Official 'Item Standard Play' Thread (UPDATE 1/15: MAJOR TX TOURNEY INFO)

[BigRick]

^^

Wow my congratulations then Mr Kieser

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not everyone has moves with invincibility frames. Not everyone can exploit ithe spring sufficiently. Also, what if the spring spawns next to the ledge, making it impossible to stand on the other side of the spring? Excuse me while I spam triple Din's Fire at you.

Thoughts on the item-banning rule and whether it deals with this issue? When fighting a character that can exploit this glitch, you can choose to use your ban on it, under the current ISE ruleset.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Thoughts on the item-banning rule and whether it deals with this issue? When fighting a character that can exploit this glitch, you can choose to use your ban on it, under the current ISE ruleset.

Nobody really used the Item CP system effectively, though. Like I said, I just chalk that up to people not being used to item play yet (and thus not knowing what items are +/- for your character), but I was really hoping to see more CP'ing in general, intelligent or not. And, I agree with your sentiment about bans and CP's; the way I see it, it isn't necessary to be uber-conservative with the item bans because we have a CP system in place. Yeah, if an item is just broken as all hell, ban it, but if not just be smart with your CP's and you won't have to deal with it.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I have a question about this ruleset. Why isn't the first match a double-blind character pick like used in standard tournaments? I don't see any reason to allow character counterpicks in the first match of the game.

Also, I have a proposition for this project as well. Here is something I posted elsewhere:

Even after everything that has gone down between SWF and SRK, I personally still believe that items should be tested in tournaments, just not making items-on the default setting. I threw an idea out that we could make items on/off be a counterpick option with items off being default; and the items on the list are a set list we made. And/or there was another idea where items off is default, but the loser can counterpick (if he chooses to) 1-2 items on from a set list, and if he decides to do so then the winner can then choose 0-2 more items to add for that match. But the items don't carry over after that match, so the loser chooses for the next match again. Personally I think thats the best way to appease both sides of this, and it will give the option of items to those who want them but not FORCE items on those who don't want them. If someone is bad with items but good otherwise won't be able to lose due to the items themselves, so its not that big of a deal. Plus, it will be easier for new players who are used to items to transition to the tournament scene. I don't know if it could actually work, but I've personally always thought it was worth a try.

This is obviously a rough idea that needs to be refined by those who actually care. Its basically a meshing of our current competitive rules with items in a way that could potentially reach a larger tournament demographic than always having items on. I came up with this before Brawl was even released in the US, but I've never cared enough to do anything about it. As those who participate in this project are quite dedicated to the cause, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to try and make this additional item ruleset.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@SamuraiPanda

Hmm... that's a really interesting way to think about it. We had only really explored the premise of counterpicking individual items, but it's worth exploring having items themselves counterpick-able. Personally, I think we'd have to do a lot of tweaking and testing, because one of the big problems we've been facing all along is the concept of match outcome variance and always having the more skilled player come out on top; your proposal brings a lot of interesting concepts to the table when dealing with match variance, mainly the definition of 'most skilled'.

For instance, let's say that we have two players, one skilled in item play, and one skilled in items-off play. Theoretically, the items-off player would most likely win (if they are of like skill-level) because he would most likely win the first match (items-off by default), play an items-on match at the loser's request and lose, then play another items-off match and win, thus taking the set (assuming a Best-of-3 standard set). The items-on player may be just as skilled (or more), but due to the changing ruleset may not win the set (all due to the rules of the first match in the set). Conversely, we have the same problem if the beginning match of the set is items-on, only with the ultimate outcome reversed. This, arguably, is not a truly accurate test of skill (or rather, a test of which player is more skilled) as the outcome of the set is too dependent on the ruleset being used and not the relative skill of the players. Indeed, the only time this setup would be truly accurate is if a player (or both players) is equally skilled at BOTH rulesets, as a switch in rules mid-set wouldn't affect such a player's ability to win. If such a player faced an opponent who could only win in either style, then surely the more adaptable player would win the set (theoretically).

We also run into a problem with how many items could be activated upon a rule counterpick. I'm sure you were just throwing a number out there, but 4 items (assuming both players activated their maximum allotted picks) poses a problem in how spawns would be handled. One could argue that the less items there are able to spawn, the more of an effect they would invariably have on the match (one could, for instance, activate Home-Run Bats and simply camp for their spawns). On the other hand, one of many player's largest problems with item play is variance due to random chance, complicated by the fact that spawn points (and thus the items spawning from them) cannot be controlled or influenced mid-match as one might influence his/her own attacks, position, or the like. This would be drastically reduced with a smaller pool of items that may be spawned from, as with only 4 items activated it would be much easier (though still imperfect) for players to anticipate and calculate for item spawns mid-match. Whether this would be good or bad, again, is up for interpretation.

So, all in all, an idea worth investigating. You're definitely right that we'd have to do some tweaking, but your idea is definitely something to think about.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

For instance, let's say that we have two players, one skilled in item play, and one skilled in items-off play. Theoretically, the items-off player would most likely win (if they are of like skill-level) because he would most likely win the first match (items-off by default), play an items-on match at the loser's request and lose, then play another items-off match and win, thus taking the set (assuming a Best-of-3 standard set). The items-on player may be just as skilled (or more), but due to the changing ruleset may not win the set (all due to the rules of the first match in the set). Conversely, we have the same problem if the beginning match of the set is items-on, only with the ultimate outcome reversed. This, arguably, is not a truly accurate test of skill (or rather, a test of which player is more skilled) as the outcome of the set is too dependent on the ruleset being used and not the relative skill of the players. Indeed, the only time this setup would be truly accurate is if a player (or both players) is equally skilled at BOTH rulesets, as a switch in rules mid-set wouldn't affect such a player's ability to win. If such a player faced an opponent who could only win in either style, then surely the more adaptable player would win the set (theoretically).

Basically, to oversimplify things, you can say there are 3 types of skill involved in Smash: Character skill, stage skill, and item skill. The ruleset that the competitive Smash community has evolved over the years gives an emphasis on character skill over any other skill type. The first match is played on a "neutral" stage to remove any drastic effects stages may have in order to only test which player has better skill with their character. Then, with the counterpick, skill adjusting to stages is tested, along with skill with other characters if there is any character counterpicking going on. Theoretically, this ruleset allows the player with the better character skill (a subset of which is counterpicking characters) to win, even if their stage skills aren't very good. But, between two players that are nearly equal in their skill with characters, stage skills can play an important role.

The competitive Smash community seems to have quietly come to the unanimous decision that character skill is the most important of all, and should trump any other skill. By leaving items-on as the default, the test now becomes both character skill and item skill, which goes against the very core of what is being tested in tournaments. Thats one of the many reasons you see such a resistance to items among competitive Smashers. So the best part about having items allowed only as a counterpick is that it now allows item skill to enter into the fray, but similar to stage skill, it would not be able to trump character skill.

In the end, the reason I can see people still not liking this idea is that there is a ceiling to item skill. You can only get so good with using/countering items, and for players at the highest levels, it would be a given that they have all reached the ceiling. But when you reach the ceiling, that means items-on becomes less about using items, and more about inherent advantages/disadvantages characters have with the items, along with the random chance to get them. It was when I came to that realization (fairly soon after Brawl was released) that I dropped the idea of items in competition. But seeing as there are still some people interested in that, I figured I'd just lay out the idea and see what could happen ^_^

 

[-Linko-]

Alright guys, now that our first official 'ISP' tournament has been concluded, it's time to reflect on how things went and see how our standard holds up to scrutiny. Without further ado, here's my...[BIG F@$#ING POST!]

Cool. When are going to be vids up on youtube?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Cool. When are going to be vids up on youtube?

Here's what I have uploaded so far. I think there are like 1 or 2 more left to do, but work has gotten in the way of my uploading. Should be done tonight, though. I'd have more, but our camera died at the start of the GF; hopefully I'll have decent capture equipment by our next tournament.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Man, it's been a while since we've had discussion in this thread, but I think that's mainly because the discussion moved to the thread in Brawl Tactical. I've updated the list in that thread to reflect the latest data and arguments we have, so if you want, check that out.

We've also had an interesting proposition brought to my attention by one of the posters in Tactical. Basically, there is the option of running item play with a full counterpick system, much like stages. Basically, have a list of purely neutral items, which will be the only items activated during the first match of a set. The current Advanced Item Slobs will be in effect, with the addition of a list of counterpick items, items that could be activated on the second match and on, but not during the first match, a list that would compliment the hard ban list of items that cannot be activated in any match during the set.

Obviously, that's a little more work, considering I'll need to go back and revise many of the items to reflect whether they are pure neutral items or not. This might also have the effect of really cutting a lot of items out of standard play (what scrub players might deem 'Final Destination Syndrome'), but we'll see; we wouldn't know without a few tournaments under our belt.

Basically, if you think its a good idea to run item play with a neutral, CP, and hard ban list, let me know and I'll get to work. Also, we always like to hear questions, comments, and concerns so if there's anything anything wants discussed, feel free to bring it up.

 

[DippnDots]

Look, if it wasn't actually effective, would I get 100% dodge rate? It shouldn't matter who I was playing against.

Eventually somebody would've gotten me with the dragoon if there's a significant period without invincibility.


All two frames without invincibility...

Just from my dodge rate you should be able to glean that the timing is near impossible.

You're not invincible 100% of the time, and 1 frame is enough for anyone who has the will to play a game competitively. End of story.

Playing against idiots will alloy for idiotic strategies to work.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're not invincible 100% of the time, and 1 frame is enough for anyone who has the will to play a game competitively. End of story.

Playing against idiots will alloy for idiotic strategies to work.

Actually, had a change of heart on this one a while ago.


It'll work until people learn the frame vulnerabilities well enough to take advantage of even that one frame, so while on the lower levels of play, it's way too weak, for a format to be good for tournaments it must be balanced regardless of the two player's skill levels.

Still, it's gonna be a little while before people can consistently beat spot-dodge spamming.

 

[DippnDots]

It'll work until people learn the frame vulnerabilities well enough to take advantage of even that one frame

Give any serious player 1 week and they should have it down perfectly.

so while on the lower levels of play, it's way too weak, for a format to be good for tournaments it must be balanced regardless of the two player's skill levels.

Basically, you shouldn't allow an item in a tournament because it's unfair some people are skilled enough to use it effectively and others aren't?

Still, it's gonna be a little while before people can consistently beat spot-dodge spamming.

1 week for most, 1 day for some, never for the rest.


You deserve your title as much as I do to get out of pools for once.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Give any serious player 1 week and they should have it down perfectly.

Perhaps, doesn't matter if it's banned, does it?

Basically, you shouldn't allow an item in a tournament because it's unfair some people are skilled enough to use it effectively and others aren't?

No, I said it should be universally banned because it's a free stock if you're good enough.

It doesn't matter how many people can use this as long as the number is potentially greater then 0.

Ultimately my change of heart came from the realization that, if this is to be a valid format we can't look down on item's users and expect them to have less technical skill.

You deserve your title as much as I do to get out of pools for once.

Nice, throw in a personal attack to cap this off. Really, I wouldn't mind discussing this with you if you'd just be civil. Wonderful wonderful decorum, really.

 

[DippnDots]

Perhaps, doesn't matter if it's banned, does it?



No, I said it should be universally banned because it's a free stock if you're good enough.

It doesn't matter how many people can use this as long as the number is potentially greater then 0.

Ultimately my change of heart came from the realization that, if this is to be a valid format we can't look down on item's users and expect them to have less technical skill.

Cause brawl has so much technical skill.

Plenty of fighter games have one hit ko combos or abilities, and seeing as how all brawl fights last till 140% from people camping (probably an exaggeration) I think it'd speed things up. It would also improve the stage control part of the game.

Nice, throw in a personal attack to cap this off. Really, I wouldn't mind discussing this with you if you'd just be civil. Wonderful wonderful decorum, really.

I flame for a reason.


This has become pointless.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, people, keep it civil. This is supposed to be a flameless thread.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Cause brawl has so much technical skill.

Plenty of fighter games have one hit ko combos or abilities, and seeing as how all brawl fights last till 140% from people camping (probably an exaggeration) I think it'd speed things up. It would also improve the stage control part of the game.

Speed things up at the cost of fairness...

No way, if you're lucky with Dragoon pieces spawn points then your opponent loses a stock, or vice-versa. This isn't supposed to be about luck, it's about skill.

Granted the majority of items give some advantage, but they have risks attached to them as well, and you can counter them.

Luck should not be able to dictate the results of a match in such a major way.

I flame for a reason.


This has become pointless.

*sigh* just listen to yourself, flaming is bad, period. It doesn't matter how pointless you think the discussion is. It takes away, not just from the discussion but the entire board's environment.

 

[meta master]

whats the point of mr.saturn?

 

[Jack Kieser]

whats the point of mr.saturn?

First off, let me answer this question (very late, I know). Mr. Saturn actually has a variety of uses. First of all, he eats through shields very, very quickly, so he is useful for baiting a player with an already weakened shield into a number of actions (a smart player will refrain from shielding for fear of getting owned by Saturn, while a less experienced player will spam shield anyway and most likely eat a charged F-Smash). Saturn also interrupts any animation when he connects, which means he is great for:

*Edgeguards
*Stopping approaches
*Giving openings for safe approaches
*And much, much more!

While I'm in here, I want to drop some new information. This Thursday, I will be updating both this thread and our impressions thread in Brawl Tactical with our prelim 2v2 item list; I'll warn you now: it's not as conservative, but I think you'll all agree that it is a fair list. Of course, we welcome and expect debate and discussion.

To coincide with the release of our prelim 2v2 list, I am also announcing our first 'ISP'-sanctioned 2v2 tournament, to be held (if all goes according to play) at the Game Trade in Mesquite, TX on Saturday, August 9th. I'll post a thread in Tournament Listings->Southwest when I get the ruleset finalized, but as of now there is a listing and a thread up on All is Brawl. It's all empty now, but I will fill it with info as soon as I can.

So, there you go.

 

[Swordplay]

I really think this should be sticky'd in this thread in case anybody ever wanted to host a tourney with items, they would know where to go

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm bumping this preemptively because I'm about to update our ruleset to jive better with the SBR's official ruleset. I'll update the thread title when I'm done.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sorry for the double post, but I've updated the second post with our new and improved ruleset, based off of the SBR certified ruleset. If there is anything needing tweaking, let us know.

 

[Orange_Soda_Man]

the only changes I would make to the item categories is ATro's and poke balls to banned, goey bomb to standard (Halo's sticky bomb pretty much).

very good list and great effort.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Please go back and read the OP; I've added important info and updated the ruleset. For those who are too lazy to go to the OP:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: We have a request aimed at anyone with a USB Gecko and coding/Brawl+ knowledge. We need someone to figure out a way to control item spawns. As of now, we don't know exactly how the game spawns items. Some think it is closest to the loser, some think according to hard-coded spawn points, some think it is proceedurally determined, and some think that it's purely random. Someone please figure out a way to hack the game to do the following:

*spawn items as close to the horizontal center of each map as possible, about 2/3s the distance above the ground
*spawn items every 25-30 sec., regardless of spawn rate

If you can figure it out, I'll, I don't know, send you some cookies or PayPal you 5$ or something. I'll figure out a good reward. Someone please get on this!

(Also, a sticky would be nice. We have the ISP thread in Brawl Tactical stickied, but the two threads lose context without each other. If not, feel free to edit this out of the post.)

 

[The Irish Mafia]

I think that most "cheap" items (bob-omb, dragoon, warp star, HR bat, other such 'explosive' items) should be banned, but other items, such as the beam sword, zapper gun, fire flower, more neutral items, should be considered for play. I actually support the adding of items to Brawl, but only brawl. It's already a less competitive game, so we would most likely adopt a "don't like items, go play melee" mindset. Also, items would help round out characters like MK and capt. Falcon, who melt to projectiles.

PS: smash ball would be added at the consent of both players, to stop johns. Disagreement = no smash ball.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Have you read our impressions thread in Brawl Tactical? It has detailed breakdowns for each item in 1v1 and 2v2 settings; it's a big help in understanding the ruleset.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sorry for the double post guys, but I wanted to make sure people saw this important announcement:

It turns out that ISP is getting some big-name use! Houston area TO extraordinaire DugFinn is hosting two ISP tournaments in Q1 this year. The first one is actually coming up pretty quickly: an Austin, TX area 2-day featuring 1v1 AND 2v2 Brawl ISP (the link to which is here). The second tournament featuring ISP... will be WHOBO @ Anime Matsuri! WHOBO will be featuring 1v1 and 2v2 ISP as well, but will be much larger scale. MUCH larger. DugFinn has already pulled in some sponsorship for vanilla Brawl 1v1 (1000$ + player entry pot, wow) and is working on getting ISP 1v1 sponsored, as well. WHOBO looks like it will rock hardcore style, so don't miss it. (Here is a link to the AiB thread with WHOBO's schedule, and here is a link to the AM site. Enjoy.

I'll definitely be making it to AM, probably to Austin. Hope to see you there!

 

[metaXzero]

Congrats Jack! Your ruleset is actually catching on.

Unlike EVO 2k8, these matches shouldn't turn into such abominations of competition.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Haha... well, DF runs good tourneys, so I'm not worried. Her work is top-notch, so I'm confident things will go well.

Besides, we have our work here on SWF as a basis, and the NVGA still working and testing the ruleset, so things can only get better (than EVO ).

 

[metaXzero]

I'm still surprised M2K's going to.........WHOBO was it?

Hope he has better luck then Ken did lol. Then again, what's the rules for Bumpers and FSs?

 

[pure_awesome]

Bumper is banned in ISP rules.

WHOBO organizers are using a smaller tourney to test the ruleset beforehand, but as of right now it's looking like Smash Balls will be on, with each character limited to one use per match.

 

[petre]

Ok, people, keep it civil. This is supposed to be a flameless thread.

wait, what?

APPROVED ITEMS:

(Fire Flower)

actually just posting to say that i'm starting to think about trying items on. keep going with this stuff.