Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The title of the thread, buddy.ghostbone said:I don't see anybody saying that we should host modified Brawl tourneys without telling people it's a modified version.
Any hack besides stage, menu, and character textures, will desync unless continue to use the same GCT when viewing replays / recording replays that were made with the codes.I love how Dekar made the thread and disappeared.
JIC though, infinite replays don't desync.. replays. Does removing tripping do that?
That's where the line should be drawn. Does X hack desync replays? Then it's not allowed.
Pretty much how I feel about this.There's a difference that not a lot of people are picking up on.
The claim isn't that allowing one hack will directly lead into other people wanting to add more hacks in to fix the game. The claim is that allowing one hack will simply peak people's interest, and it'll open the door to allowing another code to be implemented.
In other words, we aren't implying that something will snowball because we allowed no-tripping. What we're implying is that something could snowball because we allowed no-tripping.
People who claim that things WILL happen are wrong. Although there's a high possibility that it probably will happen, none of us can see into the future. There's no ground for anyone to correctly make that assertion.
However, if you're saying that something COULD happen, then that's a legitimate point to bring up, because it's true: allowing one balance-changing hack opens the door for a million double standards.
If we allowed no-tripping, then we're opening the doors for people to ask, "But why can't we make Ganon's Fair OHKO using hacks? We allowed the usage of hacks to remove tripping after all!" They have all the rights in the world to make that claim because it's a legitimate claim. We changed the balance of the game using one hacked alteration, and if we did it once, why shouldn't we be able to do it again? Because we don't want to? We drew a line in the sand and said, "This is enough. This is as far as we'll go."
Gee... that's an awfully unfair arbitrary line drawn in the sand (and here's where the problems will start).
Longer replays doesn't effect gameplay or results. It changes the game, yes, but those are only menu and replay mode hacks. The balance of the game remains untouched by replay codes. Your comment indirectly complements my point subtly though, in which people will question why we did this, but not this. Although I haven't seen any arguments for replay codes, I have seen arguments for texture hacks, and if my memory serves me right, those arguments are in this very thread.
Hooray! Another person who thinks the BBR are in charge of making rulesets! Hopefully he will never make a dumb claim like that again because....... we totally have nothing to do with the rulesets. That would be the BRC or Brawl RULESET committee.i want to point the thread asking "why dont people take smash seriously" and use this entire thread as a response.
random tripping:
-rarely happens, but enough that it can be a pain/change how a game progresses (i.e., running across the stage to edgeguard, trip, opponent recovers)
-gives the non-tripper a free tech chase on the person who trips, a free undeserved small advantage like, say, a pokeball that spawns near a player, which, iirc, is why items arent allowed
-is extremely easy to get rid of and would only be one line of code extra on hacks people who don't live in the stone age should be using for tournament sets anyways, namely infinite replay and replay tags
-adds absolutely nothing competitive or decent or morally good or excellent or cool to the game
i never thought new mexico would be the state furthering anti-trip as an option (not a requirement) but then i forget that larger states seem to cling to outdated rulesets *while* they complain about them (all hail the mighty bbr). in case you were wondering how tournaments go in a smaller, removed state that thinks for itself, our tournaments are ****ing awesome. believe it or not, having an anti-trip option hasn't destroyed our competitive scene.
edit: seriously, people forgot about the word "choice" here. we advertise anti-trip as an optional part of the ruleset. derp.
Oh yea that's dumb.The title of the thread, buddy.
if my post choked on anything i'm glad it's a lame acronymHooray! Another person who thinks the BBR are in charge of making rulesets! Hopefully he will never make a dumb claim like that again because....... we totally have nothing to do with the rulesets. That would be the BRC or Brawl RULESET committee.
K let's get rid of this argument once and for all-Nope, the argument is once you modify the balance of the game you're no longer playing Brawl (or "vBrawl") and are thus not even discussing the same game. You're essentially trying to make the community "better" (which is subjective) by suggesting they stop playing brawl and play some homebrew haxx instead. The end result is actually dividing the community between players and TOs interested in Brawl and players and TOs interested in something that isn't Brawl yet parades itself as such because it came about as a mod for Brawl. For comparison DOTA isn't Warcraft 3 and makes no claims as such other than for legal reasons.
You're not making the game worse by keeping it in its current state, you're keeping the game exactly how it is. The only thing making the community worse is how the community thinks it understands how to develop a game better than Nintendo.
I know I said I would leave this thread. But I'm always going to point out flawed arguments.Nope, the argument is once you modify the balance of the game you're no longer playing Brawl (or "vBrawl") and are thus not even discussing the same game. You're essentially trying to make the community "better" (which is subjective) by suggesting they stop playing brawl and play some homebrew haxx instead. The end result is actually dividing the community between players and TOs interested in Brawl and players and TOs interested in something that isn't Brawl yet parades itself as such because it came about as a mod for Brawl. For comparison DOTA isn't Warcraft 3 and makes no claims as such other than for legal reasons.
AlrightI assume that gameplay-altering hacks are bad in the context of a brawl tournament
I assume it's bad, and that's why I don't support it? Well I'm pretty sure the next sentence tackles the exact why, so I'll mostly reply to thatThis is why I don't support little fixes like removing tripping or fixing ganon's fair or removing IDC or fixing planking (now there's a hack that I bet we could all get on board for!)
Simple. There's not the community backing to do that. When there's a legitimate community backing to do that, then we can get into whether or not we should do that.So if we do not assume that gameplay-altering hacks are bad, then I ask: why not do that?
I would agree that we need a line in some way, but it's a much harder to quantify "line". I would say that our line be the line between beneficial, and detrimental. All else is holding back our options as a community, just like having almost any (I choose to say almost, because I wouldn't want to say this is universal as well, there may be an exception to this) universal line in morality holds us back as a species. We don't need a strict line, we need a more... rubbery line, that changes based on the needs of the current times.We need a clear line.
Okay, there we go. I agree that it does not affect the skills we are trying to test. I didn't want to be a semantic-y *******, I'm not attempting to prove all your points wrong by saying "Oh you said this incorrectly". I just want to make sure that we both realize that the line in the sand you're talking about is NOT "We can't have hacks that affect gameplay", but it is "We can't have hacks that affect the skills we are trying to test". (that was the correct usage of "affect", right?)Yes. Now let me make it very clear where the line is: longer replays, like texture and music hacks, does not ****ing affect gameplay. Let me clarify: it changes the game, yes, but it does not change how the match runs. We can **** with the menus and such as much as we want, because, surprise surprise, the contents of the menus has very little effect on the skills we want to test. Tripping, on the other hand, has a major impact on it. So what I'm hoping is that you intentionally misrepresented where the line in the sand was drawn, because if you're that stupid you're not worth talking to.
It doesn't affect what we're trying to test for, and I'm fine with saying that it is not "gameplay-altering" in this context, now that we've established that we both know what it REALLY means.Again: tell me how the changes in the replay code affect the element of the game we are trying to test for. You're completely missing what "gameplay-altering" means in this context.
What is popular very often runs parallel with what is good. There are exceptions, but to make the statement "popularity doesn't mean good" we have to know what "good" is.Popularity shouldn't matter one bit. What popular rarely runs parallel with what is good.
How many times do I have to say this before you guys understand!?Addressing issue 2, you get the whole debate of if you use no-tripping, then you aren't playing regular Brawl anymore. You're playing an edited game.
Here's the problem.because i'm not a ****ing caveman
Many people want metaknight banned.Here's the problem.
You're exculding cavemen. Who gives you the right to not allow cavemen to play?
Case in point: Some people don't want to go through any work, and if we want to keep the community together, then we must accept them as such.
the guy from the geico commercials should have a separate water fountainHere's the problem.
You're exculding cavemen. Who gives you the right to not allow cavemen to play?
Case in point: Some people don't want to go through any work, and if we want to keep the community together, then we must accept them as such.
All game developers develop games to make money. My point is that no other fighting game community is so dissatisfied with the product that they have to mod it to make it viable.
No other modern fighting game community has a developer that doesn't give a **** about it's product, and seems to actively hate it's community.
As an example, AkSys and Capcom both do occasional location tests and rebalances to their fighters. This is known as "standing behind your product and making it more competitive". Since Nintendo refuses, I fail to see why the community shouldn't pick up their slack.
An absurd simplification if I've ever seen one. So either you enjoy 100% of Brawl's features and think all are good, or you assume it's 100% non-viable for tournaments? Poorly crafted false dilemma.Either admit that you don't think Brawl is tournament quality and pick up another game, or play Brawl at tournaments because it is tournament viable.
Frankly, that comparison is pathetic. As someone who played WC3 and DOTA for years (And still does, to a lesser extent), they aren't even the same genre.For comparison DOTA isn't Warcraft 3 and makes no claims as such other than for legal reasons.
Sure, you still get to control the heroes themselves. But the objective is 100% different, and the actual gameplay itself beyond the basic hero control is so altered as to be unrecognizable. The entire -concept- of macromanagement (Crucial to almost any RTS) is gone. Build types/build orders are gone. DOTA is an RPG with a top down camera.
Brawl without tripping or with attack properties and frame data changed is... Brawl with some modified characters/physics.
You're not making it worse. You're neglecting to make it better. Additionally, Nintendo doesn't have the competitive community in mind when developing Smash. Brawl was developed specifically with diluting competition in mind. In terms of making a competitive game, it's obvious that the more capable members of the community could develop a competitive game better than Nintendo.You're not making the game worse by keeping it in its current state, you're keeping the game exactly how it is. The only thing making the community worse is how the community thinks it understands how to develop a game better than Nintendo.
You're neglecting to make it better?You're not making it worse. You're neglecting to make it better. Additionally, Nintendo doesn't have the competitive community in mind when developing Smash. Brawl was developed specifically with diluting competition in mind. In terms of making a competitive game, it's obvious that the more capable members of the community could develop a competitive game better than Nintendo.
The good question is : if that ever went to happen, who would do CPR to Sakurai so he doesn't die from laughter ?And now here's the problem:
Top france player comes over to big national
Trips in last set in GF to eat an FSmash.
France complains we don't have no tripping codes.
Whose right in this case?
And when we happen to play on some "tripping on" wiis, we just deal with it like bosses and switch to a better wii when we find one free.
Someone shouldn't have to be a known person to be listened to. (If your argument isn't this, I'm pretty sure it can be applied to everyone.)You're neglecting to make it better?
Says who?
You?
And you are?
Try to understand the reason this can't be accepted is because not everyone thinks banning pictochat is inherently a good thing, plus they have the point that it's already in the game.Try to understand that the reason this can't be accepted is because not everyone thinks removing tripping is inherently a good thing, plus they have the point that it's already in the game
(Think MK ban debate, except MK is much more annoying)
Because that's what you do on a forum bro, this quoteWhy should we give a **** who's wrong and who's right in a situation like that?
That isn't a situation to bicker about who's wrong or right, that's the time to commiserate over our game being ****ty, and not being able to pick a decision that's best for our community.
tells you so.since all these threads only result in people bickering, i'd say if someone wants to actually try something progressive, host or talk to a TO about a tripping-optional tournament. we've had them for ages and they haven't been crippled by the removal of random tripping. so far, NOT A SINGLE PERSON has run out of the venue crying when they found out some of the wiis have disabled random tripping and that it was an option for participants to play on since Twinkie hasn't made it up here yet
no point posting here, talk to your TOs. i've been blessed to live in a region with badass TOs and i hope this isnt an issue for other people. AFTER YOUR NEXT POST TELL YOUR LOCAL TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER EITHER "REMOVING TRIPPING TURNS THIS GAME INTO MARIO PARTY AND I WILL NOT ATTEND A NO-TRIPPING-OPTIONAL TOURNAMENT" OR "GROW A PAIR AND MAKE ANTI-TRIP AN OPTION IN TOURNAMENT HOLY CRAP HOW CAN PEOPLE EVEN ARGUE ABOUT THIS"
Because what you think is good for this game and for the community is not what everyone else may think. What's best for the community isn't one single clear cut destination that we can all arrive to. They are different locations, and we're all trying to figure out which one is the right one, and how do we get there from where we are now.since all these threads only result in people bickering, i'd say if someone wants to actually try something progressive, host or talk to a TO about a tripping-optional tournament. we've had them for ages and they haven't been crippled by the removal of random tripping. so far, NOT A SINGLE PERSON has run out of the venue crying when they found out some of the wiis have disabled random tripping and that it was an option for participants to play on since Twinkie hasn't made it up here yet
no point posting here, talk to your TOs. i've been blessed to live in a region with badass TOs and i hope this isnt an issue for other people. AFTER YOUR NEXT POST TELL YOUR LOCAL TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER EITHER "REMOVING TRIPPING TURNS THIS GAME INTO MARIO PARTY AND I WILL NOT ATTEND A NO-TRIPPING-OPTIONAL TOURNAMENT" OR "GROW A PAIR AND MAKE ANTI-TRIP AN OPTION IN TOURNAMENT HOLY CRAP HOW CAN PEOPLE EVEN ARGUE ABOUT THIS"
i'm still trying to bend my mind around the fact that you honestly think brawl without random tripping, not without dtilt tripping or anything like that just dash attack tripping, shouldnt be considered the same game as brawl.Because what you think is good for this game and for the community is not what everyone else may think. What's best for the community isn't one single clear cut destination that we can all arrive to. They are different locations, and we're all trying to figure out which one is the right one, and how do we get there from where we are now.
You might think it would be beneficial to replace Brawl with a hacked version of Brawl in some setups, and run both games under the same tournament. I do not. It's either we play Brawl in a Brawl tournament, or we rename the title of the bracket to "Do whatever you and your opponent want in order to pass through brackets", because to me, if not all of us are playing the same thing, then the tournament shouldn't be called a Brawl tournament.
And on that note, you might think that as long as both parties agree to a rule, then we can follow something similar to the gentleman's clause, and then everything will be fine. After all, both parties are okay with it, right? Well, I do not. I don't think players should be given the option to break, bend, or twist any rule, because to me, that's unfair.
Also, Puerto Ricans are cavemen. We don't know what hacks are. We don't even use replay hacks. We use cameras. >_>
This will never be tested here, which is good, because then I don't have to flip any tables.
Someone who understands the definition of "competitive".You're neglecting to make it better?
Says who?
You?
And you are?
And those people are wrong, and have been proven wrong this entire thread. And yeah, MK is a hell of a lot more annoying and anti-competitive than tripping, no argument there.Try to understand that the reason this can't be accepted is because not everyone thinks removing tripping is inherently a good thing, plus they have the point that it's already in the game
(Think MK ban debate, except MK is much more annoying)
So if a single engine change is enough to make something a completely different game, does a game company release a whole new game every time they make a patch to fix a bug/tweak the balance?Note to self: In France, people don't play Brawl.
Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.So if a single engine change is enough to make something a completely different game, does a game company release a whole new game every time they make a patch to fix a bug/tweak the balance?
Actually, this version plays very much like the one before.Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.
It's different.
What?In testing it has been found that 100% of the same conscious decisions on the part of the player are made with or without tripping.
In most cases, including this one, it does.Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.
It's different.