Official 'Item Standard Play' Thread (65k views. Not bad for a side project, huh? :P + Poll in OP)

[Jack Kieser]

So, sorry for the double post, but something has come to my attention that I thought everyone should know about. I talked to Keits recently, and he swears that, by correctly buffering spot dodges (which is different for each character), one can reduce the hit rate of the Dragoon to under 10%. I'm trying to get him to compile some video footage of this in actual matches (he says the vids he has up aren't 'representative' of this data because he was off that day), but if this is true it is a big + to the Dragoon's viability. I'm going to try to learn how to buffer spot dodges that well and see if I can replicate his results.

And before anyone says anything, in the words of Yuna, "If something is possible to do, people will master it." If I (who is terrible at stuff like buffering) can pull it off, than a skilled, seasoned, talented high-level player will be able to as well.

 

[RDK]

So, sorry for the double post, but something has come to my attention that I thought everyone should know about. I talked to Keits recently, and he swears that, by correctly buffering spot dodges (which is different for each character), one can reduce the hit rate of the Dragoon to under 10%. I'm trying to get him to compile some video footage of this in actual matches (he says the vids he has up aren't 'representative' of this data because he was off that day), but if this is true it is a big + to the Dragoon's viability. I'm going to try to learn how to buffer spot dodges that well and see if I can replicate his results.

And before anyone says anything, in the words of Yuna, "If something is possible to do, people will master it." If I (who is terrible at stuff like buffering) can pull it off, than a skilled, seasoned, talented high-level player will be able to as well.

Under 10% is still bad, especially considering something that powerful. You wouldn't excuse tripping even if it doesn't happen over 10% of the time, would you? It still has a negative effect on the game.

I still don't agree with your fancies that using the Dragoon lines up completely with the competitive mindset. But at least this time you might actually have tangible results.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, 'under 10%' was just something he threw out there; I wouldn't be able to tell you an accurate numerical figure without seeing vids/testing for myself. The only accurate number he gave me was that, if buffered correctly, the Dragoon only has a 1-3 frame window in which to hit (depending on character, again), which is REALLY low compared to what we assumed was the available hit window.

Oh, and I never said that the Dragoon lined up perfectly, btw. If I did, quote me, because I don't remember ever typing anything that crass. I just said that it (probably) doesn't contradict as much as we think (which, for most people, is 100%).

EDIT: Holy crap, so I just looked at the OP and noticed something that was totally off in the list. Pokeballs are not supposed to be CP in 1v1, just in 2v2. I must have accidentally copypasta'ed the wrong parts of my notes together into some AT/Pokeball Frankenstein-ian monster. I'll get to fixing that part when I get a chance.

 

[Wayland]

If the buffering thing works in 1v1, terrific, but I question Dragoon's viability in teams. To me, it sounds like, somebody gets dragoon, his teammate's can attack the other player risking everything, or spend all their time defending from Dragoon, leaving them open to other player. CP in 1v1, sure, but teams theorhetically sounds bad.

 

[TheFast]

Spring can kill if you up-smash, jump then throw it up and hit them while they are high in the air >.<

 

[Jack Kieser]

Spring can kill if you up-smash, jump then throw it up and hit them while they are high in the air >.<

Anything can kill if it's used properly. Mr. Saturn can kill if you know what you're doing. So... what are you trying to say?

 

[MarKO X]

Ahhh.. Mr. Saturn.

I got killed with him the other day. It was actually quite epic.

Playing with Marth against a friend's Ike. I was shielding a little too much, and Mr. Saturn gets tossed at me. My shield breaker. Ike doesn't hesitate to rip me a new stock via full charged forward Smash.

 

[Karptroopa]

Well, this is something. I always thought that items would be forever shunned. Regardless, pretty nice sheet you have there. Thanks for the facts.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

I really don't like your ideas about "balanced items". So a balanced item is one that gives you something and takes away something from you? It is that the only acceptable item? So items that give you temporary boosts in your play aren't acceptable? Items that give you big reward without risk are unacceptable? The truth about item play is getting the best advantage of it , and for defenders to get the less damage from it. That's how it is. The outcome of a medium lenght match get determined by overall skill (both offensive and defensive, with or without items). I think the philosophy behind item banning here is a failure.

 

[pure_awesome]

I really don't like your ideas about "balanced items". So a balanced item is one that gives you something and takes away something from you? It is that the only acceptable item? So items that give you temporary boosts in your play aren't acceptable? Items that give you big reward without risk are unacceptable? The truth about item play is getting the best advantage of it , and for defenders to get the less damage from it. That's how it is. The outcome of a medium lenght match get determined by overall skill (both offensive and defensive, with or without items). I think the philosophy behind item banning here is a failure.

So essentially, what you're saying is that we should make the outcome of our competitive matches as random as possible.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

So essentially, what you're saying is that we should make the outcome of our competitive matches as random as possible.

No, but the criteria for banning is wrong, to my thinking. Items are supposed to give you temporary advantages, that's why you pursue them. And the risk-reward think should not be applicable. There are many attacks that have no risk-reward and are ok as part of the gameplay.

 

[pure_awesome]

Random spawning. That is my answer to your statement.

Person A is at 5% damage.
Person B is at 140% damage.
Both are on their last stock.

Person A goes to finish off his opponent with an attack. Lo and behold, a Smart Bomb spawns in front of him. While he's stuck in the smart bomb, a Golden Hammer spawns next to Person B. So Person B wins, despite Person A being the slightly better items player.

We use items that give you an advantage if you know how to use them properly. We avoid items that reward or punish you way too much just by being lucky.


And no. There are no attacks that have absolutely zero risk. If there was, then people would just spam that attack and be unstoppable.

 

[TheFast]

Sandbag is broken >.<

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

No, but the criteria for banning is wrong, to my thinking. Items are supposed to give you temporary advantages, that's why you pursue them. And the risk-reward think should not be applicable. There are many attacks that have no risk-reward and are ok as part of the gameplay.

How is the criteria wrong? Apparently people should be paying to play a game with no foreseen occurrences, spontaneous item spawns and ridiculous projectile gimping. Furthermore there is essentially no risk to getting an item and using it. If an item spawns close to a player, they have the advantage. Even if not, the player can easily go retreat for said item if it would be more of an advantage for them. Items have been proven to be unfitted for competitive play on numerous occasions, and opting for the same demands won't get you anywhere.

And secondly, there is no risk free attack in Brawl. If there is, I would like you to point out this 1 by 1 frame attack with a massive disjointed hit box.

 

[pure_awesome]

Items have been proven to be unfitted for competitive play on numerous occasions...

No. They have not.

The competitive community has decided that the brunt of it's play will take place with items off, since it slightly increases the random factor.

But as you can plainly see by the very existence of this thread, there are still competitive tournaments with items on and people that play them. Certain items, yes, have been proven to be unfitted for competitive play. But not all. Watch the wording.

I've never understood people who say that turning items on automatically destroys competitive viablity. You're going to tell me that having a match with Smoke Balls set to Low instantly forfeits any validity the result of the match would have had on a competitive scale? It's just logical progression from there.

 

[RDK]

Um, yeah they are unfit for competitive play. Items are an anathema to competition. If you want to gamble, go play slots. The rest of us like playing a competitive fighter where random chance isn't forcibly inserted into the mechanics of a match.

 

[pure_awesome]

Better ban Game and Watch then.

Your argument has been refuted countless times. Just because something is random doesn't mean it's automatically the bane of all competition. This is proven by the fact that we allow Peach. We allow DDD. We allow Frigate Orpheon. We allow Pokemon Stadium.

Nobody that isn't an idiot would deny that items aren't random. We just realize that the randomness that certain items inject into competitive play is negligible compared to the amount of options that it opens up for the metagame.

In short, your argument makes just as much sense as mine, because we're both using the same facts. What you have is an opinion. The opinion that items make too much of a random impact. Which is fine. So don't play with items. But while you're at it, don't come into an items-on thread and piss and moan about how we shouldn't play how we play.

I don't understand why you still come to this thread. You're an idiot. You're like a preacher trying to turn homosexuals straight. We aren't bothering you, stop coming to our gay bars and acting like we're spawns of the devil.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, I missed a lot.

 

[RDK]

Better ban Game and Watch then.

No, because Game and Watch doesn't cause items to randomly spawn and favor one character over another. Don't act like a moron.

Your argument has been refuted countless times. Just because something is random doesn't mean it's automatically the bane of all competition. This is proven by the fact that we allow Peach. We allow DDD. We allow Frigate Orpheon. We allow Pokemon Stadium.

Again, Peach and DDD's items aren't randomly spawned. It's not even close to being the same situation.

Nobody that isn't an idiot would deny that items aren't random. We just realize that the randomness that certain items inject into competitive play is negligible compared to the amount of options that it opens up for the metagame.

Again, it hasn't been proven at all that items that are statistically negligible in terms of detriment to competition "open up options for the metagame". There's not enough evidence to even imply this, which is, I assume, why Kieser is doing these tournaments. But one tournament is hardly a large enough body of data to make remotely good conclusions.

In short, your argument makes just as much sense as mine, because we're both using the same facts.

Have no idea what the hell you're talking about here. You've yet to use any facts. Ever.

What you have is an opinion. The opinion that items make too much of a random impact. Which is fine. So don't play with items. But while you're at it, don't come into an items-on thread and piss and moan about how we shouldn't play how we play.

I'm not telling Kieser how he should or shouldn't play at all. The only thing I've responded to is idiots like you that think suddenly allowing items in competitive play will boost the metagame in an incredibly profound way, which, to any rational person with a shred of competitive experience, is obviously false.

I don't understand why you still come to this thread. You're an idiot. You're like a preacher trying to turn homosexuals straight. We aren't bothering you, stop coming to our gay bars and acting like we're spawns of the devil.

I have nothing against gays, so again, I have no idea what you're talking about and half of your argument are just ad hominem attacks. Way to make yourself look intelligent.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Look, the way I see it, the whole argument is really pointless.

One group of people are trying to assign some value to item play that just doesn't exist. Items are inherently unfair. There's no getting around that. The game engine doesn't award a player an item advantage based off of anything other than stage control, but even that is just a concept we've come up with; if items were programmed to spawn off stage, even that would be negligable. The fact of the matter is that items, at their basest level, operate just like items in any other Smash game, so a degree of senior experience has to be taken into account.

That being said, there is a reason that some people are looking to item play. We haven't done it in a long enough period of time that now players only agree from tradition and don't actually know what items are banned. Even if they did, item players realize (and accept of their own free will, by the way) that items are inherently random. These people hold a different philosophy (that random =/ bad) that makes them look for something different than people who condemn or otherwise disagree with item play.

The fact of the matter is that, as far as I know, items were either on or off. It was always a binary situation, and for as long as I've lurked here in the past, I had never seen someone try to only disable the greatest offenders of item imbalance. This is, for all intents and purposes, a pretty unique concept, and people mistake that sometimes. This isn't going to magically make Meta not crazy good. This isn't going to give us great new ATs. This isn't going to magically fix all of Brawl's problems. But it is a different way to play, and some people prefer it. It's not for everyone (hell, I don't even like items), but I feel that people should be given that choice on their own. If you even consider item play, you already know all the risks; trying to remind people that is a waste of time. The best we can do is try to do this as intelligently as possible.

I know it's not perfect now, but it's a start, at least.

Oh, and some people make it sound like people involved in this are somehow advocating for this to 'replace' traditional Smash rules. That's asanine. No one in this project has EVER even hinted at that. So... yeah.

 

[pure_awesome]

No, because Game and Watch doesn't cause items to randomly spawn and favor one character over another. Don't act like a moron.
Again, Peach and DDD's items aren't randomly spawned. It's not even close to being the same situation.

I've told you this argument about three times already in the past few months. The only reason I say that is because you equate something being random to automatically being non-competitive. Logical deduction shows us that that's stupid.


If you honestly think I'm going to argue with you again on this topic, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought. (OMG AD HOMINEM.)

We both know that items are random. We both know the randomness will affect the gameplay. I think it doesn't affect it enough, you think it affects it too much. Neither of us can prove the other one wrong because it's all opinion.

I never said I thought items would boost the metagame in an incredibly profound way. Which surprises me, becuase I didn't think you'd be able to spell "profound" on your own. (He did it again... this guy is a jerk!). I said that it's possible to have a competitive, items-on community. Which, again, ultimately becomes just an opinion.

I have nothing against gays, so again, I have no idea what you're talking about...

Way to not have any idea what a comparison is, genius.

As for the ad hominem attacks, the fact that you would come in and try to start this argument up again when I've already dismissed it and it's completely pointless makes me feel justified in calling you an idiot.

 

[RDK]

I've told you this argument about three times already in the past few months. The only reason I say that is because you equate something being random to automatically being non-competitive. Logical deduction shows us that that's stupid.

Randomness is inherently bad, but banning a character because he has some random elements implemented is just plain brainless. You can't turn Game n' Watch's randomness off, but you can turn items off.

If you honestly think I'm going to argue with you again on this topic, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought. (OMG AD HOMINEM.)

You probably didn't bring up anything even close to being considered an intelligent argument or I wouldn't have labeled you as a ****** when you posted.

I never said I thought items would boost the metagame in an incredibly profound way. Which surprises me, becuase I didn't think you'd be able to spell "profound" on your own. (He did it again... this guy is a jerk!). I said that it's possible to have a competitive, items-on community. Which, again, ultimately becomes just an opinion.

I never said it wasn't possible, I said to me it's idiocy and I can't understand why anyone would want to do it. But go ahead; I'm not stopping you. I'm only showing you my reason why I think you're a moron.

Way to not have any idea what a comparison is, genius.

I knew it was a comparison, I was merely pointing out the fact that you were ridiculously overstating it and comparing me to some idiot preacher.

As for the ad hominem attacks, the fact that you would come in and try to start this argument up again when I've already dismissed it and it's completely pointless makes me feel justified in calling you an idiot.

Again, I don't remember you even contributing to any discussion I've been a part of, and that's generally not a good sign.

 

[pure_awesome]

So I went. And I sat. And I cleared my head of the desire to slap you for bringing up such a dumb argument.
And I decided to humor you.

Randomness is inherently bad, but banning a character because he has some random elements implemented is just plain brainless. You can't turn Game n' Watch's randomness off, but you can turn items off.

So ban Pokemon Stadium. Ban Frigate Orpheon. Ban Pirate Ship, Norfair, and Port Town. Ban Corneria and Distant Planet. Let's go nuts and ban Delfino Plaza. Hell, ban Lylat Cruise. The random tilting gimped some dude's recovery once.

Randomness is bad. That is obvious. We both know that. Everyone with half a brain knows that. But it doesn't automatically ruin competitive validity. If it did, then every stage I listed above should be banned because it could potentially reward a player at random. But that's not how the competitive community functions. Saying items have to be banned solely because one aspect of them is random is ludicrous.

You think they're too random. I think they aren't. I'm interested as to how you're going to prove I'm wrong.

I never said it wasn't possible, I said to me it's idiocy and I can't understand why anyone would want to do it. But go ahead; I'm not stopping you. I'm only showing you my reason why I think you're a moron.

Honestly, if your way of stating your opinion on items is to declare them the anathema of competition, then you either need to work on your social skills or need to look up the definition of anathema.

I knew it was a comparison, I was merely pointing out the fact that you were ridiculously overstating it and comparing me to some idiot preacher.

You're telling a minority that they're wrong. In order to do that, you're going to their place. We don't affect you at all, but you feel the need to come to where we talk and explain to us that we're all wrong, and that the way we choose to play is an "anathema" upon convention. I'd say it's a pretty accurate assessment, actually.

Again, I don't remember you even contributing to any discussion I've been a part of, and that's generally not a good sign.

What can I tell you, buddy? I'm very memorable.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I've told you this argument about three times already in the past few months. The only reason I say that is because you equate something being random to automatically being non-competitive. Logical deduction shows us that that's stupid.

Random IS anti-competitive, the reason why items are generally off in the first place is it makes the game more competitive by decreasing the random factor.

Because whether to have any item on or off is a binary standard to set, they're ok to remove, it's not the same as banning. Banning characters however is a drastic step taken only in the rarest of circumstances, and banning somebody's natural moveset is not ok because it's too easy to do on accident.

So having items off makes the game more competative, THAT SAID, this purposal, ISA, was created to make items play as competitive as possible. The only way to do this is utilize a risk/reward system, therebye incorporating skill into it as much as possible.

We both know that items are random. We both know the randomness will affect the gameplay. I think it doesn't affect it enough, you think it affects it too much. Neither of us can prove the other one wrong because it's all opinion.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

-Douglas Adams

As a simple example of this, what if your opinion was that the Earth was flat? I can point out plenty of evidence to show this is not the case, and even do experiments to prove you wrong. Opinions that conflict with objective facts are wrong.


So...

Fact: Items increase the random factor involved in Smash.
Fact: Increases in the random factor result in all involved players' win ratios going closer to 50%.
Therefore: Skill is less of a factor in individual matches.
Fact: Competitive gaming is meant to seperate players by skill.
Therefore: Items are anti-competitive.

Again, the idea of the ISP project (which I wholly support) is to limit the damage done by items being present in competitive play, but ultimately they are still anti-competitive.

Fell free to dispute me on any of those points, but overall both your belief that opinions cannot be wrong and your opinion itself is flawed.

 

[pure_awesome]

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

-Douglas Adams

As a simple example of this, what if your opinion was that the Earth was flat? I can point out plenty of evidence to show this is not the case, and even do experiments to prove you wrong. Opinions that conflict with objective facts are wrong.


Fact: Items increase the random factor involved in Smash.
Fact: Increases in the random factor result in all involved players' win ratios going closer to 50%.
Therefore: Skill is less of a factor in individual matches.
Fact: Competitive gaming is meant to seperate players by skill.
Therefore: Items are anti-competitive.

Fact: Corneria increases the random factor involved in Smash.

sequential logic, sequential logic...

Therefore: Corneria is anti-competitive.


That, is called disproving your own theory.

"A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."

-Douglas Adams



For the record, a valid opinion cannot be formed contrary to objective standard. If someone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, their opinion is invalid, because the earths roundness is an objective trait.

Valid opinions can be formed anywhere on a subjective standard. Some angles will be harder than others, but they can still be brought to equal validity.

Whether or not something is competitive is objective. I don't think professional rock, paper, scissors is competitive, but there are people who disagree with me.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Fact: Corneria increases the random factor involved in Smash.

sequential logic, sequential logic...

Therefore: Delfino Plaza is anti-competitive.

Quite true, but stage bannings have to be justified like character bannings (to a much lesser degree, but still), it has to be a certain DEGREE of randomness. Or a certain degree of favoring one char.

Competitive standards however, neutral guard on is inherently as valid a choice as neutral guard off in the appropriate games. However, if one standard increases the randomness involved and another doesn't, no need to justify beyond a .000000......1% increase in randomness, go with the standard that is less random.

Items on or off is a competitive standard, so ANY increase in randomness is a valid reason for choosing a different standard.

A valid opinion cannot be formed contrary to subjective standard. If someone is of the opinion that the earth is flat, their opinion is invalid, because the earths roundness is a subjective trait.

Valid opinions can be formed anywhere on an objective standard.

The point of that was that it WASN'T subjective, items ARE anti-competitive.

Your PREFERENCE for items is subjective, but recognize that they are anti-competitive.

Whether or not something is competitive is objective. I don't think professional rock, paper, scissors is competitive, but there are people who disagree with me.

Rock, paper, scissors is NOT random, it's a game entirely based on Yomi, or as we call it in smash, mindgames.

You are either convincing your opponent to make a choice or predicting it, that is certainly competitive.

But recognize all things can be made competitive to some degree, some things are just more competitive then others.

 

[pure_awesome]

So essentially, what you just said is that items are banned because they're items. It's what we know, it's what we like, so we're going to wrap ourselves up in that nice comfy blanket. And then we'll attribute it a bunch of reasons that could also apply to stages, but ignore the double-standard.

See what I'm driving at? It's always subjective. Items and stages are both random. You choose to draw the line at stages, I choose to draw the line at certain items.

I want to point out that I don't trash on anyone for drawing the line at stages, especially not the BackRoom. If that's where you get off the random-train, so be it. I just can't stand when people tell me that the place I decided to draw my line is somehow inferior to theirs.

 

[RDK]

So I went. And I sat. And I cleared my head of the desire to slap you for bringing up such a dumb argument.
And I decided to humor you.

Yay, my opinions are even more valid because I can make fun of my opponent!

Learn how to debate.

So ban Pokemon Stadium. Ban Frigate Orpheon. Ban Pirate Ship, Norfair, and Port Town. Ban Corneria and Distant Planet. Let's go nuts and ban Delfino Plaza. Hell, ban Lylat Cruise. The random tilting gimped some dude's recovery once.

The elements in those stages are not on the same level of randomly spawning items because they're relatively predictable. I can count on Frigate Orpheon flipping upside down at regular intervals during the match and plan accordingly. I shouldn't have to worry about a Dragoon piece dropping into my opponent's hands while we're fighting.

Randomness is bad. That is obvious. We both know that. Everyone with half a brain knows that. But it doesn't automatically ruin competitive validity.

When did I say it definetely, absolutely ruined any chances of being competitively viable? All I said was that randomness was bad for competition, and that it doesn't make sense why someone would go the extra mile and purposefully make a more random environment by including items.

Items aren't bad in and of themselves. The fact that they spawn randomly is bad. I still don't get why you're arguing just plain randomness.

If it did, then every stage I listed above should be banned because it could potentially reward a player at random. But that's not how the competitive community functions. Saying items have to be banned solely because one aspect of them is random is ludicrous.

You obviously don't know how the competitive community functions if you think banning Game n' Watch or Peach is equal to banning items.

You think they're too random. I think they aren't. I'm interested as to how you're going to prove I'm wrong.

It's not up to me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove your claim right. What the hell kind of debating course did you take.

Honestly, if your way of stating your opinion on items is to declare them the anathema of competition, then you either need to work on your social skills or need to look up the definition of anathema.

Oh the irony.

You're telling a minority that they're wrong. In order to do that, you're going to their place. We don't affect you at all, but you feel the need to come to where we talk and explain to us that we're all wrong, and that the way we choose to play is an "anathema" upon convention. I'd say it's a pretty accurate assessment, actually.

Again, quote me where I said you were "wrong". All I said was "I disagree, and here's why". Since these are discussion forums, I think it's germane to the purpose of the forums to discuss the topics at hand, j@ckass. That's the whole point of a forum.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

Random spawning. That is my answer to your statement.

Person A is at 5% damage.
Person B is at 140% damage.
Both are on their last stock.

Person A goes to finish off his opponent with an attack. Lo and behold, a Smart Bomb spawns in front of him. While he's stuck in the smart bomb, a Golden Hammer spawns next to Person B. So Person B wins, despite Person A being the slightly better items player.

We use items that give you an advantage if you know how to use them properly. We avoid items that reward or punish you way too much just by being lucky.


And no. There are no attacks that have absolutely zero risk. If there was, then people would just spam that attack and be unstoppable.

That's the usual argument. -The critical moment argument. If you consider that then almost any item is to be banned. For example, your opponent is struggling to get back to the ledge, and then a star rod (not banned) appears, you throw it , it kills. Oh my god, how unfair. n_n

My answer to random spawning is time. The length of the match. Sometimes if items give advantages that you opponent cant handle and he dies, well, that's just one stock he couldn't defend. There are other stocks or other rounds so he can dominate and win in the end. The critical moment scenarios have to be accepted as a part of a whole. If you see it as specific moment in battle that will always seem unfair, random and luck-based. I know this thread is about banning some items but the criteria you use is contradictory sometimes.

Another thing I was to say is that there are moves that have no risk and are part of the gameplay and people do spam them a lot:

Examples: Kirby's and Jiggly's back air. Metaknight's Up B. Pit arrows in middle and far range. The same with Rob's Laser. Many short hop Fair are not risky at all. If you think of it that is why people liked SHFFL in Melee becuase you could attack with little risk. Then all combat was aerial. I didn't like that at all. In the other hand, items are temporary, so they cannot be spammed like crazy forever. For some of them to have little risk, that is just normal for an item.


P.D: I cant believe there are idiots in here talking trash against items. They are like bugs. Stop your #"$R#"$# sh:t
If you don't like to compete with items then get the hell out of here. the arguments in favor to item play you will never accept or understand them because you don't want to. So go home. don't be stupid, ok?

 

[pure_awesome]

Yay, my opinions are even more valid because I can make fun of my opponent!

Learn how to debate.

Yay, my opponent remarked on my idiocy, and I'm going to use that as a platform to boost my position because that's what everyone on the internet does!

The elements in those stages are not on the same level of randomly spawning items because they're relatively predictable. I can count on Frigate Orpheon flipping upside down at regular intervals during the match and plan accordingly. I shouldn't have to worry about a Dragoon piece dropping into my opponent's hands while we're fighting.

Dear god. I never said they were on the same level. I said that they're parts of the game that we allow, even though they could still randomly reward one player over the other.

When did I say it definetely, absolutely ruined any chances of being competitively viable? All I said was that randomness was bad for competition, and that it doesn't make sense why someone would go the extra mile and purposefully make a more random environment by including items.

Oh don't be a wuss. You wouldn't call items the anathema of competition if what you really meant was "Well personally, I don't like them." Everyone with eyes can see what you're doing.

Items aren't bad in and of themselves. The fact that they spawn randomly is bad. I still don't get why you're arguing just plain randomness.

You probably don't get it because that's not at all what I'm doing. How many times in this thread have I said "Items are random. Everyone knows that." or something to that effect?

You obviously don't know how the competitive community functions if you think banning Game n' Watch or Peach is equal to banning items.

Which I don't.

It's not up to me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove your claim right. What the hell kind of debating course did you take.

Actually, you're the one in a competitive items on thread making the claim that items shouldn't be on in a competitive environment. You're the one calling for change. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you.

What kind of course? A better one than yours, apparently.

OMG AD HOMINEM.

All I said was "I disagree, and here's why". Since these are discussion forums, I think it's germane to the purpose of the forums to discuss the topics at hand, j@ckass. That's the whole point of a forum.

Panda's Comments:
That said, NO TROLLING OR FLAMING WILL BE TOLERATED IN THIS THREAD. If you don't like items then don't bother participating in this discussion.

See? This is why you're an idiot.


AD HOMINEM! PURE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DEBATE!

That's the usual argument. -The critical moment argument. If you consider that then almost any item is to be banned. For example, your opponent is struggling to get back to the ledge, and then a star rod (not banned) appears, you throw it -

It's handily airdodged and the world sheds a single tear over the poor star rod tossed into the abyss.

Welcome to Brawl. We have airdodging.

My answer to random spawning is time. The length of the match. Sometimes if items give advantages that you opponent cant handle and he dies, well, that's just one stock he couldn't defend. There are other stocks or other rounds so he can dominate and win in the end. The critical moment scenarios have to be accepted as a part of a whole. If you see it as specific moment in battle that will always seem unfair, random and luck-based. I know this thread is about banning some items but the criteria you use is contradictory sometimes.

Items spawns do not even out over the course of a match. One player could get ten "Critical Moment Scenarios" in a single match, which makes the entire match unfair, random and luck-based. Overpowerered items are removed to prevent this.

Another thing I was to say is that there are moves that have no risk and are part of the gameplay and people do spam them a lot:

Examples: Kirby's and Jiggly's back air. Metaknight's Up B. Pit arrows in middle and far range. The same with Rob's Laser. Many short hop Fair are not risky at all. If you think of it that is why people liked SHFFL in Melee becuase you could attack with little risk. Then all combat was aerial. I didn't like that at all. In the other hand, items are temporary, so they cannot be spammed like crazy forever. For some of them to have little risk, that is just normal for an item.

Kirby's and Jiggly's have ending lag, and therefore, risk. Metaknight's Up B forces him into a glide, and then a free-fall state. I've seen a GaW player powershield an UpB and then use Uair to carry Metaknight into oblivion. Pit's arrows and ROBs laser can be reflected and are easily punishable when distance is closed.

 

[Darth JoBak]

I love that these rules have been developed, item play complements standard competitive play very well

 

[choknater]

pure_awesome, youre awesome

omg ad hominem

 

[adumbrodeus]

So essentially, what you just said is that items are banned because they're items. It's what we know, it's what we like, so we're going to wrap ourselves up in that nice comfy blanket. And then we'll attribute it a bunch of reasons that could also apply to stages, but ignore the double-standard.

Inherently, prior to any information about the effects of any competative standard, competitive standards are inherently equal. There is no preference for one competative standard over the other.

Since it's a competative standard issue, once information is obtained that one standard is less competative then another, the less competitive one is immiediatly dropped.

Why? Because competative standards are a set of discrete options that must be decided prior to any actual gameplay. There is no "default standard" it must be chosen.

Stages on the other hand, have to be actually banned. Different criteria, the default is "not banned" so it's not a matter of whether it injects randomness, it's a matter of whether it's randomness if enough of an issue to result in the stage's removal, keeping in mind whatever redeeming factors the stage may have.


So yes, there ARE different standards for characters, competitive standards, and stages. The point is that there is a good reason for this.


And items aren't banned. Understand that, there's no possible way for in the course of gameplay (which stage and character selection are part of btw) for you to pick items. "Items off" is a competitive standard, not a ban. There is a difference.

See what I'm driving at? It's always subjective. Items and stages are both random. You choose to draw the line at stages, I choose to draw the line at certain items.

I'm not saying my standard is BETTER, I'm saying it's more COMPETITIVE, there's a major difference.

Again, I supported this project from the beginning, but the fact is that items ARE less competitive, and this is acknowledged by the ISP community in general, to their credit. This is why this standard is put forth not as the sole competative standard, but an alternative one for interested parties.

 

[MarKO X]

Ummm... I believe that the point of this thread is to discuss particular items that may or may not be good for the ISP, not to discuss whether items in general are good or bad.

Obvious info is obvious. Playing with items reduces competitiveness. Yes, so does certain stages, such as Corneria, and any stage that can own you. (Green Greens, Norfair, Brinstar, etc.). However, just as you counterpick these stages at your own risk, one can play with items at their own risk.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Randomness is inherently bad for competition. There is no argument for this, it is a fact that being more random (given no other changes) inherently makes something less fair, as it is controlled by neither player, yet benefits them unequally. Random things are removed as much as possible when making a competitive standard, because the goal is to make things fair, not fun. After you've established the rules (time limit, items on or off, stock amount, handicaps, damage ratio, ect) then you go to individual bans. At this point you go into stage bans, character bans, tactic bans (very rare), ect. Had items on been the competitive standard, then we'd go into individual item bans (just as this thread has done). But this would only be after we established the ground rules, for which items didn't make the cut.

 

[RDK]

Yay, my opponent remarked on my idiocy, and I'm going to use that as a platform to boost my position because that's what everyone on the internet does!

Could you be any more ********? I'm not the one who started using ad hominem attacks because I lack proper debating skills.

Oh don't be a wuss. You wouldn't call items the anathema of competition if what you really meant was "Well personally, I don't like them." Everyone with eyes can see what you're doing.

I said that not because they're items but because they randomly spawn and favor one player over another, which is bad for competition. It's not my fault you can't make simple deductions. Maybe next time I'll remember I'm arguing with a monkey and I'll attempt to dumb down my way of speaking.

You probably don't get it because that's not at all what I'm doing. How many times in this thread have I said "Items are random. Everyone knows that." or something to that effect?

Then why the hell are we having this discussion? For some reason you found the need to reply to something that wasn't even directed at you. We were halfway through a conversation that had evolved over the course of many pages, and you decided to nitpick things in my post that you didn't like.

Actually, you're the one in a competitive items on thread making the claim that items shouldn't be on in a competitive environment. You're the one calling for change. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you.

I called for no change. This has to be the 10th time I've said that I'm not telling Kieser how to play the game. I honestly don't give a flying f*ck what Kieser does; he can play any way he wants. I'm merely showing him why I think items are not good for a competitive environment.

What kind of course? A better one than yours, apparently.

Do you have a brain? Beacuse if you do, you're terrible at using it and it should probably be taken away from you so at least you have an excuse for spewing nonsense.

See? This is why you're an idiot.

I wasn't trolling or flaming (at least until you came around). And do you honestly think I care what Samurai Panda says? Forums are for discussing. Kieser, Yuna and I were having a perfectly amicable discussion about items until you came around and incited a flame war.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Maybe you should care what I say.

No more items on vs items off debate in here. Anyone that continues this debate will get an infraction, as the purpose of this thread is simply to create the best items-on ruleset possible, not argue whether that should be done or not.

 

[Jack Kieser]

And with the most adorable of roars in all of Smashdom, the Panda has quelled the storm.

On more related news, I haven't been able to get the timing for buffering spot dodges necessary to reliably dodge the Dragoon, but a new discovery in its operation may make that point moot, anyway. It turns out that, after the Dragoon is fired, there is a small (no more than 3-5 frames) period of time in which the camera focuses on the opponent where the targeting reticule is not on screen. If the 'A' button is mashed during this time, the Dragoon will fire before the reticule can appear on screen, and because of the zoom/focus, the opponent will ALWAYS be centered on screen at this time. Unless already in invincibility frames, the opponent WILL get hit by this. I've only tested this in 1v1, so I'm not sure how the zoom function works when there is more than 1 target to focus on, but this effectively shuts down any chance of allowing the Dragoon in 1v1. I still need to fix that Pokeball/Assist gaff anyway, so I'll just update all three together.

 

[Frogsterking]

Hey Kieser thanks for setting this all up.

 

[Zamuel]

A small note on Superspicy Curry that I don't think was mentioned is the fact that Ness and Lucas can absorb the fire as health with PK Shield. Still not worth un-banning it for 1v1 but still noting the character matchup which could prove useful in 2v2 due to Friendly Fire.