Smash 4 does not seem to have strong competition.

[SphericalCrusher]

It depends. There's a lot of competition in this game... just not for ZeRo (Right now). This game has so many levels of skill, which is insane to think about... and on each level, there's just so much competition.

 

[T0MMY]

In regards to a level of skill not being met by SSB4 players, I think Zero was correct in addressing this in many ways - and yes, I agree with the OP that most of this is due to an influx of new players many of whom seem to me would rather try to get the game to change to address their deficiencies of skill rather than improve (a type of behavior known to the fighting game circle as "scrubby").
Being a long-time veteran of the series in competition I advocate stepping up to the challenge of improving oneself over the "scrubby" alternative (after all, why compete if it's not about improving? Defeats the purpose, imo).
Because of this I am addressing a lot of issues regarding gameplay and improving skills rather than casting synthetic "out of game" rules into tournaments:

1. Just because the software was designed to send the players to a environment where any hit is death (Therefore turning the game into a pair of dice) doesn't make it any better.

Technically any hit could mean death in normal rounds of play (0% deaths happen plenty in tourney) So this doesn't make sense about a "pair of dice", could you explain?

The level of skill that can be shown is severed considerably since the better player can't show his dominance.

I am having a difficult time understanding how a skill level could be "severed". The players already failed at showing a "dominance" in the round of play when time ran out and a tied game resulted - SD is a tie-breaker to determine a winner based on skill (strategy, knowledge, and test of reflex/technique).
What I described there is a reality of the game and how it truly functions, not my opinions on what I think should be - so you can see how this reality may conflict with what you described, so maybe you can clarify what you meant?

And the bombs that drop on the stage isn't any help at all, when it drops at a very fast rate and randomly I might add. It's just incredibly luck-based.

That's called a test of reflex. It's what happens when both players fail to win a round when time is out and when they proceed to fail at winning the next-hit-wins stage of Sudden Death. If no player can be determined a winner by the time-out happens in Sudden Death (about 15 seconds?) an even greater test of skill occurs - you may say that it is "fast" or "random" but good players can grab the bombs out of the air and throw them at their opponent; I could argue that it is not very fast (more difficult to react to shines or jabs, fame-wise).

2. Fairness isn't just giving equal chance to both players, the point of fairness is show the better player out of the competitors, which sudden death fails to do, as seen in my above post

I saw your above post and there is a lot that needs to be clarified for it to be a valid argument. I'll be waiting to hear the points I was having difficulty following on clarified.
Just saying it fails to do without reason cannot be logically accepted.

The bom-ombs will appear in random points on the stage, and they CANNOT threaten both players equally, either it will be closer to player one or player two putting who ever is the target of the first bomb at a MASSIVE disadvantage through no player's action and every bomb after will put their target at a potentially game losing disadvantage from neither player's action.

Here's some points that challenge the bold claims:

• We know that all functions of the game are programmed in a computer language and no function can possibly be truly random.
• There are obvious factors where the bombs spawn AND a set and specific time they can only spawn. This indicates that they are not truly random (as to be predicted by how coding works).
• Further details are being better understood, such as if damage% is a determining factor which player gets targeted for a bomb first as well as some other factors.
• Knowledge of these factors is a prime causation for a winner, which is a skill that should be rewarded.

See my point about the "random aspect" (below)

any attack puts you in a state in which you cannot react to a bomb, SD has about as much to do with a normal match as Homerun contest.

I disagree, just because you do not know of any doesn't mean they do not exist. For instance, grabbing a Bob-omb and throwing it at your opponent is very much an option and I've seen it done and have done it myself. Comparison to a solo mode is not accurate to a competitive match, even if your claim that you can't react to a bomb were true.

We banned even small impact items for the reason of giving a player an unearned advantage

That may be incredibly inaccurate. The "ban" on items was due to spawns that interrupted players' inputs and therefore impeded competition and DURING THE ROUND - Sudden Death does not do this AND it is a tie-breaking round, not during normal round of play. This is not comparable.

If SD was just starting at 300% it could work but with bombs it ceases to have any meaning in determining who is the best fighter.

I disagree again - if it were just 300% then a stalemate could occur (no winner is determined). If the players do not interact with each other (do not approach because of the high risk situation the 300% causes) then theoretically the game goes on forever and any tournament based on this round of play would then never be able to conclude, it would be "broken" and out-of-game rules must be employed to fix it (this is the true meaning of "broken" in a game, not the scrubby version of it).
Sakurai knew this (he's way better at game design than any of us, I am sure) and employed a way for the game to conclude: A test of skill.
The way I see it people are mistaking a high-stakes in-game test of skill used only in rare instances of a tied game as "unfair" and completely missing the point that when bombs start dropping it is determining a stale-mate situation (if no player has won after a full round of play AND a next-hit-wins situation when they have set the timer to conclude in this fashion they may need to rethink their strategies).


To make a point about the "random" aspect: If it is truly random I challenge whoever makes this claim to beat me ~50% of the time with their controller unplugged (no inputs for the character in that slot) and mine plugged in with full control of my character. A "random" winner (like a "coin-flip" or "pair of dice") would be approximately 50% either way. However, if it is a test of skill (reflexes, knowledge, strategy, technique, etc.) then we should see me winning more often than not. Anyone up for this challenge?

 

[Baby_Sneak]

I'm arguing against the core of this post

In regards to a level of skill not being met by SSB4 players, I think Zero was correct in addressing this in many ways - and yes, I agree with the OP that most of this is due to an influx of new players many of whom seem to me would rather try to get the game to change to address their deficiencies of skill rather than improve (a type of behavior known to the fighting game circle as "scrubby").
Being a long-time veteran of the series in competition I advocate stepping up to the challenge of improving oneself over the "scrubby" alternative (after all, why compete if it's not about improving? Defeats the purpose, imo).
Because of this I am addressing a lot of issues regarding gameplay and improving skills rather than casting synthetic "out of game" rules into tournaments:


Technically any hit could mean death in normal rounds of play (0% deaths happen plenty in tourney) So this doesn't make sense about a "pair of dice", could you explain?
300% battles mean it's you're GUARANTEED to produce a ko once you even touch your opponent. that's really bad.
ssb64, melee, mvc2, umvc3, bbcp, ggxrd, or whatever, you don't see people get zero-to-deathed by one touch too often. that's because producing those type of results actually takes a huge level of execution and techskill, or multiple setups in order to perform such devastation

also
bombs. it's bombs

That's called a test of reflex. It's what happens when both players fail to win a round when time is out and when they proceed to fail at winning the next-hit-wins stage of Sudden Death. If no player can be determined a winner by the time-out happens in Sudden Death (about 15 seconds?) an even greater test of skill occurs - you may say that it is "fast" or "random" but good players can grab the bombs out of the air and throw them at their opponent; I could argue that it is not very fast (more difficult to react to shines or jabs, fame-wise).
that's not, I repeat NOT, a good way to judge who's the better player. reflexes are just one type of skill in action games. and what bombs does is show unfairness by narrowing the scope of skill in smash to just reflexes, or speed. that means hungrybox would lose a lot than he was supposed to as long as his enemies camped and avoided him long enough.

Here's some points that challenge the bold claims:

• We know that all functions of the game are programmed in a computer language and no function can possibly be truly random. (computers are not humans, so they're absent of any favoritism for certain values, or such; they have the potential to be truly random. Proof? backgammon)
• There are obvious factors where the bombs spawn AND a set and specific time they can only spawn. This indicates that they are not truly random (as to be predicted by how coding works). (please show us)
• Further details are being better understood, such as if damage% is a determining factor which player gets targeted for a bomb first as well as some other factors. (proof please)
• Knowledge of these factors is a prime causation for a winner, which is a skill that should be rewarded. (Now, if you could provide us with a link that shows all these discoveries and technology, I will be made a believer. But, right now, I'm truly skeptical)

See my point about the "random aspect" (below)



To make a point about the "random" aspect: If it is truly random I challenge whoever makes this claim to beat me ~50% of the time with their controller unplugged (no inputs for the character in that slot) and mine plugged in with full control of my character. A "random" winner (like a "coin-flip" or "pair of dice") would be approximately 50% either way. However, if it is a test of skill (reflexes, knowledge, strategy, technique, etc.) then we should see me winning more often than not. Anyone up for this challenge?
there are flaws in this challenge: 1.) just based on logic, you should win approx. >70% of the time if you and your opponent is equal skill. this is not homologous to sudden death w/ bombs, where neither player lack the potential to control the stage that is outside of skill.
2.) what is worse is that, if somebody like ZeRo (or a better player) played you, he might win around 60-50% of the time because of the conditions and IF you were trying to fabricate your challenge to be homogenous with sudden death, you do no more than hurt your own argument.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Please stop focusing on just one small part of my posts here as some kind of mudslinging and stay on topic. Let me know what you think about the Villager camping strat, decision between 2 or 3 stocks, Sudden Death vs %-based overruling, or any number of points that have been brought up regarding the affect on competitive value of SSB4. Thanks.

It was like the only thing supporting the case you where making. Villager camping strat is kinda lame, as of now I think its pretty fun to watch when its even, but that **** will get boring quick, really boring. Ain't no one gonna wanna watch it, might also make people diss customs in general cause they stupid and unable not to generalize for no reason. Thus maybe LGL villager.

Strategy does not seem overpowered however. There is no proof for it being overpowered either. Theorycrafting says its beatable, results say its beatable.

 

[T0MMY]

300% battles mean it's you're GUARANTEED to produce a ko once you even touch your opponent. that's really bad.

Incorrect, there are attacks that do not KO if they hit. Happens often.

ssb64, melee, mvc2, umvc3, bbcp, ggxrd, or whatever, you don't see people get zero-to-deathed by one touch too often.

So, they do happen.
Just not "too often", which is to say subjective to opinion.

that's because producing those type of results actually takes a huge level of execution and techskill, or multiple setups in order to perform such devastation

Yep, pressing Down + B with Fox takes a huge level of skill.

that's not, I repeat NOT, a good way to judge who's the better player.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. We've all got one. But can't say mere opinion is very convincing.

reflexes are just one type of skill in action games.

Good to hear we can both agree to it being a skill instead of trying to make it out like "random luck".

and what bombs does is show unfairness by narrowing the scope of skill in smash to just reflexes

Yep, and my Bowser F-smash is just as "unfair" since it narrowed the game down to just reflexes.
Keeping in mind here that the players had an entire round of play that built up to SD, not sure how this is narrowed at all since it would be inclusive of the previous 6-10 minutes of play for the round.

that means hungrybox would lose a lot than he was supposed to as long as his enemies camped and avoided him long enough.

How do you come to this conclusion? Explain how he would "lose".

(computers are not humans, so they're absent of any favoritism for certain values, or such; they have the potential to be truly random. Proof? backgammon)

I'm sorry, but the supposed "proof" of that link is in regards to manipulation of dice (i.e. using online "loaded" dice). Arguing using that proof would just turn out to be a strawman.
I think you'd be better off arguing some quantum mechanic spooky action at a distance, but I think that might be a bit outside the scope of discussion.

As for your request to show you the set time it takes for the bombs to drop, I'd say you can check the game itself with an accurate timer for proof (fairly easy) or check out the videos posted online and see.
Seems to me the time of spawn is always set to 20 seconds after "GO!", clearly not "random" to those who have even rudimentary knowledge of SD.
As for the hypothesis that other factors may contribute to the bomb spawn, we'll have to wait until we get the code to look at before making a fuller analysis, but I just tested the timing myself and 5 out of 5 times the bombs spawned at 20 seconds (according to my stopwatch) - 100% of the sample (yeah, small sample, but I'm convinced enough at this point including the video link)
This evidence is enough to substantiate that bomb spawn is NOT random - more investigation is required before making a strong assertion either way. So, you said it was random, proof?

there are flaws in this challenge: 1.) just based on logic, you should win approx. >70% of the time if you and your opponent is equal skill. this is not homologous to sudden death w/ bombs, where neither player lack the potential to control the stage that is outside of skill.

How did you come to the >70% calculation?
Why would skill come into this if it was claimed to be "random"?
Please help to make sense of this.

2.) what is worse is that, if somebody like ZeRo (or a better player) played you, he might win around 60-50% of the time because of the conditions and IF you were trying to fabricate your challenge to be homogenous with sudden death, you do no more than hurt your own argument.

How it would matter if it were ZeRo's controller that was unplugged or anyone else is beyond understanding. The controller is... unplugged... and, no cheating using wireless controllers! LOL
I'd very much like to see your reasoning on this.​

 

[Charey]

Tommy, when we say they are random we are talking about the locations they spawn at and YOU KNOW THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Stop with these semantics red herrings and actually talk about what the argument is or there is no point in you posting here.

 

[PUK]

TOMMY is ready to works for the oil industry as a lobbyist. He can make you feel his argument are valid but when you really think about them, there are based on nothing.

 

[T4ylor]

I don't see how his argument is invalid. I actually support it. And you guys are making it seem easy to get to the Bomb Omb stage of Sudden Death. If one player is approaching, then good luck. If you try to keep away then you're giving up stage position and you've got to get past to get past the other player without taking a hit. And the time is enough to force you to do it twice. If you are able to avoid your opponent and have them die to the bombs then you deserve to win.

And it's not like timed matches are exactly fair either. I have lost plenty of matches to Sonic because of time outs. My character has a hard time not getting timed out if that's what they are going for. And a lot of those matches ended up as both of us being at kill %s but me losing because of the % ruling.

It's not even like timeouts are a common occurrence in competitive smash matches..

 

[Mr.C]

Competition is going to be scarce when no one actually takes the game seriously. Brawl 2.0 isn't something most competitive players want to be involved in.

 

[Godzillionaire]

I have a good feeling the reign of Zero might be over soon and some new players will get their chance to shine. Did y'all forget about this?

I'm sure a bunch of people are training just to defeat him, and if he is out of the bracket then more people will have a bigger chance. Granted it won't be a cake walk but it's still very possible to happen.

 

[ZomBiehn]

No competition? Its not like Zero just two stocks everyone he plays, yeah there's no doubt in time Zero is #1 right now, but that won't stay, Its wrong to say everyone is way under him, Sm4sh hasn't even done its first Evo yet, The games fresh so the competition is still fresh, these coming Months/perhaps years we'll see players over throw our current champ, Evo with customs is right around the corner who knows how that'll turn out

 

[K.K.]

Xanadu 100 last night was convincing enough to me Smash 4 has a competitive backbone. GimR vs. Nairo, Vinnie, Angel Cortes' games, etc.

Spoiler

Someone other than Scarfboy finished first place, which bodes well for the morale of other hopefuls.

There was a lot of ZSS and Sheik representation, which was to be expected but some cool picks came out to varying degrees of success (Mii Gunner.) I was happy to see a fair amount of Fox play, too.

 

[dav3yb]

I can't wait to see the VOD's from these 300% handicap tournaments that tommy will run to show us all how its done.