Spelt has smash skill?He's also clever enough to not go past the limits. He pushes and pushes yet is always out of banning range. Another good smasher skill..
jkjkjkmuchlove<3
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!
Spelt has smash skill?He's also clever enough to not go past the limits. He pushes and pushes yet is always out of banning range. Another good smasher skill..
Because you have gotta love some of his answers such asso...why isn't he banned yet?
XDobviously i've been to the tier list thread before so I unfortunately already know the answer to both of those questions but just for the sake of your salt let's just pretend you know what you're talking about for a second.
That's why I don't really see it as that big of a deal. While I'd prefer it to be gone forever outside of the effects of attacks and other such things that are conventional, on a scale of one to ten it is a 0.0001 on the concern list (which I'm sure you agree with me on).As a response to the above post, I personally don't really care tournaments with tripping turned off are hosted, but tripping really doesn't affect games that much.
Honestly, that made me lul pretty hard! XD That was a pretty good parody of myself. I give it a solid A minus... >.>If MK wasn't broken and Ganon was viable, would anyone miss it?
See, that argument works for everything.... or maybe it doesn't... sheesh
It was quite sarcastic.Oh and that one post of yours wasn't sarcastic. Don't try to deny it, i'm not an idiot.
You were just trying to use our state's supposed suckiness to support your crazy hate-on for Marth.
Yes it would, because all of the people choosing Samus for her "woman parts" and her attractiveness would probably be weirded out. Plus, it would mean Samus could grow a mustache, which I cannot (I'm not sure who would win in a beard growing competition).Just for the record, Zamus with a mustache vertex would not change gameplay and would be perfectly fine for tournament play.
*hint hint*
I can't believe someone had made that before, lol. That's friggen awesome, and a great find good sir!
There you go :D
(Stolen from ZSS boards)
-dead-Yes it would, because all of the people choosing Samus for her "woman parts" and her attractiveness would probably be weirded out. Plus, it would mean Samus could grow a mustache, which I cannot (I'm not sure who would win in a beard growing competition).
Also, the mustache would make her up B summon coins when she lands a blow, it would automatically make all of her moves 5% more, and she would end her career as a bounty hunter and instead chase dragons, turtles, and dinosaurs. Tell me, how does that not change the game=???
Who's better at trolling? SaveMeJebusHe's also clever enough to not go past the limits. He pushes and pushes yet is always out of banning range. Another good smasher skill.
They're apparently all of Brawl, if changing or removing them makes it an 100% different game.Because those things are part of Brawl.
Competition, when applied to the context of gaming/sports, inherently involves skill. Context is everything when it comes to any word.That isn't at all what competitive means. Competitive means to strive to outdo in competition, and competition simply means contest. You can literally turn anything into a contest (I bet I have bigger feet than you!) therefor skill is not requisite for competition.
How, precisely, does rebalancing the game to take out broken/random elements alienate others? If anyone loses interest by seeing the game improved by players, why should we even want them? I know I certainly don't.There is no slack to pick up because you're viewing Smash as something fundamentally different than Nintendo's intended product. Not that what you're doing is wrong or bad, I think a competitive community for Smash could potentially be a great thing but growing a healthy community requires conceding what Smash is first. Otherwise you risk alienating people looking in from the outside and make the competitive community look asinine to the casual Smash players which in turn prevents them from gaining interest.
There's a fine line between changing a few properties or some minor rebalancing while leaving objectives/major gameplay the same, and making an entirely different game with different style and different objectives in the same graphical/physics engine. You seem to counter-intuitively draw that line at the very first change with no grey area.You're missing the point of the comparison, and the point was that something made out of the parts of something else or with the engine of something else isn't that thing. That was all I was getting at.
Once every single part of the physics engine and gameplay has changed, you can talk Theseus' ship. Plutarch's excerpt involved a ship which had all of it's parts changed, not just certain parts. All of the other similar paradoxes require the same level of changes.Theseus' ship in video game form.
It's essentially because we have divergent views on what makes Smash what it is. I've always categorized it as a fighter with Nintendo first/third party characters in a unique physics engine based on ring-outs rather than knockouts. I've never seem anti-competitive elements to be an inherent part of smash.Well, we've at least cleared up the first part and agree that Smash wasn't designed with competitive play in mind. So why do you think stripping Smash of what makes Smash Smash is more conducive than celebrating and highlighting Smash's uniqueness and charm?
Yes, it is a balance tweak and does alter the gameplay in a potentially significant way.They're apparently all of Brawl, if changing or removing them makes it an 100% different game.
Not if the game in question is random or has random elements. There are competitive Scrabble tournaments (sounds dumb, I know) but tiles are randomly chosen. There are competitive poker tournaments, but cards are randomly dealt (I should also note that pro-poker players make more money than your goofy ***). There are (rather poor attempts at) competitive Brawl and it has random tripping. The problem isn't that randomness is not conducive games, or that randomness is not conducive to competition. The problem is that this misconception by the community which causes it to isolate itself from the world of gaming at large. The reason you weren't invited back to Evo is because of this counterproductive snob attitude you guys have about games.Competition, when applied to the context of gaming/sports, inherently involves skill. Context is everything when it comes to any word.
Because mod hacks aren't the same game. You're getting rid of familiarity, making a game that isn't Brawl, and then peddling it like it is Brawl (or competitive Brawl). There are two issues with this, the first is that spectators like familiarity of the game itself with big unpredictable events happening within that familiar frame. The reason Michael Jordan was exciting was because he brought a level of playing to basketball (a familiar game) that wasn't before seen. The reason Daigo's match with Justin Wong at Evo 2K4 was great is that parrying like that was something unusual within a familiar game. It was hype because it was a special moment. Without the familiarity of the game, someone watching it wouldn't get it. Someone watching tweaked Brawl wouldn't get hype moments, therefor it is an inherently less interesting to people with an interest in promoting it than actually just going with Brawl as it was released. Nobody wants to promote or watch tweaked out Brawl except for the select few elitists who play it while scoffing at actual Brawl.How, precisely, does rebalancing the game to take out broken/random elements alienate others? If anyone loses interest by seeing the game improved by players, why should we even want them? I know I certainly don't.
How is that counter-intuitive?There's a fine line between changing a few properties or some minor rebalancing while leaving objectives/major gameplay the same, and making an entirely different game with different style and different objectives in the same graphical/physics engine. You seem to counter-intuitively draw that line at the very first change with no grey area.
You're right, and wrong. This is less like Theseus' ship and more like the sorites paradox. A similar-ish paradox that questions whether removing a grain of sand from a heap of sand makes it not a heap, and at what point is it no longer a heap. So yeah, more like that, I guess. At what point is Brawl no longer Brawl? When you remove part of the game's mechanics, balance, functions, etc.. That is where I stand, and tripping is one of the game's mechanics.Once every single part of the physics engine and gameplay has changed, you can talk Theseus' ship. Plutarch's excerpt involved a ship which had all of it's parts changed, not just certain parts. All of the other similar paradoxes require the same level of changes.
I didn't say I view Smash as inherently anti-competitive or uncompetitive. I was stating that some mechanics you guys harp on being anti-competitive simply aren't anti-competitive because competitive isn't a game design, it's a mindset. It's like the competitive Brawl community has no interest in playing Smash and want to mod it into something they enjoy in the name of competition when said modifications don't make it any more or less competitive, just different. Nintendo's intent was a simplistic pick and up and play party fighting game with some vague platformer elements. How competitively you take that is on you.It's essentially because we have divergent views on what makes Smash what it is. I've always categorized it as a fighter with Nintendo first/third party characters in a unique physics engine based on ring-outs rather than knockouts. I've never seem anti-competitive elements to be an inherent part of smash.
I don't think this is true, personally :/From a purely objective perspective, there is no difference between a ledge-grab limit and anti-tripping. Why is this even a discussion?
Of course there are differences with practicality, but if we are looking purely at the rules themselves, then there is no reason to make a distinction.
The differences in practicality inherently make the distinction important to note.Of course there are differences with practicality,
Actually there is.But there is nothing illegal about hacking a game that you own, you know.
By using a Wii you agree to not using unauthorized accessories or software. Software not officially authorized by Nintendo that alters codes is strictly prohibited. FurthermoreNintendo Wii EULA said:Chapter II: Unauthorized Software, Services, or Devices or Unlicensed Accessories
Your Wii Console and the Wii Network Service are not designed for use with unauthorized software, services, or devices or non-licensed accessories, and you may not use any of these with your Wii Console or the Wii Network Service. Such use may be illegal, voids any warranty, and is a breach of this agreement. Such use may also lead to injury to you or others or cause performance issues or damage to your Wii Console or the Wii Network Service. We (and our licensees and distributors) are not responsible for damage or loss caused by unauthorized software, services or devices or non-licensed accessories. We may take steps to disable or delete any unauthorized software, services or device installed in your Wii Console, for example, by detecting and disabling them through the Wii Network Service and/or game software. If we detect unauthorized software, services, or devices, your access to the Wii Network Service may be disabled and/or the Wii Console or games may be unplayable.
They reserve the right to monitor third party data and take legal actions though claim no obligations to it. So yes, using your outside sources to hack a Wii game is in direct violation of the Wii's EULA. It probably won't result in anything though. TOs should know this information if they plan on hosting tournaments.Chapter V: Third-Party Data
We are not responsible for any Third-Party Data or for any action you may take relating thereto (including but not limited to modifying, distributing, or posting Third-Party Data). All Third-Party Data is the sole responsibility of the creator or sender of that Third-Party Data. Although we may choose to do so, we are not obligated to monitor, supervise, store, or maintain Third-Party Data or respond to complaints relating to Third-Party Data.
If legally permitted, we may access, use, and disclose any Third-Party Data in order to protect our rights or property, to protect other users of the Wii Network Service, or to comply with legal requirements such as a lawful subpoena. You understand that you have no expectation of privacy in anything you receive or transmit via the Wii Network Service.
Note to self: I have to stop using infinite replay and tag in replay codes as well as stage hacks at my tourneys in fear of Nintendo...
While I'm fine with tripping, I'm not opposed to anti trip if both would agree to it. But I do understand the logistics of doing it for a tourney upon request, it would be a pain in the neck