Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Again, what's the point of posting if you're just going to insult the opposition? All you're doing is instigating more dislike between the two sides.Do you enjoy eating your own words, anti-ban?
Can I just say something about this really quick? Yes, in the ISP thread, we have Smash Balls listed as banned and say stuff about them being broken... but we don't actually have tournament data to support that, because none exists. No one was willing to play with Smash Balls on, or even test them. This, however, is only for 1v1; Smash Balls are totally legal in 2v2 ISP (but they are only counterpick, so don't freak out). We actually have testing done for 2v2 in the form of WHOBO; WHOBO 2v2 ISP had Smash Balls turned on CP and M2k/Inui's double MK combo still took 1st, despite MK having one of the worst FS' in the game.
You're inferring that they somehow won the "debate". Please point out when that happened to me.
Eh. This is the point; there's no data or testing either way. For all we know, in practice, setting Bob-ombs to high could be something that doesn't overcentralize.
Gee I wonder why. :V
Bam.
This post says "I've told you you're wrong, why are you still posting?" and nothing more. You are being irrational because you are unwilling to see that your own faulty reasoning fails when applied to a very similar circumstance, and believe me it is quite similar.
What I said is only as insulting as people allow it to be.
Don't resort to this kind of thing, King Beef.Do you enjoy eating your own words, anti-ban?
I'd like to add a note here.
Alright, I suppose that was a little out of line. I fell to temptation there and got my laugh from it, it won't happen again. xD
To be fair, I definitely wouldn't want to team against you and PX with Smash Balls on, despite my willingness to mess around with items. That is one deadly Smash Balls team.
But how can you ban something just because there's discussion? Saying "Oh everyone's talking about MK we must need to ban him" is ridiculous. If I posted 10 threads about Ganon being banned and made a poll about it, do you think we would need to ban him?
I kind of agree. I don't actively participate in tournaments anymore (I used to for about 9 months), and based on that I feel that I have enough experience to argue one way or another. Someone who's never been to a tournament and isn't planning on attending one should not have a say in it. It does not affect them, and will not affect them in the future.
I was going to comment on this as well. Although I wasn't at the tournament, I did watch the livestream for the ISP singles and doubles, and almost every one of the matches I saw did not have items turned on. I thought this was ridiculous. Not just smashballs, ALL ITEMS. The fact that no one is even willing to give it a chance even though you ENTERED IN THE TOURNAMENT is unfathomable to me. Not exactly relevant at the moment, but I just thought I'd share.
This is why the anti-bans are such hypocrites. They want to say that we can't ban MK...
The point is that we ban things based on our whims and arbitrary emotional silliness all the time (smash balls, some stages) but we won't ban a character based on numbers and evidence. The point is that our "ban criteria" (which exists in some form) more than supports a ban for MK. The point is that we have changed the game a ton from it's original form to support our own vision of how the game should play just by applying a few of our own rules and regulations. Should we start using our emotional and arbitrary whims as a criteria for a ban? Would you feel better then?
Read this 3-4 times if you haven't.
Come on Jack. You're still on the "SBR HASN'T TESTED ITEMS PROPERLY" spiel?
Is proving planking broken or not an abritrary whim now?
To me it does seem like the characters who have risen with MK would lower slightly (though still stay high because they are amazing characters in their own right), while other characters end up being more influential as they can counter some of the top tiers without getting knocked out first by MK.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Hey, I honestly don't think they have. At the very least, grant me the concession that all we have to go on it is their word (or rather, Hylian's word; I'm pretty sure he's the only one who has posted about it). Not to call them liars or anything, because I'm sure they have done some testing, but unless we know what their testing methods were, or how long they tested, or what they focused on, we can't really know how effective the testing was. At least the ISP thread laid all of its data (testing rigor, criterion, and impressions) out there for the public; I could have done all the testing, and had a 15 line long OP that just showed what I thought was bannable or not without any data or explanation (which is basically what we have from the SBR).
Why do people believe this?
Apparently they don't if they've already allowed four MK to be opened and closed within the span of a week.
What is "said criteria?" I guarantee it's pretty arbitrary, at least in a few instances.
IMO items are broken enough to not even need testing, but obviously not everyone shares my foresight. Some people still want more evidence, which is fine. But stating that the SBR never tested items is patently false.
Yes I have played with the ISP ruleset, which doesn't change the fact that playing with any items whatsoever promotes rewarding players in a random fashion outside of the controls and actions of said players.
You are assuming only MK's ledge-game is overcentralizing, which may or may not be true, but those of us who are reserved about banning MK want proof that it's just him and not the game itself that's broken.
Expect maybe fox
Sure, I guess that means we can put the IDC back in the game, right?
For the, what, millionth time?
Which is what I said in my last post: I'm sure they tested them, but they could have ran 30 minutes worth of matches with all-Brawl on high and said, "Oh, their broken", which is obviously not the right way to test. I'm sure they tested them, but until we know what methods they used, I can't honestly say I expect that they did it right.
The argument I keep hearing is that there isn't proof that food-on-low is overcentralizing (and, mathematically, it could never be).
Gladly! I'll explain it as simply as I can, for you AND for people who don't know how either system works.
I hope you're not grouping me in here; I've already said that my goal was never to replace standard SBR play, and the ISP OP states it pretty clearly, as well. Food on low, maybe, because it's not that big of a deal and can legitimately deal with stuff like planking, but ISP as a whole would be the community's decision.
I see that as stalling, it goes under the same thing as Sonic doing his homing attack stall, or jiggs doing rising pounds under the stage.
If you've used the ISP ruleset, then you'll know that not all items are banned, of course. I don't see how the items allowed in ISP matches leave things up to chance. These items are:
I can't even understand what the hell it is you're trying to say.
