My thoughts on Evo2k8

[jchensor]

To understand what makes Smash we need to look at the game at the most fundamental levels. What defines a winning strategy, and what gives that strategy the depth to win? This is assuming that your purpose of playing the game is to win, and not to create a game that is fun, enjoyable to watch, unique, or anything else that does not somehow directly relate to winning.

Hey, Forward.

I do think your post is VERY good, and deserves a response, and as of yet, none have been written. So I'll do my best to address your post myself.

Your example is very valid. It's true that an item spawn at that particular ledge guarding moment can affect the match. I'm not arguing with you on that at all. I'm more curious about something: how OFTEN do you think that would happen? It's a very realistic situation that can actually happen, but out of 100 matches, would you see it happen 20 times? 50 times? 5? I mean, if it is as little as 5 out of 100 matches, I don't see it as a huge concern. It can make a different in the result of a match but only IF everything goes exactly as you say. Even if the item spawned in that situation, a lot of the times, the heat of the moment doesn't allow a player to do everything 100% perfectly according to theory fighter, rendering the concern moot. Especially when the item in question usually is the Smash Ball, the single item that cannot be broken and obtained in one hit.

Out of all the items that were allowed at Evo, which ones could realistically dramatically change the tide in the situation you provided? I can see the Home Run Bat and especailly the Bumper. What else?

- James

 

[forward]

Hey, Forward.

Ok, so let's say it IS only 5 out of 100 matches, if this were the case, how do you ever expect to develop strategy around items? If items effect 1/20th of matches I would have to play 2000 matches to see this scenario 100 times and develop a "feel" for this strategy. Not to mention this can happen between different characters, and different opponenents which will make it harder to figure out. The average mind game (poking with cr. forward, sweeping, Marth's up throw, Falco's shine) in any fighting game is seen multiple times a match, and those still take YEARS to develop.

If I encountered the same mindgame 5 times a match, and I played 20 matches a day, 3 days a week, I would see the situation 300 times a week. That's 15,600 times I would see it in one year. If I played the game for 6 years I'd see it a total of 93,600 times. This is being generous because the top players of any fighting game play well over 60 matches a week.

There are so many mind games in Brawl that are being develop right now. Tech chasing, air dodging, air to ground/ground to air offense/defense, shielding, dodging, rolling, short hops, full jumps, double jumps, multiple jumps, ledge guarding/hogging, recovery, and a few more. Next you have to figure these out for not just one character but most of them, if not all. Then there are variables that effect all of those such as the %s, are they equal? Is the difference small, medium, or large? Then add the stage variable that not every trick will work the same on all stages. By playing with out items we are able to focus on and develop these, the fundamentals of Smash.

At high level play the difference between a good decision and the best can make or break a match. If we played with items, it could be well over 20 years before we figure out what those are.

 

[Overswarm]

I think the main problem here is that we have a fundamental disagreement on acceptable elements in fighting games. The past few times I've met Smash players at Evos, I've had the chance to speak with some of them and it just seems like there's this impassable wall here.

Primarily the element of objectives in fighting games. A lot of Smash players (at least that I talked to, I won't pretend to say that I'm the Gallup poll or anything) I spoke to echoed the above sentiment almost exactly and that's the whole reason I decided to post.

Alternate objectives in fighting games is perfectly acceptable to almost everyone in every fighting game community. Fighting over positioning is common to virtually every game, whether position guarantees instant victory such as guaranteed ringout setups in Soul Calibur/Virtua Fighter, or whether position ensures a very dominant corner trap in various Street Fighter variants, or even whether position guarantees nothing and instead sets up different mixup options as in Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Regardless of what advantage position sets up, in all of these various accepted and beloved fighting games, fighting over the alternate objective of space control and positioning can supersede the actual combat between different characters and could echo your exact sentiment that "half the matches were spent fighting over (the corner/the edge), not fighting each other". But people are OK with this.

And this year's Evo put on display other alternate objectives in very clear view also involving various meters. Street Fighter 2 Super Turbo finals at Evo involved O.Sagat vs. Chun-Li for grand finals. The objective in that match for Chun Li was to get a super meter as fast as possible. Until she had the meter, she couldn't fight O.Sagat's tiger shots. Once she had the meter, O.Sagat was literally taking his life in his hands any time he threw a fireball. So the battle over the meter became essentially what the final was about. The O.Sagat player (John Choi) changed his strategy of throwing tiger shots halfway through when he learned what the Chun Li player (Nuki) was doing. John stopped trying to actually HIT Nuki with tiger shots and changed his pattern to make getting the meter as difficult as possible. John was literally fighting the super meter for the first 30-40% of every single round. Similar battles happened over the super meter in Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and over the guard meter/super meter/custom meters in Capcom vs. SNK 2. And these are all perfectly acceptable strategies to 99.99% of participants involved.


I know that the default counter-argument to this is "well, those games are fine for what they are but Smash is Smash". I think what disappoints me and a lot of the other traditional fighting game players is that it's really dodging the fundamental question here which is:

"Why are alternate objectives acceptable for ________ game and not for Smash, especially when they're in the game in the first place."


It seems like a fundamental difference in our communities as to what different role strategy should play in a fighting game. Simply pointing out that alternate objectives become available doesn't answer the question as to whether or not said alternate objectives are broken or somehow make the game less deep/interesting/strategic. A lot of people quickly become frustrated/disappointed with the discussion when people just point out that there ARE alternate objectives and stop before considering whether the game becomes broken/less competitive because of them.

Like I said, this is a fundamental difference in how our communities feel about what a fighting game actually is. I think this has the potential to be an interesting discussion and could lead to bigger things for the Smash community as a whole, but only if all parties involved are willing to listen and actually consider the fundamentals of the discussion instead of just pointing out a (basically irrelevant) point and considering their side already proven.


--Jay Snyder
Viscant@aol.com

Imagine all the games you just mentioned with their "alternative" objectives.

Now imagine the ring out zone appeared in a random location at a random time in the match.

Now imagine your super meter could be filled up by grabbing an item that appeared either on the far left, far right, or center of any game that appeared at any time.

Would you not be violently opposed to this?

 

[RDK]

What they don't understand is the random element. Item's aren't necessarily evil in and of themselves. If they didn't spawn without warning and at random places on the stage, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But they do.

I believe his reasoning is that you don't have to deal with randomly spawning carrier items that will explode, as you can flip em off in Brawl.

But this doesn't negate the fact that they're still RANDOMLY SPAWNING. The inevitable outcome will be that eventually chance favors one player, and it might not be the better player or the one that deserved to win. When it happens to you, you'd understand.

 

[AltF4]

I fail to see how there is even a debate. Something random is NEVER good for a competition. Ever. Period.

Random elements are ALWAYS minimized in serious competitions, because they serve to only benefit the less skilled player. It is patently anti-competitive. Can you think of a single example of a major sport or competition that purposefully introduces an element of luck into their game, even when given the easy option of removing it? I can't.



Why items ONLY benefit the worse player: They spawn randomly. Example...

Player A and Player B are in a match. A is significantly more skilled than B, and has a high chance of winning the match. Without items on, A will win the match by being a better player. But uh oh, an item is about to spawn! There are two chances:

1) The item spawns such that player A can get it, giving A the advantage and making him win.
2) The item spawns such that player B can get it, giving B the advantage, possibly enough to win the match.

In case 1 there is no change. A still wins like he would have without items on. But in case 2, the item gave B an advantage enough to beat A and win him the match!

It's a win-neutral situation for the worse player, and a lose-neutral situation for A, which is clearly an advantage to the worse player. Giving advantages to worse players is anti-competitive. Thus items are anti-competitive.

 

[Dastrn]

I think the distinction we are trying to make is not what the "Ideal Competitive Smash Environment" is, but what the "Ideal Competitive Brawl Environment" is.

We do not really currently KNOW what the ideal competitive brawl environment is at this point. We don't have years of testing in Brawl. In fact, we are barely about to hit six MONTHS of Brawl. I'm not entirely sure what we accomplish by simply writing everything off immediately as "broken" or not viable for competition. Items are a lot less broken than they were last iteration.

The biggest problems right now are that neither side can see the others' point, almost entirely by choice. I'm not even entirely sure why anymore.

There's space for a dialog here.

It's like we got the chessboards out, but we're all just dead set on playing whac-a-mole.

Let's play some chess and see what kind of a compromise and middle ground we can reach.

OK, lets translate what you are saying into a larger scale.

EVO knows CERTAIN fighters, but has made up a list of ideals that they apply to ALL NEW FIGHTERS blindly.

You know that allowing everything is good for STREET FIGHTER 2 TURBO, but you are blindly applying it to BRAWL, even though they are not the same game. You don't know for a fact that items on Brawl is better for competition than items off Brawl, and yet you are deviating from the competitive norm established by a huge community of smashers.

OK, take the Soul Caliber community. They've played through 3 iterations of their favorite 3d fighter. They've learned tricks that work. They've learned how to use bread and butter moves like 2A, BB, etc to accomplish their means. They've learned to study their game based on tech traps and frame advantage. They are experts at SOUL CALIBER games. When SCIV came out a few weeks ago, who's more likely to be able to understand how to set up their tournament rules? Them, or the SBR here?

That's what has happened here. We don't need 5 years of Items-on Brawl to realize that items-off Brawl is better for a competitive environment. We've got a lot of experience in the smash universe to come up with ideals for OUR game universe, and we tested those again at Brawls launch. It's true that we are just 6 months into brawl, but we don't have to throw away our Melee experience and become idiots to try to see this game in a more "pure" way. We DO know what we are doing with smash games, and we've run a competitive environment for years that has been bigger than ANY other fighter ever. WE are the experts on how to make this work. We are the experts on how to do smash tournaments well, and EVO is not. If there is a competitive chain of authority that should be followed, then the SBR should be assumed to be the absolute experts, and EVO should submit to their ideas about what is ideal.

Mr. Wizard was invited into the SBR to listen to a discussion about an ideal ruleset for EVO2k8. He chose to ignore the SBR ideas without engaging in dialogue. What should have happened is he should have discussed his general competitive ideals and asked us to help him come up with a ruleset that aligns with those. Instead, he asked for the SBR's help, listened (maybe) and then completely ignored our suggestions, with an attitude of superiority. SWF members are considered trolls on SRK just because we post ideas different than his. Several SBR members have gone over to post their ideas (since he refused to read our ideas here) and were banned without cause, after very respectful and thoughtful posts.

The fact is that the EVO community is largely burning bridges with the competitive smash community and as a result, not a single top Brawl player showed up for your tournament. You can't build a community and consider it to matter at all if you know that there is a much better community that you refuse to interface with. I regularly host the best players in the midwest, and I can tell you that any one of our top 8 at my small midwest tournaments would have won your tournament if they wanted to pay a $50 entry fee for a small tournament on the other side of country with a goofy ruleset.

The difference between the attitude with which I post this post and the attitude with which I posted my last has to do with the ideas I'm addressing. You are responding to my post by saying that I called things BROKEN, when I'm not sure I used that word to describe anything in Brawl in my post. You also suggested that I was not listening to the other side, and that it was primarily by choice.

The conversation that we are having is not whether individual items are broken. We almost don't care whether some of them are broken. We'd rather have the conversation about what is the best possible tournament structure then bicker about brokenness.

If you won a free car, and you just had to go to the used car lot and pick out which one you wanted, how would you decide? Would you pick the most basic car possible, as long as it wasn't broken? Or would you pick the most ideal model possible? I would take options that fit what I need best. I'd add power windows because I (the consumer) prefer that option to having to lean over and roll the window down myself.

The consumer (the competitive smash community) prefers to not have to deal with the slight imbalances that items introduce. And if a certain item is balanced, we still prefer to have what we consider a more pure version of the game.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

I fail to see how there is even a debate. Something random is NEVER good for a competition. Ever. Period.

Random elements are ALWAYS minimized in serious competitions, because they serve to only benefit the less skilled player. It is patently anti-competitive. Can you think of a single example of a major sport or competition that purposefully introduces an element of luck into their game, even when given the easy option of removing it? I can't.



Why items ONLY benefit the worse player: They spawn randomly. Example...

Player A and Player B are in a match. A is significantly more skilled than B, and has a high chance of winning the match. Without items on, A will win the match by being a better player. But uh oh, an item is about to spawn! There are two chances:

1) The item spawns such that player A can get it, giving A the advantage and making him win.
2) The item spawns such that player B can get it, giving B the advantage, possibly enough to win the match.

In case 1 there is no change. A still wins like he would have without items on. But in case 2, the item gave B an advantage enough to beat A and win him the match!

It's a win-neutral situation for the worse player, and a lose-neutral situation for A, which is clearly an advantage to the worse player. Giving advantages to worse players is anti-competitive. Thus items are anti-competitive.

I think the point you're missing is that in pretty much no case in this scenario does the spawn alone dictate the advantage. The tide can be turned in EITHER way depending on the application and adaptation of the players based on what occurs BEYOND the spawn.

Also, you have to understand where a lot of us are coming from. We're USED to overpowered bull****. We revel in it. Why? 'cause the more we see something that seems overpowered, the more likely we're going to see a counter, which only increases depth. It's the reason why pretty much only after a long period of proof to the contrary will things get banned, and the few bans in play show what we typically tolerate.

The Roll Canceling fiasco in the initial days of CvS2 is one of the more notorious comparable examples here. A good majority of players found it to be far overpowering and wanted it out of tournament play. It was never actually banned, and CvS2 ended up being richer in the end due to people adapting. Had we listened to the majority, who knows where CvS2 would be today.

I think the problem is a number of people are stopping where the random stops - at spawn. The nightmare theory scenarios require just way too much setup to occur often enough to warrant a concern. Especially with a proper stock/time setup that accommodates the ruleset. Concerned w/ Smashballs leaning towards the loser? Lower stock negates that almost entirely. Replace the lower stock w/ more matches. Not only does that assist in reducing the impact of the "balance factor" engineered by the developers, but it also assists in reducing the impact of the nightmare scenarios, due to how many times these scenarios would have to occur in order to assure an "unjust" victory, as you would put it.

 

[AltF4]

Or maybe I should ban the Evo guys for disagreeing, because apparently that's how their community works.

(God that pisses me off. L2Moderate, ppl.)

 

[Mike G]

LOL I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this AFTER the tourney is over. I thought the results and lack of top brawl players spoke for themselves already. If Mr Wizard is the person you say he is I don't think much will change as far as brawl being no-items anytime soon. *shrug*

Personally I think they should just bring back Melee and GGAC :*(

 

[RDK]

Well, it was known from the start that Wiz didn't give two ****s about the Smash community, sot it wasn't surprising that he didn't give any thought to what we had to say. SRK basically wanted to just let Brawl go into the circuit with a ruleset that would make us mad in the hopes that not enough people would attend so they could drop it next year.

 

[Overswarm]

LOL I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this AFTER the tourney is over. I thought the results and lack of top brawl players spoke for themselves already. If Mr Wizard is the person you say he is I don't think much will change as far as brawl being no-items anytime soon. *shrug*

Personally I think they should just bring back Melee and GGAC :*(

They're used to 50 people for one game being a huge turnout, so when they got about 50 unique players just for smash they apparently considered that good while we shook our heads and said "told you it would be a failure".

 

[EnigmaticCam]

There are so many mind games in Brawl that are being develop right now. Tech chasing, air dodging, air to ground/ground to air offense/defense, shielding, dodging, rolling, short hops, full jumps, double jumps, multiple jumps, ledge guarding/hogging, recovery, and a few more. Next you have to figure these out for not just one character but most of them, if not all. Then there are variables that effect all of those such as the %s, are they equal? Is the difference small, medium, or large? Then add the stage variable that not every trick will work the same on all stages. By playing with out items we are able to focus on and develop these, the fundamentals of Smash.

I think Forward makes a strong point here. People seem to think that items add depth when in reality, while there are numerous strategies one character can use to defeat another, it all goes to sh*t because as soon as that powerful item spawns, all my options are severely limited to one single objective: Get that item first.

Some may think this is just simply an "alternative objective." How is it an "alternative" when I have no choice but to prevent my opponent from obtaining that smash ball? All my limitless options of approaching, aerial, and ground techniques have been cast out the window because my opponent now has an opportunity to gain a powerful advantage. Regardless of how easy it is to counter/dodge the smash, I'm still at a severe disadvantage because one single mistake against a smash ball is far more costly than anything else.

I think the problem is a number of people are stopping where the random stops - at spawn. The nightmare theory scenarios require just way too much setup to occur often enough to warrant a concern. Especially with a proper stock/time setup that accommodates the ruleset.

Video proof onry, amirite? Go back and watch the videos, that's exactly what happened many times over.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Again, I don't think the argument should be to much about what affects random spawns have on a match, clearly there will be some affects, in all likelihood it will be rare that it matters though. Some people believe the random BR spread in Halo is the entire reason professional Halo 3 results are inconsistent, when in reality its just that the old hierarchy has been overtaken and a new class has emerged. The best team wins 99% of the time, and that 1% is not enough to warrant Halo 3 being unplayable or uncompetitive, much as is the case with items versus no items Smash.

I'm more concerned with taking a minority preference and holding it over the majorities, then wondering why everyone is so bent out of shape. EVO had expectations within the Smash community after last year, and this year it was suppose to amount to, basically, being the national tournament. That it didn't have that meaning, in fact that it wasn't even close to having any meaning, should explain the sentiment of most players.

1 out of last years top 8 attended
60% drop in attendance
2nd most popular out of 8 to 5th out of 6th (meaning if prize money is the only reason for decreased attendance, that your calling a community with an average age about 5-10 less than all the others significantly more greedy)

Those are the numbers I look at. EVO could have been exciting, but there is an inherent excitement with random, look at Poker for example, excitement doesn't mean its the best way to go, especially if you look at the numbers instead of at...feelings...

However if you do look at feelings, heres a quote from CPU:

I was amazed I beat so many people! However it didn't feel as good as I thought because I won an ITEMS TOURNEY which I know is looked down upon. But winning the trophy and money was really awesome!

I was pretty nervous! I knew I didn't have a chance unless I got the Smash ball.

And CPU's Brother, who got 9th:

Hell yeah I cared! I mean ****, I play Brawl a lot! I really wanted to win! I would have been in the finals but EVO's ruleset is just so ****ed up!

Basically, having the victory of a single battle, say for the Smashball, outweigh the victory of countless preceding battles, is an imbalance and lopsided risk/reward scenario. But, again, look at what peoples preferences are, not what the item/no item debate is.

Read an interview with CPU and the winners here: http://www.getyourtournament.com/2008/08/mehta-winning-didnt-feel-as-good-as-i.html

 

[DanielRGT]

This is the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, as anything more is seriously just fueling the fire that is this thread.

However, I was present at EVO and there was never any one item that when a player picked it up they were assured a free kill, or were so ridiculously overpowered that the opponent never stood a chance.

There isn't an item that when immediately picked up does it leave the other player totally incapacitated. They have the ability to manuever, and dodge, and that's what they did.

CPU is a 14 year old kid going against Ken, his mindset was probably "If I get that Smash Ball, I'm going to win" However, for those that were present for CPU's battle with Ken, CPU was holding his own against Ken even when there were no items on screen. CPU had the skill to beat Ken without items on, and there are several people who were a witness to this.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

However if you do look at feelings, heres a quote from CPU:

Yeah, I think a number of us read that interview. Now, I'm not gonna put these words in everyone's mouth, but the jist I got out of it is CPU's someone who WANTED to celebrate his victory, but feared the scorn of the community if he did. CPU, if you're reading this, don't feel bad about your victory in the least. You played the best with the game presented to you. If you actually get bashed for celebrating, you have every right to tell those who do to gtfo. Hope to see you next year.

Also, what does "Smash Only" attendance really have to do with anything? I'd hardly consider myself a smashboarder anymore, and yet, had I been able to afford to go, I would've only entered for Braw. What does that mean to you?. Heck, what does the attendance matter as a whole? We didn't meet your average turnout? The only things that mattered to Evo staff in terms of deciding whether it was a success were a) it met the attendance expectations of Evo staff (at least 100), b) people walked away overall impressed, and c) the best player won. These were all met. That's all that really matters.

 

[Overswarm]

c) the best player won

The best players have to attend to win. Ken is a nobody in Brawl with a strong history in Melee. That's it. They had 0 of the top Brawl players at EVO. Not one.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

The best players have to attend to win. Ken is a nobody in Brawl with a strong history in Melee. That's it. They had 0 of the top Brawl players at EVO. Not one.

And that's where our opinions on success split apart. If the "top players" didn't attend, we don't immediately view that as a failure. Far from it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

CPU had the skill to beat Ken without items on, and there are several people who were a witness to this.

Judging from what CPU wrote, I think he would disagree.

I guarantee is Justin Wong/Valle/others didn't attend EVO because of a rule decision that the SRK community would be in an uproar.

 

[Ponder]

As promised, here's a link to the grand finals at EVO: Ken vs. CPU:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7A6CAEC28C945DDC

I've just uploading them, so some of them may still be encoding by the time you read this message.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Judging from what CPU wrote, I think he would disagree.

I guarantee is Justin Wong/Valle/others didn't attend EVO because of a rule decision that the SRK community would be in an uproar.

First off, I can't see any of the "top players" of Evo boycotting a tournament because of a rule decision, 'cause unlike the good majority of "top players" here, they have the maturity to accept what they're given.

Secondly, the rest of the attendees more than likely wouldn't be in that big of an uproar, 'cause now they have a shot at the money.

Finally, if they actually went in an uproar, only if it affected their attendance to the point where it would no longer meet the expectations of Evo staff would it be considered a failure.

Jump these hurdles, then you might have something. Good luck with that, btw.

 

[Anth0ny]

Thanks for the vids Ponder. Watching right now.

Also, reading that interview:

GC2: How many tournaments have you both been to aside from EVO?

AM: NONE because my parents don't want to drive me just so I can play video games!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our EVO 2008 Brawl champion! A tourney virgin going into Evo!

 

[Overswarm]

First off, I can't see any of the "top players" of Evo boycotting a tournament because of a rule decision, 'cause unlike the good majority of "top players" here, they have the maturity to accept what they're given.

Incorrect. They have lack of options, not maturity. If a smash tournament has bad rules, we go to another one. If a street fighter tournament has bad rules, people get sad and go anyway because they don't want to wait a month.

Secondly, the rest of the attendees more than likely wouldn't be in that big of an uproar, 'cause now they have a shot at the money.

Obviously, a top tier decision for a competitive game.

Finally, if they actually went in an uproar, only if it affected their attendance to the point where it would no longer meet the expectations of Evo staff would it be considered a failure.

It did. You had only 50 some odd attendees for smash only; the rest were from other games who just went ahead and registered.

Jump these hurdles, then you might have something. Good luck with that, btw.

You seem to be under the impression that we need EVO when our local events give just as many people as their big event does. We don't need EVO. We want EVO to actually host Brawl and not some mario party version for the sake of competitive gaming.

 

[Vayseth]

You know what, no one should look down on that kid. The fact that the kid won against a notorious player in the Smash universe in the finals of a tournament for $742 is a huge feat. I don't care what game you are playing, when you cut through the pressure and pull out a win, that's really impressive.

However, I have still yet to hear from competitors (especially in the top 8) that were for items and are looking forward to an items tournament next year. From the looks of things, most hated it before going in, and still dislike it now. It's mostly spectators and TOs from EVO who didn't even compete trying to justify it. Where's the player interest?

 

[ubersaurus]

Thanks for the vids Ponder. Watching right now.

Also, reading that interview:



Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our EVO 2008 Brawl champion! A tourney virgin going into Evo!

To be fair, I recall that Justin Wong was a nobody who happened to win the second Marvel vs Capcom 2 tournament he ever entered. And I don't believe it was a small tourney, either.

Also on the subject of random elements, they've existed in other competitively played fighters for years. Super Turbo's dizzies are random - both in length and when, exactly, you get dizzied. The Samurai Shodown series of games have always had random items spawning on the level. And KOF 98's Shingo gets random critical hits that, when connected, allow him to follow up his combos further. And one character in Guilty Gear fights with shadows, and which one you get? Random.

My own stance is that it is true not every item is worth using in a tourney (and Evo did have quite the ban list). But, there are a number that I feel don't impact the game negatively, and should be given their due. And hey! If item play keeps the game from being completely dissected and picked apart in a matter of a couple years, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

 

[Dastrn]

First off, I can't see any of the "top players" of Evo boycotting a tournament because of a rule decision, 'cause unlike the good majority of "top players" here, they have the maturity to accept what they're given.

We don't look up to EVO tournament organizers as our superiors who can hand down their decisions to us lowly folk. WE are the smash community. We decide what is acceptable. It sounds more like they couldn't accept that they weren't the authority and had to have their own set of janky rules to prove it.

Secondly, the rest of the attendees more than likely wouldn't be in that big of an uproar, 'cause now they have a shot at the money.

You have succeeded in arguing OUR point. I thank you for that.

 

[Ponder]

We don't look up to EVO tournament organizers as our superiors who can hand down their decisions to us lowly folk. WE are the smash community. We decide what is acceptable. It sounds more like they couldn't accept that they weren't the authority and had to have their own set of janky rules to prove it.

I hope you're not implying that no one should run an items tournament simply because you don't want them to. inkblot has posted our reasons for holding an items tournament here:

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5128941&postcount=16

The items tournament was somewhat of an experiment. We've run similar experiments before (e.g. a VF5 and DOA) with varying degrees of success.

Here's another match from the Finals. In this one SK92 is clearly the better player:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1FA40FC4A7C7A3AD

 

[Overswarm]

I hope you're not implying that no one should run an items tournament simply because you don't want them to. inkblot has posted our reasons for holding an items tournament here:

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=5128941&postcount=16

The items tournament was somewhat of an experiment. We've run similar experiments before (e.g. a VF5 and DOA) with varying degrees of success.

Here's another match from the Finals. In this one SK92 is clearly the better player:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1FA40FC4A7C7A3AD

If he's not, I am.

We don't decide arbitrarily what we want. We have an entire group of users scattered across the USA making these decisions in democratic fashion. Top players, top TOs, influential members of the communities, always the best and the brightest from every region.

You do not.


If you want to chalk it up to a matter of opinion, you can; you'd be wrong, but you can. We aren't arguing semantics here, items are flat out non-competitive. Random elements that can be removed should often be removed; it is rare there is a time that truly random elements such as item spawns can exist in a competitive environment. The EVO videos, time and time again, have shown that items are no acceptable; hell, the finals were awful. Two players playing poorly (neither were very good at Brawl) until a smash ball comes out, then the other getting decimated. Oy.

 

[Harbinger631]

That was an intelligent, well-reasoned post by inkblot. I agree entirely. And I will not support an item tournament, because that's not the type of smash I enjoy playing.

And I think that Ken can play with the best of smashers. He has great spacing, a good approach game, and is intelligent. That's really what you need to be a great smasher.

 

[Ponder]

If he's not, I am.

[/QUOTE]

Sure about that? There are many, many instances in professional sports with completely different rule sets being used. Hard core NBA fans may think that the FIBA leagues are non-competitive because of the shorter 3-point line, but I don't think anyone goes so far as to say that the FIBA leagues should close shop all-together.

I think you're taking things a bit too seriously, here.

That was an intelligent, well-reasoned post by inkblot. I agree entirely. And I will not support an item tournament, because that's not the type of smash I enjoy playing.

Thanks for your feedback. We're not asking you to. We're posting videos that we normally reserve for the DVD online to show you what item play at EVO looked like. If they just confirm your position, that's fine too.

 

[theONEjanitor]

What SRK doesn't realize is that the developers of Smash SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT THIS GAME TO BE COMPETITIVE. Especially in Brawl. Sakurai did INTERVIEWS that specifically stated that he created the game such that if you play it in the default way, that every character would have a chance to win, regardless of skill.

So playing the game at anywhere near its "default" is literally and objectively a terrible standard for competitiveness. There is no debate about this unless you are going to debate the CREATORS OF THE GAME.

And anyone who watches any matches with items who isn't hard-headed can see that they should be off. They give the lesser skilled player an advantage, and they pretty much do over half of the time. If a player is like 100 times better, he'll PROBABLY win, but if he's just 2 times better, he SHOULD WIN, but it's a matter of luck who actually will.

and I agree wtih Overswarm. The fact that SRK made their rulesset without paying ANY attention whatsoever to the hundreds and thousands of TOP smashers who played Smash competitively for decades, the group that INVENTED competitive Smash, is absolutely heinous and obviously stubborn.

I was pretty nervous! I knew I didn't have a chance unless I got the Smash ball.

LMFAO, and you guys are defending item play

 

[ubersaurus]

What SRK doesn't realize is that the developers of Smash SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT THIS GAME TO BE COMPETITIVE. Especially in Brawl. Sakurai did INTERVIEWS that specifically stated that he created the game such that if you play it in the default way, that every character would have a chance to win, regardless of skill.

So playing the game at anywhere near its "default" is literally and objectively a terrible standard for competitiveness. There is no debate about this unless you are going to debate the CREATORS OF THE GAME.

And anyone who watches any matches with items who isn't hard-headed can see that they should be off. They give the lesser skilled player an advantage, and they pretty much do over half of the time. If a player is like 100 times better, he'll PROBABLY win, but if he's just 2 times better, he SHOULD WIN, but it's a matter of luck who actually will.

and I agree wtih Overswarm. The fact that SRK made their rulesset without paying ANY attention whatsoever to the hundreds and thousands of TOP smashers who played Smash competitively for decades, the group that INVENTED competitive Smash, is absolutely heinous and obviously stubborn.




LMFAO, and you guys are defending item play

Decades? Really? Cuz uh, Melee came out in 2001. And I don't think anyone played 64 competitively.

The assumption here is that it gives only the lesser skilled player an advantage. I'd think that if both players know how to work items, then they will either both have an advantage, or any advantage is negated.

Sakurai's intentions for the game don't mean a thing. I'm pretty sure Boon didn't set out to make a good tourney fighter in Ultimate Mortal Kombat, and yet here we are, over 10 years later, and there are still tourneys for the game. How a company wants a game to come out and how it ultimately does are two different things. I'm pretty sure no one could have predicted how Melee or say, Marvel 2, have turned out

I don't think ragging on the SRK peeps for coming to a different conclusion is really making a persuasive argument; as I understand it there were a number of smash players on SRK who ran item tourneys and eventually came up with the banned item list that was used in Evo.

Also, I'm pretty sure more people are involved with evo than Mr. Wizard.

 

[DanielRGT]

I think there's a misunderstanding between us. We aren't trying to say that no-items play is false, or wrong, or in anyway the "wrong way to play the game." I agree that no-items play is a different way of playing Brawl.

However, I also agree that items play is a way of playing Brawl, even competitively. It's fun to play, fun to watch, and still takes skill to become good at it. The main problem I see here is that one side is specifically saying that items play is wrong and shouldn't be played competitively ever.

This is where the problem arises, where one side thinks this and the other side happens to disagree. Unfortunately, it's turning into a bit of a semi-flame war with sides kind of insulting the other side (I've seen both sides do it so far), and this DEFINIETELY isn't the way to approach it.

I'll be happy once people can accept items play as a possibility of competitively playing Brawl and that it appearing at EVO is by no means some type of travesty against Brawl, it's just a different style of tournament play than you prefer and are acustomed to.

 

[AlphaZealot]

First off, I can't see any of the "top players" of Evo boycotting a tournament because of a rule decision, 'cause unlike the good majority of "top players" here, they have the maturity to accept what they're given.

Secondly, the rest of the attendees more than likely wouldn't be in that big of an uproar, 'cause now they have a shot at the money.

Finally, if they actually went in an uproar, only if it affected their attendance to the point where it would no longer meet the expectations of Evo staff would it be considered a failure.

Jump these hurdles, then you might have something. Good luck with that, b

It wasn't a formal boycott, it was players players simply choosing to go to other tournaments with similar payouts but more favorable rules/closer to them.

However the FGC has already proven they lack the maturity, they boycotted MLG because they didn't get their prize checks fast enough. Meanwhile the Smash players who had the same exact problems kept attending.

Guys, I don't think you are giving Ponder/Inkblot any arguments they haven't heard, they are incredibly intelligent people who know both sides of the items debate. Jumping on them for their points only makes you look bad, especially if the point is that "the developers didn't want Brawl to be competitive" because I guarantee they've/we've all heard that argument before. The easy retort, by the way, is that Melee wasn't suppose to be competitive either. Beautiful mistakes do happen, and once a game leaves the developers hands its no longer his decision about how things are played, but OUR decision on how things are played.

 

[theONEjanitor]

This is the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, as anything more is seriously just fueling the fire that is this thread.

However, I was present at EVO and there was never any one item that when a player picked it up they were assured a free kill, or were so ridiculously overpowered that the opponent never stood a chance.
.

That's such BS

I WATCHED THE MATCH with Ken and that Falco and the Falco picked up a Smashball and got a free kill.
Geezus when we're getting to the point of simply making up stuff (when i'm sure you didn't watch every match anyway) thats when the discussion is over. I'm glad this is your last input.


AZ, melee wasn't meant to be competitive obviously, and when played at (or near) a default, it ISN'T, (like Brawl)
THAT'S WHY we banned over half the stages and turned items off. (just like we do in Brawl)

The beautiful mistake is that WE FOUND A WAY to play a non-competitive game, competitively, BY TURNING ITEMS OFF AND BANNING STAGES.

And we believe have done the same with Brawl, and SRK gives no fricks

For example, if Mario Party had the option to turn off random stuff, it could very well be a great competitive game. But it doesn't have that option. Smash does.

 

[DanielRGT]

That's such BS

I WATCHED THE MATCH with Ken and that Falco and the Falco picked up a Smashball and got a free kill.
Geezus when we're getting to the point of simply making up stuff (when i'm sure you didn't watch every match anyway) thats when the discussion is over. I'm glad this is your last input.


AZ, melee wasn't meant to be competitive obviously, and when played at (or near) a default, it ISN'T, (like Brawl)
THAT'S WHY we banned over half the stages and turned items off. (just like we do in Brawl)

The beautiful mistake is that WE FOUND A WAY to play a non-competitive game, competitively, BY TURNING ITEMS OFF AND BANNING STAGES.

And we believe have done the same with Brawl, and SRK gives no fricks

If you had been there, you'd know that the landmaster got dodged countless times. It isn't a free stock, if you know how to dodge it you will. Regardless if this is where you normally post, stop trolling and post something that you can back up with actual facts. I.E. Prove you were there watching Smash, which you cannot. I did watch all the Smash matches, I watched every single match for every single final that year with the exception of CvS2 because I showed up late, and Third Strike [Ya'll] because it's boring as hell.

It was going to be my last input, until you put words in my mouth. Keep. This. Civil. That's all I'd like to see.

 

[Harbinger631]

That's such BS

I WATCHED THE MATCH with Ken and that Falco and the Falco picked up a Smashball and got a free kill.

It wasn't a free kill at all. Ken had ample opportunity (about seven seconds) to grab the smash ball, but he didn't. SK92 outfought Ken for it, so he deserved an easy KO.

It's like combos in melee. The battle is to get the first hit, and what follows after that is easy, as the opponent has little, or no options to escape the combo or death.

 

[Ponder]

I did watch all the Smash matches, I watched every single match for every single final that year with the exception of CvS2 because I showed up late, and Third Strike [Ya'll] because it's boring as hell.

It was going to be my last input, until you put words in my mouth. Keep. This. Civil. That's all I'd like to see.

I hate to call you out Daniel, but did you miss this one? SK92 vs Darwin. Top 8. Skip to 1:02:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-VHii5Xh7s&feature=PlayList&p=1FA40FC4A7C7A3AD&index=1

Falco makes one tiny mistake and loses a stock at 0%. That's not really an earned kill.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Gotta love Keits biased commentary...

And I find some of the stuff funny too, something that looks obvious to an experienced player appears like some super human skill to the commentary.

 

[Harbinger631]

Gotta love Keits biased commentary...

And I find some of the stuff funny too, something that looks obvious to an experienced player appears like some super human skill to the commentary.

I know. I laughed when they were like, "OMG, LOOK AT FALCO CHAINGRAB!!"

 

[inkblot]

We don't look up to EVO tournament organizers as our superiors who can hand down their decisions to us lowly folk. WE are the smash community. We decide what is acceptable. It sounds more like they couldn't accept that they weren't the authority and had to have their own set of janky rules to prove it.

This is not true at all. We Evo organizers work with all the different fighting game communities and try to accomodate them as much as possible.

In this case, however, there are core philosophical differences between the accepted rules for Smash and our view of competitive gaming. You could say that in that case we should not hold Smash at all, but we wanted to try applying our philosophy to Smash and see what happened. I for one am happy with the result. Lots of you aren't, but that's ok. We just have a difference of opinion.

This does not mean that we are trying to hoist item play onto the Smash community or that we don't respect the rules that the Smash community has decided for their events. It's just not for us.