My thoughts on Evo2k8

[Ponder]

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

An announcer's job is to entertain and educate the crowd. I think Keits did a great job of doing that. Most of the EVO attendees are not at all familiar with Brawl tactics or even the basic moves. This was true last year as well, even with greater attendance for Melee. The crowd noise doesn't come through very well in these videos, but SSBB was one of our most hype finals, and Keits's and Ski's commentary was a large part of that.

I do wish he was a little less biased, though.

 

[Bailey]

Brawl sucks....

 

[Dastrn]

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.

The thing is, we didn't have to be at EVO to know how landmaster works. We all play this game ALL THE TIME. You watched all of the smash matches at ONE tournament. I've been to a dozen or so. Some people have been to 15 or more just this year. I'm guessing you play some other game competitively. No competitive fighter has ever had as many tournaments all over the country as Smash has for the last 3 years. Just in the midwest (one of the smaller regions for smash) we have had a good tournament (30-50 people) almost every single weekend for 3 months in a row. We know more about smash than you, because you think watching one tournament means you know something.

I've personally hosted more smash players than EVO mustered (mustard...haha), and I'm just one of maybe 30 guys just like me who all host good tournaments often. EVO was seriously not even in the top 10 biggest regional tournaments in the last 6 months. It could have been, but the ruleset kept away all the good players.

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.

winning one small exchange does not mean a person deserves a free kill.

getting the first hit in a combo does not mean you deserve to get a KO. Brawl doesn't work that way in general. Melee had more combos like that, but they are rarely guaranteed combos like you're familiar with in other fighters. DI plays a huge part in what happens as you get juggled in Melee, and more often than not, each hit in a combo had to be based on predicting which way your opponent was going to DI.

We played Melee with 4 stocks to account for the likelihood of quick combo deaths, but they weren't consistent.

We play Brawl with 3 stocks, because 1 hit free kills are not a part of normal Brawl play, except in extreme matchups. (ie. DDD vs DK)

 

[Vayseth]

Linking these matches do really nothing for your cause. As you link more videos, all we see is more and more problems with the rule set EVO has set up, which is rather easy to exploit. There's going to be no end to this because no matter what anyone does to show their point, the other person will only call them out for "trolling" or "flaming" the thread, which clearly isn't being done here. Maybe we should read people's posts before just making more general statements.

 

[Ponder]

winning one small exchange does not mean a person deserves a free kill.

getting the first hit in a combo does not mean you deserve to get a KO. Brawl doesn't work that way in general. Melee had more combos like that, but they are rarely guaranteed combos like you're familiar with in other fighters.

This is actually part of the disconnect. In the SRK world, this is perfectly acceptable.

In MvC2 you could be up 3-characters to 1 against an Iron Man with 0-pixels of energy and off 1 hit he can infinite->kill -> guard break -> infinite -> kill -> guard break -> infinite -> kill and wipe out your whole team with not much you can do about it (depending on who your team actually us). If that were to happen, people would consider it mad-hype instead of broken.

This is one reason why no one will win this argument, so maybe we should stop having it.

 

[Vayseth]

Yes, and we have the same thing in this game with the Ice Climbers. It's not like infinites are unacceptable, it's that random occurrences leading to freak accident early deaths and screwing up of tight inputs due also due to these random occurrences which is the problem.

If final smashes were part of the actual game, had some sort of meter where you could charge it up, and it could become strategic, I think this game would be much, MUCH better. Especially since you could regulate exactly how much bar people get doing certain things and how many bars are required to do final smashes. It would mean weaker final smashes could be used more often, and the most powerful ones limited to once a match. The game would move at a faster pace and there would be more strategy involved, not to mention an interesting approach to balancing the game.

No, we are not allowed to have things like that. I'm not sure how EVO thinks items are competitive in Smash, especially since they have been playing it less than we have, but I've yet to see an argument for items that wasn't, "We had a decent turnout!" and "There is strategy to breaking the smash balls, they don't break in one hit, ya kno?!" The fact remains that all top placing players from the tournament have yet to give any sort of praise for this tournament. Most of it is halfhearted resentment towards the fact that they HAD to play with items on. I'm sure more than half of the total entrants also felt the same way.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I watched the "grand finals" videos. They completely revolved around the Smash Balls. EVO did nothing except to prove that whoever can manipulate Smash Balls better is the superior player; all that other stuff is just fluff. Stall until the Smash Ball arrives!

 

[KishPrime]

Can we stop comparing the Evo Melee tournament to the brawl tournament? It is apples and oranges. Melee had a game that was out for a few years and we had a guarenteed prize pool. This year was a new game and pot based winnings. Im sure if we put 5k up on the line again, we would have seen close to melee numbers.

This is another example of how Evo does not understand tournament success when it comes to Smash.

Shall I point out that FCD only offered 2k, and would've easily drawn more attendance than Evo last year had it not been a capped event? We pulled in 250 with a cap at 250, Evo pulled in 270.

The money is important, but the prestige and experience are an even bigger draw for many players. Evo had NO COMPETITION for a national tournament this year, and still blew it. It is truly incomprehensible to see the dropoff in attendance. Incomprehensible. It was dropped into their laps, the opportunity to claim the Smash national championship indefinitely, and they blew it. I am literally mystified.

If they got what was important to them, I'm really not sure what it could be other than a well-run event. They got no prestige, they will sell innumerably less DVDs, they lost the chance to claim the Smash national championship as other tournaments are returning next year, and worst of all, no one here cares about them anymore. They will have to offer large amounts of cash to get any attendance at all next year, and they will still have some players in the 15th place and under range who know they won't win money who will stay away because of their newfound reputation.

 

[Inui]

EVO only had 105 for Brawl?

lmao, that's pathetic for a national event

Regional stuff gets more than that easily because we don't have terrible, luck-based rules.

 

[AltF4]

Keep. This. Civil. That's all I'd like to see.

This, Sir, is the internet. If you wanted a civil conversation, you have come to the wrong place.



But, you know what would be awesome? Items in Chess. Imagine how much depth it would add to the game if we made it so that "Chess Balls" randomly appeared and made people win. (Note: That most of the Chess pieces would, of course, transform into Landmasters if they got a Chess Ball)

 

[BigRick]

I watched the ''grand finals'' videos. They were very entertaining, much more than item-off brawl matches.

 

[theONEjanitor]

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.

Oh okay, Ken wanted to play smash bros. not "chase the smashball and get a free kill", so he deserve to lose a stock to a player he was obviously wayy better than.

My mistake.

Combos are not easy in Melee, they take months, if not years of practice, which justifies them. hit a ball a few times and pressing B to get a stock is not comparable in anyway possible. That's why items favor the least skilled player, which is why they shouldn't be used. Combos do not favor the least skilled player, they HEAVILY favor the most skilled player, and DI countered combos, something else that took skill to utilize. You can't avoid a landmaster on most stages unless you get lucky in terms of positions, period, much less Sonic's final smash or Olimars lmfao.

Daniel, you said you watched the finals of every game, but before that you said you watched every match period. Which is not physicaly possible.

Whatever, SRK people really are showing they really don't care about the Smash community, or anything that makes sense in terms of competitive play. It's like arguing with a two year old. I mean it's so obvious that this ruleset was made to intentionally spite the Smash community, I don't even know why we're arguing.

What's going to happen is their Smash tournaments will basically continue to be underattended until they drop it from their roster altogether so I guess whatever we'll just have to let that happen.

 

[ubersaurus]

EVO only had 105 for Brawl?

lmao, that's pathetic for a national event

Regional stuff gets more than that easily because we don't have terrible, luck-based rules.

Way to add to the discussion there.

What Ken should have figured by the finals is that if he wanted to play Smash Bros in this setting, it would have to include hunting the ball. And I saw the ROB holding his own in those vids when there weren't items...maybe he wasn't as good as the Marth player, but he was no slouch.

I'm just amused how for years the Smash players wanted to get their game into evo, and it got in, but not the way they want it. So rather than say, alright, we're willing to work on a compromise ruleset for next year (though I'm sure there's a few folks here willing to do that) instead you get mockery of the venue and the declaration that now it is meaningless. Seems counterproductive to me.

 

[theONEjanitor]

Way to add to the discussion there.

What Ken should have figured by the finals is that if he wanted to play Smash Bros in this setting, it would have to include hunting the ball. And I saw the ROB holding his own in those vids when there weren't items...maybe he wasn't as good as the Marth player, but he was no slouch.

I'm just amused how for years the Smash players wanted to get their game into evo, and it got in, but not the way they want it. So rather than say, alright, we're willing to work on a compromise ruleset for next year (though I'm sure there's a few folks here willing to do that) instead you get mockery of the venue and the declaration that now it is meaningless. Seems counterproductive to me.

It's not because they did in a way "we didn't want", it because they did it in a way that "we know for a fact is non-competitive and refused to listen to the people who know more about Smash than them". Why would we support that.
Using the chess example, Bobby fischer tried for years to gain support for his chess variant, but it never caught on, but imagine if the us chess federation was like, okay we're going to accept your variation, except we're going to add the following rule: Randomly during a random time of the match, one player gains an additional queen on a random square, during the match. Sounds good, Bobby?

You think he would have liked that, of course not.

 

[theONEjanitor]

Way to add to the discussion there.

What Ken should have figured by the finals is that if he wanted to play Smash Bros in this setting, it would have to include hunting the ball. And I saw the ROB holding his own in those vids when there weren't items...maybe he wasn't as good as the Marth player, but he was no slouch.

LMFAO, i'm done. That's ALL THERE IS TO KNOW.

The better player should win, if that doesn't happen, you're set up is non-competitive.

 

[AfroQT]

Did anyone see how Ken lost Game 2?
Such skill by CPU, clearly he saw that blast coming from his Final Smash.

 

[ubersaurus]

It's not because they did in a way "we didn't want", it because they did it in a way that "we know for a fact is non-competitive and refused to listen to the people who know more about Smash than them". Why would we support that.
Using the chess example, Bobby fischer tried for years to gain support for his chess variant, but it never caught on, but imagine if the us chess federation was like, okay we're going to accept your variation, except we're going to add the following rule: Randomly during a random time of the match, one player gains an additional queen on a random square, during the match. Sounds good, Bobby?

You think he would have liked that, of course not.

I don't think that example is particularly good one. Maybe if it were a random piece that can only be gained by either player by one of them taking it.

Actually, that sounds kind of cool. Hm.

So, I am interested. It's been said many times. yourself included, that "we know for a fact it is non-competitive." I wonder, how was this determined? I've not heard a single thing about any items being used in tournaments. I know why they were ALL disabled in Melee (explodey stuff), and I'll agree with the reasoning there. But the same thinking doesn't really apply to Brawl.

There's some commentary that "top players determined this in the back room," but I want to know their methodology. How did they test this? Did they run their own private tournaments with items, and then cut out the ones they found overpowering, until they reached a total of zero? Or did they just pull them at the get go because they were so used to no items in melee, they didn't want to go through the trouble of testing these things in Brawl?

I think if the SRK people know exactly WHY the SB folks are against it other than the excuses of "it's random" and "it evens the playing field," both of which are not, by themselves, strong enough arguments, a consensus would be easier to reach.

 

[jchensor]

Whatever, SRK people really are showing they really don't care about the Smash community, or anything that makes sense in terms of competitive play. It's like arguing with a two year old. I mean it's so obvious that this ruleset was made to intentionally spite the Smash community, I don't even know why we're arguing.

Can we stop this sentiment, please? It's so completely useless to keep spouting that out. Basically, what you are saying is: "They don't think how I think, and since I am 100% right and they are 100% wrong, they are completely disrespectful and they don't care about our community." Okay, NO. We're trying to have a discussion here, and we could ***** on and on in the same fashion about how you "don't care about the Evo community" or whatever and blah blah blah. But we aren't going there. We've explained where we come from, you've explained where you come from (well, others explained it better than your trolling method), there's NO disrespect going on here from either side. We're trying to work things out, so stop trying to turn this into some immature melodrama about some people not caring about others.

We aren't trying to spite anyone. We've already explained why we did things the way we did. I thought Inkblot did that rather calmly and eloquently. And members of the Smash community have responded calmly and eloquently. If you choose to respond by writing useless posts (and you claim WE sound like 2 year olds...), then I ask you try to choose NOT to respond anymore.

- James

 

[AfroQT]

I don't think that example is particularly good one. Maybe if it were a random piece that can only be gained by either player by one of them taking it.

Actually, that sounds kind of cool. Hm.

So, I am interested. It's been said many times. yourself included, that "we know for a fact it is non-competitive." I wonder, how was this determined? I've not heard a single thing about any items being used in tournaments. I know why they were ALL disabled in Melee (explodey stuff), and I'll agree with the reasoning there. But the same thinking doesn't really apply to Brawl.

There's some commentary that "top players determined this in the back room," but I want to know their methodology. How did they test this? Did they run their own private tournaments with items, and then cut out the ones they found overpowering, until they reached a total of zero? Or did they just pull them at the get go because they were so used to no items in melee, they didn't want to go through the trouble of testing these things in Brawl?

I think if the SRK people know exactly WHY the SB folks are against it other than the excuses of "it's random" and "it evens the playing field," both of which are not, by themselves, strong enough arguments, a consensus would be easier to reach.

Couldnt someone argue that you didnt test items to see if they were tournament viable before hosting a national tournament? Like even a local standard sized tourney with 30 or so people.

If you did then nevermind lol

 

[theONEjanitor]

So, I am interested. It's been said many times. yourself included, that "we know for a fact it is non-competitive." I wonder, how was this determined? I've not heard a single thing about any items being used in tournaments. I know why they were ALL disabled in Melee (explodey stuff), and I'll agree with the reasoning there. But the same thinking doesn't really apply to Brawl.

It's because we're aren't freaking stubborn *******s and we realize that ANYTHING RANDOM and ANYTHING that gives an advantage to the worse player is bad for competitive play.

There's some commentary that "top players determined this in the back room," but I want to know their methodology. How did they test this? Did they run their own private tournaments with items, and then cut out the ones they found overpowering, until they reached a total of zero? Or did they just pull them at the get go because they were so used to no items in melee, they didn't want to go through the trouble of testing these things in Brawl?

the Broomers didn't have to test it, IT'S COMMON SENSE, Jesus.

I think if the SRK people know exactly WHY the SB folks are against it other than the excuses of "it's random" and "it evens the playing field," both of which are not, by themselves, strong enough arguments, a consensus would be easier to reach.

we're against it because it makes a worse ROB win against a (Much) better Marth in a tournament FOR MONEY. and lol @ this anyway, part of the (if not the only) REASON that SRK used this ruleset is to try and "prove us wrong", srk doesn't give a **** about the smash community.

 

[Harbinger631]

Oh okay, Ken wanted to play smash bros. not "chase the smashball and get a free kill", so he deserve to lose a stock to a player he was obviously wayy better than.

My mistake.

Combos are not easy in Melee, they take months, if not years of practice, which justifies them. hit a ball a few times and pressing B to get a stock is not comparable in anyway possible. That's why items favor the least skilled player, which is why they shouldn't be used. Combos do not favor the least skilled player, they HEAVILY favor the most skilled player, and DI countered combos, something else that took skill to utilize. You can't avoid a landmaster on most stages unless you get lucky in terms of positions, period, much less Sonic's final smash or Olimars lmfao.

The first part is just silly. If you're serious about competing, you use every advantage to its fullest. Ignoring smashballs is a very poor strategy. Furthermore, you can't say that Ken was wayy better than CPU because CPU had a better idea of the game as a whole. It's apparent that Ken had better tech skill, but tech skill isn't what the game is all about. Character selection, stage selection, and in-game strategy is as much a part of Brawl as tech skill. On the whole, with that game, CPU was superior with a higher tier character and strategy. Winning is what makes someone better than the other, not tech skill.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much tech skill you needed to do a combo in melee. With enough practice and repetition, a tech becomes second nature and easy. What matters is that the results between a Ken Combo and a landmaster are the same. Near inescapable death, resulting from one mistake.

A game with smashballs is all about that one battle, that one mistake. Quite frankly, I don't like a game where one encounter determines the match. I'm oversimplifying things of course because you can kill people w/o smashballs, and final smashes are non-lethal if dealt with accordingly, some easier than others, some nigh-impossible. However, it's a different game in which different skills are needed, with a different tier list. It's different, that's all.

 

[AfroQT]

It's because we're aren't freaking stubborn *******s and we realize that ANYTHING RANDOM and ANYTHING that gives an advantage to the worse player is bad for competitive play.


the Broomers didn't have to test it, IT'S COMMON SENSE, Jesus.



we're against it because it makes a worse ROB win against a (Much) better Marth in a tournament FOR MONEY. and lol @ this anyway, part of the (if not the only) REASON that SRK used this ruleset is to try and "prove us wrong", srk doesn't give a **** about the smash community.

Im on your side here, but thats false, Faust in Guilty Gear can throw random items, that im pretty sure are apart of his main strategy, some items being completely useless while others doing huge chunks of health to your opponent, as well as completely changing the pace of the game. Yet its completely random.

(not tryin to sound like a pro guilty gear player or anything)

 

[theONEjanitor]

The first part is just silly. If you're serious about competing, you use every advantage to its fullest. Ignoring smashballs is a very poor strategy.

Sure its a poor strategy in this set up.

Furthermore, you can't say that Ken was wayy better than CPU because CPU had a better idea of the game as a whole. It's apparent that Ken had better tech skill, but tech skill isn't what the game is all about. Character selection, stage selection, and in-game strategy is as much a part of Brawl as tech skill. On the whole, with that game, CPU was superior with a higher tier character and strategy. Winning is what makes someone better than the other, not tech skill.

IN A COMPETITIVE GAME, maybe.
Do you even know what tech skill is? Tech skill isn't even a big factor in brawl.
Ken was better than CP IN EVERY WAY, except LUCK.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much tech skill you needed to do a combo in melee. With enough practice and repetition, a tech becomes second nature and easy. What matters is that the results between a Ken Combo and a landmaster are the same. Near inescapable death, resulting from one mistake.

First of all, it takes SKILL to do combos. It doesn't take skill to use most final smashes, landmaster in particular. it takes MONTHS or YEARS of practice to effectively do combos. Needless to say you can learn how to perform a final smash in a matter of seconds. THAT ALONE makes the two not comparable in any form. You have to be a good player to perform combos can get that kill. You DON'T to do a final smash, which means final smashes benefit bad players more than they benefit good players. Which means they should not be used for competitive games.

Secondly, combos weren't nearly as broken as final smashes, because they had a counter: DI.

A game with smashballs is all about that one battle, that one mistake. Quite frankly, I don't like a game where one encounter determines the match. I'm oversimplifying things of course because you can kill people w/o smashballs, and final smashes are non-lethal if dealt with accordingly, some easier than others, some nigh-impossible. However, it's a different game in which different skills are needed, with a different tier list. It's different, that's all.

It's different in that your set up gives bad players a chance to beat good players.

 

[Mike G]

theONEjanitor...

"srk doesn't give a **** about the smash community"

you would be surprise on how wrong u are.(seriously) but I didnt come here to argue. I agree with you for the most part.

 

[ubersaurus]

Couldnt someone argue that you didnt test items to see if they were tournament viable before hosting a national tournament? Like even a local standard sized tourney with 30 or so people.

If you did then nevermind lol

As I understand it, Keits ran weekly online tournaments for several months that were item tourneys, and as they went on, he kept lopping off items and stages that everyone felt were too broken, until he reached a ruleset that, as far as I know, is about the one they used for Evo.

So that's the history of that

 

[a77]

What's the point? Evo is supposed to be a tournament for "the best of the best from all around the world" or something like that, right? None of the best Brawl players bothered to go to Evo, and I'm guessing if you kept the same ruleset next year you would have a similar outcome. It seems like Evo wants to please the crowd more than the actual Smash players.

Also Dedede throws random things, too. Different scenario, though.

 

[theONEjanitor]

Im on your side here, but thats false, Faust in Guilty Gear can throw random items, that im pretty sure are apart of his main strategy, some items being completely useless while others doing huge chunks of health to your opponent, as well as completely changing the pace of the game. Yet its completely random.

(not tryin to sound like a pro guilty gear player or anything)

And in smash G&W and Peach have random elements as well. And if we could fix that, WE WOULD. but we have found that the game is still playable with these random elements, because they occur rarely, and WE ARE PREPARED FOR THEM, we know the exact situations in which they occur and what to do about it.

Marth jumps in on a Peach. she has the ability to randomly pull up a bomb, we know in advance that there is a "pulling" animation and a throwing animation, so we KNOW for a fact that we can avoid this if we are fast enough.

Marth jumps in on a Sheik who is carelessly jabbing leaving herself open, but uh oh, a smashball randomly appears in the midst of her jabs and he she gets it and immediately activates it.

See the difference.

With items you can not prepare for them, you have no idea where a smashball will spawn. Note we never said "remove random elements" we said "minimize random elements".

If SRK made any attempt to "minimize" randomness in anyway, I would give them more credit. It's pure common sense that minmizing randomness leads to a better competitive game. srk ignores this fact.

 

[AfroQT]

As I understand it, Keits ran weekly online tournaments for several months that were item tourneys, and as they went on, he kept lopping off items and stages that everyone felt were too broken, until he reached a ruleset that, as far as I know, is about the one they used for Evo.

So that's the history of that

Just a few questions.
1. What did the winners receive?
2. Was there a entrance fee?
3. There were no LIVE tourneys held with items on?

 

[AfroQT]

And in smash G&W and Peach have random elements as well. And if we could fix that, WE WOULD. but we have found that the game is still playable with these random elements, because they occur rarely, and WE ARE PREPARED FOR THEM, we know the exact situations in which they occur and what to do about it.

Marth jumps in on a Peach. she has the ability to randomly pull up a bomb, we know in advance that there is a "pulling" animation and a throwing animation, so we KNOW for a fact that we can avoid this if we are fast enough.

Marth jumps in on a Sheik who is carelessly jabbing leaving herself open, but uh oh, a smashball randomly appears in the midst of her jabs and he she gets it and immediately activates it.

See the difference.

With items you can not prepare for them, you have no idea where a smashball will spawn. Note we never said "remove random elements" we said "minimize random elements".

Calm down buddy im on your side, in your post you stated ANYTHING RANDOM. I was just throwin it out there.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Just a few questions.
1. What did the winners receive?
2. Was there a entrance fee?
3. There were no LIVE tourneys held with items on?

Winners typically received premium, no entrance fee, and yes, there were a few items tourneys run live elsewhere. It's just rather difficult to actually do so without absolute disgust from the primary attendees from the onset. This seems to be changing, what with Evo attendees actually wanting to see more of the same.

 

[ubersaurus]

Just a few questions.
1. What did the winners receive?
2. Was there a entrance fee?
3. There were no LIVE tourneys held with items on?

Edit: looks like that's been answered!

 

[Harbinger631]

Did anyone see how Ken lost Game 2?
Such skill by CPU, clearly he saw that blast coming from his Final Smash.

It's still somewhat Ken's fault though. If he had tipped the smashball, or done a nair instead of fair, or had gone for ROB instead of the ball, ROB may not have gotten the ball. It's not the battle during the final smash that matters, it's the battle to get the final smash.

 

[theONEjanitor]

Calm down buddy im on your side, in your post you stated ANYTHING RANDOM. I was just throwin it out there.

I'm not really trying snap at anybody, everyone's telling me I'm trolling or calm down. that's just how i type in these debates lol
anything random is bad for competitive play and sometimes we can't do anything about it, and in some games (like mario party) that makes the game unplayable competitively, and in others, like smash or GG, we minimize randomness as much as possible and the game is still playable competitive with the few things we can't change.

 

[Ponder]

I think if the SRK people know exactly WHY the SB folks are against it other than the excuses of "it's random" and "it evens the playing field," both of which are not, by themselves, strong enough arguments, a consensus would be easier to reach.

I don't think a consensus can be reached. Honestly, the SRK people should stop trying to convince the SWF people of the merits of items. They do not like them in a tournament setting and you will not convince them otherwise. They have been moving away from items for years and are not just going to turn around and go back because you say so. Continuing to argue will just create more ill-feelings on both sides which doesn't benefit either community.

The only open question in my mind is where to go from here with respect to Evo. We have a mountain of evidence that there is no room in the Brawl community for an items-format tournament sub-community. With that in mind, I'm interested in learning more about the Smash tournament scene at a national/international level to try to figure out where we fit in, if at all. I've played Smash for years (see registration date), but never competitively. I'd appreciate anything you could tell me about long-running tournament series for Smash, big upcoming tournaments for '09, or anything you think is relevant. I'd also like to hear if people would attend a no-item, 3 Stock, 7-minute, etc. tournament in Evo '09 Vegas tournament.

Feel free to reply to this thread or e-mail me directly at tony.cannon@gmail.com. Thanks.

 

[AfroQT]

Winners typically received premium, no entrance fee, and yes, there were a few items tourneys run live elsewhere. It's just rather difficult to actually do so without absolute disgust from the primary attendees from the onset. This seems to be changing, what with Evo attendees actually wanting to see more of the same.

A online tournament with no entrance fee (where losing isnt technically a loss of anything except time i guess) doesnt really seem to hold much uhhh standing in arguement for testing. I wouldnt have any problems entering a online item tourney if i was doing nothing in the meantime, and knowing i wouldnt lose anything. I wouldnt travel (or pay for that matter) for a item tournament myself.

 

[theONEjanitor]

It's still somewhat Ken's fault though. If he had tipped the smashball, or done a nair instead of fair, or had gone for ROB instead of the ball, ROB may not have gotten the ball. It's not the battle during the final smash that matters, it's the battle to get the final smash.

Harbinger, forget all of that for a second. I have two questions for you and anyone.

1. Do you believe that, in fair competition, the best player overall will win? Do you believe he SHOULD win?


2. Do you believe that OVERALL, CP was a better player of Super Smash Brothers Brawl than Ken in these matches? You believe that luck was not a major factor in the fact that he won, and that skill at the game was the major decider?


3. If you answer Yes to the above question, Did you watch the match? lol

 

[Harbinger631]

Harbinger, forget all of that for a second. I have two questions for you and anyone.

1. Do you believe that, in fair competition, the best player overall will win? Do you believe he SHOULD win?


2. Do you believe that OVERALL, CP was a better player of Super Smash Brothers Brawl than Ken in these matches? You believe that luck was not a major factor in the fact that he won, and that skill at the game was the major decider?


3. If you answer Yes to the above question, Did you watch the match? lol

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes. With smashballs being on, a HUGE part of the game, much, much more important than being able to string together hits, space, approach, etc, is getting the smashball. CPU was far superior at that than Ken, and thus was better at the game they were playing.

 

[Zankoku]

But Smash Balls are part of a selection of random item spawns, right? If a Smash Ball never appeared, this "skill at getting the Smash Ball" would never apply; is that lack of skill, or is it bad luck that the Smash Ball never spawned, when you spent time practicing to get it if it does spawn? How is reliance on the random spawn of a certain item out of many a measure of skill?

 

[AfroQT]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes. With smashballs being on, a HUGE part of the game, much, much more important than being able to string together hits, space, approach, etc, is getting the smashball. CPU was far superior at that than Ken, and thus was better at the game they were playing.

So essentially knowing your character perfectly (in terms of spacing, lag time, combos, recovery) is less important then being able to hit the smash ball twice (RoB hit it twice at max in the ken vs CPU vids) and hit B?

Im sorry but i highly disagree with that.

 

[Miller]

Items are fail for competition, theres nothing to argue about. Math could prove items r fail.