Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[John12346]

PT, too.

He doesn't have to deal with Ivysaur.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So you guys seriously believe that taking off a stock wouldn't make it harder for the disadvantaged player to come back? At all? This is really just sounding like denial at this point.

edit: Before I get called out, I'd like to point out that all of the 2 stock supporters seem to think that only good things can come from this and that there is no other solution.

 

[Tesh]

Your pretty much stuck at a disadvantage whether its 3 or 2 stocks. Only difference is your mentality about it. "oh, I have 2 stocks left, I'm good." vs "OH **** half my life is gone and this could end really badly!!!"

Thats just perception. If you want to be competitive, you should be able to handle that pressure and still play smart to even things up and win.

This is just a random theory just like "omg 2 more minutez on clock, i won't try to campy my *** off for the win".

The problem is that it's way harder to make a comeback with only 2 stocks. And regarding the 4 or 5 stock argument, that would not only make the match take forever, but also make comebacks too easy.

Comebacks aren't going to be easy when there are more stocks. The more advantaged player will pull away further and further, which is more or less the issue that makes 3 stock matches pointless. Most of the time the better player is the one that takes the lead/first kill and widens the gap because of the nature of the game.

Less stocks = aggro play is more rewarded

Obviously things like x-factor that completely flip the game around are bad and should feel bad, but the opponent should at least have a fighting chance when at a disadvantage. With 2 stocks, that's not there.

Also, they will never change the stock count. No matter how much you push it, adjusting the stock count would change the metagame too much to be casually implemented. Putting my disagreement with the idea aside, it's still something that's just not gonna happen.

Comparing Brawl to other fighters or even Melee, 3 stock matches is like having a health bar that curves around the entire screen.

The only legit change with less stocks is ZSS

Otherwise the game just takes less reads and you need to adapt faster

Shorter matches that require adaptation make this game more of a fighter and less of a war of attrition/real time strategy game without selling its soul.

So you guys seriously believe that taking off a stock wouldn't make it harder for the disadvantaged player to come back? At all? This is really just sounding like denial at this point.

edit: Before I get called out, I'd like to point out that all of the 2 stock supporters seem to think that only good things can come from this and that there is no other solution.

Honestly, if you can't take your opponent's first stock before he takes your second stock, what are your chances in a 3 stock match realistically? I had fun watching Trela vs Ally too, but every 3 stock comeback includes a 2 stock comeback and a 1 stock comeback to win it. 2 stock is far more doable.

There are ups and downs to any major change, just like the one in the OP. The positive changes about removing a stock aren't a bunch of theories however.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Tell me how 2 stock matches aren't a theory, but more time is. You don't use any real evidence in your arguments, and your argument for 2 stocks is pretty much just "3 stock sucks". I'm not saying that my ideas aren't based in theory, but yours seem to be based mostly in opinion.

 

[Life]

So you guys seriously believe that taking off a stock wouldn't make it harder for the disadvantaged player to come back? At all? This is really just sounding like denial at this point.

edit: Before I get called out, I'd like to point out that all of the 2 stock supporters seem to think that only good things can come from this and that there is no other solution.

First: the proper solution for what's wrong with Brawl is one-stock food (which makes stalling pointless because you'll never have a stock lead and you'll have to move away from your stalling spot to maintain a percent lead) with three minutes. Two stock will only help a little bit, but if that change can be widely accepted, the smash community will be much more accepting of change in general. So I'll get behind it, but for a very different reason than the others.

Second: Why do you care so much about comebacks? Answer me honestly.

As for two-stock taking a shorter period of time: it seems blatantly obvious. 99 stock takes longer than 10 stock takes longer than 3 stock--why shouldn't those take longer than 2 stock?

 

[Tesh]

Tell me how 2 stock matches aren't a theory, but more time is. You don't use any real evidence in your arguments, and your argument for 2 stocks is pretty much just "3 stock sucks". I'm not saying that my ideas aren't based in theory, but yours seem to be based mostly in opinion.

Lowering the amount of stocks and lowering the timer to match (5 minutes or even 6-7 for people that REALLY wanna avoid timeouts) is GUARANTEED to make sets faster. Unless you have some theory that people will spent MINUTES longer on striking/counterpicking/coaching due to 1 less stock, it can't take longer. That is alot better than M2K's theory that more time per set=faster because people won't want to spent that much time in a set therefore people won't camp.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Tell me how 2 stock matches aren't a theory, but more time is. You don't use any real evidence in your arguments, and your argument for 2 stocks is pretty much just "3 stock sucks". I'm not saying that my ideas aren't based in theory, but yours seem to be based mostly in opinion.

They are both theories. Obviously the less stocks/less time thing has some mathematical basis on it, but it has some meta game concerns. Do you know the best way to dispel these concerns?

TEST. THE. FREAKING. THEORIES.

We've got so many armchair warriors here arguing about what to do. Go host an event and tell us how it goes. Post videos. Generate hype if it works so that we get bigger names in on the testing. Repeat.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Second: Why do you care so much about comebacks? Answer me honestly.

Because the person who is losing should always have a fair chance to fight back. If they can take their time and carefully pile on damage without getting hit until there's enough for a KO, they should be able to do so without being put at risk of losing the match due to a small mistake. The ability to turn the tides in your favor while in a tight spot should be encouraged (although they should be able to occur naturally without any deus ex machina's like x-factor), because it makes matches less predictable and forces the winning player to still be on his toes. If recovering from being at a disadvantage is too difficult, then the game would be over way before it actually finishes.

I prefer your sudden death idea to the 2 stock, because the game is actually over on the first KO, and not just a continuation with a big strain on the losing player. Although, I do still prefer the 3 stock method over your sudden death idea, because your idea would make it impossible to recover from a percent lead. With 3 stocks, you would be able to sacrifice a stock to bring yourself down to 0%, but with your idea, you'd be completely ****ed if the percent difference it too high. I'd be more open to it if they also changed the sets to best of 5 and best of 7 in finals, though.

Lowering the amount of stocks and lowering the timer to match (5 minutes or even 6-7 for people that REALLY wanna avoid timeouts) is GUARANTEED to make sets faster. Unless you have some theory that people will spent MINUTES longer on striking/counterpicking/coaching due to 1 less stock, it can't take longer. That is alot better than M2K's theory that more time per set=faster because people won't want to spent that much time in a set therefore people won't camp.

I've already explained to you that this issue is not time, the issue is stalling and timeouts. So, logically, shorter matches would equal more timeouts.

They are both theories. Obviously the less stocks/less time thing has some mathematical basis on it, but it has some meta game concerns. Do you know the best way to dispel these concerns?

TEST. THE. FREAKING. THEORIES.

We've got so many armchair warriors here arguing about what to do. Go host an event and tell us how it goes. Post videos. Generate hype if it works so that we get bigger names in on the testing. Repeat.

I like you. You're smart.

 

[Tesh]

They are both theories. Obviously the less stocks/less time thing has some mathematical basis on it, but it has some meta game concerns. Do you know the best way to dispel these concerns?

TEST. THE. FREAKING. THEORIES.

We've got so many armchair warriors here arguing about what to do. Go host an event and tell us how it goes. Post videos. Generate hype if it works so that we get bigger names in on the testing. Repeat.

I'd say both sides have videos... I mean you can look at Japan for 10 minute matches (under a very different ruleset overall) and Concentrate had 1 stock matches, which more or less supports my claim.

My point is pure math, it doesn't really need testing. Less time =Less time. M2K thinks More time=less time.

I can see how having sudden death rules being the norm could be a good thing.



Because the person who is losing should always have a fair chance to fight back. If they can take their time and carefully pile on damage without getting hit until there's enough for a KO, they should be able to do so without being put at risk of losing the match due to a small mistake. The ability to turn the tides in your favor while in a tight spot should be encouraged (although they should be able to occur naturally without any deus ex machina's like x-factor), because it makes matches less predictable and forces the winning player to still be on his toes. If recovering from being at a disadvantage is too difficult, then the game would be over way before it actually finishes.

I prefer your sudden death idea to the 2 stock, because the game is actually over on the first KO, and not just a continuation with a big strain on the losing player. Although, I do still prefer the 3 stock method over your sudden death idea, because your idea would make it impossible to recover from a percent lead. With 3 stocks, you would be able to sacrifice a stock to bring yourself down to 0%, but with your idea, you'd be completely ****ed if the percent difference it too high. I'd be more open to it if they also changed the sets to best of 5 and best of 7 in finals, though.

I really feel like everything you are saying applies to my side of the argument. The game is so heavily swayed by who gets the lead first (especially a stock lead).

Also Bo9/11/13 is all good imo. Thats assuming you are actually fine with Brawl GF still taking like an hour. Another great thing is you have more wiggle room there. Add 2 games onto a set in 3 stock and its easily another 15 minutes. But for 1 stock its another 5 maybe. You can slowly build up to longer sets in finals if you.

Early bracket matches/pools can be Bo3 or 5. Bo7 can start in top 32/16/8. Bo9/11 can start in top 4/3/2.

I really don't get why 1 stock isn't more popular on that note. Its extremely convenient for a quick side event even.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

My point is pure math, it doesn't really need testing. Less time =Less time. M2K thinks More time=less time.

And you think that the issue is time, when I have stated multiple times that it is not. Stop missing the point so much and maybe you'll see why you aren't an absolute genius.

 

[Tesh]

Part of the issue is time. Your point about making 3 stock comebacks being more doable than 2 stocks is nonsense.

Stalling isn't more of an issue with 2 stocks. And its LESS of an issue with 3 stocks. Shorter matches with less health doesn't = more timeouts.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

My point is pure math, it doesn't really need testing. Less time =Less time. M2K thinks More time=less time.


I really feel like everything you are saying applies to my side of the argument. The game is so heavily swayed by who gets the lead first (especially a stock lead).

I accidentally deleted the part where you mentioned concentrate, but yeah, that was awesome. The less time=less time is true, but you should recognize the concerns of the other side. (then again... you do right underneath here!)

Ooh, I have an idea for an analysis! Where are those matchslips...

And you think that the issue is time, when I have stated multiple times that it is not. Stop missing the point so much and maybe you'll see why you aren't an absolute genius.

Beeeeeeeeeh, come on, was that second sentence even necessary? An intelligent discussion has no need for arbitrary comments like that.

Part of the issue is time. Your point about making 3 stock comebacks being more doable than 2 stocks is nonsense.

Stalling isn't more of an issue with 2 stocks. And its LESS of an issue with 3 stocks. Shorter matches with less health doesn't = more timeouts.

Addressed issue is being addressed! As I understand it, stalling and comeback potential are two of the primary issues being addressed with respect to lowering the stocks. Stalling is addressed by Tesh above.

With respect to comebacks, I think it's simply an issue of grain size. We're use to stock-scale comebacks. I would wager, but cannot yet show evidence for, that the types of comebacks we'd see would just change sizes. Say you had 1 stock matches and you start getting CG's by ICs.... and then they drop it. You then tear them a pair of matching superfluous bodily orifices and the crowd goes wild! This is a intra-stock comeback. It's just a smaller grain size than the inter-stock comebacks that we're used to.

 

[Tesh]

I don't get what your point is on the last part. Are big comebacks somehow better for competition? I don't see how different types of comebacks make 3 stock better. A 3 stock comeback is hype the same way Verm beating M2K would be hype. Doesn't mean we should keep MK legal because of the hype generated by an uphill battle.

Maybe I am missing the point there anyway.

In any case, I agree with the guy who mentioned "armchair warriors". I wish my chair had armrests tbh.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

I don't get what your point is on the last part. Are big comebacks somehow better for competition? I don't see how different types of comebacks make 3 stock better. A 3 stock comeback is hype the same way Verm beating M2K would be hype. Doesn't mean we should keep MK legal because of the hype generated by an uphill battle.

Maybe I am missing the point there anyway.

In any case, I agree with the guy who mentioned "armchair warriors". I wish my chair had armrests tbh.

The point is that a lot of people seem to prefer inter-stock comebacks. I personally don't think either one is inherently better than the other. Some may argue that one makes the game more fair than the other (more stocks = more time to adjust and such). I'd actually like to go through the match slips to analyze something about that... I may do that later today.

I'm the one that mentioned armchair warriors too. I'm at work, so my armchair is pretty stiff :-/.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

No, the actual amount of time it takes to complete the match isn't the issue. If it takes a minute longer but there are significantly less timeouts, then it's fine, the issue is fixed.

Your point about making 3 stock comebacks being more doable than 2 stocks is nonsense.

Does no one see my point? Okay, let me run the scenario through.

1. You get KO'd and your opponent doesn't take a ton of damage in the process. They're a stock up and have about medium damage.

2. You KO your opponent. You're both even with stock, but you have high damage.

3. If this was a 3 stock match, you could safely pile on damage until you meet your inevitable demise, making it less difficult to take off their next stock. With 2 stocks, you would have to KO them with high damage, which will be extremely hard for you to do. You could pile on damage, but you'd have to get them to higher damage than you have and then KO them, while all they'd have to do is hit you a couple of times. With 2 stocks, there is nothing to fall back on.

Also, you say that my point is nonsense, but all you do is yell "IT MAKES SENSE LESS TIME = LESS TIME!!!!!!!!!", even though time is not the issue.

Stalling isn't more of an issue with 2 stocks. And its LESS of an issue with 3 stocks. Shorter matches with less health doesn't = more timeouts.

How the **** did you reach this conclusion. With less health, each stock becomes more precious, and people wouldn't take many risks for fear of losing one. With less time, there would be less time to finish the match (LESS TIME = LESS TIME, remember?). This would obviously lead to more timeouts.

By the way, if you're going to answer, please actually answer. All you've been doing is making huge assumptions and not even backing any of your points up.

Beeeeeeeeeh, come on, was that second sentence even necessary? An intelligent discussion has no need for arbitrary comments like that.

This has not bee an intelligent conversation, all he's been doing is saying "NO YOU'RE WRONG LESS TIME = LESS TIME DON'T TEST ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M RIGHT".

By the way, I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this if everyone was like you and said "hey let's test it" instead of being like "no I'm right implement it right now". The point I'm trying to make is that the 2 stock theory is not perfect.

 

[Ussi]

Does no one see my point? Okay, let me run the scenario through.

1. You get KO'd and your opponent doesn't take a ton of damage in the process. They're a stock up and have about medium damage.

2. You KO your opponent. You're both even with stock, but you have high damage.

3. If this was a 3 stock match, you could safely pile on damage until you meet your inevitable demise, making it less difficult to take off their next stock. With 2 stocks, you would have to KO them with high damage, which will be extremely hard for you to do. You could pile on damage, but you'd have to get them to higher damage than you have and then KO them, while all they'd have to do is hit you a couple of times. With 2 stocks, there is nothing to fall back on.

This happens in 3 stocks matches already.

How the **** did you reach this conclusion. With less health, each stock becomes more precious, and people wouldn't take many risks for fear of losing one. With less time, there would be less time to finish the match (LESS TIME = LESS TIME, remember?). This would obviously lead to more timeouts.

People will also feel inclined to take more risks due to getting more out of getting a stock. It goes both ways with being aggro and camping harder.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So, the result could be anything, and it's pointless to argue about until it's tested. Your theory isn't perfect, mine isn't perfect, let's test it! Let's test 2 stock, let's test 10 minutes, just test stuff!

 

[Ussi]

I've seen vids of 1 stock matches and vids of 2 stock matches..

people been thinking of two stock matches since 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6boOKl674kI

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

That was a complete roll by that Pikachu. Also, I've seen a couple of 3 stock videos with him, and he plays pretty much the same way.

 

[Life]

Because the person who is losing should always have a fair chance to fight back. If they can take their time and carefully pile on damage without getting hit until there's enough for a KO, they should be able to do so without being put at risk of losing the match due to a small mistake. The ability to turn the tides in your favor while in a tight spot should be encouraged (although they should be able to occur naturally without any deus ex machina's like x-factor), because it makes matches less predictable and forces the winning player to still be on his toes. If recovering from being at a disadvantage is too difficult, then the game would be over way before it actually finishes.

I prefer your sudden death idea to the 2 stock, because the game is actually over on the first KO, and not just a continuation with a big strain on the losing player. Although, I do still prefer the 3 stock method over your sudden death idea, because your idea would make it impossible to recover from a percent lead. With 3 stocks, you would be able to sacrifice a stock to bring yourself down to 0%, but with your idea, you'd be completely ****ed if the percent difference it too high. I'd be more open to it if they also changed the sets to best of 5 and best of 7 in finals, though.

....wat.

1. Who are you--who are any of us--to say what a "fair chance" is?
2. You can make perfectly fine comebacks with any stock count.
3. Why would you ever sacrifice a stock intentionally?
4. All of your arguments apply to the change from four-stock to three-stock that happened shortly after Brawl's release. Why aren't you arguing for an increase in stocks?

More importantly, the entire reason we're arguing for a lowered stock count instead of testing it is, apart from that one Concentrate, lower stock counts never GET tested.

Most TO's aren't willing to stray very far from what they're familiar with, and most tournaments are not big enough to do a typical-ruleset event AND an experimental event (and those that are usually opting to add other fighting games instead). Which means either a TO has to take a huge perceived risk, or a new TO has to step up that's willing to severely rock the boat (and people with the skills, interest, and means to TO that also are willing to step away from the norm that much are extraordinarily rare) It adds up to:

"Hey, check out this idea!"
"Might be good, someone should test it."
"Who's gonna test it?"
"...."

The community (Brawl, Smash, FGC, gamers in general, IDK how widespread it is) has to argue for an eternity about any ruleset change before TOs even consider trying it. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Trust me, I also advocate a large stagelist, which is a much more minor (and more incremental, meaning easier to test) change, and apart from Raziek and some Midwestern TOs (none of whom are particularly prominent) nobody will even try THAT.

tl;dr we have to argue FIRST, long and hard, before anyone is ever willing to test anything

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So, tl;dr you just want it to get tested? Then test it. Make your own 2 stock tourney. They have an experimental ruleset for this exact purpose, to test both of these theories, so go message Alpha or Chibo and just do it. Ranting about how it should implemented immediately and that it's a perfect idea won't mean **** unless you have results to back it up, so go get some results.

tl:dr do it yourself.

edit: regarding your first point, the top part was about why I think that the chance to make a comeback is important, it had nothing to do with 2 vs 3 stock. Also, by "sacrifice", I really meant "fall back on after you die because you're definitely gonna die". Still, though, go make your own tourney if you want results.

 

[Life]

Totally would, except what I said above:

1. Skills: I have basically zero interpersonal skills. IRL I'm pathetically introverted, although that doesn't really show online. (My username. Wrong psychological term, same general idea.)
2. Interest: One out of three ain't bad
3. Means: If my tournament goes the way of Pound V, I do NOT have the financial resources to make up the difference to the venue. This is probably the more legitimate john, not wanting to take unnecessary risks. Whether I could overcome my general fear of people once that barrier is out of the way... that's another question.

(And BTW, I've given the "why don't you TO yourself then?" speech before, so I've had plenty of time to think about this.)

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Ah, yes, very valid points. Not everyone is fit to be a TO, and going severely out of your way for this isn't worth it.

I know I'm deviating from the whole conversation here, but this shouldn't even be an issue. None of this. In Japan, they don't have these problems. I wonder why? Could it be because they actually play the game and don't just ledge camp like f*ggots? Maybe.

 

[Tesh]

Actually they do ledge camp. Ever seen Masashi?

Also Incom, your tournament won't go the way of P5 if you plan well and don't overextend your resources. You dont have to run massive nationals, u can host house tournaments.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

They do other stuff too, unlike western Smash.

 

[Life]

Let's see.

In addition to its longer timer, Japan has a tiny stagelist, an anti-scrooging rule, and an air time rule. The first is the subject of another ~11 18 page thread, I have no idea how they enforce the second, and BPC tore the third to shreds a long time ago. (tl;dr, it screws over a LOT of characters not named MK.)

Also, Japan is better at gaming as a whole, because Japan-exclusives are often very difficult: what I call the Beatmania effect. (YT Beatmania if you don't know what I'm talking about, then compare with American music games. A typical Beatmania song on its own trumps practically anything Guitar Hero could throw at you, plus the game shuffles the note charts so your muscle memory is relatively useless.) So it's totally predictable that they're good at Brawl. It's kind of a cultural thing.

And we just banned the only character for whom it's worthwhile to ledge camp against an opponent that knows how to fight ledge camping anyway.

double-ninja'd, this should be above Tesh's post. Thanks for the encouragement BTW

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Air time rule? What do you mean?

 

[Life]

Air time rule? What do you mean?

In the case of a timeout (possibly just when stocks are tied, or possibly in general, I don't recall which but it probably varies), the character who spent longer in the air loses.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Seriously? Those rules sound awesome. No wonder they don't ban MK, their rules balance it out (mostly). Anyway, even considering those rules, they still do have a more offense-based style of gameplay, and they beat us with it on our own turf, by our own rules. Obviously their way is more effective.

 

[Life]

I can't find BPC's blog that takes the air time rule out behind the shed and shoots it, but basically the sheer volume of balance changes caused by artificial rules designed to nerf MK (going by the logic that nerfing MK specifically is admitting that he's banworthy, and therefore ruling out "only MK can't do X" as an option) severely screws with the game. Toon Link gets screwed. Wario gets screwed. Pit gets screwed. GnW gets screwed. Snake gets buffed. Diddy gets buffed. Granted, all rule changes alter balance, but you don't even know how much air time you've racked up until the game's over (at least you can try to count ledge grabs). Why should some number behind the scenes scare you into playing aggressively? Why should a TL that's successfully camped for ten minutes and taken no damage while bringing the opponent to 180% and his last stock lose? It's like having the death penalty for jaywalkers because some psycho happened to jaywalk on their way to committing a killing spree at the local elementary school.

(Tangentially, if you do try "MK can't do X", then you're surgically altering game balance. And when you do that, where do you stop? Why not buff low tiers with an extra stock? Give everyone above Sonic a 40% handicap? Give 'Dorf free Warlock Punches? The same logic justifies them, but if you applied it to those cases you'd get a tangled mess of rules that nobody would want to sort through and everyone would just ignore that ruleset.)

As for the scrooging rule, I have no freaking clue how anyone could possibly enforce that. If you don't have an objective referee watching (and let's face it, how many tournaments possibly could), someone could easily claim their MK or Pit-playing opponent broke the rule even if they didn't. And then it's one player's word against the other's, and yeah.

On the whole, Japan only barely beat us at Apex, and there's a lot more factors in that than just their ruleset. (Beatmania effect plus their population density making it easier to find practice.)

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I'm not saying that MK isn't game breaking, I'm just saying that their ruleset makes it a lot easier to deal with him. And, they obviously do enforce the rules. I don't know how, but that's because I've never actually been to a Japanese tourney. Also, it is obviously not just because they're better. It is because they play differently from us, and their playstyle beats ours. I bet if an American were to pick up the Japanese style and go to tourneys with it, they'd do rather well.

edit: If, in Smash 4, they had a way to give each player a different stock count, I'd be all for tier-based stock handicaps (top=2, high and mid=3, low=4). Not right away, but it would be interesting to test.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

@Dr. Robotnik - Did you read my bit on the grain size of comebacks? You argue for the validity of 3 stocks for greater comeback potential, but you're not recognizing the possibility of comebacks within a stock. I think the community could learn to recognize smaller instances (like long strings of unanswered damage) as 'comebacks'. It's a matter of scope.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I did, although I decided that it would be best to just test these things and then talk about the results. My point now is that if we didn't play like a bunch of f*gs, we wouldn't need to do any of this.

 

[Ussi]

If nintendo gave a **** about the competitive scene, we wouldn't go through this either.

 

[Kink-Link5]

If Nintendo made the game, it would have been Melee with extra characters and Online mode.

 

[Ghostbone]

I'd count Sakurai working for nintendo as nintendo....

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

If nintendo gave a **** about the competitive scene, we wouldn't go through this either.

It's not fair to expect Nintendo to cater to us specifically, especially since they have a much larger casual audience. Plus, the competitive scene is self-regulating, so they can risk something being overpowered or irregular. In casual play, you can't regulate ****, and if anything is unbalanced for them, they're ****ed. I really do wish that they would gear it toward us a little, but from a business standpoint, I can see why they don't.

 

[Life]

Of course, the problem is assuming that you can't do both.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'd count Sakurai working for nintendo as nintendo....

Check up on your early interviews with Sakurai. Nintendo's original plan for the game was to get a team at presumably HAL to take Melee, add online compatibility, and add a few characters. When Sakurai got on board, he changed the direction to what we have now. I'd count Nintendo's main first party development staff as Nintendo and nothing else. It's like blaming Nintendo for the unbalance present in Pokemon Black and White when Gamefreak are the designers.

 

[Flayl]

Iwata said that was more just to "scare" Sakurai into working in Brawl, they didn't actually plan that far ahead.