Should anti-trip be a choice for tourney sets?

[ElDominio]

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.

 

[WindMajor]

I don't see anybody saying that we should host modified Brawl tourneys without telling people it's a modified version.

The title of the thread, buddy.

 

[tekkie]

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the state furthering anti-trip as an option (not a requirement) but then i forget that larger states seem to cling to outdated rulesets *while* they complain about them (all hail the mighty bbr).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.

 

[MonkUnit]

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.

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.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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.

Pretty much how I feel about this.

I think hacking the game is most likely gonna lead into rough waters.

 

[Judo777]

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.

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.

 

[MonkUnit]

You can also mod hitboxes through code rather than by .pac too lol.

 

[Ghostbone]

The title of the thread, buddy.

Oh yea that's dumb.
But people would know it's a tournament with hacked Brawl.

 

[tekkie]

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.

if my post choked on anything i'm glad it's a lame acronym

 

[Ussi]

you know, just secretly put on no tripping and no one will complain... because you can't tell

 

[Dekar173]

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.

K let's get rid of this argument once and for all-

if you practice Brawl WITH trips, and then move to Brawl WITHOUT trips, are there any new moves you need to learn in order to transition between the two?

 

[Arcansi]

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.

I know I said I would leave this thread. But I'm always going to point out flawed arguments.

1. We aren't playing vbrawl.

2. What we are playing, isn't Brawl if anti-tripping Brawl isn't Brawl.

3. DotA(Correct Acronym) has been patched. All versions of DotA are DotA.

 

[MonkUnit]

IMO It's split up into 2 issues.

1) Recording / sending replays to others.

2) Differences between playing with no-tripping and tripping.



Addressing issue 1, if you want to send your replay to others or record your replay, you need to have the same GCT they used on their wii, which might be an issue for some because they might delete the GCT they had, etc.

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.

 

[Kuro~]

It's actually a really simple process that takes all of two seconds to fix issue 1. Just include the GCT that wii is using. Or have a separate GCT on your computer. Or on an extra SD card. Or a quick link using tinyurl.com.

There are so many simple, fast solutions to problem 1.

 

[tekkie]

after tournaments i save everything saved on my SD card along with the GCT file into a rar and make it available to anyone who asks for it

because i'm not a ****ing caveman

 

[theunabletable]

I'm going to note that this is very TL;DR, but a lot of it probably doesn't need anything responded to, it just needs to be read to get the reasoning behind the eventual summary at the bottom of the post, and then we're able to have a nice, concise debate.

I assume that gameplay-altering hacks are bad in the context of a brawl tournament

Alright

This 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!)

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 that

So if we do not assume that gameplay-altering hacks are bad, then I ask: why not do that?

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.

We need a clear line.

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.

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.

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?)

And let's refrain from implying that either one of us is stupid. Neither of us is an un-intelligent human being, and I think we can both agree that implying something such as that is disrespectful c:

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.

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.

We don't need to say everything literally all the time, but if something is being said in a literal way, and it doesn't actually... well literally mean what we're saying, then confusion, or misunderstandings can come from that if both parties aren't necessarily interpreting it the same way.

I'm fine with saying that the replays on code is not "gameplay-altering", but we both agree when saying that that it means "hacks that affect the skills we are trying to test", correct?

Popularity shouldn't matter one bit. What popular rarely runs parallel with what is good.

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.

I suppose "good" is subjective, but it's at the very core of this issue, and I'd have to ask you. What would you say is "good", and why?

I believe that what is "good" is what gives tournaments the most positive experience, helps the metagame grow the fastest, and keeps the community alive the longest. I believe this because I know that if the game dies, then what is "fair" for robotic, emotionless individuals seems hardly important.

Fair-ness is important, but health of the game is more important. Complete lack of fair-ness can lead to death of the game, but compromising the long-term health of the game to make the game more "fair" hardly seems fair at all.

Now it's hard to describe why exactly trading health of the game for fair-ness (which is subjective itself, mind you) is bad. I think the only way we can classify fair-ness is through trying to dissect why we should have fair-ness in the first place.

We can only decide why we should have fair-ness if we know what we're trying to accomplish with this competitive scene, however. Now, of course what this competitive scene means for each individual is different, I think we'll probably agree that it IS to see who is the best at Brawl.

But to decide what's best competitively, we have to decide objectively what are the competitive qualities that make one thing better than another. I cannot come to any conclusion about what makes something more competitive than something else. As far as I know, competitive pretty much means someone is competing to win, and competitive play between 2 or more players would be competing to win between 2 or more players.

I've spent a lot of time playing other games competitively, but not the same kind of games that people usually play competitively. ANYTHING can be competitive. A video game can be PERFECTLY competitive with pure out-of-game rules, restrictions, and win criteria. Actually some games can be even deeper without those things.

For instance, Ocarina of Time bingo races are incredibly deep, and involve a very large amount of game knowledge, execution, consistency, and improvisation, the ability to think on your feet. Although all the rules are almost purely out of game, it makes a very good competitive experience, and a very practical one, as you don't even need to go online any more than you need to be able to be in a chatroom. Although you can stream your run if you like, you could meet up in person. There are several different systems you can play it on, all with different perks or bonuses. It's very, very deep, but one couldn't say that it's any more competitive than rock paper scissors, or street fighter 2, or World of Warcraft, or Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or Super Mario 64 speedrunning, or competitive Pool.

Nor could you say that the best Ocarina of Time bingo player is better at Ocarina of Time than the best any% speedrunner (any% is completing the game as fast as possible). Hell you couldn't say that the best RTA any% speedrunner is any better than the best Any% single segment speedrunner, as those have different routes that vary in time by like 15 minutes.

Now if the entire community moved on to only doing OoT bingo, you could probably say that the best bingo player (Jiano is probably the best OoT bingo-er (he happens to have been one of the best Captain Falcons in Melee when he used to play, got like 3rd at Pound 2)) is the best Ocarina of Time player. Just like in Majora's Mask, people pretty much only do any% (or 100%, but like no one speedruns 100%, way too long lol), and sometimes 10 mask, but it's very largely any%. You could probably say that the best Majora's Mask player is the best any% player. Being the best at any% doesn't automatically mean the best at Majora's Mask, but it's the category that most represents Majora's Mask, although it largely uses out of game rules to decide who's best at it. Not at Majora's Mask, but at the category that the community has decided to compete in.

So I think we can agree that competitive value comes in all shapes, and is not objectively quantifiable, it's largely subjective preference. Although if we're placing a lot of importance on subjective preference, I should note that that DOES mean that emotions and subjective opinions matter to some extent, but I can't discern how much, atleast not at this point in the post before I can finish defining everything.

But what is Brawl? Being the best at Brawl could mean being the best at coin launcher. Being the best at Brawl could be the best at speedrunning classic mode (there are people who are actually very good at this. IIRC SDA has a couple Brawl runs, and people at speedrunslive race single player Brawl semi-often). Being the best at Brawl could be being the best at target test. Being the best at Brawl could mean being the best at getting the furthest in the masterpieces games. Being the best at Brawl could be being the best at all of these things put together, and finding an average time, or best average score.

We as a community chose the vs mode as the mode we mean when we say "the best at Brawl". This is perfectly fine, and we don't need to say "the best at multiplayer brawl" instead of just saying "the best at brawl", but it's important to note that we have several other legitimate modes that we could have picked, and we made our decision on the one that we, as a community, like the most. Actually this isn't quite accurate. We didn't pick as a community, we formed as a community specifically for vs mode.

If this community didn't exist, we wouldn't be playing vs mode in the way we do, we wouldn't have methods of finding the best at the mode of our choice.

But even once we get into vs mode, we have many choices about how we want to play our game. We could play special brawl, if we wanted to do tournaments, we could use their built in tournament mode. We choose not to do so, as we have other out of game methods that solve this more quickly, more fairly, basically solved in an all around better method.

We've decided as a community that we don't want to use special brawl, which means no lightning brawl, no giant brawl, no small brawl, no fixed camera brawl (or is fixed camera mode only in melee?). Fixed camera mode could arguably be better than our standard mode.

We choose that special brawl is unnecessary, not for any competitive reason, they are all legitimate modes, but we don't try and decide who is the "best at brawl" via those modes for, all-in-all when you get down to it, subjective reasons (however we could make an argument for those modes being fairly time-wasting to setup and impractical, but for the sake of not going on any longer than I already have, which is too much as it is, we can probably settle on there not being any largely, purely objective reason to completely abandon those modes).

Once special brawl is out of the equation, we have the choice between stock, time, and coin matches. Coin is a perfectly fine mode, but we don't like it for subjective reasons, therefore we don't care for the skills it tests.

We don't use time for any particular reason, except I suppose because we prefer the variety that a stock match with time on would give us. We get multiple win criterion (criterion is the plural for criteria, right? Or can criteria be both plural and singular? Feel free to correct me on this) with stock matches with a time limit. It's more practical, and more liked by everyone (it being liked by everyone is a large part of it being practical).

Okay we as a community have settled on stock matches in vs mode with a time limit. We arrived at 8 minutes because it was the standard in melee, with 4 stocks because it'd be 2 minutes per stock. Brawl is a slower game, so we lowered it down to 3 stocks.

We also remove a great deal of stages, not because they're anti-competitive (this is pretty impossible to define without using subjective things. We're kind of forced to appeal to emotions in something where our only information on what makes something good or bad is, at its core, emotion-based), but combined with the already established ruleset that we like, a lot of people tend not to like the stages, they don't favor the qualities we're looking for (practicality, fairness, and... well fun really is important to people, and we're dealing with people, so that's definitely an important part of the competition). We have the power, as a community, to remove these stages that we don't think are valuable in the competitions that we run, and so we do. They don't benefit us, we have the power to remove them, it's pretty easy at that point to decide to just remove them.

Oh but wait, we have some strategies that hurt the competitive scene. The infinite on DK from D3, for instance. Most people believe it makes our tournament scene worse, and that our community would be better off without it, so it gets removed a lot of the time (but not universally). So some people remove it, some people don't want to resort to out of game rules, because DK really doesn't matter that much, and they have some sense of pride in their game or something. The game, and the community would be better off, but some people have a subjective issue with having out of game rules, and they make removal of the infinite on DK a problem. Now that isn't to say that saying "If the people who oppose this would just shut up, this wouldn't be a problem" is a valid way of going about it, but it's important to note all of the information we can that is relevant, and it being a self-made issue is as relevant as it is in other situations like this (like with the whole debt ceiling problem that happened last month, although you may not have heard much about it since you live in Germany, we had trouble solving a problem that hadn't been a problem in the past, and was made a problem by ourselves).

Then we had another fairly large issue, that happened pretty soon after the game came out. Planking isn't impossible to beat, and there's nothing anti-competitive about it, any more than, if continued, our community, our competitive scene, would be worse off.

I think that's the only definition we can reasonably come to about what "anti-competitive" means. Anti being a prefix that basically makes the following word... the opposite (well you know what anti means lol), competitive being... well involving competition (depending on the context, of course).

So on this I'll have to ask you, would you agree to the definition of anti-competitive being, "it hurts our competitions, or community, or metagame in some way" ("some way" being people's perceptions of the competition being bad, how well the competition went, how well the community as a whole perceives the competition, and what have you. If you agree with these things, but also think it entails more (I'm sure there's more but I can't think of any off the top of my head), feel free to tell me, and I'll add them).

I don't mean to get all semantics-y on you, but with a word that's thrown around so often like "anti-competitive" is, it's important that when both of us are using it, we're actually using the same word. Words are only representations of meaning, and if the way we're using a word, and interpreting it is different, then the word is essentially different, too, and we're bound to have misscommuncations all over the place.

We can definitely say that planking is anti-competitive, but it isn't inherently so. It's beatable, but even if something is unbeatable once initiated, that doesn't mean it's anti-competitive inherently. It's anti-competitive because of our community's response to it making it hurtful to our community.

So removing planking isn't that unreasonable, especially when it's the health of the community on the line. The community deemed it bad, we had the power to easily end it, competitions got better.

Here's a TL;DR from all of this, and I hope you can agree with all that I've said so far, as it's pretty non-controversial stuff, it's just making a summary of all of our information, and defining what we already know, so that we're both definitely on the exact same page. If there's other relevant information, or other relevant definitions, feel free to tell me about them, and I'll add them if they're indeed relevant (and if you have something to add, it most likely is relevant, as most information is relevant lol)

anyways here's the TL;DR:
Defining "good" is very difficult to do. Well it is in a broad sense. In context, with a goal in mind, it can become a lot easier, because we can just look at what leads to the most beneficial, optimal version of what we're looking to accomplish. To decide what "good" is, we need to know what is competitive Brawl.

We cannot objectively define competitive in any universal standard of what competitive means, any more than it meaning... well people competing (we might as well say competing in something between 2 or more people, for the sake of simplicity).

Our competition has been 100% entirely decided upon subjectively by our community, to fit our community's current needs. It's fluid and based on current needs, and practicality. Much like laws, society, other sports, etc. The rules change as the community and the game changes. Actually this line of thought very heavily relates to my religious beliefs. I'm an atheist largely because moral values are dependent on what society needs and wants, and I find any kind of universal rule or line to be hindering, and irrational. But I digress.

Anti-competitive means something that hurts our competitive scene, our community, our metagame, etc. Whether it's damage or not is purely subjective, and can't be universally, or objectively quantified without using human emotion to some extent. Well it can be objectively quantified if we decide on what damage means, but I can't think of any legitimate, useful meaning for "damage" or "anti-competitive" that isn't decided through human emotion to some extent, and that's because we're doing something that is neck-deep in emotion, and emotion plays the largeset part in it.

Those are the individual points I'm making, we could probably, at this point, keep our debate fairly concise, since you can just respond to the concise points, and there are only 4 of those (there's other important stuff too, though, that I haven't mentioned yet). In even shorter, the points we need to find common ground on before continuing (this whole post is just to help us make sure we're on the same page, and using the same words for the same things, that way we can have effective discussion, instead of clashing over analogies and not talking about the core issues that really are what we need to talk about) are basically:

We need to decide what "Good" means. To do that, we'll probably need to decide on what competitive means in this scenario. We'll need to both agree on the facts of what's happened, and on whether or not the rules have been decided subjectively, and if they are anti-competitive. To do that, we'll probably need to both agree on what anti-competitive means, which shouldn't be too tough if we decide on what competitive means.

Once all that's out of the way, then we can have a real discussion, and use terms and ideas freely (well unless we come across something else that needs to be defined in some way for us to have effective, beneficial communication).



Also, jesus **** I was bored, that's so TL;DR lol.

Although you don't need to respond to it as if it were TL;DR, it'll probably be easier on everyone involved if you attack the individual points as they were made in the summary.

 

[Arcansi]

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.

How many times do I have to say this before you guys understand!?

WE ARENT PLAYING REGULAR BRAWL


We're playing what we want to play, with a base set of rules laid out by the code of Brawl.

Understand?

 

[ElDominio]

because i'm not a ****ing caveman

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.

 

[Arcansi]

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.

Many people want metaknight banned.

Some people want Brinstar/RC banned.

Some people want pictochat legal.

We accept all the above people as such, just as we accept cavemen as such.

We just expect them to abide by our rules, or not be a part of the community.

 

[tekkie]

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 fountain

 

[Shockna]

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.

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.

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.

For comparison DOTA isn't Warcraft 3 and makes no claims as such other than for legal reasons.

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.

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 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 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.

 

[ElDominio]

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 neglecting to make it better?
Says who?
You?
And you are?

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)

 

[teluoborg]

Wow, this thread is just so full of stupidity it's stunning.

The French Brawl scene has been using the non random tripping code for like 2 years now.
It has never been debated,
no one ever complained,
and after 2 years no other alteration has been made to the game (except for infinite replays, modified musics and textures OMG SLIPPERY SLOPE D: ).
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.

Every final tournament match is played on a no tripping wii, is the game that much different ? You decide.

And lol @ people saying that tripping affects some matchups. 75m also affects and Mario bros classic also affect some matchups, but they're banned. Not because the game allows it, but because they're ********.

TL;DR : no tripping as an option works, stop being sissies.

 

[WindMajor]

Note to self: In France, people don't play Brawl.

 

[ElDominio]

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?

 

[theunabletable]

Why 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.

 

[Zankoku]

I imagine if a player traveled overseas and lost grand finals of an international tournament due to random tripping people would be pissed regardless of use of codes at home or not.

 

[highfive]

This stuff is still going on? I've been hearing this for 3 years and no one has come to a decision?


DebatesBUseless.

 

[teluoborg]

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?

The good question is : if that ever went to happen, who would do CPR to Sakurai so he doesn't die from laughter ?

Also

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.

 

[tekkie]

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"

 

[Arcansi]

You're neglecting to make it better?
Says who?
You?
And you are?

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.)

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)

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.

Wait...what?

 

[ElDominio]

Why 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.

Because that's what you do on a forum bro, this quote

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"

tells you so.

If you want anything done go do something about it instead of crying on here.

 

[WindMajor]

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.


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.

 

[tekkie]

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.

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.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, I'm out. It's gotten to where I'm trying to convince myself that I'm right, and at that point, you need to stop and reevaluate why you hold your position.

 

[Shockna]

You're neglecting to make it better?
Says who?
You?
And you are?

Someone who understands the definition of "competitive".

In a competition one intends to overcome the skills of another. Skill in this instance being proficiency at Brawl, as defined by game physics (I.e. character control, DI) and proficiency with ones character.

If one can remove a factor that invalidates skill, if even for just a moment (And tripping, thus giving me cruise control spacing on a free Fsmash, for example, definitely invalidates skill), then removing that factor makes the game inherently more competitive. QED.

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)

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.

Note to self: In France, people don't play Brawl.

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?

 

[WindMajor]

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?

Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.

It's different.

 

[Arcansi]

Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.

It's different.

Actually, this version plays very much like the one before.

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.

 

[ElDominio]

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.

What?
I'm also %100 sure that is defininently NOT true.

I main Sonic, and I'm sure if tripping wasn't there I would "Dash dance" much more often.

I'm mostly neutral on this now, but please don't argue with crap weak points.


I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy no-trip, but I know that there are purists that we have to cater to that really don't want the game to be touched. I'm fine either way, and plus, that way a chain grabbing Falco at least takes a risk on each dash lol

 

[Shockna]

Yes, because this version doesn't play like the one before.

It's different.

In most cases, including this one, it does.

The only difference is that in marginally tweaked Brawl, you don't get punished for just playing your character. The character mechanics are the same, frame data is the same, everything is the same, minus one tweak to remove a poorly chosen element. Your entire argument is that even the slightest deviation or elimination of one factor alters the whole structure so much as to be unrecognizable.

If I were to swap out a single antenna on the top of the Sears Tower, would the tower itself be an entirely different building?