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!
The importance is not how competitively viable Brawl is, the importance is that if you're to play Brawl competitively, you have to adhere to the rules and standards of competitive play (among which is "Don't be a scrub").That is true, but to bring Sirlin's writings to a game that has shown strong doubts as to the level of competition it can achieve is misrepresenting it.
There IS an exception to this: If a move is honestly and truly unbeatable, AND requires no skill. This is a judgement call, as it is dificult to find something that overwhelmingly good, but if there is such a move - like the notorious example of a single button press for a victory - then the victory does not reflect anyone's skill, and thus is no longer competetive. If a tactic is honestly and intrinsically unfair to this degree, then the move will either a) be recognized by the entire community of competetive members as an illigetimate and illegal tactic, b) the character capable of it banned, or c) the game simply doesnt have the depth required to be a competetive game.
it all boils down to this: He isnt telling the player "Be cheap if it wins", he is telling the player victim to the cheapness to take that oportunity to find a flaw to exploit, and imporve your own skill instead of crying about it.
Eh, when it comes to competative, cheap moves are usually found in the upper echealon of teirs, Waveshine anyone?
I dont recall any cheap tactics being banned in competative play, just stages where they becme abusive stall tactics.
And now I can, finally, see the true level of Smashboard's scrubness.Eh, when it comes to competative, cheap moves are usually found in the upper echealon of teirs, Waveshine anyone?
I dont recall any cheap tactics being banned in competative play, just stages where they becme abusive stall tactics.
Reminds me of that Naruto episode where they had to pass this written test to become a ninja. The objective was to cheat, but not get caught. (testing your ninja skills of obtaining info secretly)Cheat to win, don't get caught.
Reminds me of that new episode of South Park where Cartman teaches that inner city class how to cheat on the SATs and they all get 100%Reminds me of that Naruto episode where they had to pass this written test to become a ninja. The objective was to cheat, but not get caught. (testing your ninja skills of obtaining info secretly)
I want a test like that.
If you are playing a match in which one would feel the need to make excuses for their loss (a serious match) with items you are already a scrub anyway.IMO. A scrub is a person who says these things.
1. You got lucky.
2. Cheap move.
3. You only won because of items.
4. You only won because of that Final Smash.
So is that the ultimate and indisputable definition for scrub? I think I have a shorter one. It's not as encompassing or specific, but I think everybody would agree on it. A scrub is a whiny little punk. Not a noob, not a casual player, but just a whiny little punk.http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/introducing-the-scrub/
There you go. Read that and learn what a scrub is. No need for conjecture or discussion.
Actually, yes. He defines a scrub as accepted by the (fighting) community.So is that the ultimate and indisputable definition for scrub? I think I have a shorter one. It's not as encompassing or specific, but I think everybody would agree on it. A scrub is a whiny little punk. Not a noob, not a casual player, but just a whiny little punk.
1 and 2 agreed.IMO. A scrub is a person who says these things.
1. You got lucky.
2. Cheap move.
3. You only won because of items.
4. You only won because of that Final Smash.
Yet another person misunderstanding "playing to win". It's true that habits can get you into trouble, but part of being a top player is adaptability (I've had to say this 3 or 4 times now ). Once you start to get punished, that's it - you switch tactics. If you don't, you fail. Playing to win is doing what works, not doing one thing. Too many times, I've had my main tactic shut down and it was GGPO, until I learned to start thinking critically about my gameplay.For instance, say you are playing at a top level, with a top level player. You are so reliant on spamming a good technique against other players but the player you are playing knows ways around it such that he can punish you for doing it. It would be a force of habit for you to fall back to that comfort of using that normally effective technique but sadly you would get punished for it every time and probably lose the match. SO WHEN YOU WERE PLAYING TO WIN AGAINST YOUR CREW OR WHOEVER, WINNING, YOU WERE SETTING YOURSELF UP TO FAIL FOR LACK OF DEPTH IN PLAY AGAINST FORMIDABLE PLAYERS...
Your exactly right, even someone with a scrub mindset can be a good player. But the fact (read: FACT) remains that shedding the scrub mentality will only open up their game. As long as they keep that mindset, they will never do as well as they personally could.There are still many things that I would like to learn about the game but i personally don't think just because a person has a "scrub" mindset that AUTOMATICALLY means said person is not able to reach that top level of play to which Masterspeaks was referring in his post. Because, in the end, being able to not and/or force not to spam attacks is the essence of top level play.
This kinda ties in with my above response. Once you establish that you can shut them down with your "anit-whatever" tactics, they will either lose, or stop using "whatever". Now you are back to square one - be creativeBroken characters aren't fun because often, even if it's possible to beat them, it means restricting yourself to certain moves/tactics that work. The game's more fun if you can use everything you've got and be creative.
That's because I generally agree with what your getting at, but I think your seeing the "play to win" mentality in it's negative extreme, which actually does pigeon-hole your tactics. I did not ignore your other paragraphs, and I did get your point - I was simply refuting it.You seem to be agreeing and disagree with me at the same time.
Your logic truly stuck out to me when reading all these posts. What exactly would you equate as skill? I think that "restricting yourself to certain moves/tactics" that counter said broken character would be skillful. Are you suggesting that a player's "pure skill" should be able to allow him to overcome any person without having to adapt at all?Broken characters aren't fun because often, even if it's possible to beat them, it means restricting yourself to certain moves/tactics that work. The game's more fun if you can use everything you've got and be creative.
Sometimes there's very good characters who can still be beaten with pure skill, but then they're not really broken.