Taking another look at the Brawl ruleset

[Xebenkeck]

You forget though that the core problem with Sudden Death, along with the fact that it's random, is that by simply grabbing the ledge, or with knowledge of item spawn points, it becomes virtually impossible to lose, and the match can potentially last forever. If Sudden death occurs, there is absolutely no excuse for losing unless the battlefield is frigate orpheon, at which point the winner is whoever spawns closest to the left. :\

I understand that and i said i don't disagree with what you said earlier, but i still ask with those two rules implimented what would be the point of running the timer, the way we have it now the point of running the timer is the insta win, but if that is gone what is the point in doing it?

Also Allied to what you said about going under the stage being a spacing tool, that should not be a reason to not think about it, being on the ledge is one of the worst places to be, (unless you can plank) especially if you can't fly under the stage, thus it puts whoever is on the ledge in a disadvantageous situation, which could potencially lead to more offence.

 

[Pegachris]

I just had a great idea to stop time outs.

My idea is to take off the timer in the game BUT have the TO run the tourney round by round(how it should be run anyways) and have it in a 10 min time limit. Like have a Global timer all gamers can see and an alarm would go off when the time is done. Then when time is over all games that arent finished gets paused until a Judge arrives to the game. Then the game gets continued with a 2-3 min extension with the judge supervising the game. And if theres any sign of stalling in the overtime extension that player gets an imediate loss. Not sure what should happen if for some reason they STILL dont finish in this time then maybe go with life. Of course this would need people helping with running the tourney but at least we get ALOT of happy people.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Sadly, there should be no timer, it encourages people to camp. Or allow stages that prevent forms of stalling. Eh, the community would never accept this, that's why this game is lame at a high level.

 

[stingers]

Ugh, I just wrote a long *** post but it didn't go through. Here are the main points of what I was gonna explain in detail (not writing all that again -,-):

-People don't think "Hey, I'm 50% down, I'm screwed in this match, better force the Sudden Death."
-Adding 2 minutes onto the timer reduces camping time outs (just playing really campy, not scrooging or planking or whatever). If you purposefully try to time someone out via some sort of stalling technique, then you risk playing in the sudden death.
-Items assist in combating every stalling strategy except scrooging, which can be stopped through specific anti-scrooging rules anyway.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Allied: I read your posts again.

I guess no food

 

[BSP]

But still, Sudden Death still has some problems with it, and how is it a risk if you just grab the ledge? Bombs can't get you, and no one in their right mind would approach you, they'd be on the other ledge.

 

[stingers]

Oh, right, I also was gonna say we could just ban getting on the ledge in Sudden Death, because nobody that gets hit is gonna be in a position they need to recover anyway.

I mean, there is no legitimate reason to go to the ledge in Sudden Death, so it works pretty well.

 

[Pegachris]

I just had a great idea to stop time outs.

My idea is to take off the timer in the game BUT have the TO run the tourney round by round(how it should be run anyways) and have it in a 10 min time limit. Like have a Global timer all gamers can see and an alarm would go off when the time is done. Then when time is over all games that arent finished gets paused until a Judge arrives to the game. Then the game gets continued with a 2-3 min extension with the judge supervising the game. And if theres any sign of stalling in the overtime extension that player gets an imediate loss. Not sure what should happen if for some reason they STILL dont finish in this time then maybe go with life. Of course this would need people helping with running the tourney but at least we get ALOT of happy people.

really though read this post. Sudden Death is a horrible idea. Only fair unrandom way to stop stalling is to have an impartial judge supervise some sort of overtime. Any sign of stalling and they get a loss simple as that.

 

[Allied]

Whew, good to know I'm not offending.

Personally, having the SBR make an item ruleset isn't really a "big" change for two really important reasons:

1 ) It's not really a big change, just a lengthy one. A properly made item ruleset has two changes at heart: neutral/counterpick/banned lists and item counterpick integration into the already existing counterpick structure. One of these has already been done by ISP. I can, however, see the SBR taking a while to deliberate, though; that's seems like them.

2 ) Most of the work has been done for them. ISP has a retardedly detailed OP with breakdowns of all relevant data (minus exact kill %'s, but I can dig up my old research data/worksheets and type that up). Really, most of the SBR's work would consist of working off of what we've already done. They'd have to deliberate on the data we already provide freely, and then vote.

Not to mention, players really don't have to learn much. The stageposition data shows that item spawns are, for the most part, pretty intuitive and easy to memorize. Particulars of items, like spacing, kill %'s, etc., are also pretty easily learned through practice that the community is already participating in. Finally, the only REALLY important item tech (general, that is) is glide tossing, and mains of characters that spawn their own items (like Peach, Diddy, or the Link's) learn that, anyway. Honestly, EVERYONE should know that. I'm sure that new character-specific item tech will be found, but as of now, not that many exist / are really helpful in tournaments anyway.

I can see how it's daunting, but it's really not. Well, like you said, though... maybe that's just me speaking. I have played WAY too many matches with those things.

EDIT:


If you want an estimate on how many items there'd be, look at ISP's current ruleset. Then, make that MORE conservative. The SBR might cut up to half of what we already have; they're a VERY conservative bunch.

Also, Brawl doesn't even HAVE Red Shells. Like I said... misinformation.

...Doh. MarKO X beat me.

Honestly i give you great props for all this research that you have done and honest'y i can't knock it if i haven't tried it so good luck to you sir :D

i still can't believe there are no red shells in brawl YEAH THERE ARE DUDE i'll go check a wii soon

I just had a great idea to stop time outs.

My idea is to take off the timer in the game BUT have the TO run the tourney round by round(how it should be run anyways) and have it in a 10 min time limit. Like have a Global timer all gamers can see and an alarm would go off when the time is done. Then when time is over all games that arent finished gets paused until a Judge arrives to the game. Then the game gets continued with a 2-3 min extension with the judge supervising the game. And if theres any sign of stalling in the overtime extension that player gets an imediate loss. Not sure what should happen if for some reason they STILL dont finish in this time then maybe go with life. Of course this would need people helping with running the tourney but at least we get ALOT of happy people.

sadly that just wouldn't work too much TO strain WAY too messy

Ugh, I just wrote a long *** post but it didn't go through. Here are the main points of what I was gonna explain in detail (not writing all that again -,-):

-People don't think "Hey, I'm 50% down, I'm screwed in this match, better force the Sudden Death."
-Adding 2 minutes onto the timer reduces camping time outs (just playing really campy, not scrooging or planking or whatever). If you purposefully try to time someone out via some sort of stalling technique, then you risk playing in the sudden death.
-Items assist in combating every stalling strategy except scrooging, which can be stopped through specific anti-scrooging rules anyway.

i still don't like the way your saying what your saying it sounds really messy

Allied: I read your posts again.

I guess no food

HAHAHAHAHHAHA LMAO!!!!! XDDDDDDDD

yeah dude XD

Oh, right, I also was gonna say we could just ban getting on the ledge in Sudden Death, because nobody that gets hit is gonna be in a position they need to recover anyway.

I mean, there is no legitimate reason to go to the ledge in Sudden Death, so it works pretty well.

Once again dude way TOO messy of a rule to have

 

[stingers]

what do you mean by messy? i mean the rules are pretty clear >.> do you mean people might accidentally grab the ledge? thats on them...

 

[bobson]

Oh, right, I also was gonna say we could just ban getting on the ledge in Sudden Death, because nobody that gets hit is gonna be in a position they need to recover anyway.

Again, you demonstrate that you have probably never played in sudden death more than once. Plenty of hits will send you offstage but not far enough to die, and banning recovery is silly and arbitrary.

 

[stingers]

1. If you get hit by Peaches jab or something and need to recover then you just do your best to recover onto the stage without touching the ledge

2. You're allowed to touch the ledge, one time, if your opponent knocks you offstage. You can't touch the ledge again unless you get knocked off again.

3. We can just forget the whole thing and play Super Time Out Brothers Brawl

 

[Allied]

what do you mean by messy? i mean the rules are pretty clear >.> do you mean people might accidentally grab the ledge? thats on them...

By messy i mean its too complecated to add because theres too many ifs, ands, and buts of what if this happens, and i would explain more but i'm really tired XD i'll explain tommorow

 

[DanGR]

As much as I agree that Brawl is a lost cause (predicting the future here) without some major changes to the ruleset, changing the rules to prolong matches, and to play out sudden death (If anything, playing out sudden death would only ENCOURAGE more players to stall out matches.) isn't the direction we should take.

Enabling items is an idea... As much as the aspect of luck takes away from any competitive game, it may prove to be an answer to the never-ending debate over all forms of stalling + Meta Knight, as well as potentially having a positive effect on Brawl's character balance, if any of that proves to be a problem, of course.

I think it's essential to keep in mind that we're not altering an already competitively suitable game to better suit the needs of this community... We forced this party game to be competitive, and nothing is out of the question if it could keep this game alive and the community growing.

 

[stingers]

Brawl is a stupid game, and bar "Ban everyone with a glide or good planking strategies", you need some sort of complicated rule to make it playable. What we have now obviously isn't working -,-

DanGR ninja'd me lolz

 

[bobson]

1. If you get hit by Peaches jab or something and need to recover then you just do your best to recover onto the stage without touching the ledge

No. Random, arbitrary rules should not force my recovery to be one-track and allow my opponent to kill me.

2. You're allowed to touch the ledge, one time, if your opponent knocks you offstage. You can't touch the ledge again unless you get knocked off again.

Why can't I grab the ledge when the game told me I could grab the ledge and I am at a severe disadvantage by not doing so? What about stages like Rainbow Cruise where it's feasible to stay outside the stage and avoid the bombs without ever touching the ledge? Do I get disqualified from the tournament because my opponent pushed my shield off the edge and I grabbed it? What happens if I just jump offstage repeatedly and stay out there as long as possible only to land back onstage to jump again?
Arbitrary, ineffective, loosely-defined, and pointless.

3. We can just forget the whole thing and play Super Time Out Brothers Brawl

Seems to be working fine so far.

 

[SGF rocker]

i dont think we should ban MK. he is beatable, characters metagames are still developing. games been out for 2 years give it some more time. meta knight isnt as easy to use as most people think either, he takes good spacing to use. Items would be interesting to use, obviously not all of them would be turned on, which ones were you thinking DangR?

 

[Allied]

brawl is a fine game (not as fun as melee tho XD) there are plenty of fighting games that still use the time out method check street fighter 4, street fighter 3: 3rd strike, mortal combat (inb4 NO ALLIED NOT TRUE) check and watch and study top player matches and matchups ex. Q vs top tiers, Zangief vs Akuma etc etc

its just the timing out method is becoming more and more frequently used to solve our problems which is the problem

ok bed time now :3


edit: make sure everyone read the previous posts in this thread we have discussed most of what i'm sure new people who read this are goign to say.

bobson ur beautiful

 

[Pathetiqu3]

lolno.

Way too much trouble, and discourages newcomers from the community.

Did you put any thought into your response? lolno.

Centralization and poor visibility are far more of a threat than popping an SD card into every Wii.

Why do you think they have all these new hacking gameplay BS because people have tried to take it into their own hands

See Brawl+, Brawl -, Melee 2.0

But this is here for simply brawl if you dont like it that much where you think we as a community need to hack it just play the other hacked versions

They are quite good

as for regular brawl we are here to discuss and figure out how to deal with this for a better, healthier growing brawl metagame



This :3

I suggest you reread my post. I'm not arguing for the community to NOW take the game into their hands, but the segregation of the mod community into a subforum of General needs to be reversed.

I love this game as it is, but I think a few tweeks would go a long way. I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Refer to Balanced Brawl for philosophy(I'm not here to argue for an adoption of balanced brawl).

Brawl un-modded should be the niche. Not the standard.

 

[DanGR]

Items would be interesting to use, obviously not all of them would be turned on, which ones were you thinking DangR?

I'll save that discussion for the people that have extensively tested them. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=164675

And I swear 99% of people either pronounce my tag wrong or write it incorrectly. <.<

 

[Marshall.SoLongArletta]

The biggest problem with adding items to the game is it gives people like mk, and marth, an advantage, it equalizes the projectile game, they can now throw things as part of their approach, which gives them a huge advantage that other characters with projectile attacks inherently have, they wouldn't be able to projectile camp, but their approaches would be made a whole lot easier, if items were turned on I think you would see a rise in the tier list of characters who don't have items, like marth, sonic, wario, and some others, while the characters that have projectiles would probably stay in relatively the same order, they would just move down 1 or two notches. However on a positive note, I do think items would add aggressiveness to the game play by increasing the effectiveness of characters like marths approach

On the subject of time outs, imo if someone times out a match it should be a one stock 2 minute match, if no one wins (not a time out), then both players are considered dq'ed and whoever would play that person next round gets a bye, or idk have a mandatory ridiculously small stage for them to play on that greatly discourages camping

 

[Jack Kieser]

The biggest problem with adding items to the game is it gives people like mk, and marth, an advantage, it equalizes the projectile game, they can now throw things as part of their approach, which gives them a huge advantage that other characters with projectile attacks inherently have, they wouldn't be able to projectile camp, but their approaches would be made a whole lot easier, if items were turned on I think you would see a rise in the tier list of characters who don't have items, like marth, sonic, wario, and some others, while the characters that have projectiles would probably stay in relatively the same order, they would just move down 1 or two notches. However on a positive note, I do think items would add aggressiveness to the game play by increasing the effectiveness of characters like marths approach

On the subject of time outs, imo if someone times out a match it should be a one stock 2 minute match, if no one wins (not a time out), then both players are considered dq'ed and whoever would play that person next round gets a bye, or idk have a mandatory ridiculously small stage for them to play on that greatly discourages camping

See, this is just horribly uninformed. Taking just Metaknight and Marth, those two have WAY better approaches than anything an item will give. First of all, they have (basically) two options when approaching with an item, depending on what they are holding: throw it or (if applicable) use one of the item's attacks. All of the throwable projectiles are really not that good, in the overall scheme of things; Brawl's inherent lean towards the power of defensive options makes throwing items at a well-trained player a bad approach since... they can just time a SHAD well and catch the item, shifting the balance of power. If it's a bludgeon, you can dash attack (which is pretty much a universally bad idea with bludgeon items; none of their animations are much better than any normal dash attack) or SHNair (since any modifier makes you attack without the item), which isn't that much better!

It's also mistaken to think that somehow characters without projectiles gain more from items play than characters with native projectiles; everyone is getting access to the same set of items! It's not like Link will only get sticker spawns and MK will always get a Star Rod. Technically, the only characters that get a boost separate from what everyone else would get are the fast ones, and many of them are lower on the tier list anyway; sure, Sonic would get a buff, but he kind of needs it. And for those worried about Meta or Marth specifically, according to the Character Statistics thread, Meta may be #6 in running speed, but he's also the 5th slowest character in the air! Marth is only a little better; he has 9 people faster than him on the ground, and 11 faster than him in the air. There are plenty of people who would get a buff due to speed alone before Meta or Marth ever would.

Only people who are uninformed about the actual mechanics of items and how they operate in a competitive setting would ever assert that items would give universally better approaches or something along those lines. Just about the only thing correct about the above post is that items do, in fact, make the game more aggressive because it actively rewards stage control, as opposed to camping.

 

[Marshall.SoLongArletta]

See, this is just horribly uninformed. Taking just Metaknight and Marth, those two have WAY better approaches than anything an item will give. First of all, they have (basically) two options when approaching with an item, depending on what they are holding: throw it or (if applicable) use one of the item's attacks. All of the throwable projectiles are really not that good, in the overall scheme of things; Brawl's inherent lean towards the power of defensive options makes throwing items at a well-trained player a bad approach since... they can just time a SHAD well and catch the item, shifting the balance of power. If it's a bludgeon, you can dash attack (which is pretty much a universally bad idea with bludgeon items; none of their animations are much better than any normal dash attack) or SHNair (since any modifier makes you attack without the item), which isn't that much better!

What I'm trying to say is that items can be used like a leveling tool for characters that don't have projectile attacks, it gives characters without them more options in their approach that they didn't have already, for example Marth could dancing blade, throw an item, follow up with a fair, thats an extra 10-however many percent that was not previously at his disposal, plus with items like the baseball bat which have ridiculous knockback, db => item throw could be a ko move. Take a character like Link, he has 4 projectiles, if pills are turned on, and Link is fighting Marth, Links projectile game advantage goes down (only looking at the projectiles and nothing else), because now there are things on stage that Marth can use to
A. Stop Links projectiles with another projectile
B. Force a reaction out of Link
C. Stop or hinder Links approach with a projectile
D. aid Marths approach

all of these options were previously unavailable to Marth but because Link already had projectiles he could already do all these, imo adding in items would cause characters without projectiles to go up in the tier list (obviously not every character) because it gives them so many more options previously only held by characters with projectiles, more options=more mindgames, Marth is probably the best example because all of his special attacks are very useable for combat and approach, and can be linked well enough together to flow well, add in a possible projectile and Marth has a lot of options for mindgames and other strategies

It also allows characters (any character), to gimp much more easily, which could be viewed as good or bad, depending, either way it will make some people very angry.

 

[Asdioh]

Ok, I've read every post in this thread. I'm warning you now, this post is long.

Allied, learn to edit.

Not true even i time people out with snake or kirby XD

Still, MK times people out the most, as he is the one who can do it with the most ease and consistency.

[super time out brothers] Seems to be working fine so far.

And generates a lot of rage among people who get timed out, and people who have to watch timeouts.
And the people that win by timing out usually don't feel like "whew, I sure showed that guy! I outplayed the hell out of them!"
They're more likely thinking " I hate doing that...I don't feel like I deserved the win, oh well, next opponent.."




Anyway.
I disagree with Sudden Death.
I disagree with increasing the time limit, it already takes long enough.



Now it's time I threw in some ideas, which is the point of this thread. The basis for some ideas (namely the stage one) I've gotten from other people, the rest I've just thought of. Refinement may be necessary, but consider this:

Trash the starter/counterpick/"I ban this stage" system.
Instead: Combine "starters" and "counterpicks" into one large pool of stages. When you go to play your opponent, only these stages are listed as "on" on the stage selection screen. You will then proceed to strike out each stage each player does not want, in the manner you do for the current "Starters." Whether 1 strike by player A, then 1 strike by player B, repeat would be the best, or 1-2-2-1-etc. would be best, is up for debate, it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, you strike down to the last X amount of stages for the whole set, and those are the only stages you will play for that set. Under the current ruleset, games are best of 3 most of the time, so you will have struck down to three stages.

The first game is then played on a random of these three stages.
The next stage is chosen from the remaining two stages by the loser. Pretty simple concept, and I feel that it is a great improvement over the starter/counterpick system. You know what stages you will be playing before the matches even start.
This also gives you the chance to "ban" all your least favorite stages at the beginning, and the same holds true for your opponent.

It also makes for more "interesting stage" potential. Some of the former "banned" stages, for example Norfair (assuming it's usually banned) and Corneria or whatever could be allowed, since either player will be able to strike it. The only problem I see with this is that it might cause one player to "waste" one or more of their strikes on "gay" stages such as Corneria, while the other player then gets to strike stages they simply don't like, rather than the "gay" ones since their opponent already took care of those.
It also means that any given set has a chance at not even having ANY of the standard neutrals, such as FD, SV, BF, and YI, which I personally think will add more interest. It could also mean that every single match in a set could be played on those neutrals, which is the same as the current starter/counterpick system, so this method simply adds more options. Players could even agree to repeat certain stages if they wish.



tl;dr version: a simple change to at least slightly improve Brawl as it currently is is to combine starter/counterpick stages into one big strikefest at the beginning of the set, allowing everyone to see what stages may be played before the set even starts, and sometimes making for more interesting stage choices.


Ok, my long-winded explanation of that is done.


Now for my next idea: combining the huge stagelist and striking system with more, shorter matches.

My hope for this is to make sets less campy, faster paced, and generally more interesting. Obviously it might not work, but this was what I was thinking: Everyone considers 3-stock, 8 minutes, best of 3 the standard. Why?

What if we lessened the stocks, shortened the timer, and increased the amount of wins required to win a set? I'm not saying it's a perfect idea, and may need tweaking, but... 2 stocks, 6 minutes? That would make sets faster, obviously, but I wonder if that would make timing out an even worse problem.

Here's something ridiculous: what about 1 stock, no time limit, best of 7? O_O!?!?!??
...it sounds kind of dumb. It doesn't leave room for amazing comebacks, or time to adapt to your opponents playstyle and overcome them.
It does solve the problem of people timing out, except that I'm sure people would find a way to camp/plank forever if they were in danger of losing...argh.

Maybe someone else can look at this and tell me what they think, I'm going to bed.

I still think the stagestrike system is ideal, though.

 

[bobson]

And generates a lot of rage among people who get timed out, and people who have to watch timeouts.
And the people that win by timing out usually don't feel like "whew, I sure showed that guy! I outplayed the hell out of them!"
They're more likely thinking " I hate doing that...I don't feel like I deserved the win, oh well, next opponent.."

So? They shouldn't be playing a game where timing out is a powerful option--or rather, they shouldn't be playing with a community that plays in a manner which creates a powerful option in timing someone out.

If timing someone out being a viable option is concluded as a problem, it is a problem that is very difficult to solve in a manner that retains the general principles of what we know as competitive Brawl, and a problem that is certainly not solved by removing the timer or going into sudden death or flipping a coin for timeouts or whatever. Adopting your stage system may lessen it to some degree, but stalling is still possible on any stage.
If there was a simple, acceptable solution it would've been adopted long ago. Something drastic has to change if you want it to go away.

On that note... I've never seen someone win by time with items on.

Just sayin'.

 

[Tin Man]

i dis agree with sudden death, it should only happen if the game is timed out, and the stock & % are equal. making games 10 minutes long does seem reasonable though, it seems like the extra 2 minutes will allow games to finish, rather then be timed out, because think about it, when have u ever seen a tourney match where the game is timed out, and both players have 2 or 3 stocks, they always have 1 stock (or at lieast 90+% of the time)

 

[stingers]

Increasing the time limit without a deterrent will only make tournaments take longer and won't solve anything

 

[MarKO X]

call me an oddball, but i like watching matches time out in any game, be it Smash, Street Fighter, Capture the Flag...
the desperation that comes with the losing player wildly chasing the winning player is all too priceless...

Spoiler

it's even better when the winning player succeeds at losing that match

 

[WindMajor]

We could try to implement a set re-grab limit, in which you can only grab the ledge X amount of times before you HAVE to recover. I'm only proposing this rule because Nintendo has kind of used this rule already in Brawl. I'm referring to people with tether recoveries, like Samus and Toon Link, who can let go of the ledge and instantly re-grab the ledge. Toon Link for example can only do this three times in a row until the hookshot gives out. Toon Link would be beast if he could do this infinitely, but he can't because Nintendo set a limit.

One could interpret this as Nintendo trying to fix planking. I'm just saying......

 

[Jack Kieser]

If there was a simple, acceptable solution [to stalling/time outs] it would've been adopted long ago. Something drastic has to change if you want it to go away.

On that note... I've never seen someone win by time with items on.

Just sayin'.

Wow, I've never seen an items match go to time, either! That's odd. ^_-

 

[stingers]

Lol, the more Jack Kieser posts the more I want to support items in Brawl

 

[Throwback]

I like the stage-pick alternative suggestion a lot.

It would be interesting to run some matches between top players (who are happy to time out matches) with infinite time allowed to see how long the games go for.

 

[xDD-Master]

Reducing the timer to 2 minutes and playing Bo15 imo is a better option.

The first hit is a lot in Brawl, so instead of winning 2/3 of a set by getting 2 times the first hit and running away, you need to get at least 8 times the first hit to win a set.

This would also make a completely new stage variation, because stage hazards can **** up planking and stalling as well

Imo ruleset:

• 1 Stock
• 2 minutes
• Bo15
• Items off (Maybe Food on low)
• All Stages are legal
• Starter on agree, if not -> random (Random includes EVERY stage)
• No stage 2 times a set (Random > This rule, if someone chooses Random as CP)
• Have fun

I dunno about Sudden Death :/ (If no Sudden Death: %-leader will win)

And I should try this sometime xD

I'm sure I will be bashed as a noob for this, but just think about it a bit and you'll see how this ruleset would give brawl a completely new style (quicker :o)

Anyway I know that this will never happen :S


BTW. I could as well see Item-CPing a viable option... but that doesnt help against the first-stage-winner-already-wins-the-set-problem.

...another idea...

Maybe we do it like other RL Sports. We dont play Bo3, we play home game and away game and compare the stocks (If stocks are same, we compare %)

That would be also funny to see how it works xD

 

[Flayl]

Wow, I've never seen an items match go to time, either! That's odd. ^_-

Hold on now, that probably has never happened becuase nobody tried to, there's no guarantee that timing out will disappear forever. But yes it seems less likely to happen.

 

[Shaya]

I'd think food on low promotes characters such as Sonic to be more based on timing out the opponent by never approaching (like they do anyway... but imagine if they're percent down they, aren't FORCED TO APPROACH).

10 minutes is a lot of time for a Sonic who maybe went all out and got the opponent to 50% whilst they're at 100% to use his over all superior mobility to get food.
Especially if as Kieser says, the sonic is fully aware of all spawn points of items.

 

[Browny]

just coming by to say, proposed idea of 10 min + forced SD is a cool idea, I cant see too many downsides especially considering the current garbage we have to put up with with time outs all over the place etc.

and that item standard play doubles are AWESOME

 

[Jack Kieser]

Lol, the more Jack Kieser posts the more I want to support items in Brawl

Lulz, because I've never considered myself a very convincing person.

BTW. I could as well see Item-CPing a viable option... but that doesnt help against the first-stage-winner-already-wins-the-set-problem.

Honestly, I've wondered about that problem myself for a while now; you're right that just having items on doesn't really solve that problem, and I think that the mere existence of it shows some of the flaws in our already established ruleset.

Hold on now, that probably has never happened becuase nobody tried to, there's no guarantee that timing out will disappear forever. But yes it seems less likely to happen.

VERY true. I'm sure someone feasably could time out an items match; I don't see what would stop them entirely. Item interference definitely makes things harder/more complicated to do so, though, which is nice.

I'd think food on low promotes characters such as Sonic to be more based on timing out the opponent by never approaching (like they do anyway... but imagine if they're percent down they, aren't FORCED TO APPROACH).

10 minutes is a lot of time for a Sonic who maybe went all out and got the opponent to 50% whilst they're at 100% to use his over all superior mobility to get food.
Especially if as Kieser says, the sonic is fully aware of all spawn points of items.

Well, and let's be clear, it's not like it will be practically feasible to accurately predict spawn points, even knowing all the stageposition data; there's usually just too much spawnable space on a stage. Even if Sonic learns all of the stageposition data for, say, Battlefield, that doesn't mean he'll just have an easy time, waiting in place for each spawn. It's mainly about knowing what general areas are more advantageous to control on a consistent basis. Then again, it's Sonic we're talking about; if he wants the item, there's a good chance he'll get it. A skilled sonic shouldn't have too many problems reaching an item first.

just coming by to say, proposed idea of 10 min + forced SD is a cool idea, I cant see too many downsides especially considering the current garbage we have to put up with with time outs all over the place etc.

and that item standard play doubles are AWESOME

Yes. Yes, they are. I love watching them (although I'm terrible at them).

 

[TLMSheikant]

Of all the ideas I've seen in this thread. I think either a set regrab limit or no timer is the one that would work. But ideas to solve this problem are very few and brawl looks like it IS a lost cause . At least I play melee so even if brawl does die in PR I can still play melee .

PS- I think it is very possible that brawl will die in PR after all the bull thats happened in pound 4 with mks to the ones who traveled :/. I feel bad for them.

PS 2- BAN THE META.

 

[stingers]

I went MK on Ling Ling in pools He beat me though! So it's fine...right? >.>

 

[Turbo Ether]

I agree with the entire original post, except the 10 minute timer. I think matches are drawn-out enough as it is. This community dismissed items too quickly, raising tensions between the Smash community and the Evo community in the process.