Proposal: Why not just try allowing all custom moves and equipment in tournament? [Now with a poll]

[Vigilant Gambit]

There's nothing stopping you from trying it. Similarly, we could try having Smash Run tournaments or FFA tournaments or whatever else. It's obviously going to be less balanced, there's no way they could account for all 50 million possible matchups, so chances are we'll discover some setups that are really gamebreaking and lame, but it might be entertaining nonsense for a little while.

You're arguing against the balance of Smash Run and FFA, but nobody here is even talking about that.

 

[Terotrous]

You're arguing against the balance of Smash Run and FFA, but nobody here is even talking about that.

Why not? Smash Run is fun, and they did put some kind of effort into balancing FFA and Items this time. Why not test those too?


I can see the argument for custom moves, but I think they'll make very little difference in the long run (in most cases, there's going to be a clear optimal choice for each matchup). Custom parts though just introduces way too many other factors to really work outside of funsies.

 

[Jack Kieser]

A competitive environment requires a level playing field.

Nothing, not even my mighty opinions, can change that.

"Requires" is the part you're messing up. No, it doesn't. A competitive environment "requires" a game worth playing, consistent mechanics, people who want to play it, and a clear win state.

If competitive games "required" a level playing field, League would be a trash game because in draft play, no two teams are level. No one would play Call of Duty because rarely do two players have equivalent access to loadouts because of levels. Destiny would have a barren Crucible because of all of those random loot drops giving players an edge over one another.

Face it, you're flat out wrong here. Competitive games don't "require" eliminating random chance or "leveling out" the playing field to any definite degree. You just LIKE those games better. Adding in random loot drops to Sm4sh would change the game, but not kill it, because like it or not, you still have to know the fundamentals to play well. I could have +50 to each stat, and Mew2King would still wreck my ass because his fundamentals are better than mine. Period.

Adding in equipment WILL change the game, because no **** it will, Sherlock. What remains to be seen is HOW the game is changed and what affect is has on it. But, you and your fearmongering would rather us not even experiment with that because Grand Marshall Thinkaman, Lord of All Competitive Gaming knows all and has decreed that it is so.

You know what? How about you jog off and let people run the events they want to run, and let them discuss those events and their outcomes, you know, so all versions of competitive Sm4sh can exist on a "level playing field" and we can determine through PLAY which one(s) we want to deal with. Go back to doing something you're helpful at, like collecting data, and leave the commentary to people who don't rely on fearmongering.

...god, I can't stand people like this. >_<

 

[Terotrous]

Also, one other big problem is that custom equipment will never be accepted as the main tournament standard - it simply changes up the nature of the metagame far too much. A huge section of the audience would quit / ignore tournaments that only ran that ruleset. That pretty much forces it to exist as a side tournament, and you only get those at big events like Apex and Big House.

Honestly, if you want to have a community for item use the best thing to do is probably to play it online. When you do battles with friends, you can use customized characters, so there's nothing stopping you from running online tournaments and the like.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

Custom moves add depth and make less viable characters more appealing. I'm all for legalizing them so long as choices are disclosed prior to matches. Equipment could become OP very quickly though. I doubt it'll even be considered.

 

[nyttyn]

"Requires" is the part you're messing up. No, it doesn't. A competitive environment "requires" a game worth playing, consistent mechanics, people who want to play it, and a clear win state.

If competitive games "required" a level playing field, League would be a trash game because in draft play, no two teams are level. No one would play Call of Duty because rarely do two players have equivalent access to loadouts because of levels. Destiny would have a barren Crucible because of all of those random loot drops giving players an edge over one another.

Face it, you're flat out wrong here. Competitive games don't "require" eliminating random chance or "leveling out" the playing field to any definite degree. You just LIKE those games better. Adding in random loot drops to Sm4sh would change the game, but not kill it, because like it or not, you still have to know the fundamentals to play well. I could have +50 to each stat, and Mew2King would still wreck my *** because his fundamentals are better than mine. Period.

Adding in equipment WILL change the game, because no **** it will, Sherlock. What remains to be seen is HOW the game is changed and what affect is has on it. But, you and your fearmongering would rather us not even experiment with that because Grand Marshall Thinkaman, Lord of All Competitive Gaming knows all and has decreed that it is so.

You know what? How about you jog off and let people run the events they want to run, and let them discuss those events and their outcomes, you know, so all versions of competitive Sm4sh can exist on a "level playing field" and we can determine through PLAY which one(s) we want to deal with. Go back to doing something you're helpful at, like collecting data, and leave the commentary to people who don't rely on fearmongering.

...god, I can't stand people like this. >_<

ouch man personal attacks are uncalled for.

Anyways, your argument is pretty flawed. For starters, you've failed to mention that League of Legend's system, Runes, are static. You can't get a better rune than joe x because you got better luck - you get the IP for X rune, you get X rune with Y stats, end of question. League of Legends has also been heavily criticized for forcing players to do such a grind to remain competitive, which has lead competitor Dota2 to steal a lot of the game's thunder (just look at The International). Also important to note that all offical riot tournaments force unlock everything for their players (assuming they're played over LAN), so there's always a level playing field.

Call of Duty, again, lacks randomized guns. You hit level X, you get gun Y with stats Z, end of story. It doesn't even take that long to unlock any of the guns or mods anyways, and you know exactly when you'll unlock them, but most importantly of all, every single unlock is static.

Destiny isn't even played competitively. It also has some degree of effort to normalize the RNG stats (though it should be noted that it's been heavily criticized for allowing stagnant play i.e. players oneshotting oneanother.).

All three of these comparisons are even more flawed in that none of them are fighting games.. Though I disagree with how absolutist he is, Thinkaman has a point - a competitive fighting game requires a level playing field. You are correct in that people should be free to play games the way they wish to - the fighting game community has, historically, been very big on the whole "level playing field" deal, and as such is likely to shun equipment. Competitive moves? Fair game, everyone gets the same moves, it's a bit of a pain to unlock them sure but everyone gets the same moves once they do. Equipment? Totally randomized, by no fault of your own you can have a completely inferior loadout simply because the dice spat in your face.

and that's more or less why he can say his statements with such absolutism, because telling someone who's trying to be competitive that they can be at a minor to huge disadvantage through no fault of their own save for the fact that they just got worse drops is an extremely hard sell.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I see no issue with a seperate event equipment tourney if there is demand for it, but it's going to be very unbalanced. As long as the main events are custom equipment banned.

Custom moves should be legal because they don't break the game. Equipment, such as eliminating landing lag or giving people 1 hit KOs, is very broken. There's also too much equipment to keep track of and not everyone will have an equal chance at the best ones; custom moves can be unlocked for your 3 favorite characters very quickly. I did it for Yoshi, Peach, and Ness my 3 chars and the game just came out.

As for Mii Fighter, he shouldn't be banned. No way he's more broken than Metaknight was in Brawl.

 

[Signia]

I'm so disappointed this community... most of you know so little about competitive gaming, to think that equipment is acceptable for competitive play.

Think of this like Pokemon.

Nobody should follow the example of any Pokemon competitive format. It works despite its major flaws. That doesn't mean we should ever implement them. Grinding is never good for competitive play, since it adds an unnecessary barrier to entry. It would be better if everything were available from the start. Imagine telling a noob that they need to spend hours grinding in order to be no a level playing field. Of course, differences in skill are acceptable because that's what competitive gaming is all about.

Truthfully speaking, fighting games are inherently imbalanced as evidenced by character tiering and so forth.

Yes, but anyone can easily change characters. Since the game begins at the character select screen, character imbalance is not unfair to anyone, since everyone can pick whatever character they want. This is distinctly different from varied stats where someone might not have the ability to choose any given loadout out of all the possible options. If there is even a slight difference in available options, the game is unfair and therefore not a good test of skill, since the unfairness decreases the accuracy of the test of skill. It could be the difference in stats that caused the loss, some would say, and sometimes, they'd be right. Any time someone says that about a bad matchup in a normal fighting game format, one could tell them that they could have picked a different character.

snip

This post was kinda all over the place but you're being way too optimistic about balance in perfect world where everyone has done all the grinding for the optimal equipment. Why would you ever think it'd be balanced? Doubles in this game has already shown to be busted with the double villager and pika+g&w being able to one hit KO with simple setups (causing a 17 second doubles match). And good luck trying to balance the stats with standards yourself. Have fun trying to convince people that +50 is too much but +49 is ok! Have fun grinding a barely acceptable loadout!

But the point isn't to have all the items unlocked on every 3DS, it's to just allow whatever parts each person has.

That would be unfair. Some players would have an advantage that isn't related to skill.

This is really all I want to see. I just want a "release the hounds" style tournament (quite literally, if you're playing Duck Hunt.... ha.... get it?) where people come, everything is allowed, and chaos ensues. It would be really fun to watch and is less random than a tournament with items turned on (which would be comparable, but everyone knows you can't have competition and items in the same sentence). Winner gets a $5 starbucks card or something.

Ok, have fun, but don't expect anyone to accept it as serious competition. If you're about "lol chaos is ensuing" you should probably just not play competitively.

"Requires" is the part you're messing up. No, it doesn't. A competitive environment "requires" a game worth playing, consistent mechanics, people who want to play it, and a clear win state.

If competitive games "required" a level playing field, League would be a trash game because in draft play, no two teams are level. No one would play Call of Duty because rarely do two players have equivalent access to loadouts because of levels. Destiny would have a barren Crucible because of all of those random loot drops giving players an edge over one another.

Face it, you're flat out wrong here. Competitive games don't "require" eliminating random chance or "leveling out" the playing field to any definite degree. You just LIKE those games better. Adding in random loot drops to Sm4sh would change the game, but not kill it, because like it or not, you still have to know the fundamentals to play well. I could have +50 to each stat, and Mew2King would still wreck my *** because his fundamentals are better than mine. Period.

Adding in equipment WILL change the game, because no **** it will, Sherlock. What remains to be seen is HOW the game is changed and what affect is has on it. But, you and your fearmongering would rather us not even experiment with that because Grand Marshall Thinkaman, Lord of All Competitive Gaming knows all and has decreed that it is so.

You know what? How about you jog off and let people run the events they want to run, and let them discuss those events and their outcomes, you know, so all versions of competitive Sm4sh can exist on a "level playing field" and we can determine through PLAY which one(s) we want to deal with. Go back to doing something you're helpful at, like collecting data, and leave the commentary to people who don't rely on fearmongering.

...god, I can't stand people like this. >_<

It's not personal preference, it's based on principles of competitive gaming. The question you always be asking when designing a tournament standard is: Will this result in a more accurate and interesting test of skill?


You all need to be educated (except Thinkaman and nyttn): http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

 

[Jack Kieser]

ouch man personal attacks are uncalled for.

Yeah, you're right, I know... just, jesus, that kind of smug "I know all therefore don't even try it" attitude is so incredibly infuriating to me. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, makes me more angry than someone who claims they can predict the future (or worse, in this case, KNOW the future) in any way other than "here's the outcome of this mathematical formula or equation". Physicists get to predict the future because they have peer reviewed formulas to go on. Thinkaman doesn't get that same privilege simply because he has beliefs about things.

Anyways, your argument is pretty flawed. For starters, you've failed to mention that League of Legend's system, Runes, are static. You can't get a better rune than joe x because you got better luck - you get the IP for X rune, you get X rune with Y stats, end of question. League of Legends has also been heavily criticized for forcing players to do such a grind to remain competitive, which has lead competitor Dota2 to steal a lot of the game's thunder (just look at The International). Also important to note that all offical riot tournaments force unlock everything for their players (assuming they're played over LAN), so there's always a level playing field.

I'm not talking about runes. I'm talking about team comp. Note, Thinkaman's original premise was NOT that random loot drops was bad. He premise was that "competition CANNOT EXIST when the playing field is not level", which is utterly absurd. Ignore for a moment that it is obvious that most high level Smash rounds are not played with only 50:50 matchups, therefore, for WHATEVER reason, the playing field isn't level in that match and it's still competitive. Here is a game millions of players strong, years old, millions in cash prizes, a healthy competitive scene (well, when chat is turned off)... and the ENTIRE premise of ranked play is that no two teams in a single match can ever be the same, and moreover, your team may be at a disadvantage simply because of picks / bans phase, which YOU CANNOT CONTROL any more than random loot drops. Yet, that game is still very competitive. Hence, his original premise must be flawed, because there is a necessary contradiction.

Call of Duty, again, lacks randomized guns. You hit level X, you get gun Y with stats Z, end of story. It doesn't even take that long to unlock any of the guns or mods anyways, and you know exactly when you'll unlock them, but most importantly of all, every single unlock is static.

Again, not the point. Any individual game of CoD is, by all relevant definitions, competitive. If I log onto CoD servers right now, I can join serious ranked play. I can play that game with all of the competitive spirit I can muster. And yet, I may be on a team with a serious numbers disadvantage because our average level is lower than the other teams, meaning our guns are statistically worse than the other team's because, as you said, gun unlocks are static, and we haven't reached them yet. We absolutely can still win, because at the end of the day, the name of the game in CoD is accurate shooting and positioning, which can, and does, mitigate gun statistics in many scenarios (I should know; I've played on friend's accounts with awesome guns and still lost to players who have, again, better fundamentals than me). And individual match of CoD is, again, competitive despite, and in spite of, the fact that teams may be statistically imbalanced, meaning the playing field isn't level, thus invalidating Thinkaman's original premise that all competition needs a level playing field.

Destiny isn't even played competitively. It also has some degree of effort to normalize the RNG stats (though it should be noted that it's been heavily criticized for allowing stagnant play i.e. players oneshotting oneanother.).

Dude, it ABSOLUTELY is. The Crucible. It's online, competitive matchmaking. Their matchmaking is, like, half of the entire game. There are people who, no joke, hit and exceed level 20 without ever touching the story or quests simply because all they do is play Crucible, the games purposefully designed competitive, PvP matchmaking mode. And, with Destiny, it's even MORE competitive, because you get random drops based off of performance (to some extent), meaning you have a better chance of getting good loot if your team wins. Imagine that. Imagine if, in Smash, who you got to choose as your main for the year was determined by your placement at the next APEX. That's Destiny. And, I dare you to log onto those servers and tell any of those players that they aren't playing a competitive game and that Crucible mode is a party game.

All three of these comparisons are even more flawed in that none of them are fighting games..

Absolutely irrelevant. Thinkaman claimed that his premise applied to all competitive games, regardless of genre. In theory, his statement applies as much to board games as it does to video games.

Though I disagree with how absolutist he is, Thinkaman has a point - a competitive fighting game requires a level playing field. You are correct in that people should be free to play games the way they wish to - the fighting game community has, historically, been very big on the whole "level playing field" deal, and as such is likely to shun equipment. Competitive moves? Fair game, everyone gets the same moves, it's a bit of a pain to unlock them sure but everyone gets the same moves once they do. Equipment? Totally randomized, by no fault of your own you can have a completely inferior loadout simply because the dice spat in your face.

And, again, the problem is in the word "requires". You may think, and may claim, that competitive games are more stable, are more vibrant, are more complex, are more deep, etc. with a "level playing field", but you cannot claim that they can't exist without one, because they obviously can. And do. But, that's not what Thinkaman is saying. What he is saying is, almost verbatim:

"Competitive games cannot exist if they do not have completely level playing fields; they are logically incompatible. If you are playing a game without a level playing field, it is not a competitive game, by definition. You may hold tournaments with equipment if you want, but it will not be competitive, it will be a party game. And, I have decided those events should not exist, therefore I am telling you that you absolutely cannot and should not ever hold those events."

and that's more or less why he can say his statements with such absolutism, because telling someone who's trying to be competitive that they can be at a minor to huge disadvantage through no fault of their own save for the fact that they just got worse drops is an extremely hard sell.

And, if that's the game, that's the game. But, it's absolutely not Thinkaman's place to make that judgement, especially with a flawed argument like the one he's using.

EDIT @ Signia : HAHAHAHA, try again, buddy. I've read Sirlin forward to back, and at no point does he ever make the claim that random loot drops are the antithesis to competition. Dude, WoW was out when Sirlin wrote Play to Win, and not once did he ever make the claim that one of the, at the time, biggest venues for competitive play, WoW PvP, was not competitive play. And, if it wasn't, he could have, he had the space and would have had the example to make of it. Try harder. Or better yet, don't use single URL links with no argument of your own, because it shows that you don't understand the material you're linking to well enough to incorporate it in your own argument.

 

[Signia]

EDIT @ Signia : HAHAHAHA, try again, buddy. I've read Sirlin forward to back, and at no point does he ever make the claim that random loot drops are the antithesis to competition. Dude, WoW was out when Sirlin wrote Play to Win, and not once did he ever make the claim that one of the, at the time, biggest venues for competitive play, WoW PvP, was not competitive play. And, if it wasn't, he could have, he had the space and would have had the example to make of it. Try harder. Or better yet, don't use single URL links with no argument of your own, because it shows that you don't understand the material you're linking to well enough to incorporate it in your own argument.

I already rehashed the basics what Sirlin had to say. It's simple stuff, really. Just thought you might need a bit more detail. Perhaps you need to read it again? Posting a link that further elaborates on claims and includes examples doesn't showing any misunderstanding of the material. Claiming to have read it and not understanding the material, however...

Also, Sirlin absolutely trashed WoW arena in his forums constantly when it was still relevant. There was no WoW arena at the time of writing his book.

I'm so embarrassed for you, such an emotional yet incorrect response. Burning Crusade was released in 2007 and there was no arena competitive scene for months. Playing to Win... was written in 2000. You're telling me to "try harder?" You don't seem to be trying at all.

Please go on the Sirlin forums and with your arguments and be laughed out the forum.

 

[Jack Kieser]

"Trashed in the forums" does not equal "claimed in official philosophical writing that it is anti competitive". All that means is that he doesn't like it or doesn't agree with it. If he wanted to make a philosophical argument, he'd add it to his website. Which, to me, matters more than a publication; published paper books cannot be updated, his site / digital copies CAN, so, yes, while he had access to his public writings being able to be update and republished, he chose not to comment officially on WoW Arena, meaning it was around while he was writing.

Point still stands: WoW Arena IS obviously a competitive game, and that game incorporates random loot drops, therefore Thinkaman's original argument is in contradiction with the real world.

 

[Signia]

Jack:

You are consistently failing to see the distinction between things that are affected by players and things that are affected by the game. Differences in player ability, and inability to control player actions are acceptable -- that's what competitive gaming is all about. Differences in options available to players (stat differences), and factors that neither player controls (RNG) are not. Those differences distract from player differences, what we are trying to elucidate.

WoW Arena has differences in stats that not available to all players at all times. It has an unnecessary barrier to entry -- gearing up -- that Sirlin or anybody that cares about fairness would not accept. Sirlin is especially anti-barrier-to-entry. That's his entire game design philosophy behind all his games!

Is he expected to update his articles any time a game that is bad for competition comes along? Absurd.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not failing to see anything. Again, YOU fail to see the difference between preference and logical contradiction.

Sirlin is a game designer. He designs games the way he wants to. It just so happens that he's also a published ludic philosopher, something most game designers aren't. So, we're lucky insofar as we get to see "the mind of God" so to speak, as far as his own games are concerned. And, wouldn't you know it! It's crazy speak, but his game design mirrors his arguments for how games should be designed. Go figure, that's not really proof for or against whether his arguments are correct.

The Sirlin-fellating that happened in 2008 is no more relevant or correct now in 2014. His is an argument, a damn good one, but not an infallible one. But, something that Sirlin absolutely does not do that you and Thinkaman and your ilk absolutely ARE doing is making a claim that games unlike X kind cannot be competitive at all. I guarantee you, nowhere on Sirlin's site, nor on his forums, nor in his published books, nor anywhere else, does he EVER make the claim that games with loot drops cannot be and are not competitive games. I know enough about Sirlin to know he's a good philosopher, in a procedural sense, and would not make such an asinine claim as that.

I argue that, actually, as a published philosopher, and one of the preeminent authors on competitive game design, that yes, he actually has a moral obligation to the gaming community at large (developers, designers, and players) to provide well-reasoned commentary whenever something new and relevant to his area of expertise happens. Maybe he wouldn't if there were more ludic philosophers out there. But, as it stands, he's the only one really doing great work in the field, so yes, if there's something to say, I'd expect him to say it. Personally, I think we, as a whole, are left with a lesser body of commentary on game design without him writing about WoW Arena, League, CoD, hell, DOTA2. Pretty much any large eSport. But, then again, I respect his ability to pontificate.

None of this, however, is of ANY relevance to whether or not, as a matter of fact, Thinkaman's argument is correct. It is or is not correct regardless of what content is currently on Sirlin.net. And, the fact of the matter is that I've provided SEVERAL real world examples of games that have player-independent random or psuedo-random (from the player's perspective) events that are still competitive games that are played competitively. Which means that the absolutist statement "All competitive games require a level playing field" is simply not compatible with the real world.

 

[DoctorDub]

Personally, I'm very against custom equipment due to things that have been outlined already. (OP Effects, drop rates etc.)
Custom moves are okay, though, as they all seem to have some kind of balance to them.

 

[Signia]

@ Jack Kieser

Well, sure, any game could be considered to be competitive if there is a player base that is willing to play it. That much is obvious (to me, I don't know about Thinkman). People play games that are not ideal for competition in a competitive way all the time. Just look at Pokemon and Brawl. Horrendous flaws, yet they are/were popular. But I don't think that proves any relevant point.

I was under the impression that we were discussing what makes a game good for competition and that we assume that we should only play games competitively if they are good for competition, that they meet certain standards, and whether playing "equipped" meets these standards. These standards offered by Sirlin are pretty good ones. One them is that the barrier to entry should be minimized. Loot drops create a barrier to entry. One must grind for hours to be on an even playing field with everyone else (without considering differences in skill, which are not only acceptable but are the whole ****ing point). It causes a difference in ability to win that we are presumably not interested in: ability to spend time grinding. One of the most basic applications of this standard is to remove (or minimize) factors that create this difference.

Though I don't take Sirlin's standards as gospel. What I just wrote is true regardless of what anyone says. I stated the goal (testing skills) and I argued how loot drops are counter to that goal. I reject Sirlin's standard of playing games as-is or choosing a better game, for example.

But you don't seem to care about any standard. You'd actually play with items (being a frontrunner of a items-on ruleset), you accept randomness, factors that neither player can control, which distract from the test of skill, without adding enough to the game.

Let me pose this question to not only you but the rest of the people in this thread:

Do you have any standards at all?

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Sirlin is a game designer. He designs games the way he wants to. It just so happens that he's also a published ludic philosopher, something most game designers aren't. So, we're lucky insofar as we get to see "the mind of God" so to speak, as far as his own games are concerned. And, wouldn't you know it! It's crazy speak, but his game design mirrors his arguments for how games should be designed. Go figure, that's not really proof for or against whether his arguments are correct.

Where did you find out that he was a published ludic philosopher?

 

[Jack Kieser]

@ Jack Kieser

Well, sure, any game could be considered to be competitive if there is a player base that is willing to play it. That much is obvious (to me, I don't know about Thinkman). People play games that are not ideal for competition in a competitive way all the time. Just look at Pokemon and Brawl. Horrendous flaws, yet they are/were popular. But I don't think that proves any relevant point.

Actually, it does. Or rather, it disproves a relevant one: that it is somehow wrong, that one ought not play games that do not have Thinkaman's (to use his own words) fetishized "level playing field". Thinkaman, after all, is making a very distinct argument: this is not something anyone, much less everyone, should be doing. That, if you are given the choice between entering an event with equipment legal vs. illegal, you ought not enter the legal one. And, moreover, that we WILL NOT AND CANNOT ABIDE by any game that does not adhere to his fetish. Well, we can at least strike down the "ought" parts of that by saying, "Hey, it's not like the eSports world has imploded because competitive Pokemon exists".

I was under the impression that we were discussing what makes a game good for competition and that we assume that we should only play games competitively if they are good for competition, that they meet certain standards, and whether playing "equipped" meets these standards. These standards offered by Sirlin are pretty good ones. One them is that the barrier to entry should be minimized. Loot drops create a barrier to entry. One must grind for hours to be on an even playing field with everyone else (without considering differences in skill, which are not only acceptable but are the whole ****ing point). It causes a difference in ability to win that we are presumably not interested in: ability to spend time grinding. One of the most basic applications of this standard is to remove (or minimize) factors that create this difference.

Not only is that not what we were discussing at first (the original discussion was about whether we should even try to have those events, not whether they should be the immediate standard for ALL play), but even if it WAS, that line of reasoning is flawed because we don't currently know what barriers there would be to entry. What if it actually turns out that, even in equipment-legal events, we have a significant number of top 8 placements with vanilla fighters? Top 16, even? What if it turns out that you don't need to have the best loot to compete? We literally have no idea. Sure, you can say it is probable that you won't win an equiment-legal event without using custom builds, but we don't REALLY know, because we've never tried it. So, why not TRY it?

Though I don't take Sirlin's standards as gospel. What I just wrote is true regardless of what anyone says. I stated the goal (testing skills) and I argued how loot drops are counter to that goal. I reject Sirlin's standard of playing games as-is or choosing a better game, for example.

I agree with you: assuming loot drops, or rather, exceptional loot drops, are required as a barrier of entry, that would be sub-optimal. However, maybe they won't be, as outlined above? Maybe they will be, but they'll add so much depth to the game that it will balance it out? Maybe they will be, but they'll make 30% of the cast viable, whereas those 30% weren't viable before? We literally don't know, especially not less than a week after international release, and not before release of the definitive console version. So, again, why not try? What's the argument against trying? That someone else is wasting his / her time? It's not even YOUR TIME, why would you care?

But you don't seem to care about any standard. You'd actually play with items (being a frontrunner of a items-on ruleset), you accept randomness, factors that neither player can control, which distract from the test of skill, without adding enough to the game.

Ugh. I can't believe I keep having to correct this. I don't like ISP. I don't like playing with items. I do not prefer it. I made ISP because OTHER PEOPLE wanted to play with items, and no one was serving their community. Because the Back Room adamantly refused to cater to a significant portion of Smashboards, and apparently I was. That does not mean I like that play. You're making assumptions.

Let me pose this question to not only you but the rest of the people in this thread:

Do you have any standards at all?

Yes. My standard is this: play the god damn game. My standard is that, especially in the first year, no one will know what they're doing, so do everything. Test like crazy. Hold an everything legal event one week, an Omega stage only event the next, ban custom moves one week, allow all equipment the next. Play everything. Then, after some time has gone by, the market (that is to say, players) will help decide what works best. In the meantime, collect as much data as you can, and see what format has the most consistent results. Literally the best think Thinkaman can do for us right now is shut his mouth and collect data on tournament results. Because we need data, and lots of it, and without data from multiple events of different kinds from a multitude of TOs, we don't know **** and can't claim to.

Let the metagame settle on its own and stop interfering with things. Jesus, if someone wants to run an equipment-legal event, let them. It literally only helps us in the long run, unless you're afraid of change.

EDIT @ V Vigilant Gambit : "Ludic" means "game" in latin (rough translation, more exactly, referring to play). "Ludic philosophy" means "the philosophy of games", but we usually use it here to mean "the philosophy of game design". Sirlin has published a philosophical text about game design. Therefore, he's a published ludic philosopher.

 

[New_Dumal]

Custom moves are awesome and should really be tried.
Equipment not. I mean... come on, please.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Custom moves are awesome and should really be tried.
Equipment not. I mean... come on, please.

It seems like, other than the "barrier to entry" thing, this is all anyone ever has to say on the matter. "Come on, I mean... come on. Why? You can't. Don't. Just no."

News flash: that is not an argument. That in no way is convincing.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

EDIT @ V Vigilant Gambit : "Ludic" means "game" in latin (rough translation, more exactly, referring to play). "Ludic philosophy" means "the philosophy of games", but we usually use it here to mean "the philosophy of game design". Sirlin has published a philosophical text about game design. Therefore, he's a published ludic philosopher.

Not to take away from what you're saying at all, but he self-published his book, though I suppose you're still correct.

But yeah, man, I agree with every single thing you've said. Personally, the amount of fearmongering I've seen in discussions on the topic of Equipment has really taken the wind outta my sails. I'd much rather just play Smash than attempt to convince people who are unwilling to change their opinions when challenged. "Equipment is random and that's bad so I don't like it and we shouldn't do it" seems to be the main argument.

My biggest problem with Equipment is that getting what you want is a pain in the ass, but you know what? So is unlocking custom moves. And once you have what you want, you're done. People are also working on alternative solutions, like Datel Powersave codes.

 

[Gatoray]

From my first post:

Please discuss this intelligently. If you don't think custom items should be included, I want to know why. My opinion on this matter is still up in the air, I don't know if custom items will work or not. Honestly, none of us really do until we just try.

;_;

 

[Saito]

Let me pose this question to not only you but the rest of the people in this thread:

Do you have any standards at all?

Definitely.

With those standards, I'm willing to say that equipment within certain ranges should be tested in hopes of bringing a better balance between characters.

I've neither said that they would or wouldn't be better, but I do believe that it deserves a chance to be thrown out there with some rules in place and see if it works. If it doesn't then we can always simply go back to vanilla.

Like I said in my post on page 1, I don't think all equipment should be allowed, nor should the allowed equipment be allowed to be thrown in without some checks or balancing of some sort. I do think that it possibly could make for as per your words, a more interesting and accurate test of skill if it is done right.

----------------

I don't know how you feel about custom moves though.

Before I hear an answer, I am willing to say that custom moves are not random statted like equipment, but have to be obtained just the same. I'd assume that something along the lines of each player not having the same accessibility to those things could be seen as problematic for the competitive environment

If there is even a slight difference in available options, the game is unfair and therefore not a good test of skill, since the unfairness decreases the accuracy of the test of skill.

I'd argue that custom moves being obtained is similar in concept to getting in the characters, albeit not as guaranteed but definitely doable. Just from simply playing the game for the past 3 days I've acquired most of the custom moves and that is not a significant time investment at all for anyone who intends to play the game at a competitive level.

As for whether or not the moves make for a better test of skill, that would need to be tested to see how people change up their strategies by using these different custom moves, similarly to changing a character.

 

[Signia]

Fair enough, Thinkaman overreacted. It is too extremist to believe that no competitive flaws can be abided -- as all competitive games are flawed. I do, however think those flaws should be minimized, and it seems pretty clear that there are flaws to the equipment system. But, you're right, we should gather info, though I don't think it necessarily has to be from testing it out. We can still make some conclusions.

Here's what we know so far (correct me if I'm wrong):

-Some equipment is strictly better than others, like one item in the same slot gives +30 in something and the other gives +40. This means there definitely is a power trend favoring grinding more.

-There are loadouts that give all positive stats, meaning there are loadouts that are strictly better than vanilla characters. Having extra speed, knockback, or jump might screw with some things as you increase their stats, but we at least agree that a character that does more damage due to a positive pure damage stat is strictly better the original. We wouldn't need tournaments to confirm or deny that, and in fact tournament results where vanilla characters still won would prove nothing due the amount of confounding variables. A large amount of testing would be required, over a long period of time.

-There are a massive number of equipment pieces and possible loadouts. Not having them all unlocked is akin to not having every character available to play. No longer does everyone have the same set of options available to them before the game starts. It would be nearly to impossible to enforce that, and it would take ages to get the equipment. Not having the same number of options is an unfair imbalance. Before anyone says "but characters are imbalanced" -- yeah, but everyone can pick any character. But that isn't the case here unless everyone grinds for hours. So there's either pre-game imbalance or a massive barrier to entry. Maybe that difference won't be such a big deal, but the fact that its there when we could easily remove it...

-I would say it's highly unlikely the game's balance or depth would improve as a result of adding equipment. Customization that allows for such extreme swings in attributes is just asking for broken strategies, and would need countless patchwork, largely arbitrary standards to fix. But, you're right, we don't know if we don't test.

-It would increase the amount pre-game strategies, rather than just character and custom move choice. It's questionable whether match play would become deeper though. It's possible it could devolve into shooting Link death arrows at each other. Could it become a fast-paced and more balanced game? That's a bit optimistic.

So I think we already have some fairly accurate answers to your questions.

But... why not test it in order to remove more unknowns? To see how big a deal all these things are, and weigh them against the benefits? Because I think it's actually dangerous to go down that road. What if it seems ok at first, but later turns out bad? It could cause multiple conflicting standards to arise that split and ultimately kill the competitive scene. Is it worth taking that risk for the benefit of having detailed customization? Some intervention is needed, that's why we have the Back Room. There are too many issues to settle. We're already going to have our hands full convincing a legion of new players that items and certain stages can't work, whether we have field data or not.

Though there's still the question of burden of proof to consider. Which should we assume? Equipment is fine, or it isn't? Well, at first glance, it seems broken as ****. It does not seem to be worth the problems it could cause in the community. For this same reasoning, Miis might even be banned since there's no way reasonable way to agree on Mii character size/weight.

 

[Malex]

I'm not talking about runes. I'm talking about team comp. Note, Thinkaman's original premise was NOT that random loot drops was bad. He premise was that "competition CANNOT EXIST when the playing field is not level", which is utterly absurd. Ignore for a moment that it is obvious that most high level Smash rounds are not played with only 50:50 matchups, therefore, for WHATEVER reason, the playing field isn't level in that match and it's still competitive. Here is a game millions of players strong, years old, millions in cash prizes, a healthy competitive scene (well, when chat is turned off)... and the ENTIRE premise of ranked play is that no two teams in a single match can ever be the same, and moreover, your team may be at a disadvantage simply because of picks / bans phase, which YOU CANNOT CONTROL any more than random loot drops. Yet, that game is still very competitive. Hence, his original premise must be flawed, because there is a necessary contradiction.

Off topic:

How is the draft phase of competitive League outside the player's control? The players are the ones drafting and calling bans. You are essentially saying that you players don't have control over which stage they play during stage striking phase of a smash match, because you aren't in control over what you your opponent strikes.

The draft phase, I think is pretty fair, honestly (and completely in control of both teams.) They each get 3 bans. One team gets advantage of first pick, one team gets advantage of last pick. Character selections aren't hidden, so you can plan accordingly and only "lose" in champion select when you draft your team poorly. (Which is the team's fault, not some mysterious uncontrollable force that makes it happen.)



Anyway, is there any evidence yet to suggest equipment is unbalanced? Because based on the results from my data, I think the balance is pretty reasonable.
Now, to be clear, I am not in favor of equipment in competitive play because of the barrier to entry, however, I haven't seen any data that would let me make the claim "equipment is unbalanced."

Link's Death Arrows are the usual culprit here. I'm sorry, but please remember that you are complaining about a move that has a 60 frame start up.

 

[Signia]

Definitely.

With those standards, I'm willing to say that equipment within certain ranges should be tested in hopes of bringing a better balance between characters.

I've neither said that they would or wouldn't be better, but I do believe that it deserves a chance to be thrown out there with some rules in place and see if it works. If it doesn't then we can always simply go back to vanilla.

Like I said in my post on page 1, I don't think all equipment should be allowed, nor should the allowed equipment be allowed to be thrown in without some checks or balancing of some sort. I do think that it possibly could make for as per your words, a more interesting and accurate test of skill if it is done right.

----------------

I don't know how you feel about custom moves though.

Before I hear an answer, I am willing to say that custom moves are not random statted like equipment, but have to be obtained just the same. I'd assume that something along the lines of each player not having the same accessibility to those things could be seen as problematic for the competitive environment


I'd argue that custom moves being obtained is similar in concept to getting in the characters, albeit not as guaranteed but definitely doable. Just from simply playing the game for the past 3 days I've acquired most of the custom moves and that is not a significant time investment at all for anyone who intends to play the game at a competitive level.

As for whether or not the moves make for a better test of skill, that would need to be tested to see how people change up their strategies by using these different custom moves, similarly to changing a character.

I think my position on your comments on equipment is already covered in my last post.

For custom moves, it's kinda the same problem but far less extreme on every front. Much more tolerable. It's actually possible for people to have the all the options available, for one thing. Selecting custom moves is efficient, as there's a small and consistently formatted list. And it seems conservatively designed as to not cause wild swings in power. I've seen every single custom move, and they only give major power boosts to Samus and G&W, and minor power boosts to few others, with the rest being either mostly useless but with a good amount of personal preference options. Palutena is the most affected, but there's no reason to ever ban her customizations, since they come unlocked.

 

[Jaedrik]

Let us default to side tournament!

 

[nyttyn]

With those standards, I'm willing to say that equipment within certain ranges should be tested in hopes of bringing a better balance between characters.

Somewhat hilariously, it's actually in your best interest to stay within certain ranges even when using equipment. Preliminary testing (and number crunching besides) has shown that equipment suffers from diminishing returns (and to the point where it's actually a good idea to have +everything, even if you can only have +20/30 in all stats).

That being said, please do consider what an absolute logistical nightmare it would be to enforce this, all questions of balance set aside. Complex bans are already a big issue, with people making mistakes about what is or is not banned due to misunderstandings. On top of that, now we need to inspect every player's equipment, make sure they're within acceptable norms AND you'll have to reinspect them every single time someone suspects their opponent may have switched out their equipment.

I don't think many TOs would be willing to put up with all that on top of all the logistical issues they already have in organizing a tournament.

Before I hear an answer, I am willing to say that custom moves are not random statted like equipment, but have to be obtained just the same.

This is false. There is only one possible variant on any given special move (so if you find Fox's 2b, it will be the same as any other fox 2b), meanwhile there are a metric crapton of possible different pieces of equipment. Then, you have to consider not every fighter can use every piece of equipment - and there is no way (that we are currently aware of) to force specific types of equipment to drop. You can, however, dictate the RNG of the game to drop more custom moves for the fighter you're using, which helps obtain moves significantly faster.

To summarize:

Custom Moves
-Drops can be influenced
-Static
-Only 12 moves needed per fighter, so the only RNG involved is if you get duplicated moves or not, and if you get a move instead of a funny hat or a equipment or something.
-Some moves can be obtained by challenges!

Equipment
-Drops cannot be influenced (as far as we are aware)
-RNG to determine if it's actually a piece of equipment
-RNG to determine if your fighter can even use it
-RNG to determine if it has the right stat increase
-RNG to determine if it has the right stat decrease
-RNG to determine if it has enough of a stat increase (with the added caveat that it can't be TOO HIGH if we want to arbitrarily limit equipment)
-RNG to determine if it has a low enough penalty
-RNG to determine if it has the right special

Two degrees of RNG vs seven degrees of RNG (and of those seven stages, three are extremely volatile, with many, many potential outcomes). They really aren't anywhere near the same.

Let's be real here, obtaining equipment REALLY takes the piss. It adds an insanely high barrier to entry.


By the way, for those saying small amounts of equipment will be acceptable...

whether we have field data or not.

Luckily, Sigina, we do have access to field data.

My regular mario jab (first hit) does 2%. My regular uncharged ftilt does 14%. fully charged does 20%.
Even a mere +21 attack (possible to obtain with a +all stats loadout) raises that to 3%, 17%, and 23%.
Even +36, lower than the propsed +40 (and which only costs -21 defense) some have thrown around raises that to 3%, 18%, and 25%.

Equipment has a pretty major, and frankly unfair impact. It's entirely a question of "who can grind out the better stats," seeing as how not only do even minor levels of +stats give big benefits, it is entirely possible to get positive for all stats.

and before someone tries to argue "oh but we'll just introduce a maximum benefit but you also need a minimum of so much penalty"

no.
stop.

no sane TO will agree to that much oversight.


Honestly I'm going to stop posting here, we're going to start beating a dead horse at this point, but consider this, anyone who's pro equipment. Equipment imposes a massive barrier to entry, very easily becomes a "better equipment just makes you better, period" factor upon play without severe balance, and said balance would mandate a complex ban system (unless you want to only impose a maximum stats limit, which still doesn't solve the problem of +all stats sets just making you flat out better). No TO is going to agree to that much oversight (unless they are very optimistic, in which case godspeed on their soul and I hope the resulting clusterlove that ensures doesn't destroy their spirit).

With all these cons in mind...

What benefits does equipment provide that could possibly outweigh the toxic effect they have on not only gameplay, but the competitive scene as a whole?

 

[Malex]

Here's what we know so far (correct me if I'm wrong):

-Some equipment is strictly better than others, like one item in the same slot gives +30 in something and the other gives +40. This means there definitely is a power trend favoring grinding more.

Stats are random. However, it appears that the negative is proportional to the bonus. So, you will typically see something like a 1.5 proportion, with the best equipment at a 2.0 proportion. (+40/-20. Etc.)

-There are loadouts that give all positive stats, meaning there are loadouts that are strictly better than vanilla characters. Having extra speed, knockback, or jump might screw with some things as you increase their stats, but we at least agree that a character that does more damage due to a positive pure damage stat is strictly better the original. We wouldn't need tournaments to confirm or deny that, and in fact tournament results where vanilla characters still won would prove nothing due the amount of confounding variables. A large amount of testing would be required, over a long period of time.

You can get +X/+Y/+Z. It will undoubtedly be better than a vanilla character. Will it be impossible to win? No. Because it's a game of skill, but the custom character is definitely robust. Would you want to enter a chess tournament missing a pawn?

-There are a massive number of equipment pieces and possible loadouts. Not having them all unlocked is akin to not having every character available to play. No longer does everyone have the same set of options available to them before the game starts. It would be nearly to impossible to enforce that, and it would take ages to get the equipment. Not having the same number of options is an unfair imbalance. Before anyone says "but characters are imbalanced" -- yeah, but everyone can pick any character. But that isn't the case here unless everyone grinds for hours. So there's either pre-game imbalance or a massive barrier to entry. Maybe that difference won't be such a big deal, but the fact that its there when we could easily remove it...

The difference is a big deal unless you are near the maximum. Refer to my topic on equipment math.

So I think we already have some fairly accurate answers to your questions.

But... why not test it in order to remove more unknowns? To see how big a deal all these things are, and weigh them against the benefits? Because I think it's actually dangerous to go down that road. What if it seems ok at first, but later turns out bad? It could cause multiple conflicting standards to arise that split and ultimately kill the competitive scene. Is it worth taking that risk for the benefit of having detailed customization? Some intervention is needed, that's why we have the Back Room. There are too many issues to settle. We're already going to have our hands full convincing a legion of new players that items and certain stages can't work, whether we have field data or not.

Though there's still the question of burden of proof to consider. Which should we assume? Equipment is fine, or it isn't? Well, at first glance, it seems broken as ****. It does not seem to be worth the problems it could cause in the community. For this same reasoning, Miis might even be banned since there's no way reasonable way to agree on Mii character size/weight.

Miis -- Miis won't be banned. Miis should / will need to be transferred in using a 3DS unless you plan on using a standard size. (See the Mii thread for the discussion.)


While it is currently my opinion that equipment isn't the train wreck that everyone thinks it is, I am still against the standardization of them because of the barrier to entry. It really is just too extreme.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Fair enough, Thinkaman overreacted. It is too extremist to believe that no competitive flaws can be abided -- as all competitive games are flawed. I do, however think those flaws should be minimized, and it seems pretty clear that there are flaws to the equipment system. But, you're right, we should gather info, though I don't think it necessarily has to be from testing it out. We can still make some conclusions.

Here's what we know so far (correct me if I'm wrong):

-Some equipment is strictly better than others, like one item in the same slot gives +30 in something and the other gives +40. This means there definitely is a power trend favoring grinding more.

Absolutely. I don't think there's any debate that we want, as players, to trend for bigger +'s. I do think there's something to add to this, namely that we don't yet know what the maximums are for equipment and how rare they are, nor do we know what the variance curves are. For instance, it could be that the game is programmed to spawn items with bonus between +1 and +50 99.99% of the time, but a piece with bonus +100 .01% of the time. This would be problematic. But, if the curve is between +1 and +50 with an even 2% chance of any number, that's not as big a deal.

-There are loadouts that give all positive stats, meaning there are loadouts that are strictly better than vanilla characters. Having extra speed, knockback, or jump might screw with some things as you increase their stats, but we at least agree that a character that does more damage due to a positive pure damage stat is strictly better the original. We wouldn't need tournaments to confirm or deny that, and in fact tournament results where vanilla characters still won would prove nothing due the amount of confounding variables. A large amount of testing would be required, over a long period of time.

Well, a couple of things. First of all, I am very wary of anyone who says "this data won't prove anything", because that's the first sign of someone who cherry picks results. In theory, if wins wouldn't matter, losses wouldn't either, because the loss could also be due to a "confounding variable". So, let's be careful not to cherry pick. Second, I agree that Link with +3 to all stats is better, statistically, to Link with +0 to all stats. What remains to be seen, and what is important, is the question of "is Link with +3 to all stats required to win tournaments?" If vanilla characters can win tournaments, or rather, or viable picks at the CSS, then it doesn't really matter, and if it doesn't matter, why not allow it?

-There are a massive number of equipment pieces and possible loadouts. Not having them all unlocked is akin to not having every character available to play. No longer does everyone have the same set of options available to them before the game starts. It would be nearly to impossible to enforce that, and it would take ages to get the equipment. Not having the same number of options is an unfair imbalance. Before anyone says "but characters are imbalanced" -- yeah, but everyone can pick any character. But that isn't the case here unless everyone grinds for hours. So there's either pre-game imbalance or a massive barrier to entry. Maybe that difference won't be such a big deal, but the fact that its there when we could easily remove it...

Also something to add to this: there may be no actual possible number of loadouts, at least if all pieces are procedurally generated. It's possible that the loot system is, at least in theory, infinite. Or rather, that the game can make up whatever combo of buffs, nerfs, and special effects it wants to any piece. I'm not really as concerned right now with "everyone doesn't have access to the same pieces" if that's the case, because of course no one would. Two carts having the same pieces would be less probable than a new life form sprouting out of your bathtub spontaneously.

Also, side note: there's nothing to enforce until the day we say "pieces of type X are banned". I absolutely think that, for practicality reasons and enforceability concerns, if even one piece of equipment has to be banned, all equipment should be banned. Absolutely. Anything else would make a TO's job too hard. It's either all or nothing.

-I would say it's highly unlikely the game's balance or depth would improve as a result of adding equipment. Customization that allows for such extreme swings in attributes is just asking for broken strategies, and would need countless patchwork, largely arbitrary standards to fix. But, you're right, we don't know if we don't test.

I disagree with part of this. I don't think that wild swings will happen because it seems that every piece is balanced in some way to provide relatively even buffs to one stat as well as nerfs to another; no piece is capable of providing solely buffs. That means that you have 4 archetype builds: relative balance (even if increased), a slight increase to one stat at the cost of a slight nerf to another, a moderate increase in two stats for a moderate nerf to one, or a significant buff to one stat at the cost of either one or two stats being trash. The only "problematic" build is the extreme one, but again, it's only a problem if the other one or two trash stats don't tank the whole build.

Again, we only need tons of rules if we have to ban a piece or otherwise regulate builds, which would only happen if one kind of build over-dominates event results, which we can only know by letting them play in events. And even so, we'd run into the "all or nothing" principle from before and ban all of them.

-It would increase the amount pre-game strategies, rather than just character and custom move choice. It's questionable whether match play would become deeper though. It's possible it could devolve into shooting Link death arrows at each other. Could it become a fast-paced and more balanced game? That's a bit optimistic.

Link Death Arrows is so overplayed at this point. It's a proof of concept, sure, but honestly, Link with that build is so easy to kill it's almost not worth it; one trick ponies rarely make it in Smash. Again, we'd have to see it in bracket. And, even so, what if EVERY character has a death build and they end up balancing themselves out anyway? Sure, the grinding problem would arise again, but we'd have to see to be sure. Besides, pre-match strategies translate to in-game strategies; I don't know why you separate them. Equipment begets playstyle, so more builds means more ways to play your character.

So I think we already have some fairly accurate answers to your questions.

Fairly, yes. I've added commentary where I felt it was relevant.

But... why not test it in order to remove more unknowns? To see how big a deal all these things are, and weigh them against the benefits? Because I think it's actually dangerous to go down that road. What if it seems ok at first, but later turns out bad? It could cause multiple conflicting standards to arise that split and ultimately kill the competitive scene. Is it worth taking that risk for the benefit of having detailed customization? Some intervention is needed, that's why we have the Back Room. There are too many issues to settle. We're already going to have our hands full convincing a legion of new players that items and certain stages can't work, whether we have field data or not.

It's not like we don't have at least 6 months until EVO, 18 months until the one after (assuming Melee is at EVO 2015). That's a lot of time to convince people. I mean, if I was Grand Marshall, I'd declare that NO money could be on the line in bracket until at least EVO 2015, just to make sure we have a healthy and vibrant (and safe) community of experimentation. Besides, a lot of this just feels like fearmongering to me. "We could try it... AND DIE!" *ominous thunder* Sure, I could walk down the street today and get hit by a car. Doesn't mean I don't go outside.

Though there's still the question of burden of proof to consider. Which should we assume? Equipment is fine, or it isn't? Well, at first glance, it seems broken as ****. It does not seem to be worth the problems it could cause in the community. For this same reasoning, Miis might even be banned since there's no way reasonable way to agree on Mii character size/weight.

Burden of proof is always on the one making a claim, and when two equally unknown claims are made, on both. We have two claims: equipment is fine, and equipment is broken. Both are claims, which means both require evidence, and the default neutral position is neither claim. So, both people who want equipment and people who don't have equal burdens of proof.

I disagree that, at first glance, they are "broken as ****". In fact, at first glance, they are pretty well balanced, because of the whole "nerf + buff" way they are generated. THIS is why I say we need proof one way or the other, which will only come with event results.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Guys, keep this discussion civil. No personal attacks.

As for my thoughts,

A competitive environment "requires"... people who want to play it

This is the strongest argument against equipment or these rules that are being proposed. Only a small minority want these. The rest of tournament players would rather quit the scene than accept these as standard. A side tournament here and there would be accepted though.

 

[Malex]

Well, a couple of things. First of all, I am very wary of anyone who says "this data won't prove anything", because that's the first sign of someone who cherry picks results. In theory, if wins wouldn't matter, losses wouldn't either, because the loss could also be due to a "confounding variable". So, let's be careful not to cherry pick. Second, I agree that Link with +3 to all stats is better, statistically, to Link with +0 to all stats. What remains to be seen, and what is important, is the question of "is Link with +3 to all stats required to win tournaments?" If vanilla characters can win tournaments, or rather, or viable picks at the CSS, then it doesn't really matter, and if it doesn't matter, why not allow it?

It wouldn't be "Can vanilla characters win?" or "Is equipment required to win?". It's "Are equipped characters at a statistically significant advantage over those who aren't?" I would say it is safe to assume so, given they could be using a +++ build, which literally just makes it a better character over the vanilla.

I disagree with part of this. I don't think that wild swings will happen because it seems that every piece is balanced in some way to provide relatively even buffs to one stat as well as nerfs to another; no piece is capable of providing solely buffs. That means that you have 4 archetype builds: relative balance (even if increased), a slight increase to one stat at the cost of a slight nerf to another, a moderate increase in two stats for a moderate nerf to one, or a significant buff to one stat at the cost of either one or two stats being trash. The only "problematic" build is the extreme one, but again, it's only a problem if the other one or two trash stats don't tank the whole build.


I disagree that, at first glance, they are "broken as ****". In fact, at first glance, they are pretty well balanced, because of the whole "nerf + buff" way they are generated. THIS is why I say we need proof one way or the other, which will only come with event results.

Actually, negative stats are less bad than positive are good. Originally, it looked like it was about half of the effect, so in my thread, you can see my estimation was just to treat it like a positive and half it. However, that was actually too aggressive. I'll try to have another go at it again to work on the penalties, but to make it very clear

| -X Attack | < | +X Attack|

So, +++ stats may not be the optimum build since after weighted adjustment...

200/-100/0 = + 175 STAT (This is with my aggressive model)
40/40/40 = + 120 STAT.

I guess it depends on your philosophy for building a custom character and how you prioritize your stats.

 

[Jack Kieser]

And, hey, if that ends up being the case, so be it. Those events won't survive. But, we help NO ONE by saying "it's not even worth the effort of trying", or worse, throwing temper tantrums until people who DO want to try give up out of not wanting to be abused anymore, which is what happened to items since, basically, 2006 Melee. Who knows if equipment would be a regional thing, which, by the way, is totally fine (if regional stagelists are ok, regional application of equipment should be) which ends up migrating naturally to other regions? No reason to kill a scene prematurely, though. Especially since I don't seem to see any poll data attached to that post.

 

[elitex12]

To me, custom movesets would be pretty awesome to have in tourneys... But equipment... eh, maybe.

 

[Gatoray]

And, hey, if that ends up being the case, so be it. Those events won't survive. But, we help NO ONE by saying "it's not even worth the effort of trying", or worse, throwing temper tantrums until people who DO want to try give up out of not wanting to be abused anymore, which is what happened to items since, basically, 2006 Melee. Who knows if equipment would be a regional thing, which, by the way, is totally fine (if regional stagelists are ok, regional application of equipment should be) which ends up migrating naturally to other regions? No reason to kill a scene prematurely, though. Especially since I don't seem to see any poll data attached to that post.

Yes this is what I'm trying to say. To me, equipment seems like a much better equivalent to allowing items. Yes equipment is still random and unbalanced, but you won't have a random bomb spawn in front of your face or have a heart container spawn in front of your opponent. Everything is set from the beginning of the match and someone will always deservingly win, whether it's because of amazing equipment or just plain skill. If someone lost because they don't have good enough equipment, they can simply choose to grind more and see if they can get a better build, or try mixing up what they already have.

And besides, this is a new game with new rules and new features. Why limit ourselves to old rules? They gave us a switch to turn on customizations, we can either leave it on or off. Two separate game modes, two separate ways to have fun.

 

[Jack Kieser]

It wouldn't be "Can vanilla characters win?" or "Is equipment required to win?". It's "Are equipped characters at a statistically significant advantage over those who aren't?" I would say it is safe to assume so, given they could be using a +++ build, which literally just makes it a better character over the vanilla.

No, that's wrong. I see why you think that, because you're focusing on the equipment. But, as far as the game itself is concerned, what we care about is "what does it take to win?" If you're required to play 'Link with Build X' in order to win tournaments, and nothing else can win (or to play anything else is just patently ******** because nothing else is viable), then we should ban equipment (think SFII Akuma or how most people see Brawl Meta Knight). This is why I bring up the question of whether vanilla characters are viable. And, honestly, even THAT may not matter, because what really matters to the health of the game is "how many characters are viable (even if those characters need modification)?" Obviously, this is a complicated question WITHOUT equipment, and it's only more complex with it. After all, what if equipment builds make 3 characters unviable (regardless of those builds), but allow 5 unviable vanilla characters to compete? It's a tricky thing.

Actually, negative stats are less bad than positive are good. Originally, it looked like it was about half of the effect, so in my thread, you can see my estimation was just to treat it like a positive and half it. However, that was actually too aggressive. I'll try to have another go at it again to work on the penalties, but to make it very clear

| -X Attack | < | +X Attack|

So, +++ stats may not be the optimum build since after weighted adjustment...

200/-100/0 = + 175 STAT (This is with my aggressive model)
40/40/40 = + 120 STAT.

I guess it depends on your philosophy for building a custom character and how you prioritize your stats.

That sounds like playstyles to me! "I guess it depends on how you want to play it" sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. It's almost like that's how the system was designed!

 

[Malex]

No, that's wrong. I see why you think that, because you're focusing on the equipment. But, as far as the game itself is concerned, what we care about is "what does it take to win?" If you're required to play 'Link with Build X' in order to win tournaments, and nothing else can win (or to play anything else is just patently ******** because nothing else is viable), then we should ban equipment (think SFII Akuma or how most people see Brawl Meta Knight). This is why I bring up the question of whether vanilla characters are viable. And, honestly, even THAT may not matter, because what really matters to the health of the game is "how many characters are viable (even if those characters need modification)?" Obviously, this is a complicated question WITHOUT equipment, and it's only more complex with it. After all, what if equipment builds make 3 characters unviable (regardless of those builds), but allow 5 unviable vanilla characters to compete? It's a tricky thing.

My bad, I thought we were talking about the legality of equipment. I would say the question is "Does allowing equipment yield a better distribution of characters in all brackets vs no equipment?" This is, of course, if you define "balance" as the the number of viable characters.

That sounds like playstyles to me! "I guess it depends on how you want to play it" sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. It's almost like that's how the system was designed!

I really want to agree with that, but I think in the end, +++ builds will prove to be superior. This is based on absolutely nothing.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Luckily, Sigina, we do have access to field data.

My regular mario jab (first hit) does 2%. My regular uncharged ftilt does 14%. fully charged does 20%.
Even a mere +21 attack (possible to obtain with a +all stats loadout) raises that to 3%, 17%, and 23%.
Even +36, lower than the propsed +40 (and which only costs -21 defense) some have thrown around raises that to 3%, 18%, and 25%.

Equipment has a pretty major, and frankly unfair impact. It's entirely a question of "who can grind out the better stats," seeing as how not only do even minor levels of +stats give big benefits, it is entirely possible to get positive for all stats.

and before someone tries to argue "oh but we'll just introduce a maximum benefit but you also need a minimum of so much penalty"

no.
stop.

no sane TO will agree to that much oversight.


Honestly I'm going to stop posting here, we're going to start beating a dead horse at this point, but consider this, anyone who's pro equipment. Equipment imposes a massive barrier to entry, very easily becomes a "better equipment just makes you better, period" factor upon play without severe balance, and said balance would mandate a complex ban system (unless you want to only impose a maximum stats limit, which still doesn't solve the problem of +all stats sets just making you flat out better). No TO is going to agree to that much oversight (unless they are very optimistic, in which case godspeed on their soul and I hope the resulting clusterlove that ensures doesn't destroy their spirit).

With all these cons in mind...

What benefits does equipment provide that could possibly outweigh the toxic effect they have on not only gameplay, but the competitive scene as a whole?

Your numbers are meaningless without context.

I'm willing to bet you've only tested them against the sandbag, or against a non-customized character.

I think the core of the problem is looking at the feature from the "let's be safe" mentality. Screw that. Let's be unsafe. Let's "risk" some tournaments by allowing custom moves as well as equipment. Just to see how it goes, damn it. Nobody who is for equipment is saying that it should be the new standard; only that it should be explored in a competitive setting before it is dismissed forever or doomed to the side tournament ghetto.

Burden of proof is always on the one making a claim, and when two equally unknown claims are made, on both. We have two claims: equipment is fine, and equipment is broken. Both are claims, which means both require evidence, and the default neutral position is neither claim. So, both people who want equipment and people who don't have equal burdens of proof.

I disagree that, at first glance, they are "broken as ****". In fact, at first glance, they are pretty well balanced, because of the whole "nerf + buff" way they are generated. THIS is why I say we need proof one way or the other, which will only come with event results.

The "pro-equipment" side of this entire debate can be summed up in that quote. One side says "equipment is broken." The other side says "at least give it a chance first." The anti-equipment side is not even giving the pro-equipment side an opportunity to prove themselves wrong!

This debate isn't even between people who are for or against the use of equipment competitively. It's between people who want to see what competitive play looks like with equipment in the mix, and people who are actively opposed to finding out what that might be like.

It's literally an argument against information.

Guys, keep this discussion civil. No personal attacks.

As for my thoughts,


This is the strongest argument against equipment or these rules that are being proposed. Only a small minority want these. The rest of tournament players would rather quit the scene than accept these as standard. A side tournament here and there would be accepted though.

I would counter that the rest of tournament players don't know it, so they're saying they don't want it out of sheer ignorance and fear of change.

"Are equipped characters at a statistically significant advantage over those who aren't?" I would say it is safe to assume so, given they could be using a +++ build, which literally just makes it a better character over the vanilla

If we never run a serious tournament with equipment allowed, we will never know. Neither side of this debate can actually support their claim with evidence unless we have X amount of tournaments under our belts. What X is, I dunno. Maybe the amount of tournaments it took to ban Metaknight in Brawl would be a good starting point.

Yes this is what I'm trying to say. To me, equipment seems like a much better equivalent to allowing items. Yes equipment is still random and unbalanced, but you won't have a random bomb spawn in front of your face or have a heart container spawn in front of your opponent. Everything is set from the beginning of the match and someone will always deservingly win, whether it's because of amazing equipment or just plain skill. If someone lost because they don't have good enough equipment, they can simply choose to grind more and see if they can get a better build, or try mixing up what they already have.

And besides, this is a new game with new rules and new features. Why limit ourselves to old rules? They gave us a switch to turn on customizations, we can either leave it on or off. Two separate game modes, two separate ways to have fun.

That's what I find so appealing about equipment. It provides that extra wrinkle that items do, without crossing over into the "welp, you just happened to have the exact item you needed spawn right in front of you while I just happened to be in just the situation to allow you to get it and use it to win the match. Congratulations for winning the RNG lottery" territory that items, by nature, are in. It seems wonderful. But it feels as if I'll never actually find out.

Know what the funny thing about all this is? In my opinion, Smash 3DS probably provides the best opportunity we've ever had to actually run multiple tournaments simultaneously. Every single round of every tournament can be ran at the same time, since every player essentially provides their own setup. You could run a custom movesets tournament and an equipment tournament at the same time without the two actually trampling on each other any more than multiple games would at a regular multi-game tournament anyway. It would even be easier since, ostensibly, players can just have their matches anywhere and report the results back to the judges.

It has actually never been easier to have a high amount of experimentation in a fighting game like this, and yet here we are throwing it all away.

 

[Malex]

Your numbers are meaningless without context.

I'm willing to bet you've only tested them against the sandbag, or against a non-customized character.

I think the core of the problem is looking at the feature from the "let's be safe" mentality. Screw that. Let's be unsafe. Let's "risk" some tournaments by allowing custom moves as well as equipment. Just to see how it goes, damn it. Nobody who is for equipment is saying that it should be the new standard; only that it should be explored in a competitive setting before it is dismissed forever or doomed to the side tournament ghetto.

Wat.....

Whenever you are testing variables, you keep other things constant. Why would someone who was testing the affects of +attack on a characters attack use them against someone with + or - defense? That's just nonsense.

The "pro-equipment" side of this entire debate can be summed up in that quote. One side says "equipment is broken." The other side says "at least give it a chance first." The anti-equipment side is not even giving the pro-equipment side an opportunity to prove themselves wrong!

This debate isn't even between people who are for or against the use of equipment competitively. It's between people who want to see what competitive play looks like with equipment in the mix, and people who are actively opposed to finding out what that might be like.

It's literally an argument against information.

The only current valid argument against equipment is the barrier to entry. Unless they are specifically using some type of data generated from their affects, it is probably an opinion.

I would counter that the rest of tournament players don't know it, so they're saying they don't want it out of sheer ignorance and fear of change.

I would say that we shouldn't assume what others are saying / thinking.

If we never run a serious tournament with equipment allowed, we will never know. Neither side of this debate can actually support their claim with evidence unless we have X amount of tournaments under our belts. What X is, I dunno. Maybe the amount of tournaments it took to ban Metaknight in Brawl would be a good starting point.

While typing up a response to this, I did a new testing method and found that one of my assumptions was wrong, so I will not be able to provide the math as it will be inaccurate until I take another look at this and try to make another predictive model.

However, I think everyone will agree that a character with +++ build is a better character (and depending on the value, a much much better character) than a 000 build.

Why? Your attacks against them are weaker. It is harder to combo them. It is harder to damage them. It is harder to knock them away from the stage. It is harder to kill at blast zone. Meanwhile, it is easier for you to be combo'd, it is easier for you to be damaged. It is easier for you to be knocked away from stage. It is easier to be killed at blast zone and it is easier for them to recover. It is a severe disadvantage at easily achieved values (+++30)

That's what I find so appealing about equipment. It provides that extra wrinkle that items do, without crossing over into the "welp, you just happened to have the exact item you needed spawn right in front of you while I just happened to be in just the situation to allow you to get it and use it to win the match. Congratulations for winning the RNG lottery" territory that items, by nature, are in. It seems wonderful. But it feels as if I'll never actually find out.

Know what the funny thing about all this is? In my opinion, Smash 3DS probably provides the best opportunity we've ever had to actually run multiple tournaments simultaneously. Every single round of every tournament can be ran at the same time, since every player essentially provides their own setup. You could run a custom movesets tournament and an equipment tournament at the same time without the two actually trampling on each other any more than multiple games would at a regular multi-game tournament anyway. It would even be easier since, ostensibly, players can just have their matches anywhere and report the results back to the judges.

It has actually never been easier to have a high amount of experimentation in a fighting game like this, and yet here we are throwing it all away.

I think the RNG lottery is worse for equipment than items.

Item =
Shown to have a semi-predictable timer
Have a finite number of spawn points
Have a finite number of items


Equipment =
Stats from 1-85 (or even higher!)
Negatives in a proportionate range relative to the stat
Possibility of special affect (the catalog had 35, but I know there's more)
3 different stats
Possibility of character/franchise specific equipment limiting to a few characters

to grind =
competing for other custom parts that aren't equipment

 

[Thinkaman]

Normally I wouldn't make another post in this situation, but I think I owe it to Jack; he's one of my favorite posters on Smashboards, and I like to think this is a community where debates can remain in-thread and be civil.

"Requires" is the part you're messing up. No, it doesn't. A competitive environment "requires" a game worth playing, consistent mechanics, people who want to play it, and a clear win state.

I agree! It's also refreshing and ironic to be having this conversation, since normally I find myself talking to people who insist that l-canceling or technical execution is required.

But an uneven playing field of mechanical advantages based on grind violates the consistency requirement.

If competitive games "required" a level playing field, League would be a trash game because in draft play, no two teams are level. No one would play Call of Duty because rarely do two players have equivalent access to loadouts because of levels. Destiny would have a barren Crucible because of all of those random loot drops giving players an edge over one another.

Let's take these one at a time.

League does have an "unlevel playing field" via runes, as I argue about with Sirlin constantly. But runes are like custom moves in smash: You have a small amount of grind (relative--far less than would be required to master the game competitively) and then everyone is on the same level.

All high-level League and CoD play has equal players with access to the same options.

Also see: Pokemon.

I don't know a thing about Destiny, but I can't imagine that anyone is playing it competitively. Isn't it just like Borderlands? Again, I know nothing about it, so this may be ignorant.

I'm not talking about runes. I'm talking about team comp. Note, Thinkaman's original premise was NOT that random loot drops was bad. He premise was that "competition CANNOT EXIST when the playing field is not level", which is utterly absurd. Ignore for a moment that it is obvious that most high level Smash rounds are not played with only 50:50 matchups, therefore, for WHATEVER reason, the playing field isn't level in that match and it's still competitive. Here is a game millions of players strong, years old, millions in cash prizes, a healthy competitive scene (well, when chat is turned off)... and the ENTIRE premise of ranked play is that no two teams in a single match can ever be the same, and moreover, your team may be at a disadvantage simply because of picks / bans phase, which YOU CANNOT CONTROL any more than random loot drops. Yet, that game is still very competitive. Hence, his original premise must be flawed, because there is a necessary contradiction.

Alright, two points:

First, the impossibility of a perfect 50:50 matchup does not mean the playing field isn't level. This is because both players had the same opportunity to pick those characters. G&W vs. Jiggs was 80:20 in Brawl, but it's still a fair game--because no one is making me play Jigglypuff. I could play G&W myself!

The water is muddier in LoL, and I personally think the game would be vastly improved without bans and exclusive picks, but the core principle still stands.

I agree that it is bad when game imbalances contribute to one team having an advantage after champ select. Note that this happens far less often, to a far smaller magnitude, in LoL than DotA; I suspect this is one of the primary reasons why LoL is a more active and successful competitive game.

Again, not the point. Any individual game of CoD is, by all relevant definitions, competitive. If I log onto CoD servers right now, I can join serious ranked play. I can play that game with all of the competitive spirit I can muster. And yet, I may be on a team with a serious numbers disadvantage because our average level is lower than the other teams, meaning our guns are statistically worse than the other team's because, as you said, gun unlocks are static, and we haven't reached them yet. We absolutely can still win, because at the end of the day, the name of the game in CoD is accurate shooting and positioning, which can, and does, mitigate gun statistics in many scenarios (I should know; I've played on friend's accounts with awesome guns and still lost to players who have, again, better fundamentals than me). And individual match of CoD is, again, competitive despite, and in spite of, the fact that teams may be statistically imbalanced, meaning the playing field isn't level, thus invalidating Thinkaman's original premise that all competition needs a level playing field.

Quick aside: No one is arguing that stats make fundamentals insignificant. Just as you said, no amount of equipment will let me beat Zero. (Except MAYBE Critical Hits! )

I don't want to get into semantics, but I don't think it's a competition at all per se if it's not a level-playing field. I say this because competition is a functional description--it describes an event which has the purpose of describing who is the best at a given set of skills.

No matter how intense or fun an unequal fight may be, it has no guarantee of telling us anything about the players. It makes no sense to unconditionally offer any reward to the winner, and pretend that it is exclusively a reward for being the best at [skill set].

Thinkaman claimed that his premise applied to all competitive games, regardless of genre. In theory, his statement applies as much to board games as it does to video games.

Absolutely!

This is why, for an example using MtG, Modern is a way more competitive environment than Vintage. There are very few human being alive who have the resources to play legitimate Vintage on a level-playing field.

Hypothetically Vintage is the most open and accessible format: Use whatever cards you want! But in practice, the fact that it is so rarely level ruins it. No one wants to play it.

"Competitive games cannot exist if they do not have completely level playing fields; they are logically incompatible. If you are playing a game without a level playing field, it is not a competitive game, by definition. You may hold tournaments with equipment if you want, but it will not be competitive, it will be a party game."

Correct, though I'd never use the term "party game", and I do not look down on those playing non-competitive games.

There's nothing wrong with non-competitive games! Single-player games, co-op games, party games, and political competitive games (which are a different animal) are all fun experiences.

"And, I have decided those events should not exist, therefore I am telling you that you absolutely cannot and should not ever hold those events."

Whoa, this is the exact opposite of my position.

I've read Sirlin forward to back, and at no point does he ever make the claim that random loot drops are the antithesis to competition.

Uh, not that it is the be-all-end-all of this, but Sirlin is extremely vocal about this. Like "no one opposes this sort of thing on the planet more than this guy" level of opposed. I'm actually friends with Sirlin, and mentioned this topic to him last night. His position was predictably "kill it with fire."

*****

Summary:

I think experimentation is great! I mean, I personally have been playing games with equipment! (Though, in most games I max out speed and stall the clock; it's pretty lame, but very effective. It almost makes people not want to test equipment with me... ) I think Jack's Item Standard Play investigations were immensely valuable to the community.

But allowing loot drops to play a factor, and a major one at that, in competitive play is bad for a number of objective reasons unrelated to opinions.

The pragmatic summation of these factors is an insular environment, which we see in virtually every "Korean-model" MMO. Experienced players have mechanical advantages over new players, actively discouraging new players from joining the game. I mean, why would you? Why suffer in such a way, when you could just choose a different game? There's practically an elephant graveyard of these games.

WoW and GW2 PvP thrive by actively avoiding such a system, and keep PvE content separate.

Level-playing field competitions thrive, while Korean-style power-grinds die. It's true in every genre, even MtG formats.

P.S. - I have almost every custom move now, but still don't have most of the equipment effects.

 

[Illuvial]

I'd be down for custom movesets for 3DS tournaments, but only if someone could just tell me how to grind for them effectively. I ahve so much more fun just playing Versus and Online as opposed to Classic or Smash Run, and I don't want to waste stupid amount of time playing a mode I don't like just for the sake of getting every custom move possible