The Alabama Power Rankings: Image=protier

[theONEjanitor]

people who play with items a lot and don't mind it just don't have the competitive mindset imo.

i play with a lot of "casual" players, and all of them hate items, because they realize that "hey i might have won that if i didn't get killed at 0% with a dragoon".

i dont really know if its that simple to reverse the mindset of those "i play strictly for fun and nothing else" types.

 

[Mahgnittoc]

Better yet pick Sonic and do nothing but grab all the items.

I like how I'm listed as PT. I've never encountered a time where PT is better than Diddy for me in a tourney.

 

[*Cam*]

people who play with items a lot and don't mind it just don't have the competitive mindset imo.

i play with a lot of "casual" players, and all of them hate items, because they realize that "hey i might have won that if i didn't get killed at 0% with a dragoon".

i dont really know if its that simple to reverse the mindset of those "i play strictly for fun and nothing else" types.

I don't really agree that people who play with items can never get into the competitive community. I used to play with items. Almost every competitive smasher I've asked used to play with items.

 

[theONEjanitor]

I used to play with items, only because it never occured to me to turn them off. I'm not even sure if I was aware that you could turn them off. but I always hated them, well most of them. "oh cool you got a hammer, that's fair" and most of the stages i hated too. but ive always had a semi-competitive mindset, especially with fighting games. so i was always calling things "cheap" and "gay" because i thought it was unfair. (ironic, that ultimately part of what makes you a successful compettiive player is embracing these lame tactics lawl)

i remember there was a tournament in melee my freshman year with all items and stages legal, and i was actually doing pretty well in it, until one of my matches I got Mushroom Kingdom as the stage. i was a Ness main at the time, and yeah well you know how that goes. but i was like holy **** i literally probably would have won on a different stage.

another, unrelated note about that tournament is that the TO banned Fox because he thought he was broken. its funny how a bunch of scrubs could still realize how ****ing stupid a character fox is in melee lawl

but i still hate like 90 percent of smash stages to this day so maybe thats just onme.

but i guess it just depends on the people. because you're right they might be "knocking it till they try it"....because after I started going to tournaments and suggested to my friends, lets play without items, they all ended up preferring it. but they still aren't into tournaments, they think its just cheap tactics and a waste of a weekend, not to mention money.

but some people just don't think the game is fun without the chaos of the items and stage hazards and stuff, that party aspect is one of the appeals of the game. like if Mario Party was only minigames, it might be able to be played competitively. but for some reason its just less fun without the random board game elements.

 

[*Cam*]

I used to play with items, only because it never occured to me to turn them off. I'm not even sure if I was aware that you could turn them off. but I always hated them, well most of them. "oh cool you got a hammer, that's fair" and most of the stages i hated too. but ive always had a semi-competitive mindset, especially with fighting games. so i was always calling things "cheap" and "gay" because i thought it was unfair. (ironic, that ultimately part of what makes you a successful compettiive player is embracing these lame tactics lawl)

i remember there was a tournament in melee my freshman year with all items and stages legal, and i was actually doing pretty well in it, until one of my matches I got Mushroom Kingdom as the stage. i was a Ness main at the time, and yeah well you know how that goes. but i was like holy **** i literally probably would have won on a different stage.

another, unrelated note about that tournament is that the TO banned Fox because he thought he was broken. its funny how a bunch of scrubs could still realize how ****ing stupid a character fox is in melee lawl

but i still hate like 90 percent of smash stages to this day so maybe thats just onme.

but i guess it just depends on the people. because you're right they might be "knocking it till they try it"....because after I started going to tournaments and suggested to my friends, lets play without items, they all ended up preferring it. but they still aren't into tournaments, they think its just cheap tactics and a waste of a weekend, not to mention money.

but some people just don't think the game is fun without the chaos of the items and stage hazards and stuff, that party aspect is one of the appeals of the game. like if Mario Party was only minigames, it might be able to be played competitively. but for some reason its just less fun without the random board game elements.

Yeah, I agree. Some people just aren't going to be competitive players, and we shouldn't try to force them to be. However, I think a lot of players really just don't realize how much they would enjoy competitive play yet. I still think most people like to win, and that in and of itself is a competitive mindset. Once they realize that there are good strategies out there to make wins more consistent and less random, they will start to play more competitively. Then, once they realize items make wins more random, I think most people will prefer to play with them off.

What if we had some sort of incentive to people who bring new players to tournaments? Like, we could have a list of active players. If you bring one player who's not on that list, your venue fee gets lowered or something (only one person can count as bringing someone; 5 people don't get their venue fees lowered for one person in their car).

 

[bigman40]

Even if you do that, you have to consider that some people leave when they lose their first tourney set (in winners). You'll need more to appeal to them than just a lower entry fee.

 

[*Cam*]

Even if you do that, you have to consider that some people leave when they lose their first tourney set (in winners). You'll need more to appeal to them than just a lower entry fee.

What do you mean? If they carpool with people who are tournament regulars, it will be hard to leave before the tournament is over.

 

[bigman40]

Oh, I assumed they were either on their own or with their friends (casuals).

Well in that case, a reduced entry fee would be fine and an overall welcome to the community by talking to him and giving him friendlies. I know most casuals just sit there instead of playing to at least get to know others.

 

[*Cam*]

Oh, I assumed they were either on their own or with their friends (casuals).

Well in that case, a reduced entry fee would be fine and an overall welcome to the community by talking to him and giving him friendlies. I know most casuals just sit there instead of playing to at least get to know others.

We just need to make a point of having some setups for friendlies once people get knocked out (or if they don't want to enter the actual tournament). If casuals are just sitting around, then we also really need to make a point of inviting them to play.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

You may have to indulge them a bit with items. Agree to play with items on sometimes and off at other times. Once they see how well you and Rag play, they are going to start wondering how to get better. As they start trying to get better, they will like items less and less. They will start to realize why competitive players don't like to play with items on. You really do have to treat items as a legitimate way to play the game though. There's no "right" way to play brawl. If you sound snobby and always complain about items, then they just aren't going to enjoy playing with you, even if items are turned on.

Also, convey to them that items add something to the game but they also take away another enjoyable aspect of the game: control. It is very rewarding to be able to control a match and restrict your opponent's movements. Like I said, I wouldn't come down hard on using items. Just explain why you prefer to play without them.

In the Auburn game room, there are people who like to use items sometimes. If no one else is around to object, I just go along with it. Occasionally there has been someone from the AU Crew around besides me, and they complain about the items during every match until they are switched off. After they leave, I'll hear people complain about them being elitist and annoying, as if no items is the only way to play brawl. Thus, I think complaining about items too much is actually counterproductive to recruiting. I think the only effective way to ween someone off items is to let it ultimately be their choice. Like I said, indulge them with items, and they will reciprocate by turning them off at other times. Acknowledge that there is more than one way to play the game. They will realize that if they want to play more competitively like you, then they need to play without them on in order to improve. If they don't want to play more competitively, then oh well, they don't need to be in the crew.

EDIT: It's really not difficult to imagine how people are going to respond. Just imagine back when you played with items (we all did at some point) and what your reaction would have been if some guy started telling you that you were playing the game all wrong because the competitive way to play is with items off. I know what I would tell him. I'd tell him to get lost because I can play the game however I damn well please.

They will play with items off occasionally for me, but then they either get frustrated because I won or they get pissed and call me out for sandbagging (rightfully so). I've shown them some things and they utilize them. They don't call CGing cheap. They understand the merits to camping. They just don't think it's possible to overcome these tactics if items are off.

 

[*Cam*]

They will play with items off occasionally for me, but then they either get frustrated because I won or they get pissed and call me out for sandbagging (rightfully so). I've shown them some things and they utilize them. They don't call CGing cheap. They understand the merits to camping. They just don't think it's possible to overcome these tactics if items are off.

Have you told them how to overcome those tactics? If they need a demonstration, get Rag to play you. You should let them play against each other with items off so they don't get so frustrated.

Also, do you tell them that you are sandbagging? That alone could make a bad situation worse.

 

[shaSLAM]

bringing n00bs into the community has to be top ten hardest things to do in smash.
1. they are n00bz
2. they absolutelty LIVE to complain and give up
and i mean they are SERIOUS about complaining and giving up

/rant cuz my friends are all annoying n00bs with smash

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Of course I don't admit to sandbagging, but they can tell due to my character selection. I pick Link simply because he's fun to play, but they recognize that Link is a bad character.

 

[*Cam*]

Of course I don't admit to sandbagging, but they can tell due to my character selection. I pick Link simply because he's fun to play, but they recognize that Link is a bad character.

Don't sandbag then if they don't like it. Play your hardest. Get them to play each other more. Play teams and make them fair teams with experienced and inexperienced players on each side.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

I do that and they quit. It's people I play with in another group, they only see replays of me playing M3T or Rag.

And when I win twice, I switch out.

 

[BigLøu]

Yea, non competitive smashers give up when playing good people REALLY fast

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Most players only care about being smarter than the average casual, but don't care about learning how to beat players who are clearly better than them.

It's a shame. There was so much more drive among the weaker players in the Melee community.

You'll find that a vast majority of the time, if they don't have an interest in competitive play from seeing people who are straight-up better, holding their hands and compromising isn't going to change their minds. Except for very rare cases, either they're interested or they're not.

If it takes much goading to get them to try to learn in the first place, it's almost assured that they're not going to get any good. There's a big difference between having a bunch of bad players and a handful of solid ones. Bad players don't keep coming to tournaments unless they love the scene and what the game has to offer.

I am of the mind that it's much more useful to try to build up the players who genuinely love the game and want to get better. You and the people around you will get exponentially better, because you learn from each other, have regular, interesting, and useful practice, help each other out with concepts, challenge them to do better, and compliment each other on successes. That's exactly what Calvin and I did--Look what happened there. I'm really not inherently better or smarter than anyone else. I had a constant path to improvement that I chased relentlessly, and that's just with one real practice partner. Imagine what you could do with a small handful.

 

[*Cam*]

Most players only care about being smarter than the average casual, but don't care about learning how to beat players who are clearly better than them.

It's a shame. There was so much more drive among the weaker players in the Melee community.

You'll find that a vast majority of the time, if they don't have an interest in competitive play from seeing people who are straight-up better, holding their hands and compromising isn't going to change their minds. Except for very rare cases, either they're interested or they're not.

If it takes much goading to get them to try to learn in the first place, it's almost assured that they're not going to get any good. There's a big difference between having a bunch of bad players and a handful of solid ones. Bad players don't keep coming to tournaments unless they love the scene and what the game has to offer.

I am of the mind that it's much more useful to try to build up the players who genuinely love the game and want to get better. You and the people around you will get exponentially better, because you learn from each other, have regular, interesting, and useful practice, help each other out with concepts, challenge them to do better, and compliment each other on successes. That's exactly what Calvin and I did--Look what happened there. I'm really not inherently better or smarter than anyone else. I had a constant path to improvement that I chased relentlessly, and that's just with one real practice partner. Imagine what you could do with a small handful.

I don't completely agree with you. I think playing one person or even just a few people too much makes you only adapt to their playstyles and thus ill-equipped to play other people. Having a lot of different people to play forces you to learn strategies that work for more than just specific people. That's how I see it at least. Before I joined a smash crew, I just played the same guy over and over. We did the same dance each time, and we weren't getting better very quickly.

I also don't think it takes as much goading as y'all think. If Ryker's friends aren't that interested in the game, then he should just try with someone else. Apparently they keep coming back though, which tells me that they haven't been deterred yet. But remember that if people don't think they are getting any better, then of course they are going to get frustrated and possibly quit. I mean, imagine getting 3-stocked every time you play. That's not motivation; that's just frustrating. They need to be able to play people on their own skill level as well as us.

There are a lot of potentially competitive smashers out there, and they just need to be brought into the scene. I agree that not everyone is going to be a competitive smasher. But even if 1 in 5 casual smashers could become competitive, it's worth looking around and trying to draw them in. It might mean that we also have to invest some time with players who aren't very good yet. In the long run, I think it will pay off tremendously.

My friend Ingulit from Madison started a smash crew at Tuscaloosa. He sent me an in-progress group combo video. There are now 9 competitive players from Tuscaloosa, just waiting for a tournament to go to (they've had some scheduling conflicts recently). Ingulit says he's going to try to bring them to the next AUSOM. That's probably 4 or 5 new attendees at our next tournament because of a smash crew he started last year. If he didn't start one, I don't think any of these people would ever go to tournaments. I think he did what we did in our first crew, and it obviously worked pretty well. He was able to recruit this many people with something he started alone, and from what I understand, they are now quite organized. They have brawl nights every week, and they cover a different AT every week. He even told me they are hosting a big tournament in April.

The point is, there is a lot of untapped potential out there amongst the casual brawl community, and I think well-organized, inclusive crews are the way to recruit those players.

 

[PrinceAlias]

Cam you and your page long analysis on brawl hurt my eyes lol

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I don't completely agree with you. I think playing one person or even just a few people too much makes you only adapt to their playstyles and thus ill-equipped to play other people. Having a lot of different people to play forces you to learn strategies that work for more than just specific people. That's how I see it at least. Before I joined a smash crew, I just played the same guy over and over. We did the same dance each time, and we weren't getting better very quickly.

I also don't think it takes as much goading as y'all think. If Ryker's friends aren't that interested in the game, then he should just try with someone else. Apparently they keep coming back though, which tells me that they haven't been deterred yet. But remember that if people don't think they are getting any better, then of course they are going to get frustrated and possibly quit. I mean, imagine getting 3-stocked every time you play. That's not motivation; that's just frustrating. They need to be able to play people on their own skill level as well as us.

There are a lot of potentially competitive smashers out there, and they just need to be brought into the scene. I agree that not everyone is going to be a competitive smasher. But even if 1 in 5 casual smashers could become competitive, it's worth looking around and trying to draw them in. It might mean that we also have to invest some time with players who aren't very good yet. In the long run, I think it will pay off tremendously.

My friend Ingulit from Madison started a smash crew at Tuscaloosa. He sent me an in-progress group combo video. There are now 9 competitive players from Tuscaloosa, just waiting for a tournament to go to (they've had some scheduling conflicts recently). Ingulit says he's going to try to bring them to the next AUSOM. That's probably 4 or 5 new attendees at our next tournament because of a smash crew he started last year. If he didn't start one, I don't think any of these people would ever go to tournaments. I think he did what we did in our first crew, and it obviously worked pretty well. He was able to recruit this many people with something he started alone, and from what I understand, they are now quite organized. They have brawl nights every week, and they cover a different AT every week. He even told me they are hosting a big tournament in April.

The point is, there is a lot of untapped potential out there amongst the casual brawl community, and I think well-organized, inclusive crews are the way to recruit those players.

If you need to be forced to think of new strategies, then you're just not trying hard enough. Even when playing the same person over and over again, either you're not getting any better due to your inability to brainstorm, study, or simply experiment with new stuff, or the game has little depth and you shouldn't waste your time with it. There's a lot of resources on SmashBoards to learn from so that you can improve your game, and the number of options that most characters have in Smash games in general is staggering. It takes a lot of self-analysis to get significantly better; general experience will only get you so far.

As far as getting better goes, they have to -want- to get better. If someone gets angry because I give them good, general advice (trying using N-Air out of shield more when people pressure and see what happens, make use of safer moves, etc.), then they don't have the right attitude, and will not get better. That's just helpful advice from a competent player, and if a person doesn't want to even try to figure out what to do (and what not to do), and give new tactics a shot, then they're not concerned with becoming better players. I agree that being helpful, friendly, and positive are very important in making other people become more receptive to the community (and, therefore, making them play the game), and having people of relatively equal skill level helps with motivation more often than having a bunch of people who dominate, but it still varies on a person-to-person basis, and it doesn't take playing with people you often beat to see yourself doing better. The people around you can tell you that you've improved, and going from constant two-stocks to managing a closer game is a clear indicator, too. Learning should be the most important thing, not winning.

A person who plays competitively and a person who strives to continue to improve are two different things. It's part of what separates the people who don't get out of pools and the people who get into brackets. You shouldn't just be looking for people who just like to play without items; you should be looking for people who want to become better, and have the drive to pursue it, even if it's not that often, or if it's not a main focus, or if they struggle at times (we all do). A person who doesn't care about getting better as a player is not going to continue to go to tournaments, even if he likes the game on a general level. They're not going to be a long-term asset to the community, and you have to remember that spending time with those people will end up with wasted effort after a while, when you could have gotten better yourself with people that are in for the long haul.

It's fine to get new blood into the scene, and it's nice to have people of all skill levels coming to tournaments and playing regularly, but people who aren't committed come and go. I'm not trying to put down the effort of recruiting new players as much as I am saying that the time could be spent in better ways for yourself as a player and for the community if you choose the wrong methods.

 

[*Cam*]

If you need to be forced to think of new strategies, then you're just not trying hard enough. Even when playing the same person over and over again, either you're not getting any better due to your inability to brainstorm, study, or simply experiment with new stuff, or the game has little depth and you shouldn't waste your time with it. There's a lot of resources on SmashBoards to learn from so that you can improve your game, and the number of options that most characters have in Smash games in general is staggering. It takes a lot of self-analysis to get significantly better; general experience will only get you so far.

As far as getting better goes, they have to -want- to get better. If someone gets angry because I give them good, general advice (trying using N-Air out of shield more when people pressure and see what happens, make use of safer moves, etc.), then they don't have the right attitude, and will not get better. That's just helpful advice from a competent player, and if a person doesn't want to even try to figure out what to do (and what not to do), and give new tactics a shot, then they're not concerned with becoming better players. I agree that being helpful, friendly, and positive are very important in making other people become more receptive to the community (and, therefore, making them play the game), and having people of relatively equal skill level helps with motivation more often than having a bunch of people who dominate, but it still varies on a person-to-person basis, and it doesn't take playing with people you often beat to see yourself doing better. The people around you can tell you that you've improved, and going from constant two-stocks to managing a closer game is a clear indicator, too. Learning should be the most important thing, not winning.

A person who plays competitively and a person who strives to continue to improve are two different things. It's part of what separates the people who don't get out of pools and the people who get into brackets. You shouldn't just be looking for people who just like to play without items; you should be looking for people who want to become better, and have the drive to pursue it, even if it's not that often, or if it's not a main focus, or if they struggle at times (we all do). A person who doesn't care about getting better as a player is not going to continue to go to tournaments, even if he likes the game on a general level. They're not going to be a long-term asset to the community, and you have to remember that spending time with those people will end up with wasted effort after a while, when you could have gotten better yourself with people that are in for the long haul.

It's fine to get new blood into the scene, and it's nice to have people of all skill levels coming to tournaments and playing regularly, but people who aren't committed come and go. I'm not trying to put down the effort of recruiting new players as much as I am saying that the time could be spent in better ways for yourself as a player and for the community if you choose the wrong methods.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with your first statement about getting better by playing only one person. Obviously it CAN happen, but I would argue that it is much easier to get better if you play against several people instead of just getting accustomed to playing against one opponent all the time. Yes, smashboards is a great resource to discover strategies and tactics, but you need different players to try out those strategies on. IMO, general experience vs good players is much more helpful than smashboards advice.

I never said we should cater to people who don't want to get better, only that we should try not to be complete ****s when helping them get there. Like I said already, not everyone is cut out to join the tournament scene. However, if they get frustrated at the game, that doesn't mean we should just throw them overboard and move on. Also, letting them play opponents more on their skill level does not equate to giving them a punching bag to make them feel better. Equal skill level implies that they would go relatively even in their matches. Learning is clearly important, but come on, let's be real. The chance to actually win is a much better motivator to improve than just learning for learning's sake. If you have a large group of people, getting better can be a lot more noticeable. It's like moving up the ladder. If you just have like 3 pros and one noob in your group, the noob might recognize that he's getting better because he's only getting 2-stocked and not 3-stocked, but that's not nearly as rewarding.

No, not everyone will stick with the community. You know what though? The bulk of this community won't be around for that long. The brawl age will die away in a few years anyway, so everything is short term if you ask me. Also, quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. If we don't look for new blood, then we are never going to have any more of those ideal players you are describing. If we just sit back and hope people stumble into smashboards wanting to join our community, then we aren't going to gain many new players and our tournaments will stay forever small.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with your first statement about getting better by playing only one person. Obviously it CAN happen, but I would argue that it is much easier to get better if you play against several people instead of just getting accustomed to playing against one opponent all the time. Yes, smashboards is a great resource to discover strategies and tactics, but you need different players to try out those strategies on. IMO, general experience vs good players is much more helpful than smashboards advice.

I never said we should cater to people who don't want to get better, only that we should try not to be complete ****s when helping them get there. Like I said already, not everyone is cut out to join the tournament scene. However, if they get frustrated at the game, that doesn't mean we should just throw them overboard and move on. Also, letting them play opponents more on their skill level does not equate to giving them a punching bag to make them feel better. Equal skill level implies that they would go relatively even in their matches. Learning is clearly important, but come on, let's be real. The chance to actually win is a much better motivator to improve than just learning for learning's sake. If you have a large group of people, getting better can be a lot more noticeable. It's like moving up the ladder. If you just have like 3 pros and one noob in your group, the noob might recognize that he's getting better because he's only getting 2-stocked and not 3-stocked, but that's not nearly as rewarding.

No, not everyone will stick with the community. You know what though? The bulk of this community won't be around for that long. The brawl age will die away in a few years anyway, so everything is short term if you ask me. Also, quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. If we don't look for new blood, then we are never going to have any more of those ideal players you are describing. If we just sit back and hope people stumble into smashboards wanting to join our community, then we aren't going to gain many new players and our tournaments will stay forever small.

Not when the large group of people aren't very good and aren't going to great lengths to improve. Theorycraft is a lot more helpful than most people seem to think, too--You don't necessarily need to play against a majorly different strategy to know how to respond to it. Playing people who aren't improving and aren't actively helping you and each other to improve is not going to help you do better. You may get better through your own experimentation, study, and self-analysis, but having multiple players that don't have a good grasp on how to play optimally isn't going to do anything for you by itself. If you feel it's working for you, then my differing methods probably won't change your mind, but, I know -I've- been getting a lot better, and I know -I'm- winning tournaments, and I know that I only see drastic improvement in those that love the game and constantly look to make themselves better.

If a person is not learning primarily for learning's sake, then they're not having fun while getting better, and should probably find another hobby. The goal is self-improvement, and even if it's three pros and a noob, as you say, that noob will probably be pleased when he goes from getting 17th at the last tournament to getting 7th at the next. Self-improvement has to come with enough faith in yourself to say that you can be as good as anyone with time and effort. If you can't fulfill your goal of success, then you're wasting your time in the end, and when you come to a wall, it can get hard to say that you're not wasting your time when you're simply playing to win, rather than playing to learn. Competitive gaming is hard sometimes, but it should be made all the more rewarding when you don't give up and continue to get closer to your goals.

The fact that you mention that the game probably doesn't have great longevity seems to be in my favor, too; in the time you spend trying to cultivate a scene, you've squandered some opportunities to grow as a player yourself, and while it may be noble and helpful to the community to find the handful of new players that become competent over time, you suffer, and the dedicated few who pursue excellence will continue to get better and dominate. If you continue to settle for cultivating a small community of decently skilled players, you will have a much more difficult time becoming an excellent player, yourself, and -that- is what prevents the "top tier" from growing. The disparity of skill between the few really good players and everyone else will continue to be a turn-off, there won't be much real competition outside of the select few, and the same thing happens. All you can do for yourself is strive for excellence, try to pursue it with others who wish to do the same, and become part of the upper echelon. There is room to teach and cultivate in that, but if you spend too much time on it, you'll get left in the dust, and won't have much to show for it when the game's scene ends up dying.

 

[shaSLAM]

im not reading all that >_> but i wanna be in this discussion lol

 

[*Cam*]

Not when the large group of people aren't very good and aren't going to great lengths to improve. Theorycraft is a lot more helpful than most people seem to think, too--You don't necessarily need to play against a majorly different strategy to know how to respond to it. Playing people who aren't improving and aren't actively helping you and each other to improve is not going to help you do better. You may get better through your own experimentation, study, and self-analysis, but having multiple players that don't have a good grasp on how to play optimally isn't going to do anything for you by itself. If you feel it's working for you, then my differing methods probably won't change your mind, but, I know -I've- been getting a lot better, and I know -I'm- winning tournaments, and I know that I only see drastic improvement in those that love the game and constantly look to make themselves better.

If a person is not learning primarily for learning's sake, then they're not having fun while getting better, and should probably find another hobby. The goal is self-improvement, and even if it's three pros and a noob, as you say, that noob will probably be pleased when he goes from getting 17th at the last tournament to getting 7th at the next. Self-improvement has to come with enough faith in yourself to say that you can be as good as anyone with time and effort. If you can't fulfill your goal of success, then you're wasting your time in the end, and when you come to a wall, it can get hard to say that you're not wasting your time when you're simply playing to win, rather than playing to learn. Competitive gaming is hard sometimes, but it should be made all the more rewarding when you don't give up and continue to get closer to your goals.

The fact that you mention that the game probably doesn't have great longevity seems to be in my favor, too; in the time you spend trying to cultivate a scene, you've squandered some opportunities to grow as a player yourself, and while it may be noble and helpful to the community to find the handful of new players that become competent over time, you suffer, and the dedicated few who pursue excellence will continue to get better and dominate. If you continue to settle for cultivating a small community of decently skilled players, you will have a much more difficult time becoming an excellent player, yourself, and -that- is what prevents the "top tier" from growing. The disparity of skill between the few really good players and everyone else will continue to be a turn-off, there won't be much real competition outside of the select few, and the same thing happens. All you can do for yourself is strive for excellence, try to pursue it with others who wish to do the same, and become part of the upper echelon. There is room to teach and cultivate in that, but if you spend too much time on it, you'll get left in the dust, and won't have much to show for it when the game's scene ends up dying.

You know, I CAN get better while helping others get better. In fact, I feel like it helps me to understand the game better when I explain it to new players. It reiterates to fundamentals of the game, which I think a lot of people tend to forget when they play pros too much. I knew eventually you might say you are right because you are the best player in AL, but hell, I don't care if you're M2K, you don't know everything about creating a good brawl community just because you're good at the game. Also, I said general experience vs good players is better than theory crafting, not experience versus bad players. I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too though. We can utilize smashboards and a large, diverse crew at the same time to hone our skills.

I don't feel that I need to add much else because it would just be a reiteration of what I've already said. I'm not arguing against loving the game or improving for the sake of improving. Those things are both great. I'm arguing that this is not the only way to enjoy the game and the community. Winning can be a good motivator too. If people didn't care about winning, then why bother going to tournaments? Why not just stay in our own little groups and play friendlies all the time? Of course we are motivated by the opportunity to win. You yourself even pointed out that winning little victories is important. If they get 7th instead of 17th, then that is a little victory. They are essentially moving up the ladder of people. It's a noticeable marker and reward for all of said player's improvement, and it can certainly be motivation within a crew as well as in tournaments. It's like, instead of saying, "Our next goal is to get to the top of that mountain," you say "Let's start by making it to that ledge, and we can move from there." Although the main goal is the same in the end, for some reason it's easier to insert little stepping stones to our path, little victories along the way.

EDIT: Slam, here's a TL;DR for you:

Reflex thinks our community should comprise of a small, elite group of players with the ideal motivation of learning for learning's sake. He says that large crews of mediocre players don't help people improve as much as very small groups of top notch players.

I'm arguing that we should be looking for lots of new blood to the tournament community through local crews in order to get larger tournaments. I'm also arguing that large crews help people get better more than small crews, especially when you have people at lots of different skill levels. I also think winning can be as much of a motivation as improving for the sake of improving can be.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

You know, I CAN get better while helping others get better. In fact, I feel like it helps me to understand the game better when I explain it to new players. It reiterates to fundamentals of the game, which I think a lot of people tend to forget when they play pros too much. I knew eventually you might say you are right because you are the best player in AL, but hell, I don't care if you're M2K, you don't know everything about creating a good brawl community just because you're good at the game. Also, I said general experience vs good players is better than theory crafting, not experience versus bad players. I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too though. We can utilize smashboards and a large, diverse crew at the same time to hone our skills.

I don't feel that I need to add much else because it would just be a reiteration of what I've already said. I'm not arguing against loving the game or improving for the sake of improving. Those things are both great. I'm arguing that this is not the only way to enjoy the game and the community. Winning can be a good motivator too. If people didn't care about winning, then why bother going to tournaments? Why not just stay in our own little groups and play friendlies all the time? Of course we are motivated by the opportunity to win. You yourself even pointed out that winning little victories is important. If they get 7th instead of 17th, then that is a little victory. They are essentially moving up the ladder of people. It's a noticeable marker and reward for all of said player's improvement, and it can certainly be motivation within a crew as well as in tournaments. It's like, instead of saying, "Our next goal is to get to the top of that mountain," you say "Let's start by making it to that ledge, and we can move from there." Although the main goal is the same in the end, for some reason it's easier to insert little stepping stones to our path, little victories along the way.

EDIT: Slam, here's a TL;DR for you:

Reflex thinks our community should comprise of a small, elite group of players with the ideal motivation of learning for learning's sake. He says that large crews of mediocre players don't help people improve as much as very small groups of top notch players.

I'm arguing that we should be looking for lots of new blood to the tournament community through local crews in order to get larger tournaments. I'm also arguing that large crews help people get better more than small crews, especially when you have people at lots of different skill levels. I also think winning can be as much of a motivation as improving for the sake of improving.

You can get better in helping others, but when they're not able to help you, it slows you down, as well. That's just the way it is. I was referencing my own success to show that my methods allowed for the better players to exist in the first place. I'm not saying that looking out for yourself and those that obviously really care about improving is necessarily better for the growth of our community on a general level, but I doubt that your methods make a substantial difference in the Smash scene on more than a local level, and I am sure that you prevent yourself from becoming one of the elite players when you spend so much time trying to make a scene out of mediocre players.

Helping others improve is one thing, but what I hear is, "recruiting new players takes lots of effort," when it really doesn't; at least, for the people that will regularly come to tournaments. I would argue that that comes from an innate desire to succeed, and that spending your time trying to get a bunch of players of different skill levels to come together is only going to work in the short term. A vast majority of those players are not going to stay for long, and there's still going to be a disparity in skill when the best people just continue to look out for the select few that obviously wish to improve quickly and efficiently, which will discourage the other players when they decide to go to tournaments, unless they wish to really get better. If a player is able to stick with it despite that obvious skill gap, then they probably didn't need your help in the first place, and you are better off focusing your efforts on the few people who you can try new strategies on, learn new things from, and create motivation in each other, thus helping the core of our community by becoming a force to be reckoned with yourself. Your example of your getting better through experience with good players is wrong, because a majority of the people you play with -are- bad players. Again, that's just how it is; there's always going to be a hierarchy for many reasons, and there's nothing wrong with helping other people, but you have to help yourself and the few you know who understand enough to get better with little trouble.

Winning is a sign that you're learning, but everyone else at tournaments is (ideally) learning and getting better, too, so if someone else has learned more than you, and you lose to them, despite winning last time, you may get the false impression that you aren't growing as a player. An integral part of the tournament scene is love of the game and of the community, too--Without those, it isn't fun, and it just becomes work. That's why I stress learning for its own sake as the most fulfilling path to success.

As an aside, I don't think the community should comprise of small, elite groups, so much as that we shouldn't stifle our own growth as individual players by trying so hard to make a community within the community that we neglect ourselves as a result. I stress self-improvement as a primary goal and recruiting as a secondary one.

 

[Mahgnittoc]

Let's all write essays in every post.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

im not reading all that >_> but i wanna be in this discussion lol

Let's all write essays in every post.

Everyone's a critic. A non-existent god forbid that we actually have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Mahgnittoc]

Naw you got it wrong Reflex. I was just joking. Like I enjoy the intelligent conversations and all, but I can't do it so I'm hating on you guys.

 

[ragnarock]

So its anything anybody can do about expanding our community. I feel that the local state players make your tourney if you don't have that you have nothing. You can hold all the tourneys you want but if you keep getting 10, then 14, then 12. Somethings wrong. What can we do to make it better as a whole. There's no one in Mobile. Its just me, Ryker and Mt3. I can try to have my next tourney at the University of South Alabama and see what happens, but other than that I don't see what else I can do. But hold my bi-monthlies and hope.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

So its anything anybody can do about expanding our community. I feel that the local state players make your tourney if you don't have that you have nothing. You can hold all the tourneys you want but if you keep getting 10, then 14, then 12. Somethings wrong. What can we do to make it better as a whole. There's no one in Mobile. Its just me, Ryker and Mt3. I can try to have my next tourney at the University of South Alabama and see what happens, but other than that I don't see what else I can do. But hold my bi-monthlies and hope.

The problem is that 90% of the local players won't come to the next one, so you either have to keep holding them in different places, just hold them in places with a healthy community, or increase the number of players in smaller areas who will stick to going to more than a single tournament rather than quitting.

If you do the last one, it's usually fairly obvious who cares enough to do that much. Looking for new blood is great, but you have to make sure you're improving, too, as well as make sure that you're willing and able to go to tournaments. A new recruit could end up being the new Mew2King, but if he doesn't go to tournaments, who cares? Also, if you don't get better, you may lose the drive to continue to go to tournaments, and then the community just lost someone that we already knew had potential. It's a fine balance.

 

[*Cam*]

You can get better in helping others, but when they're not able to help you, it slows you down, as well. That's just the way it is. I was referencing my own success to show that my methods allowed for the better players to exist in the first place. I'm not saying that looking out for yourself and those that obviously really care about improving is necessarily better for the growth of our community on a general level, but I doubt that your methods make a substantial difference in the Smash scene on more than a local level, and I am sure that you prevent yourself from becoming one of the elite players when you spend so much time trying to make a scene out of mediocre players.

Helping others improve is one thing, but what I hear is, "recruiting new players takes lots of effort," when it really doesn't; at least, for the people that will regularly come to tournaments. I would argue that that comes from an innate desire to succeed, and that spending your time trying to get a bunch of players of different skill levels to come together is only going to work in the short term. A vast majority of those players are not going to stay for long, and there's still going to be a disparity in skill when the best people just continue to look out for the select few that obviously wish to improve quickly and efficiently, which will discourage the other players when they decide to go to tournaments, unless they wish to really get better. If a player is able to stick with it despite that obvious skill gap, then they probably didn't need your help in the first place, and you are better off focusing your efforts on the few people who you can try new strategies on, learn new things from, and create motivation in each other, thus helping the core of our community by becoming a force to be reckoned with yourself. Your example of your getting better through experience with good players is wrong, because a majority of the people you play with -are- bad players. Again, that's just how it is; there's always going to be a hierarchy for many reasons, and there's nothing wrong with helping other people, but you have to help yourself and the few you know who understand enough to get better with little trouble.

Winning is a sign that you're learning, but everyone else at tournaments is (ideally) learning and getting better, too, so if someone else has learned more than you, and you lose to them, despite winning last time, you may get the false impression that you aren't growing as a player. An integral part of the tournament scene is love of the game and of the community, too--Without those, it isn't fun, and it just becomes work. That's why I stress learning for its own sake as the most fulfilling path to success.

As an aside, I don't think the community should comprise of small, elite groups, so much as that we shouldn't stifle our own growth as individual players by trying so hard to make a community within the community that we neglect ourselves as a result. I stress self-improvement as a primary goal and recruiting as a secondary one.

Then why do you play anyone who's worse than you in this community? Doesn't that stifle your growth as a player? That argument doesn't really hold water for me. You say I'm neglecting my own growth as a player. Believe it or not, I started playing better when I played against a mixed bag of noobs, amateurs, and pros. I think it's really important to be able to play against people of all skill levels, and it's also important to play against a lot of different people in general. I would argue that the more people you play, the better you get against a lot of different strategies. I also think playing against a lot of different players has given me more skill in adapting to a strategy mid-match. I can't just learn the people I play all the time. Instead, I am forced to adapt in order to win, just like I will have to do in tournament a lot of the time.

If there exist a couple pros and several amateurs in every brawl crew, then you will always have someone good to play against. Of course there will be bad players because we are all bad before we're good. And if the point is to love the game and have fun, having more people in your crew can make it more enjoyable. I'm not saying more people = better crew. I'm saying a large diversity in players can lead to more interesting/fun smashfests.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Then why do you play anyone who's worse than you in this community? Doesn't that stifle your growth as a player? That argument doesn't really hold water for me. You say I'm neglecting my own growth as a player. Believe it or not, I started playing better when I played against a mixed bag of noobs, amateurs, and pros. I think it's really important to be able to play against people of all skill levels, and it's also important to play against a lot of different people in general. I would argue that the more people you play, the better you get against a lot of different strategies. I also think playing against a lot of different players has given me more skill in adapting to a strategy mid-match. I can't just learn the people I play all the time. Instead, I am forced to adapt in order to win, just like I will have to do in tournament a lot of the time.

If there exist a couple pros and several amateurs in every brawl crew, then you will always have someone good to play against. Of course there will be bad players because we are all bad before we're good. And if the point is to love the game and have fun, having more people in your crew can make it more enjoyable. I'm not saying more people = better crew. I'm saying a large diversity in players can lead to more interesting/fun smashfests.

A player can be worse than you and still be worth learning from, but I would argue that after a certain disparity in skill, you're not gaining anything. I'm just saying that playing Joe Scrub isn't going to help when you're on the Power Rankings. Something of importance is realizing that people rarely have different strategies at lower levels of play; certain people just make fewer mistakes within that and use many sub-optimal tactics. That's not going to help you become a better player. Different strategies that are worth learning about only come from people that know how the game is supposed to be played, and, unfortunately, most people don't know that much. That said, again, theorycrafting goes a long way, and when you get to a certain skill level, it's much more useful than playing average players using a "different" strategy. If I have to play ESAM in the future, playing against you isn't going to be nearly as useful as reading up on the matchup and brainstorming ideas.

I will always have someone good to play against because Calvin is always striving to better himself, and my older brother is constantly trying find new ways to succeed without doing any real work (sarcasm, kind of! <3). More often than not, there is going to be someone on or close to your skill level that would be willing to work with you for mutual learning and improvement. All I'm really suggesting is that my method is the best way to help yourself and those around you with a remotely-similar skill level.

 

[shaSLAM]

im not one for helping new players because i am very very very doubtful that any of them will actually stick with it and yes cam, you do get worse by consistantly playing bad people. their bad habbits will rub off on you alot easier than your good ones will rub off on them. in fact, youll probably just end up forgetting your good habbits and playing aggresively. because so much of what you do depends on your opponent, in smash. if your opponent is stupid, then you are gonna start doing stupid things that get punished by other ppl.

i pretty much agree with reflex wholeheartedly regarding bad players.

i like the idea of a small elite group of people... but i only like it if im in that group of people...

i honestly dont feel like i improve much after a tournament nowadays. there are numerous factors as to why this may be, but i definately feel like one of them is that im not getting to play good people unless they are eliminating me from brackets or taking my money in a MM.

so i just get to play randoms and punish things that good players are never going to do all day long, instead.

its a cath 22 really. elite groups are cool, but they leave people out. once left out, playing mediocre ppl is the only option, which is not going to help you get better. on the other hand, if we are all one big group of mediocre players, then its just a big group of mediocre players >->


so in short yeah, it hella rocks for the people that are part of an elite group cuz they just keep getting better and better every time they get together, but the rest of us are doing the same **** all day long and in all honesty, we are all kind of clueless as to what to do.
idk im trying to figure things out on my own though via wifi. im gettting aigt at it i guess.

idk how relevant this all is to discussion because i only read cam's little summary. also if it is in the best interest of this thread to just ignore me, then please do so.

 

[Mahgnittoc]

Idk if this has been said yet but, I think one way of bringing in new people is showing them how fun the game actually is once you get good. Like at some point in a tournament we should take time to have a high tier match. Like randomly select some of the best people there to compete vs each other. Hell, maybe even make both players pick random and see what happens. Of course this is all for fun, no money or anything on the line.

Part of the idea would be to basically shut down or over hype these games so everyone can see how fun the game can be instead of douchebaggery MK sharking. Just do something for show instead of 100% competing. Fun leads to people wanting to come back.

 

[I SEE YOU]

I will always have someone good to play against because Calvin is always striving to better himself, and my older brother is constantly trying to find new ways to succeed without doing any real work (sarcasm, kind of! <3). .

oh so true

 

[*Cam*]

A player can be worse than you and still be worth learning from, but I would argue that after a certain disparity in skill, you're not gaining anything. I'm just saying that playing Joe Scrub isn't going to help when you're on the Power Rankings. Something of importance is realizing that people rarely have different strategies at lower levels of play; certain people just make fewer mistakes within that and use many sub-optimal tactics. That's not going to help you become a better player. Different strategies that are worth learning about only come from people that know how the game is supposed to be played, and, unfortunately, most people don't know that much. That said, again, theorycrafting goes a long way, and when you get to a certain skill level, it's much more useful than playing average players using a "different" strategy. If I have to play ESAM in the future, playing against you isn't going to be nearly as useful as reading up on the matchup and brainstorming ideas.

I will always have someone good to play against because Calvin is always striving to better himself, and my older brother is constantly trying find new ways to succeed without doing any real work (sarcasm, kind of! <3). More often than not, there is going to be someone on or close to your skill level that would be willing to work with you for mutual learning and improvement. All I'm really suggesting is that my method is the best way to help yourself and those around you with a remotely-similar skill level.

im not one for helping new players because i am very very very doubtful that any of them will actually stick with it and yes cam, you do get worse by consistantly playing bad people. their bad habbits will rub off on you alot easier than your good ones will rub off on them. in fact, youll probably just end up forgetting your good habbits and playing aggresively. because so much of what you do depends on your opponent, in smash. if your opponent is stupid, then you are gonna start doing stupid things that get punished by other ppl.

i pretty much agree with reflex wholeheartedly regarding bad players.

i like the idea of a small elite group of people... but i only like it if im in that group of people...

i honestly dont feel like i improve much after a tournament nowadays. there are numerous factors as to why this may be, but i definately feel like one of them is that im not getting to play good people unless they are eliminating me from brackets or taking my money in a MM.

so i just get to play randoms and punish things that good players are never going to do all day long, instead.

its a cath 22 really. elite groups are cool, but they leave people out. once left out, playing mediocre ppl is the only option, which is not going to help you get better. on the other hand, if we are all one big group of mediocre players, then its just a big group of mediocre players >->


so in short yeah, it hella rocks for the people that are part of an elite group cuz they just keep getting better and better every time they get together, but the rest of us are doing the same **** all day long and in all honesty, we are all kind of clueless as to what to do.
idk im trying to figure things out on my own though via wifi. im gettting aigt at it i guess.

idk how relevant this all is to discussion because i only read cam's little summary. also if it is in the best interest of this thread to just ignore me, then please do so.

First, I feel as though I should address this claim that we get worse by playing new or inexperienced players. I don't see why we would pick up their bad habits if we are constantly beating them with our good ones. If anything, it should reinforce our good habits because it's the good habits that help us win. That being said, it is true that if you play new players too much, you could start going on auto-pilot in your matches, winning with combos that they just don't understand how to avoid. That's why you play seasoned players as well as inexperienced ones. I still feel as though practicing against new players in the gameroom has been essential to getting where I am now. I learned how to better predict people by watching their habits. Against better players, they played so fast and unpredictably that I wasn't able to pick up this skill. By predicting slower and more predictable people first, I was able to acquire that skill and apply it to my matches with people like Billy.

Playing new players also is very informative because all the current amateurs were recently where they are now. It's easier to pick up what the natural reactions of players are when you play new players. Amateur players fight against some of these natural reactions (or habits if you prefer), but they still possess them. I think it's important because a lot of those same players will revert to these bad habits mid match if they get nervous. Sidestepping is a perfect example. I've been able to predict sidesteps from Billy a lot of the time (no offense Billy) because of my experiences with novices. I understand better what makes a player have the urge to sidestep, and it is definitely something you can capitalize on.

I feel like we've gotten a little off-track though. What's important here is whether or not we want to increase the size of our brawl community. I've noticed a lot of people have trouble with tournament attendance because they try to increase attendance by getting a lot of OoS people to come. I think it can be pretty unreliable because they have to travel so far. If we just increase the size of the AL community, our tournaments would not only have more people, but the larger tournaments would create larger hype and attract OoS people more. So yes, I think it's completely worth it to actively seek out new blood from within our own state. Plus, once those players get really good themselves, then we will have a much larger group of great players than we do now.

Idk if this has been said yet but, I think one way of bringing in new people is showing them how fun the game actually is once you get good. Like at some point in a tournament we should take time to have a high tier match. Like randomly select some of the best people there to compete vs each other. Hell, maybe even make both players pick random and see what happens. Of course this is all for fun, no money or anything on the line.

Part of the idea would be to basically shut down or over hype these games so everyone can see how fun the game can be instead of douchebaggery MK sharking. Just do something for show instead of 100% competing. Fun leads to people wanting to come back.

I think that's a good idea Mahg. It has kind of the same attraction as crew battles, a lot of hype and overall fun.

 

[theONEjanitor]

a lot of times i dont even realize i'm playing bad until i play someone who's good. because they punish my obvious mistakes and bad players don't

and it will be like really dumb mistakes too but it doesnt occur to me because it works against bad and mediocre players

 

[*Cam*]

a lot of times i dont even realize i'm playing bad until i play someone who's good. because they punish my obvious mistakes and bad players don't

and it will be like really dumb mistakes too but it doesnt occur to me because it works against bad and mediocre players

Oh, that's absolutely true. That's why you definitely have to play good players as well as inexperienced ones. At the same time though, I think we can learn a lot by playing "bad" players.

 

[shaSLAM]

a lot of times i dont even realize i'm playing bad until i play someone who's good. because they punish my obvious mistakes and bad players don't

and it will be like really dumb mistakes too but it doesnt occur to me because it works against bad and mediocre players

yeah basically this.

 

[theONEjanitor]

to some extent I see what cam is saying though.

the reason that reflex and geo and lou and all them breeze through brackets so easily is because they understand the typical mistakes that bad players make and a ready to combat them.

i know you've heard people say (and not just for smash, for almost any competitive game. you hear it in poker a lot, for example) "man i can't play against bad players because they don't do what i'm expecting because they have no strategy" or something to that effect

players like that often do well against better players, because they don't have a lot of experience playing against people who use sub optimal strategies that deviate from the general one used by people who have an idea of how to play well.

i think that's a necessary step on the road to being a complete player, and its really only gotten by playing against mediocre players for some period of time.