Not at a tournament level, no.You've obviously never tried to shoot fish in a barrel
I do admit that my experience with competitive barrel-fish shooting is limited at best. However, my principle still applies.
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!
Not at a tournament level, no.You've obviously never tried to shoot fish in a barrel
Fun fact, I never said Brawl was a "bad game" or a "poor fighter" merely that an 80:20 matchup is lop sided in Melee just as it is in Brawl. The difference is an 80:20 matchup is really more like a 60:40 matchup in Melee if you and your opponent are decent players. In Brawl a 80:20 matchup stays a 80:20 matchup because the skill between highest levels of play and decent players is greatly decreased. People will sneer but the difficulty of the infinite is highly relevant to the ProBan side. If these guys were getting owned at every turn by a superior character than it'd be alright. Since the manner of pwnage is easy, they hate it.IrArby
I hate people like you, your view on this game is completely unwarrented.
just because you doont like the way brawl was made doesnt not make it a bad game nor does it make it a poor fighter.
Brawl is bigger on mindgames moreso than most games out there. funfact. every fighting game out there is based on spacign and priority. thats how they work, and your negative connotations of this game are completely unsubstantiated because of it.
also you are using a horribly flawed definition of combo for the context. if you are only getting 1-2 hits at a time, you suck and you arent playing the game right. because in order to continue the string of consequtive hits (i.e. the combo) you have to use mindgames to force your opponent to do what you want them to do so that you can continue hitting them.
Mindgames and skill are just as important in brawl, just because it doesnt fit your conventions of what a "good" fighting game "should" be, that doesnt make it bad.
And just so you know, the better skilled player in brawl STILL WINS. why do you think M2K, DSF and Azen are still the best players in the country? cus they are the most skilled and they have the mindgames to supplement it. If brawl wasnt a skill ful game, any random nub of the street could come in and beat Azen, but they dont...
and heres a newflash for you, you ARE telling people to stop playing brawl, because you (incorrectly) think thats its not a skill ful game. And if you are losing to somebody less skilled than you, you probably arent as skilled as you thought.
I have to take issue for this. When you reach the top of the metagame tech skill becomes functionally irrelevant, tech skill is a pass-fail thing, you can either do it reliably or not, so it's not really a quantitative factor, and emphasis on tech skill as an absolute measure of skill is a bad thing because the analysis breaks down at top levels of play.Oh God, where do I start? This post is absolutely, 100% wrong.
Brawl does not require more mindgames at all; not by any stretch of the imagination. The real problem is that beecause the game is so vapidly shallow and lacks the kind of competitive spark that Melee had, more focus is put onto mindgames instead of a healthy combination of tech skill and mindgames.
The only difference is the game takes less tech skill because, let's be honest, the amount of tech skill required in Brawl is approximately the same as the amount required to shoot fish in a barrel.
And I can't express how wrong you are about Brawl being more mindgame-oriented than other fighters. Have you even played any given Street Fighter at a competitive level? How about Marvel? KoF? GG?
Any one of those requires more mindgames than Brawl, simply because there's so much more you and your opponent can do.
Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.As RDK said, Brawl is more reliant or in other words dependent on mindgames. Its certainly not bursting at the seams with them. This dependency merely indicates a lack of depth. Lacking depth equals lacking applications of standard moves. Lacking applications equals less mindgames. Sure theres something to be said for minimalism, doing alot of new creative things with little to work with, but it ends as some point.
Ouch, go a bit overboard much?gaintrain: you may suck my balls. Yes this is useless flaming but you didn't exactly make any attempts at intelligent discussion either so please hang yourself with you controller and do the thread a favor.
Lol I'll edit it. I remember this guy from Yuna's original Is Brawl more Balanced than Melee thread and he was equally annoying in that thread and I missed the chance to vent my feelings then.Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.
The problem with Brawl, Yomi is, "you just tripped into Ike's f-smash", whereas the much greater depth in Melee allows for far more and precise yomi, better traps, many more layers.*
Being reliant on mindgames is great, but being reliant on SIMPLE mindgames is bad.
*Obvious exegeration, I do appreciate Brawl, I just appreciate melee more.
Ouch, go a bit overboard much?
Would probably be more annoyed if it wasn't for the obvious and rather amusing typo,
"so please hang yourself with you controller and do the thread a favor"
When I mentioned tech skill I essentially was including any and all applications of advanced techniques along with it. That's what tech skill means; mastering the finer aspects of the game.I have to take issue for this. When you reach the top of the metagame tech skill becomes functionally irrelevant, tech skill is a pass-fail thing, you can either do it reliably or not, so it's not really a quantitative factor, and emphasis on tech skill as an absolute measure of skill is a bad thing because the analysis breaks down at top levels of play.
On the other hand, ATs (that aren't pass/fail) generally improve DEPTH which adds dimensions to what is ultimately a game of Yomi skill, complicating it and ultimately increasing the gap between different skills, which is a good thing.
Really, if wavedashing was impossibly easy to execute it would still be an incredible tech, because it adds so much depth to the metagame by giving additional spacing options. At that point, the important thing about the techs are not IF they exist, but application, and application in terms of the finer points of the game (spacing, mindgames).
So, having more and harder ATs isn't what made melee better. What made melee better is the fact that it has more depth, period.
Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.
The problem with Brawl, Yomi is, "you just tripped into Ike's f-smash", whereas the much greater depth in Melee allows for far more and precise yomi, better traps, many more layers.*
Being reliant on mindgames is great, but being reliant on SIMPLE mindgames is bad.
Agreed, it is applying a fundamental double standard.I won't take the time to reread the whole post but from what I gleaned at first glance, I completely agree with you. Its depth over difficulty because difficulty becomes almost a non-issue at the highest levels. ProBan peeps can't stand the lack of difficutly to the infinite yet "Lack of Difficulty" permeats throughout the game. Execution of most everything is easy. Ease isn't important at the highest levels but noobs are now much closer to the highest levels and aren't used to coping with unwinnable matches.
Playing to win right there.As far as shooting fish in a barrel goes: if you're using buckshot (which many hunters do) you wouldn't have any problem shooting the fish. Whether the buckshot would actually go through the barrel is another thing entirely but either way you'd still kill fish extremely easily.
Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.seriously though, RDK is right, the pro-baners want to make brawl a more "competitive" game, but at the same time ignore the principles of competitive gaming.
we don't ban things to increase competitiveness either, but you're right, this IS the same **** over and over.Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.
I don't have a lot of time now to explain myself, but this argument is the same, over and over. If we want to make brawl a more "competitive" game (and that's what we want), the principles of 'competitive gaming' should be on our side, not against us. If they are against us, maybe they are not perfect.
Really, execution of tech skills is fundamentally different then applying them, because it's a pass/fail measure, not a qualitative measure.When I mentioned tech skill I essentially was including any and all applications of advanced techniques along with it. That's what tech skill means; mastering the finer aspects of the game.
For the most part you're correct on it being a pass / fail thing, but my main point was that the depth that advanced techniques provides Melee with is what makes the game that much more engaging and skill-requiring. There's just that much more to do. Couple that with lots of room for mindgames and it's clear which game is better at fostering competition.
If you really want to delve into this whole "top of the metagame" thing, then we can go the route of tech skill being just as manipulative and basically creative as mindgames. What are mindgames but baiting and tricking your opponent? Tech skill can play a large part in that also; just not always at certain levels.
Or perhaps they're against you because banning is a trap in this case, and the principals are there to prevent you from falling into.Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.
I don't have a lot of time now to explain myself, but this argument is the same, over and over. If we want to make brawl a more "competitive" game (and that's what we want), the principles of 'competitive gaming' should be on our side, not against us. If they are against us, maybe they are not perfect.
You're not getting what's fundamentally wrong with banning the infinite. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups. We ban things to make sure the game doesn't start to revolve around one character or one technique. Look at my previous post where I outlined the current ban criteria; overcentralization isn't the only one.the needless descrimination of people based on their join date needs to stop.
The Brawl bashing needs to stop.
and the ad hominem needs to stop.
all I ever see here is "you dont go to tourneys or you dont play other games and therefore your opinions dont matter."
Have you people ever thought that the fact that if some people havent played other games before this one, that it gives them the ability to use their common sence to ascertain that this infinite is anti competitive (2nd criteria for banning.) where as people who grew up playing more trad. fighters. have this whole play to win and never ban anything mindset burned into them contrary to their better judgement just because thats how its always been.
Of course not. because all the 08 joiners were obviously born in the month of their join date and they cant possibl come up with a knowledgable idea in this debate, ESPECIALLY when they disagree with ME....
(close-minded) people really sicken me sometimes.
i agree, though both sides of this argument used this.the needless descrimination of people based on their join date needs to stop.
agreedThe Brawl bashing needs to stop.
*ahem* you and gantrain seems like the people who started this needless flaming, so you only have yourselves to blameand the ad hominem needs to stop.
where did anyone state that with one exception?(the guy clearly had no experience and backed up his arguments poorly though) and honestly, if someone does't even play brawl competitively, then what's the point of them arguing this?all I ever see here is "you dont go to tourneys or you dont play other games and therefore your opinions dont matter."
the infinite is not anti-competitive. i've been over this a couple times.Have you people ever thought that the fact that if some people havent played other games before this one, that it gives them the ability to use their common sence to ascertain that this infinite is anti competitive (2nd criteria for banning.) where as people who grew up playing more trad. fighters. have this whole play to win and never ban anything mindset burned into them contrary to their better judgement just because thats how its always been.
they do. not to mention the fact that i happen to think you're close minded. also, didn't you just say we needed to STOP the needless flaming? CONTRADICTION!(close-minded) people really sicken me sometimes.
This was addressed a billion pages ago.2) But it would make the characters viable so we have more character diversity.
Anyone who knows anything knows that designer intent is utterly irrelevant. The game is what it is; you are arguing that wavedashing should be banned.And it isn't the same, because it is not a move. It is an oversight that should obviously never exist. The programmers didn't see that you could do it so it is still in the game, but we can just ban it to fix it.
And DK does have a chance. He just has to avoid being grabbed.3) Every matchup should have at least a chance to win for both characters.
This post is full of opinion.You're not getting what's fundamentally wrong with banning the infinite. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups. We ban things to make sure the game doesn't start to revolve around one character or one technique. Look at my previous post where I outlined the current ban criteria; overcentralization isn't the only one.
And so are most pro-banners' points.This post is full of opinion.
That is why most ban discussions go nowhere, yes.And so are most pro-banners' points.
Smooth Criminal
we don't need the SBR to come out and say: "_____" this is the criteria. why? because if people have played any other fighting game competitively for a while, they should already KNOW the criteria. and the infinites don't fit them.That is why most ban discussions go nowhere, yes.
There is no fixed set of criteria in SSBB's tournament community for banning or not banning, both sides' frequent claims to the contrary.
No it's not. Learn how competitive fighting games work.This post is full of opinion.
Guess it's time to unban a bunch of stages that only significantly impact single characters or are just random, since they won't overcentralize the metagame to have present.No it's not. Learn how competitive fighting games work.
And here's a novel idea--try actually supporting your claims instead of posting inane one-liners; maybe then people will think you're relevant.
Oh wait--you're not relevant because you don't know how competitive fighting games work. Oh well.
I said it was his opinion.He didn't need to support his criteria-- you have no support for telling him to produce SSBB official rulesets for what we take to be common sense gaming.
This was addressed a billion pages ago.
It doesn't make any more characters viable because, guess what? DK already is viable.
Anyone who knows anything knows that designer intent is utterly irrelevant. The game is what it is; you are arguing that wavedashing should be banned.
Felt it needed reposting
Why not? If it affects all characters, it's actually more over-centralizing, has a greater impact on the metagame and the greater picture, thus banning it is more warranted than banning something which is character-specific.Well he never said that wavedashing should be banned. He's saying that anything outside of designer intent CAN be banned and the infinite is more reasonable to do so than wavedashing because it is a technique from one character only. Wavedashing is performed by all characters in Melee; not much good banning that.
The D3 infinite is one character owning against certain others, it can't just be certain characters being owned without one also doing well against them. You're not making sense.As far as the stage discussion goes I was reffering to saloB's post. He (I think) mentioned how we DO ban things because of individual characters. This is out of context corret, however he failed to mention that this usually applies to a single character owning on one stage not getting owned which is what the D3 infinite argument is arguing. Those of us with common SENSE already knew this.
I'm not pro ban, but I see a flaw in this argument. This characters don't make more characters almost competely unviable, whereas D3's infinite can.If we want to maximize diversity or even just get some more of it into the game, why not ban all of Top Tier + some of High Tier because together they render a great portion of the cast unviable? We'd receive more characters back as viable characters should we ban all of these characters.
Unless I'm very mistanken, thats what I said. Perfect example: Melee banned Hyrule not entirely but mostly because of Fox who could easily run away all day (the lower part where you could tech everything and live played some part aswell). This stage was a perfect place for Fox to shoot lasers and runaway to stall matches. Thats what I'm referring to. Also, said stage-dependent tactic (or any tactic really) would have to be broken against a large portion of the cast not one or two characters regardless of their high mid-tier positioning.The D3 infinite is one character owning against certain others, it can't just be certain characters being owned without one also doing well against them. You're not making sense.
Edit: My point remains, there is no fixed criteria for banning. There is also no "common sense" criteria laid out for banning. All that there is for banning or not is opinion -- bans in all games have been rare enough that nobody can say with certainty what it requires. All that can be said is what isn't ban-worthy, and even that is only comparable as much as Brawl is similar to the game it is being compared against. How many other games have infinites that certain characters can only perform against certain others, to compare Brawl to?
Yes they do.I'm not pro ban, but I see a flaw in this argument. This characters don't make more characters almost competely unviable, whereas D3's infinite can..
More like... unless you're hit by a weak hit (< 2550 launch speed), in which case you can't do anything, not even DI.Brawl is different.
There are not many combos, because of less hitstun -> you can always do something, unless you're being infinited from Dedede.
So you wish to ban alll combos which are 0-death which "always works" (I'm assuming this to mean "As long as the person doing it doesn't make any mistakes")? Grab release infinites, various chaingrabs, certain locks?But you can always do something.
A weak hit is not a 0-death combo that always works.