought out, you rarely back them up with good playing examples. This is the main reason why Matt is frustrated with you, IMO.

 

[Recipherus]

stats

I just wanted to point out that if you connect with 6 judgments you have a little over 50% chance of getting a #9. This is true if whenever you connect with judgment you have a 1/9 chance of getting a 9. if you connected 10 judgments you'd have about a 70% chance of getting a #9 in.

 

[EvilEvincar]

Scamp: Amount of options is a valid argument because even a minor knockback will level the playing field. And please, don't treat it so the camper has instantanous reactions. Even if the camper attempts to intercept, he still doesn't know the tragectory of the attacker. As for dodging, sure the camper can dodge and roll, just not that far so the attacker can adapt (without needing too great of a reaction speed). And 1psemet's situations are using the best camping places, small platforms. Your's are taken from camping in flat places like FD. You also don't seems to respond to 1psemet's second anti-camping stratagy, restrict players from camping.
And one little clarification we all need, are the tiers built from items play or non-items play. Because as I see it, it does look like it's built from items play. And also, how is telling what TG's results telling what east coast tourny's results are? While I can't take either side on this (due to that I don't look at tournament results), it does seem strange that you counter this with a national tournament.
And also Scamp, I spite you every time I hit with a Din's Fire (against a human, not a CPU).
"It only short jump. You go first."
"AIIIEEEE!"
"Hmm...we go different way now." From Goblin Spelunkers

 

[Nobie]

More options means nothing if most of the options suck.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Please!

Jesus! I misread terrakalar. ****. It sounded like he meant you'd land 10 judgements (because who the **** cares how many you send out there? We care how many you land). A simple mistake. It by no means demolishes my case. I don't play G&W. What IS a reasonable number to use? Is 6 a better one? 50% chance of landing one? then cut that to 25% to account for it only mattering if they're at low percentage? That's still pretty huge. A lot more random then the chances you're going to hit a bob-omb randomly.
A figure given sometime long ago was that the chance of a random bomb or explosion killing you was about 5%. Even if you only say 1 judgement per game, that's still just as random as items.
And I've reduced it to just bob-ombs for your side since you're conceding the skill point by claiming judgement is exempt because it takes skill- so do items.

Anyway I apologize for messing up with terrakalar but lose the hostility. It was a mistake, not a "blatant twisting of words".

For the rest of your argument, it intentionally ignored a multitude of points and it becomes tedious to keep pointing out said points only to have them ignored. Maybe if you say "lalala I can't hear you" they'll go away...

I can compare you to fundamentalists, because you're exactly like a smash-playing Vanderzyden (fundy from www.infidels.com ). You both ignore points, complain about being attacked, and act like the downtrodden victim. When you are shown to be wrong or contradictory on a point, you just pretend it never existed and move on to a new one.

You know it's sad when even I have given up on getting through to you.

-B

 

[Novowels]

Bee, as silly as these guys are being... They are nowhere near Vanderzyden's level of insanity.

 

[Scamp]

Originally posted by EvilEvincar
Scamp: Amount of options is a valid argument because even a minor knockback will level the playing field. And please, don't treat it so the camper has instantanous reactions. Even if the camper attempts to intercept, he still doesn't know the tragectory of the attacker. As for dodging, sure the camper can dodge and roll, just not that far so the attacker can adapt (without needing too great of a reaction speed). And 1psemet's situations are using the best camping places, small platforms. Your's are taken from camping in flat places like FD. You also don't seems to respond to 1psemet's second anti-camping stratagy, restrict players from camping.
And one little clarification we all need, are the tiers built from items play or non-items play. Because as I see it, it does look like it's built from items play. And also, how is telling what TG's results telling what east coast tourny's results are? While I can't take either side on this (due to that I don't look at tournament results), it does seem strange that you counter this with a national tournament.

The defender doesn't need instantaneous reactions. What gave you this idea? The defender knows when he's going to jump and attack, you just have to wait for the attacker to get in range.

What's this about not knowing the trajectory of the attacker? Usually when I'm sitting on a small platform and someone is jumping in on me, I look at him and go "Hey look, he's coming from over there." Sure, you can wiggle around, fast fall, and double jump, but you make it sound like the attack can come in from any direction. It's never been difficult for me to intercept an attacker jumping in.

Excuse me? Did I say I took strats from FD? My strats were for the exact same situations that 1psemet used. In fact, no one is debating about FD since FD isn't a stage that you can break the game by camping on.

I mentioned TG since 1psemet said "You can't have this with." at the end of one of his paragraphs, which basically implied that you don't get much character variation for item play. Go back and find it, it's in his last post before this one I'm writing, and it's somewhere near the bottom.
In any event, there was more character variation in the top 5 or so placings at any TG than there was at either of Cello's NY tournaments. This doesn't really prove anything with the small sample size (and also consider Cello's tourneys are single elim.) but it does show that in at least these cases items don't really affect the results in terms of characters.

I didn't respond to 1psemet's idea of restricting people from camping as other people already have. But if you wanna know I'm definitely against having verbal rules or subjective rules. The time limit idea isn't a bad one, but it won't stop people from camping.
On top of that, I'm all in favor of banning Yoshi's Island 64 from every tournament. That stage is simply horribly designed.

 

[1psemet]

Scamp: Stopped saying you were scrubs ala sirlin? Nope, it just never came up again. I stand by the claim. Mattdeezie admited (tacitly) it's validity, and posed some reasoning as to why he thought it didn't apply. He basically said that camping in SSBM was fundamentally differant and more overpowering than in other fighters. I say it's not. You, on the other hand, offered no defense. If you (or anyone) has the slightest modicum of intellect they can see the obvious paralels between the situation and what the man at sirlin was speaking of. It's basically a pristine example.

First of all, there are at least six options this opens up. Rolling up, simply standing up, attacking up, jumping up, dropping down and immediately jumping up and attacking (most notable example is Falcon as can be seen in several of the Japanese vids), and falling and retreating. And "I failed to mention the intercept"???? Reread what you quoted from me. I say "intercept" as one of the options of the camper. And how difficult this is to counter is a thing of reflex speed. If somone jumps up at you to intercept, you can quite easily simply dodge immediately before they hit you. They can fake you out by simply jumping at you and doing nothing, of course, but that's generally not a very good idea. And impossible to react with an arial move of your own? I don't know about you, but I actually find it rather easy to hit A once in the time it takes for somone to leave the ground, traverse however much distance lies between us, and make an attack of their own. Unless you have really crappy reflexes... At the very least your nuetral will hit whatever they are trying to pull off, sending you both flying.

As for ground dodging... No, it's not that I have a problem with doing it, it's simply that it doesn't last that long. I use it to dodge many things, and my brother even more as I play Samus regularly. You can't rely on it too much, though, as it's simply impossible to sidestep (which is the term I will use for it. It being the non-roll ground dodge.) a good deal of moves. Including the ones I mentioned. Samus's nuetral A in the air if she's not fast-falling. Most others nuetrals, such as the ubiquitous sex kicks. And many more moves can just BARELY be dodged that way. If you do it at the last possible instant, then yes. But if you jump the gun by a tiny fraction of a second then you get hit as you're coming out of it. Most people don't have these kind of reflexes, as evidenced by the fact that no-one (apparently) can powershield at will during a match.

And for rolling. No, I say it's not viable. The tiny size of the platform defeats the point and leads to easy hits. And I feel that I must point out that 3, count 'em, 3 characters have ranged throws. Of which Samus is only seemingly popular with the tournament crowd. And as for simply "retreating", they can't. Or, more precisely, they can, but to do so they have to travel through the area that the aggressor is threatening. Trying to flee from a camping spot for the camper is basically the same as attacking the attacker.

And I put projectile on the anti-side but not the camping one for two very good reasons. First, most projectiles travel either down or strait, and most camping spots are lower than the main platform. Secondly, There is no camping spot from which the camper can hit the opponent if the opponent simply sit's on the other side of the stage (both vertically and horizontally). For these reasons they can easily serve to root out campers but not make the other come to you.

To finish off the talk of camping with nutshells... No, my arguments aren't simply theoretical. They come from experience playing the game. If ganondorf is vs falco, gannondorf should lose. Period. If falco is also camping, this may or may not make him lose that much more. The effectiveness of camping depends largely on the specific character combination. For some combinations (mostly the already crappy vs the already great) it can be effective. For the vast majority though, no.

And for the rest, I do indeed knowest what I speaketh of. My statements come not only from ambiguous "experience" as does all of ours I'm sure, but many recorded matches using a variety of different settings. With Jigglypuff, I have about an even record with all of my friends best characters. I have about the same record with Marth. That's with items off. Now, with items on, my Marth stays about even with everyone because as far as we can tell, we're all about even with item skill. My Jigglypuff, however, starts getting creamed. You can just watch the matches and see how much the items detrimentally effect her play. And as for Zelda, I've stated it before but I'll state it again. Sheik and Zelda do just about evenly against Pikachu (and everyone else, but I'll use Pika as an example) without items. In this case they generally beat him mercilessly. With items on, Sheik does a tad worse than off (though still beating most often) because Sean is a tad worse with items seemingly. Zelda, however, does a remarkable amount worse. I think that the average victory actually swings in Pikachu's favor. This is even more impressive than it sounds because you just have to witness the ***-whoopings going on without items, and the semi-***-whooping with items with Sheik. I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that I simply don't seem to know how to play. I assure you that I'm **** good with Jiggly, and Sean with Zelda. It is a quite blatant trend, their dropping places in the tiers with items. I've always believed that there should be seperate teirs, one with, one without items. It's a different game in many ways. In that vein I'll be glad if I see my opponent playing Jiggly at TG.

And that's not much variation at all. You see FFS and the mario clones. The only semi-surprising one is Luigi. I heard that the peach was never played in the later rounds of the tourney, as the player decided that falco was simply much better. Correct me if I'm wrong. That it a tiny representation. Even the inclusion of Samus and Pikachu into this would add tons of variety that is currently lacking.

BBT: your just being scrubish. Stooping to the level where you just insult people and say it's futile is a cop-out. It's true oftentimes, in some cases, but this one shows little indication of being one of them. No one's "ignoring a multitude of points". It's you who are drawing false parallels. Simply saying "Judgement has a 25% chance of swinging the game, while a bomb-omb has only 5%, therefore items are less random" is insane. First of all it's using many figures that are pulled out of your *** (sorry for that statement geared to you a while ago terrakalar, BTW). 25% chance of hitting them when they are at health low enought to kill with 9 but not with some normal move? Hmm... It's not bomb-omb killing that is the only, or primary, way that items are random. A match without items, even with GW, is a somewhat constant flowing thing. With items it's constantly punctuated by small scale struggles that end up with one person being seriously advantaged. Quite often there isn't even a possible struggle, and quite often the advantage is huge with little or no skill expenditure. Take for example the star. I'm not one of those who think that that itself is game-turning, but let's say that one person just dies, and while he's coming back the other get's a star. This deprives the recently dead person with his advantage of invincibility for a couple seconds to try to come back, and gives the invincible man even more of an edge so that he can rack up a lead before dying. Little random things like that constantly happen, swinging the tide to and fro in an only psuedo skill-dependant manner.

Well, in regards to Scamps last post... Most of it can't be usefully responded to by me, as it's about EvilEvincar. A couple things though.

First of all... When EvilEvincar said "restricting people from camping" he didn't mean that I proposed any artificial rules. Verbal of subjective rules are, as I've stated, both stupid and inimical to tournament play. What he did mean was that I said that even if it was advantageous, it was still a valid stratagy. This is because it's not like one person starts in a camping spot. If camping is so effective, then it's basically a fight over the camping spot. Both people have about the same chance at the start, and if one dies he has an opportunity to take it while he's invincible. No one has reponded to this or, indeed, acnowledged it. I suggest rereading that part of my post, as I explained it quite clearly there. And as for time limit... it won't stop camping, but it will stop the potential of stalemates. It forces one of the players hand, or, if none of them are willing to fight, then goes to the psuedo-random sudden death. If the superior player decides to camp, the other one can simply sit on the other side of the screen and thus probably have better odds of winning in SD. The superior player, realising this, will doubtless attack. If the Inferior one decides to camp, then the superior one (assuming they have no projectiles in both these. With projectiles such as Sheiks, Samus's, Links, or Mario's this is moot and camping isn't a problem) has to roust him if he doesn't want to leave it to SD. Note once again that it's not like you start in the camping spots. If someone is trying for it, you can usually stop them from getting to the camping spot without getting hit. If they are faster and land first, quite often you can be so close behind that you can hit them before they can recover.

PS: I also dislike several stages, that being one of the more asinine ones. I actually quite liked Eoraptors idea to get some consensus on what stages should be playable at tourneys. Some are just too random or biased in one way or another.

 

[terrakalar]

BBT, no hostilities intended...

I do admit I was a little irked that my post was being misinterpreted, but it was an honest mistake. No probs.

However, I still don't know how you and Recipherus came up with the 50% chance of landing a #9, especially Recipherus' figure of 70% when connecting with 10 Judgements. I thought every forward-B was independent, meaning for every forward-B, there is a 10% chance of having a 9 show up.

Anyways, its not the randomness of Judgement or its frequency that I'm really concerned about. Lemme try to put the difference btwn items/Judgement in another way: the GW player can control "where" and "when" Judgement occurs, he can't control what # shows up. With items, however, neither player can control where, when and what item shows up. Sure, they can *predict* where and when, but they can't truly *control* it.

So for what its worth, here's my view on this whole situation. I like playing with items and actually hated playing no-items in SSB64. Yup, the only problem I really have with items is its non-skill-based randomness. While it doesn't happen alot, it can happen at tourneys (esp with the large # of matches that occur) and can mean the difference between, say, 3rd and 4th. Still, its not really enough to ban items entirely at tourneys, and I give mad respect to the top placers at TG and other items tourneys.

However, what really gets to me is all the backlash that people have against people who like to play without items. Unlike SSB64, Melee's base game is so deep that playing with no items is also hecka fun. And with FD/Battlefield etc, Melee also allows people to play entirely without outside "distractions/obstacles," something that you couldn't do in SSB64. I don't see how peeps can have such bad connotations of no-item play, and no-items tourneys for that matter, going to the point of posting "no-items scrubs" threads dedicated entirely to poking fun at no-items players. The biggest disagreement I have is items players saying how much more "fun" it is with items...taking an opinion and arguing as if it was fact. I realize there are flaws to no-item play, but not enough to fully invalidate it, especially in the *gasp* right stage.

As for the camping issue, yup items help out alot in ending stalemates, but if the players are determined enough, it will still be a problem. During that 20 minute matchat TG2, Matt/Justin still stood there as they had to wait around for not just any item, but the *right* item. Sure if it was no-items, it mite have lasted all nite, but the point is that you can still have long, long matches regardless if items are on or off.

I believe the best solution, if you really want to discourage camping in tourneys, is to ban stages (I went to a tourney with time limits, and it sucks, there're some big flaws to it). I mean, I don't think anyone will complain about losing because they didn't get to play in Jungle Japes or PokeFloats. And for wall and ceiling fans, I think Peach's Castle/HyruleTemple/Fourside are good enough to be in no items tourneys; sure it still allows for mad stalemates, but the platforms are large enough that an attacker won't be seriously disadvantaged by having the balls to attack (and perhaps Brinstar is also good enough). I know some people cringe at banning stuff in tourneys, but if peeps are OK with banning hearts/tomatoes for TG, then I think it won't be so much a problem if the same was done for stages.

 

[CORY]

rice fairy

the reason hearts and tomatoes were turned off at tg one on ones is because they are gamebreaking. they basically give you an extra life for no work. the stages require some skill to use and they also take strategy. if you know your opponent sucks at the moving stages or is stuck playing a character that can't go aerial very well, then you should pick a moving stage to take advantage of them if you think you can work it. i know i woud try that with my puff if someone was playing link, g-dorf, or another character with worse aerail abilities than me. and if it pops up first round, too bad. you should be thinking of that with your first character pick and be prepared to handle it.

 

[Recipherus]

stats again

yea terrakalr, i did the calculation considering each judgement was independent, and the odds of getting a #9 was 1/9. I suppose i should've said you have a little over 50% chance of getting 1 OR MORE #9's if you connect with 6 judgements, and a 70% chance if you connect with 10 judgements.

 

[Sirus011]

Hmm.. quite a bit has happend since I posted ...

I've read the entire topic and both sides have some good points, however I still believe as I did when I first posted that items effect gameplay in a way that skews the results of a match by inserting random factors into the current match environment.

Now take note I am anti items, I have been playing melee since it came out. I actually waited outside the mall from 4 A.M. to 9 A.M. waiting for software etc. to open so I could get my copy of this amazing game. Before melee I played SSB so I am in no way a newbie and as such I would not appreciate any slights to that end or to my favoring itemless matches. I was kirby then and following melee's release still do play kirby only now hes more of a party char instead of my mainstay.

As I found in SSB Items in melee tend to skew results in a one on one match. My friends and I grew tired of the repetitive avoidence and running to grab the best items that appeared. We found that items detracted from the overall balance present within the fighting system.
It is fairly obvious that the fighting mechanics were added to the game and refined well before items were introduced. I take this as a given.

Furthermore the statement that items are there to give projectileless characters equal footing with ranged attacks is ludicrous. I would say instead that the thing evening out the projectile chars vs the projectileless chars would be their respective evasive capabilities. Projectiles are nice but they will not win a game in most situations. The basic mechanics of the fighting system themselves are what really need to be focused on.

Given that the fighting system is so well honed when compared to that of the items can anyone here really say that they are intregal in any way? It seems that those who are anti items as I am are delegated as inferior by some but conversely I see items as a way for claiming a victory from behind. The evidence we have seen from experiance seems to point out quite clearly that items do infact skew results. Im outta time ill finsih my postin later.

 

[Scamp]

Originally posted by 1psemet
Scamp: Stopped saying you were scrubs ala sirlin? Nope, it just never came up again. I stand by the claim. Mattdeezie admited (tacitly) it's validity, and posed some reasoning as to why he thought it didn't apply. He basically said that camping in SSBM was fundamentally differant and more overpowering than in other fighters. I say it's not. You, on the other hand, offered no defense. If you (or anyone) has the slightest modicum of intellect they can see the obvious paralels between the situation and what the man at sirlin was speaking of. It's basically a pristine example.

Now see, this is a blatant insult.

What happened? I thought you said you didn't insult people like Deezie did to you? Yes, you are calling me a moron, just in your own special way.

So, let me explain this to you again.

You said:

"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."

I said:

"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."


Did you EVER reply to what I said? NO!!! Is this putting up a defense? YES!!!
I don't care for your arguments any more. You can have your own preferences on how you like to play, but it has been clear to me through this post that you suck at this game. If you disagree, then if you go to TG4 accept my challenge for a match in the first round. Anyone who has the slightest modicum of intellect can see that I'm gonna own you for free.

 

[Recipherus]

yea scamp, that's why i stopped posting arguments too, i just got tired of it. It's like arguing with a ******, you'll never win and you'll just get frusterated. I agree with you though, that there may be hope for those who go to TG4 and are shown what's what.

 

[1psemet]

Ahh... to witness how discussion degrades when you reach that fundamental level and neither party is willing to change. Well, first of all, Scamp, I apologise for my insult while ignoring your defense. I seem to have somehow missed it, despite my attempts to be comprehensive. My statements were made under the impression that only your last post referred to the problem. Unfortunate... once again, sorry. As for insulting people in general... I'm sure we all feel the increasing urges. BBT, Recipherous, Matt (though he seems to have calmed down somewhat...), and yes even myself though I still stick to the claim that it's mostly, if not solely, reciprocal. That's just what naturally happens when you realise that you opposition just isn't listening, and seems to take ludicrous things for granted. I'll go about responding to your prior statement now.

I don't recall how the Shiek/Zelda argument started... but it was never really resolved and I stick by any claims that Eoraptor made that Din's Fire is viable, as are Shieks. Shiek can go on the other side, charge up his needles, and using them to either break through the camping wall or slowly rack up damage. As for Din's Fire... I don't understand your animosity towards the move. Have you ever faced a really good Zelda? She can peg you with din's fire as you're trying to return quite handily, and follow it up with a death kick. As for the main argument... I still disagree. Items are, granted, a **** good camping deterent. But it's not another tactic to counter another tactic. It's changing the settings of the game in a major way, which happens to have the effect of making camping less of a problem. Don't you see how this can easily be viewed as a cop-out? Basically you (or other item fans) have said that camping is pretty overpowering ("cheap") and insoluable without items. Say items didn't exist. This situation is then the perfect example of scrubishness. Note that scrubs as defined at sirlin don't automatically "outlaw" or "ban" tactics, they often simply ***** and moan and simply don't do anything about it. Dubbing a tactic overpowering and doing nothing about it. Now, inserting items is much like inserting some arbitrary rules to fix it. It doesn't make camping non-existant, merely stupid and counterproductive. It's not using any sort of strategy, tactic, or superior play to overcome the problem.

Once again though, I would like to note that YOU havn't responded to part of my statements. I said this:

"And as for the second partc even if camping in those certain places WAS highly advantageous, it would still be valid and not in need of items for fixing. Say that whoever controls the rock has a big advantage. Okay then, it becomes a fight to get to and establish yourself on the rock first. Then when one player dies, the other has to hold the rock for a couple seconds against an invincible man, or abandon it. So the battle becomes a battle for the camping ground, which isnft in any real way less meaningful than a normal battle. How to make sure they donft stalemate indefinitely? Once again, I suggest a time limit (within a stock match, of course). This gives whoever is winning a deal of control over the match, and forces the loserfs to be the aggressor. It involves more strategy, eliminates stalemates, and doesnft raise any of the thorny issues of items."

And even reiterated it in my last post. I also note that you didn't respond to anything at all really. You ignored all of the arguments recently posed, such as the one above, and even ignored my counter to your other arguments. The only thing that you've gone about stating is that I didn't respond to one small fragment of your text. Fine. I can even understand your affront at the implied insult. You, on the other hand, have hardly responded to anything I've said, and starting sounding all pissy. Look, I don't have a problem with you Scamp, and I don't see any reason to make one. I feel no animosity towards you despite the fact that you make asinine statements such as "but it has been clear to me through this post that you suck at this game". Don't take things so personally. And no, I refuse your challange at TG. Not only don't I feel any animosity to you which would make it pointless, there are the same reasons why I didn't challenge BalefireBoy. A: I don't like the settings of TG (read: Items) and aren't as comfortable with them as otherwise. You may well be better with items (in fact, you probably are), as you doubtless have hundreds of hours of playtime more than me. Not only that, I simply don't trust the results of any item match, as should be obvious from this thread. And B: I have no firsthand knowledge, but you are apparently good, and playing you first round would be foolish if it could be avoided, as I MIGHT not be able to beat you, espescially in that environment. I would be more than happy to play you several matches outside of the tournament, or if we happen to meet up later on, though.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

It should be obvious

The reason why people ignored your point? It's intentionally ignorant. Camping isn't game-breaking if characters have projectiles. Projectiles can root out a camper. However, there are a LOT of potential character matchups where one character has prjectiles that they can pester the opponent with but the opponent can't do anything. OR maybe it's the Onett/Flatzone type camping, and the one character is a guy like DK with a sweet throw vs. say, Marth, whose throw sends the opponent nowhere even at high damage.

There are so many situations where your fun little "battle for the campground" situation just won't apply. Never mind that even when it does, one player will start closer to the campground, get the first kill (probably), and then just let the other guy camp and stalemate because he has the lead.

So no, your situation is utterly worthless and is the type of point that has made us give up arguing with you. A seemingly intelligent guy like yourself shoudl have been able to see the numerous flaws in that reasoning before posting it.

BTW with G&W: You still don't understand. You used "Judgement takes skill" as an argument to keep it. Thus you can no longer argue against the random parts of items that still take skill (anything but explosions). Thus we are reduced to the extremely rare case of explosions as the randomness of items. And then even if we only assume 1 Judgement attempt per game, there's still an 11% chance of it landing and you can cut that to 5% to account for it being low damage and not high...and then of course it seems very similar to the chances of an item ruining the game!

I'm not saying Judgement actually should be banned...only that it's no less random than items. Whatever. It's useless arguing with you.

-B

 

[1psemet]

First of all, most of the character matchups that it's a problem never occur. Most of the popular characters have them. Onnet/Flatzone DK camping isn't a problem for seperate reasons. The types under discussion were small platform camping. As for Onnet/Flatzone, two things. First of all, many of the characters with the best throws are also generally crappy or very rarely played (DK, Mewtwo, Ness). Secondly on said stages their powerfull throws are almost meaningless. The sides are so close (particularly on Flatzone), that most people's throws will kill when off the edge or close to it. With Marth you simply have to be a tad closer. Jump past them and come in from the edge of the screen. And the speed of most people makes it so that, even though their throws are worse, they'll land much more.

No, there won't be many situations where this strategy applies. It applies everywhere, and if someone starts closer then they still have to get entrenched. If both people rush over as fast as possible, one will get their somewhat first, but he won't be in any sort of optimal camping position before the other arives. And when one person get's a kill, it is then the other person's responsibility (assuming you have a time limit and they don't WANT to lose) to attack the leader. He should try to prevent further camping until he ties it or takes the lead. That's the way it works, the person with the lead has some control. In an uncorrelated statement, I think that Flatzone is a pretty god**** crappy stage and isn't tournament worthy. It takes away one of the chars with good returning's advantage, and takes a lot of the strategies out of the match. Even Onnet is comparatively large. I think that a decent amount of the stages aren't for one reason or another.

I don't see why you can think it's worthless. It's not as blatantly functional for a small fraction of the camping spot/character combinations is all. I havn't heard of this type of thing being a problem in any of the big no-item tournaments. No DK victories. Espescially in a slob picks environment. The first match will doubtless not be somewhere DK (or anyone) can abuse. If you lost the first match, either with DK or otherwise, choosing Flatzone MAY confer some sort of advantage (I don't think so but we'll assume it's the case). Once you win there the opponent can pick, and if they're smart they'll choose, say, FD and samus or fox or shiek. You will doubtless loose this match. If you won the first match (with DK), then you might be able to pull if off in the third when you lose the second. Winning with DK isn't probable though. If you win with someone who's not DK, then they can do the same thing to you, and if they win (because you're saying it's basically inevitable), you can't chose FZ because it would be meaningless, so you'll beat his DK somewhere else. In this format DK camping can't, and isn't, a problem.

As for Judgement... I claim that YOU still don't understand. I said Judgement takes "skill of a fundamentally different type, and on a different scale, than items.". Thus I still can, and do, argue against items. Items take skill to use, granted, and to get (sometimes). Why can't you see how this differs from Judgement? Almost everyone else seems to. Judgement effects the outcome of the match some small percent of the games. Items effect the outcome of the match meaningfuly 100% of the games. Where they appear, who get's what, how advantageous that is, what kind of situation that puts your opponent in. They constantly interrupt and change the flow of the game in an unpredictable, random, fashion.

As for "it's useless arguing with you"... Heh, I can assure you that it's reciprocal. Almost everyone here doubtless feels that, and it's useless to state.

 

[SultanOfSamitude]

Apology accepted, and I'm done.

I apologise as well.
Perhaps at TG4 we can play some fun games of "king of the hill" and that might prove whether or not camping is overpowering or not.
I'll play no-item matches too.
In any event, I still disagree with you about the Sirlin thing and a few others but I don't want to argue much further.

I'm just going to sum it up by saying that Melee with or without items are two different games, each requiring different tactics to win.
Everybody's got their own preference, mine is that Melee with items on is a superior game.
If you don't like items, don't go to TG4. There are plenty of non-items tournaments to go to as well. Something for everyone.

Finally, I don't think I've seen an items tourney in which the general consensus was that the best player didn't win. I don't think anyone has complained that they lost because of the items, even Snap Pop after blowing herself up against myself on her last life after she was beating me for the entire match.

I'm guessing the best and possibly only way to change anyone's mind about this subject is through playing. You've got to show them why something is so. Like some of the Texas players who got their beliefs in the tiers after being shaken up by Ness. Or many people who question why Samus is a good character. You're probably not going to convince anyone by arguing, you've got to go kick their butts in person.

So, I'm just going to sit and train from now on. I'm probably not going to reply anymore unless something new and very interesting comes up, or someone addresses me by name.

 

[Scamp]

D'oh.

That last post was by me, and not S.O.S.

Stupid auto-login.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Simple Rebuttals

Mario, Doctor Mario, and Luigi all have great throws. They get played very frequently.

You act as if the camper is stupid. The camper will stand within the killing range of his own throws and outside of the killing range of his opponent's throws. The sides are close, of course, but you as the player get to decide how close to them you want to be.

(I also agree on the suckinesss of Flatzone).

Your situation: It sucks, because for it to work the character camping has to have a projectile to lure the non-camping character in somehow...and the non-camper has to not have a counter-projectile. Of course, since in your situation, both players must camp, this is impossible.

3rd paragraph: DK, DK, DK. There are other arguments besides DK, but you seem to cling to him because he sucks so he's easy to argue against. Nevertheless...
If you win the first match of a slob picks game, it doesn't matter. They might slob pick you in the second match, but then you get the third match so it doesn't matter.

Judgement:

Skill is skill. One could argue that playing Fox takes skill of a fundamentally different type than skill with Bowser. Does this mean tournaments should be Fox only, or Bowser only? Skill is skill.
As for items affecting the match 100% of the time...
Are you talking about simply affecting what happens, or affecting the actual outcome?
Because if it's affecting what happens- Everything affects what happens in some way 100% of games. What's your point? Judgement will affect the outcome 100% of games from that perspective.
If it's affecting the actual outcome, I beg to differ. Items rarely affect the actual outcome of a match. The better player usually wins, rare cases of bob-ombs aside.

I think your case against items is silly because you claim that the constant barrage of items is what causes the problem. They're constantly interrupting the flow of the game, you claim. Can't you see that this constant flow makes the randomness much less because it both averages out and because you can essentially count on items? I don't see you claiming that poker is too random to get meaningful results. That's because there is enough randomness to balance out over time. Items are a part of the flow of the game because they come so frequently.

-B

 

[CORY]

rice fairy

1ps, you seem to misunderstand how camping works. if you were smart you'd only do it when you had to, which is pretty much only if you're at high damage or against a very bad skill matchup (your opponent is way better.) there's no point in camping if you don't have a lead, even crap *** campers know this. camping normally occurs after the first death because then the one left alive has the disadvantage of being non-invincible and having higher damage.

there's no point in rushing to a camping spot right off the bat. even defensive/turtling characters won't benefit. with my doc i don't try to be aggressive, i run and pill until they get close. if i get a chance to camp, i do. but i never start off camping because there's no point.

no one will be at an advantage by camping right off because it will be even, completely even. no damage and all lives still remaining. at this point it's advantageous for both sides to be trying to get damage in and to deboard their opponent rather than sitting around.

 

[senpyou]

cory's quotes!!
"1ps, you seem to misunderstand how camping works. if you were smart you'd only do it when you had to, which is pretty much only if you're at high damage or against a very bad skill matchup (your opponent is way better.)"

whooooaa... camping because your opponent is better? if your opponent is "better" (there seems to be a lot of interpretations on the word "better" bleah) then camping will not help you at all. i think i know what you mean though... since i know you so well (soulmates), lemme guess at what youre really trying to say. by "camp when your opponent is better" did you mean camp when your other means of attacking have failed against the oppenent? (btw i dislike the term "camp")

another cory quote!!
"there's no point in rushing to a camping spot right off the bat. even defensive/turtling characters won't benefit. with my doc i don't try to be aggressive, i run and pill until they get close. if i get a chance to camp, i do. but i never start off camping because there's no point.

"no one will be at an advantage by camping right off because it will be even, completely even. no damage and all lives still remaining. at this point it's advantageous for both sides to be trying to get damage in and to deboard their opponent rather than sitting around."

oooh man... the best part of camping (bleah) is rushing off to somewhere safe RIGHT AT THE START. with everything even, the person who chooses to break the stalemate first is the person who risks the disadvantage first. thats the whole point of playing defensive my friend! you gotta look at the big picture. you're forcing your opponent to make the first decision in the whole match--take the first risk. as a turtle-minded player my first decision was to find the safest spot on the level--one that gives me more advantages than disadvantages. sweet.

trust me, rushing off to the safe spot is badass. knowing when to leave--when your safe spot has been compremised--is the mark of a smart turtler. that, my caucasian friend, is what separates the... oh forget it.

bottom line is, i "camp" every effing chance i get. this makes me predictable. being predictable is dangerous.

animal crossing is badass.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Originally posted by senpyou
animal crossing is badass.

DON'T BELIEVE HIS LIES!!!!! IT RUINS LIVES!!!

Raffles suck. The store is effing closed. Now my life means nothing. Im depressed.

Im gonna get rocked in NYC cause of this effing game. But maybe I could trade someone for items?? Hmmmmm...

Ug I hate that game.

Yea Vien camps every single chance he has, when it will work for him. I know I hate this thread with a passion, and I dont want to post, but animal crossing brought me in so I will have to.

People camp in different ways. I camp when it puts me at an advantage. I still dont have nearly as much patience as Vien. I would think someone who always uses the stage to put them at an advantage would be effing scary. Monotonous, but effing scary.

As for stalemates, saying you can break the stalemate is all just theory fighting. The reason I fight against no items is because I have experienced the stalemate. Like many people know, the 18 min match between me and Justin in TG2, WOULD have been a stalemate had there been no items. Why? Cause it took effing 18 mins with items on, for a 3 stock match.

Ill recap again. Onnet. Mario vs Falco. Mario at around 150-170%. Falco at like 17%. If we fight in the middle I am at a disadvantage, because any move he does will kill me, and I still have a lot of work to be done. He has a 10-1 advantage. Could I fight in the middle and win? Yes. But my chances arent good. Some might say a skill player would still fight under taht circumstance, however I think a lot of people have the word skill and stupidity mixed up.

I camp on the left. Now I can kill him in one hit, he can kill me in one hit. We are now at 1-1 odds. Could Justin have come to get me and win. Yes? But his chances arent as good as the 10-1 odds. Some might say a skill player would still fight under that circumstance, however I think a lot of people have the word skill and stupidity mixed up.

So both being smart players, neither will budge. We have a stale mate. You cant disqualify someone for camping, cause both people are camping. You cant force one person to attack for you cant tell someone how to play. You can't put a timelimit, cause then if someone takes the lead, all they have to do is run away for the rest of the time. (Trust me, people will do it.)

I think Ive said all this before. But what Im getting at is that smart players will stalemate, and if you fight against that you are theory fighting. Its already happened, which means it will happen again. You can't say it wont, cause it will. Whether camping is a good strat or not, it doesnt matter. It doesnt matter how many ways you can get the camper off.

For anyone to say that fighting on the edge at 0 percent against someone who has 150%+ is equal odds to fighting that person in the middle needs their head examined.

No items does not work on all stages without tacking on extra honor rules.

No items DOES work on stages that have no stage tactical advantages, AND moving stages. In my opinion I think the game isnt as good, cause I think its a dumbed down version of an items game. However the game isn't broken.

YOU CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT ASEPCT OF SOMEONES GAME IS SKILL AND WHAT IS NOT SKILL. SKILL IN ITSELF IS SUBJECTIVE. Strategy is a skill in its own sense.

Man I dunno why I just posted. Animal Crossing is calling. Town Badass Im coming!!!

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Because I know he'll jump on it...

You should probably change the chances from 10:1 and 1:1 to 20:1 and 2:1.

Because he definitely has SOME advantage with his lower damage. He can do moves that might get him damaged but not killed. It just isn't all that much.

The problem with this theory fighting on camp-breaking:

Sure, you CAN try to attack them and you might succeed. You'll just be at a disadvantage. The much better option would be to camp across the level and stalemate. Stalemate = broken game. Even if you have a time limit, because then it just goes to sudeen death and that's certainly not a good way to decide things.

And what is with you people and Animal Crossing? It sounds like real life in a video game! Why would I play a life in a video game instead of just living one in reality? Now I know there are some fun little aspects, like designing your house and whatever...but is that honestly that addicting? I think it would get boring.

-B

 

[CORY]

rice fairy

i'm sorry, vien. yes, you are my daddy. but i think we either have a different view of camping or i'm seriously misunderstanding you. are you referring to the full blown, hide your *** out on a little area and not move type of camping or just running away alot? if you were talking running away i just thought of that as turtle/defensive... anyway, just come back and smack me if i'm wrong. later.

 

[1psemet]

Okay then, once more into the fray. BBT, you say that I act as if the camper is stupid. On the contrary, I claim that you seem to give the camper some strange superhuman powers. You say:

"You act as if the camper is stupid. The camper will stand within the killing range of his own throws and outside of the killing range of his opponent's throws. The sides are close, of course, but you as the player get to decide how close to them you want to be."

How the **** is he going to do this? You jump past them, so they'll either have to come to you (putting them in your kill range), let you come to them, or retreat. Retreating is pointless (as this can be repeated indefinately), and leting you come at them puts you at an advantage. Or are you saying that the defender in general has an advantage now? You're on the same level, and you have as many options as he (or more if he decides to be stationary to keep out of your kill range). Most people, even if they lack projectiles, have moves with enough range so that the opponent can't shield-grab. If they are obviously trying you can dash-grab and throw them, and if it doesn't instantly kill them, then you have a chance to when they have to get up.

As for your next statements... confusing. My "situation" doesn't in any way require projectiles from either person. Nor did I say that both players must camp. Merely that if it IS so terribly effective, than that would be the optimal stratagy, no? I still don't see the problem. Even if they're tied, and no-one has just come back so they're invincible, and one person's camping. There won't be a stalemate as long as you have time. IF camping put the non-camper at a disadvantage, and he didn't have projectiles, then he simply won't go there, as he'd have better chances in SD. Now, the other man realises this predicament. If he want's to leave it to SD then he can sit there. If he thinks that he can certainly beat the other fellow in general though, he'll move from his camping spot and beat him a life at least and then retreat.

As for my using DK, I did so because that's what you used as your example. It works for all the others as well. People like Mario, Doc, and Luigi's throws are good, but not nearly as good as DK, Mewtwo, and Ness's throws, who you very rarely see and aren't all that good in general. Also I will note that only Mario and co's back throw is good. Their forward is simply average. Therefore that type of camping won't work if you go behind them (towards the edge of the screen), or at least it will put you on an equal footing with them. And then you said this:

"If you win the first match of a slob picks game, it doesn't matter. They might slob pick you in the second match, but then you get the third match so it doesn't matter."

I don't think you understood what I was saying at all. It does matter. This type of DK camping simply will not work. I'll reiterate for you. If you win the first match as non-DK, then they counter with a DK Flatzone match (which you lose according to you), and you can't counter with a Flatzone match, as it would be DK vs DK and thus not a counter. If you win the first match as DK (DK!!) against whatever character they have, on the random stage, then it might work. THIS WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT HAPPEN, is the point. You'd basically have to get FZ or Onnet. Low odds. And even if you do, they can pick DK, so that there won't be any advantage anywhere, so if you beat them there, or you in the third round, it won't be because of camping. DK camping tactics WILL NOT allow you to win in a best two of three slob picks environment (against a superior or equal opponent, of course).

Back to the fun of Judgement... No "skill is skill" is a foolish statement that is simply not true. I will use poker, since you brought it up (and I did indeed say that poker was barely meaningfull back in the early days of the argument. Page fiveish perhaps?). Someone's skill at poker isn't comparable to skill at, say, tennis (which was also used before). In any given tennis match, there is no element of randomness, and it's obviously very very skill intensive. When someone wins there is no doubt that he was the better player, at least that match. Poker, though, isn't as meaningfull at all. Any given hand in poker is basically utterly random, and that and a modicum of odds-calculating and bluffing skills determines the winner. You can still at any time lose to vastly inferior, even incredibly stupid people simply because of luck, unlike in tennis. Tennis = no-items, Poker = items, in my opinion. Sure, in the long run the better poker player will doubtless draw ahead... but in the short term anything can happen, just like matches with items.

And when I said meaningfully effect the outcome, I did indeed mean the actual outcome, as well as what happens. First of all, Judgement does not effect 100% of the games meaningfully. If Judgement never lands, hits with nine but doesn't kill them, or kills them with 9 when they would have died from almost anything else... nothing meaningfull changed. As with items... I never claimed that the best player didn't usually win. Indeed they do, what I claim is that the better player wins less often than they should otherwise, espescially in low stock matches. And not just to bomb-ombs. If a Hammer lands right next to someone, then they have a big advantage. If the other isn't in a position to properly avoid the hammer, this could quite easily swing the tide of the match. It's like this for Pokeballs, Landmines, most everything. Quite often someone draws ahead or falls behind solely because what happened to fall near them. It's a very rare medium item game that doesn't have something of this sort going on.

And for your final statements... the item "flow" is actually very sparodic. There are quite varying intervals between item falls. As well as their random place, which will almost certianly benefit one person over the other. Over the very long period yes, it will almost certainly balance out. But in the short term, someone get's lucky with six or seven good items in a row and wins because of it. If they were playing casual games, you'd say eh, I'll get lucky sometimes too. But in a tournament? That's the problem, tournament time-frames don't work in "the long run".

And Matt: first of all I have to say, indeed, I agree that BBT's assessment of the odds are much more accurate. Charging over to the edge puts you at a COMPARATIVE disadvantage, but you still have one. And I still claim that you can indeed put a time limit on. Yes if someone takes the lead they can try to run... but how long can you run for on a non-hyrule stage? If the time-limit is ten or twenty minutes on a low stock match I hardly think that that's a viable option. And yeah, people will always try to stalemate. That's just how people are, naught to be done except put a time limit.

As for no-item combat only working in some stages... first it works on all stages if you use a character with a projectile or have a time limit. Secondly, the ones that it's least functional on (Onnet, Flatzone, Hyrule, etc) are the generally poorly designed ones that I think should be taken out of tournaments ala what terrakalar's doing for Meleepalooza. They make for potentially stalemateable matches and comparatively random results. If you're unwilling to try to decamp someone, have no projectiles, and they are determined to camp... even with items, as Matt points out, there can be some horrible matches. Items do mitigate the horror to some extent, granted, but there are plenty of stages that don't have glaring flaws so that I don't see why there's any compelling reason to have any of these on. This doesn't really directly relate to items but, eh...


PS: about Animal Crossing... Man, I don't know how you can stomach that game. It is grantedly pretty fun for a shortish while when there's lots to do and your house to easily expand. But it quickly get's monotonous once you've gotten most of the crap, and immensely tedious to try to get the rest. Not to mention that almost all the clothes/furniture and whatnot are hideous and only sell-fodder. You get angry about wasting your time for these increasingly crappy specimens. The best part is making your clothes. They should have that in more games.

 

[Mattdeezie]

Time limit puts the person who is ahead at a disadvantage. They are forced to rush the camper, for if they dont they go to sudden death, no matter what the percentage is.

Then odds truley are 1:1, everything is completely evened out.

The thing is you should never "force" one person to go after another person. They should always do it because of their own decision, for their own benefit.

Time limit puts the person ahead at a disadvantage.

If you play who has the lowest percentage at the end of the time, the person behind is at a disadvantage.

Items end the stalemate, yet still leave a strategical advantage for smart players.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

absolutely silly...

So items do affect the actual outcome of matches 100% of the time? I asked for clarification once already but that is such an incredibly stupid statement that I find it hard to believe that you believe it. But as this is the result of me asking for clarification, I'll have to accept that you really did say something that stupid.

So, if a guy wins 70% of matches with items on, he'll win 30% with items off? Because there are only two potential outcomes of a match, if the outcome of the match is changed 100% of the time, win ratios will be perfectly reversed. This is ridiculous of course.

Jumping behind a guy edge-camping isn't something that is just supremely easy. The guy on the ground will of course try to stop someone from compromising position. If he fails, he can go to the other side and repeat.
Nevermind that going past him won't really be that great of an option...If you're on the edge with a junky throw game, but you're close enough that your throw will kill...Your throw will probably be the only move that can kill. Meanwhile, since you're practically touching the edge, the guy towards the center can use his throw, but he also can use most of his other moves.

Your situation- I assumed you were smart enough to know what I was talking about but I guess not. Camping is only effective against characters who lack the proper projectile. Otherwise, they will use that projectile to root out the camper. So it's a given in these situations that the non-camper lacks a meaningful projectile. Since your situation requires both players to be the non-camper, they must both lack projectiles. If one has a projectile, than only he is capable of camping and your situation won't work.
If both players lack projectiles and the score is even, they will just both camp and thus stalemate.
If both players lack projectiles and one is winning, only the winning player can camp. If camping gives the advantage, it will then make him maintain his lead. He'll probably get a two-stock lead before getting killed. And then he'll still be up by 1, so the other guy may have taken over the camping spot but it won't help him any.
Your point about it going to SD is part of the reason this situation is bad. A worse player will camp because he would probably lose in regular battle. Camping and SD are the worse player's best options. The better player, who should have the better chance of winning, is now stuck between attacking a camper (and being at a disadvantage) or going to SD (where it's pretty much even due to the nature of SD and the bob-ombs, but it shouldn't be because he's the better player). Either way, it's pretty much a rip-off for the better player.

Slob picks- Say you win the first match. Now your opponent might counterstage/character you, and you might lose the second. But then you get to counterstage them somewhere that you can camp. So yeah, camping can occur just fine in a slob picks environment. They don't HAVE to counterstage with DK/Flatzone. In fact, I don't think you'll ever see someone use DK/Flatzone for the second match, only the third. Because if they are stuck with DK now...You don't need to DK/Flatzone them, you just need to pick say, Sheik/FD. Skeik vs. DK on FD is probably a much more favorable matchup than DK vs ____ on Flatzone.

For someone who claims that analogies are useless, you sure use a crappy one. Poker = items? Poker is all random, with players calculating the ebst way to use that randomness. Surely you don't actually believe item matches are entirely random and the skill in them is simply knowing how to capitalize on that randomness and nothing else?
And tennis not have ANY randomness? Surely you see how silly that is without me needing to explain it.
This doesn't get to the point though, that poker and tennis are completely separate games and are not comparable at all to two aspects of the same game. Tennis skill is tennis skill, though it can be divided into serving, returning, overheads, forehands, backhands, etc, if you feel like dividing it. SSBM skill is SSBM skill, and you can divide it into items, spiking, edge-guarding, dodging, or even character-specific skill like ability to use Judgement well.

BTW sorry if it bothered you that I responded out of order.

Matt, how can you claim it is 1:1 and everything is completely evened out? One character is at 17%, and one is at 120%! How is that even? Surely you don't think that that makes no difference! The character at 17% doesn't have to worry about ANYTHING except for throws. The character at 120% has to worry about everything, including weak moves. How is this even?

-B

 

[Mattdeezie]

I said 1:1 for SD, cause you both go to 300%. I didn't care to clarify the exact odds of the camper. I was making a point that the odds a WAY effing lower. Saying 1:1 or 2:1 doesnt matter. Its much less than 20:1, or 10:1.