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!
Items were banned because most people here just don't like playing with items for w/e reason. Items-on and Items-off (whether it be ISP or All-Brawl) are 2 different games. And we prefer items-off.
Yuna, I know you're using Reductio Ad Absurdem, but... everybody and their mother has an infnite release grab on wario (some require his double jump to be used though).
He does last I heard.
It was banned because of what it was, not because what it was wasn't fair.
I called your arguments inane. That's not "flinging insults".
So is the Pikachu vs. Fox lol-up. You're not going to be seeing many (good) Foxes trying to improve that match-up anytime soon. They just counterpick.
So do many match-ups. Many match-ups are unwinnable and auto-wins. Yes, 80-20s are auto-wins. There's a slim chance (that's pretty much negligible) of the underdog winning (at the highest level). But nobody cares about that.
I know. I've brought it up several times in this thread.
Peach has set-ups for grabs. Also, this is eerily similar to the D3 vs. DK infinite, which is why I brought it up.
Yes, calling my arguments inane is an insult.
Of course they'll CP in a tounament setting, but while they're not in a tounament, they should, as all good contributers to the smash community should, find ways to improve their worst matchups. Including 80-20 matchups.
The chance of the underdog winning an 80-20 matchup is not negligable. The chance of him winning a 100-0 matchup is negiligable. The chances of him winning an 80-20 matchup are poor, but not negligable because if they were negligable it would be a 100-0 matchup.
They were banned because it damaged the metagame not because it was or was not fair dude.
Damaging the metagame and not being fair are essentially the same thing. Imagine if all characters had equal potential. The Brawl community would be a race to develope each character's metagame. Items damage the metagame because they're not fair. The game becomes a game of luck and using items most effectively, rather than using the character most effectively.
No, just, no.
*shrug*
Falling to luck rather than skill is practically the definition of unfair. Your counter-argument is self-contradictory.
1. Not just or evenhanded; biased: an unfair call by an umpire.
Using items is certainly not just or evenhanded.
What if I am? My motives for arguing or not arguing are no concern of yours.
So do you not believe that objective moral truths can exist?
Brawl is a game, like hockey, and like any game, things can and should be banned if they are unfair.
The difference is the same as the difference between a military and a general. The presence of one implies the presence of the other.
Lol.
neither is using MK against Sonic.
nope but it does explain why you keep trying to make it seem like fair is a factor when it isn't.
This is brawl not philosophy.
hockey doesn't ban things because they are unfair either.
Hardly.
ROFLWAFFLE!Lol.
You missed the point. I said especially this one primarily because it applies most closely to what you are trying to dictate. As in for clarification, it still stands that none of the definitions concerning unfair apply to bannings.
its not a factor period. O_O
Fairness is analog, not binary.
Are the two really that distant from each other? What are we searching for but the meaning of "Brawl"?
It is unfair. It's unfair because the other team has to do the same thing or lose. And it breaks the game for the same reason. The two really go hand in hand.
Sooo your point was that the second definition was most distant from my argument and you pointed that out because that definition applied most closely to what I was trying to dictate? K. Guess you win this argument!
Oops. Sorry. Well, no worries. You can come back to this page later.
No it's not, it's criticizing the validity of your arguments. This is a debate, not La La Make Friends land.
So they are expected to constantly try to improve on their 80-20 match-up (despite the fact that most people either just stop playing as Fox or at least take up a secondary as a counterpick)? And this somehow means stuff shouldn't be banned for those match-ups while stuff is bannable in a 100-0 (which it isn't, it's a 99-1 at worst, it is not physically impossible to win)?
The chances are poor enough to be considered negligible. Especially in Brawl.
The opponent has to be playing considerably worse than you. It's not roughly equal skill level either overall or just in that one match (brain fart?) if someone loses a 80-20.
But what if there's no improvement to be found?
We can't not ban things while banning other things on the hope that a workaround will be found.
You have the wrong definition of "fair". "Fair" in Competitive fighting games mean that every character stands a fighting chance based solely on what they possess naturally with the official ruleset not unfairly benefiting any specific character(s).
No they shouldn't. Because every single Competitive game is "unfair" in some way. There are always techniques that are better than others. There are always options that render other options unviable.
You're a funny guy, Yuna. You know that?
DK vs. DDD is not 99-1. It's 100-0. These matchup ratios apply only at the highest levels of play, remember? If a DDD can't grab DK 3 times doring a match, he's not playing at one of the highest levels of play. I'm not sure what you think a matchup ratio is. Is it the chance each character will win if both are playing at the highest levels? If so, there is a 20% chance for Fox to beat Pikachu. That's definately not an autowin.
It matters because in trying, people will be developing that character's metagame.
20% chance of success.
Sure we can.
It's a matter of knowing that DK can't possibly beat DDD and that Fox CAN possibly beat Pikachu.You're right. But if fair has nothing to do with this argument, then the infinite can still damage the metagame while being "fair" based on this definition.
If a beamsword lands right next to me and quadruples my range, that's pretty unfair.
Games are meant to be as fair as possible. Just because certain techniques are unviable doesn't mean that the game is unfair. Your counter-argument is irrelevant to my argument.
And therefore, all of this is irrelevant to my argument, which, if you recall, is that it damages the metagame by not allowing it to be improved using this particular matchup.
If Bum reads M2K perfectly and M2K doesn't read Bum well enough to grab him, M2K is not playing at the highest levels of gameplay, therefore, the numbers do not apply to that situation. If the gap in their playing level for that match is low enough that they can both be considered at the highest levels, M2K will grab Bum 3 three times and win.
100-0 is only when it is physically impossible to win. It would be if at the start of the match, there is absolutely nothing DK can do, at all, that as soon as the match starts, he has lost.
Yes, there's a 20% chance. But the chances of him losing is 80%. We can sit here and assume that Fox will read Pikachu's every move correctly and Pikachu will play really badly, but that's not the highest level of play, now is it?
And 80% chances of losing. That's a 60% different. That's considerable suckage required.
No, this is inane logic. We can assume that Pikachu will just read Fox all day and manage to beat him in an unbeatable match-up. But then we can just assume DK is going to read D3 correctly all day (it just requires more correct reading for DK to win over D3 than for Fox to win over Pikachu).Sure we can.
Lots of things "damage the metagame". We don't ban every little thing that damage the metagame no matter how insignificant. All this does is render one character (two if you include small-step chaingrabs) unviable.
No, that's random. The chances of it landing right next to me instead are, technically speaking, 50%. So both sides enjoy the same odds. It's not unfair, it's random. Items were not banned for unfairly favoring certain characters, they were banned for being broken (among other things).
No they're not. Name one Competitive fighting (or other) game which bans things to "be as fair as possible".
Why not? It's, apparently, unfair that certain characters in this game are viable. Why is it then not unfair if in this other game, which has no characters but instead techniques, certain techniques are unviable?
Because you are under the delusion that there are many Foxes running around trying to improve his match-up against Pikachu. Newsflash, there aren't.
Nobody cares what happens at lower levels of play. We only care about what happens at higher levels of play. So what if some of the world's best players can beat some of the world's worst Akuma's?
That's funny because he was defending how Akuma/E. Honda was 100-0 and D3/DK not.
He actually said that he was totally making **** up. But I think it's possible that Akuma actually has at least one 0-100 match-up because of his air fireballs. Also, even if he was using bad logic (if he was), that's no excuse for you to use bad logic and think you'll get away with it.
The difference is number of errors.
And that is the case, if the DDD player is playing at the highest level of play.
80% still isn't an auto-win. The point is that even if the gap between their skill levels is sufficient for the Fox player to beat Pikachu, it's still possible that the could both be playing at the highest levels (rather than THE highest level, in which case a 51-49 matchup is an auto-win). Fox would be playing better than Pikachu, but Pikachu would still be playing well. That's what this number means. Essentially, it means that if Fox is 80% of the total skill gap that can be referred to as the "highest levels", he can win.
No, it actually requires the DDD player to suck.
If considerably worse can still be considered at one of the highest levels, then yes. But the matchup is still winnable at the highest levels. Unlike DK vs. DDD.
This technique damages the metagame more than it's removal woud harm anything. The same can't be said for just removing a character.
Yes, having items on is perfectly fair until the match actually starts. You seem to think that something random happening in someone's favour isn't unfair. It is. And it's made even more unfair by the fact that you can't know who it will benefit more until the match is over. And it will benefit someone more. And that's not fair.
That kind of thing happens rarely, and the player should be prepared for it. Items are gauranteed to give someone an advantage every single game.
lolwut? Games aren't meant to be fair?
A character in a game is substantially different from a technique, in that characters USE techniques. In a sense, the players of a sport are like characters, and we ban certain things that make those characters broken, like performance-enhancing drugs.
Thank you for freeing me of that delusion. The point is, that they can, and there is potential, unlike DK vs. DDD.
I don't think you're quite grasping exactly how difficult it is for DK to not get grabbed and not screw himself in his efforts to not get grabbed by DDD.
No, it is not physically impossible. It's just highly improbably
Yes, it is. It's an unwinnable match-up. No match-up is an auto-win in such a way that once the match starts, you will have lost, no matter what. But at the highest level of play 80-20 is as good as an auto-win. It's unwinnable, the chances of you winning are so slim they might as well not exist.
But the chances are still so small that it's not feasible. And no Fox player is really trying to work out ways to reduce the unwinnability of that match-up as we speak, contrary to what you seem to believe. They just don't play Fox or pick up a secondary for the Pikachu match-up.
Highest possible human level.
If we're going to assume Pikachu's gonna screw up an inordinate amount of times while Fox won't (and not get grabbed, ever, since that's an automatic 80% or so of damage at maximum), we might as well assume D3 is gonna do everything wrong and DK everything right.
That sentence didn't make much grammatical sense, but here's my guess at what's the proper reply:
Likewise, it requires the Pikachu player to suck!
No, you cannot be at one of the "highest levels" and lose against Fox as Pikachu in Brawl. The match-up is that bad!
Why? You're losing more characters than the characters you are keeping in the game. And why aren't we banning Pikachu's chaingrab? Because like it or not, it's one huge nail in Fox's coffin.
It is not unfair according to the rules of Competitive gaming. When we say "fair" in Competitive gaming, we mean that both sides stands an equal chance at the start of a game.
Statistically speaking, both sides stand a 50/50 chance. That is fair.
This is a lie.
Stop strawmanning yourself. This is what you said:
No, we do not ban items to make it more "fair". Your definition of "fair" is not the correct one (in this context).
No, the techniques are a part of a character. We're in essence banning a part of that character, quasi-banning them. If they are "too good" to be allowed to stay alive in the metagame, then they have to go. We don't remove parts of them to rebalance the game.
No, the players are players. In sports, you are given options (characters), shoes, clothes, equipment, training regimens, supplements, vitamins, what have you. Certain options are better than others. Certain shoes are better than other shoes, certain types of clothes are better than other types of clothes, certain training regimens are better than other training regimens. Thus, certain options (characters) render other options (characters) unviable.
No, they cannot. If we're going to assume D3 is never going to make enough mistakes to lose, we can assume the same goes for Pikachu. Because either that or your definition of "one of the highest level" is very loose and your lowest "highest level" is probably way below what I'd call even intermediate.
