The competitive problem

[Col. Stauffenberg]

O.K. then, act just like me. If you do it well enough, then you'll question all norms. You'll question these norms because no one else in the group has dared question these norms, and it's about time someone make the group realize that there is more to the discussion than mere acceptance of what we have come to know. And always take the side that no one else represents, if only to cause the rest to return and seriously examine that side, to make sure that any decision that should be made is truely the right decision, and not based off mere tradition or norm.

This is hilarious, but no. You're not as special as you think you are, sorry.

This HAS been considered and debated numerous times. There's a good reason no one represents one side. And it's not just "tradition" however much you're probably going to tell yourself as part of some ******** messiah complex.

 

[hugglebunny]

This is hilarious, but no. You're not as special as you think you are, sorry.

This HAS been considered and debated numerous times. There's a good reason no one represents one side. And it's not just "tradition" however much you're probably going to tell yourself as part of some ******** messiah complex.

From Burntsocks
Stauffy too good

 

[teluoborg]

O.K. then, act just like me. If you do it well enough, then you'll question all norms. You'll question these norms because no one else in the group has dared question these norms, and it's about time someone make the group realize that there is more to the discussion than mere acceptance of what we have come to know. And always take the side that no one else represents, if only to cause the rest to return and seriously examine that side, to make sure that any decision that should be made is truely the right decision, and not based off mere tradition or norm. That is what a Halloween Captain does.

Right, because the competitive ruleset came out of nowhere, and nobody ever questionned it before you.
You're taking the whole smashworld community as a herd of sheeps, "that is what a Halloween Captain does".



One a lighter note : go read something about 2v2 and/or Item Standard Play.

 

[1048576]

Oh for, I've made the same post four times and still no answer.

Hearts or War? Why?

Edit: OMG I just ate a pear-flavored jellybean. I urge everyone else to do the same. Its soooo good.

 

[J4pu]

O.K. then, act just like me. If you do it well enough, then you'll question all norms. You'll question these norms because no one else in the group has dared question these norms, and it's about time someone make the group realize that there is more to the discussion than mere acceptance of what we have come to know. And always take the side that no one else represents, if only to cause the rest to return and seriously examine that side, to make sure that any decision that should be made is truely the right decision, and not based off mere tradition or norm. That is what a Halloween Captain does.

lol, yea when I first picked up the controller for a game of melee it instantly became a competitive game implementing the safest and most effective strategy with my 10 year old cousin in order to win as often as possible.
/tons of sarcasm

everybody starts off playing it w/e for fun. I don't think anybody's first time playing was at a tournament with money on the line. People switch from that to competitive play because they want to, because they find enjoyment in it, because it better suits their personality, OR (like in your case apparently) because they are ignorant of what they enjoy and just want to try it out.

I have no idea how you got the idea in your head that people start off playing seriously then just continue to because everybody else is.

Oh for, I've made the same post four times and still no answer.

Hearts or War? Why?

Edit: OMG I just ate a pear-flavored jellybean. I urge everyone else to do the same. Its soooo good.

he bit the bullet and said war "because he never played hearts before'

 

[Revolver Roosevelt]

Basic game design dictates that players enjoy chipping away at their failures and expanding their horizons.

 

[Falconv1.0]

This is hilarious, but no. You're not as special as you think you are, sorry.

This is really all you had to say but then you made it even better.

I think we should make out.

 

[Zankoku]

I may not know a thing about item spawns in Brawl, but tell me,

___________A___B_

Who's going to have an advantage with items on, player A or player B?

This question is impossible to answer, because the very mechanic of item spawns makes A have an advantage in the very beginning of a given game, but 5 minutes later and B is just as likely to get an item as A is. You're right, you don't know a thing about item spawns.

If there is no learning curve, it means the game is accessible. Any additional learning must come from being more intelligent than the other player. It would be lunacy to deliberately make a game uninviting to new players by deliberately making practical actions, such as l-canceling, more difficult than they have to be, so as to increase the learning curve. I mean, why would someone do that? All it does it cater to core fans who are already good at the game, while inevitably shrinking the audience of people who would actually want to play it.

The shallower the learning curve to the game, the simpler it inherently becomes. Remember checkers? I'm pretty sure the fact that some dude has actually gone and mathematically calculated the optimal move in every single situation proves a point about why things that are harder to master are better competitively. I will assume you know enough about Tic-Tac-Toe to draw connections between depth and competitive worth.

When it comes to designing a competitive game, you are targeting a competitive audience. Why would you want to design a competitive game for casual players? It's completely contradictory.

Putting skill into something you inherently cannot control is life. It's making gambles, and seeing if they pay off. It adds to the thrill, and adds to the complexity by making things significantly less bianary, and more about whether an action will most likely be a good idea or will probably punish you, instead of having such knowledge safely in advance such that you never need to leave your comfort zone nor take a risk. It requires an insane amount of logic when things are uncertain, as all thing in life do.

While luck is a factor in any game, and skill does involve maximizing your luck, when there is nothing in a situation but dumb luck, the game is, well... have fun.

About putting skill into the uncontrollable - How much do you know about poker?

I know enough to realize that the skill in poker is almost all in the human element of mindgames - controlling the other player's decisions - rather than any of the luck in getting good hands. How much do you know about poker?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I may not know a thing about item spawns in Brawl, but tell me,

___________A___B_

Who's going to have an advantage with items on, player A or player B?

If there is no learning curve, it means the game is accessible. Any additional learning must come from being more intelligent than the other player. It would be lunacy to deliberately make a game uninviting to new players by deliberately making practical actions, such as l-canceling, more difficult than they have to be, so as to increase the learning curve. I mean, why would someone do that? All it does it cater to core fans who are already good at the game, while inevitably shrinking the audience of people who would actually want to play it.

Putting skill into something you inherently cannot control is life. It's making gambles, and seeing if they pay off. It adds to the thrill, and adds to the complexity by making things significantly less bianary, and more about whether an action will most likely be a good idea or will probably punish you, instead of having such knowledge safely in advance such that you never need to leave your comfort zone nor take a risk. It requires an insane amount of logic when things are uncertain, as all thing in life do.

To be honest, one of the things I love about free-for-all is that it is a bit about minimizing conflict and a bit about hitting multiple opponents at once. I absolutely love how important free for all makes the philosophy of "don't get hit," and the complexities that entails.

Sorry, no Sakurai here. Although I found out where he's coming from.

http://malstrom.50webs.com/disruptionchronicles.htm

@ below, I have to say war, mostly because I've never played hearts. (I do love chess though)

About putting skill into the uncontrollable - How much do you know about poker?

Since this post has several main points.


Who has fewer lives/more damage, A or B?

Whoever's losing has the advantage with item spawns, period.


I agree, with what you actually said, L-canceling was a stupid mechanic conceptually speaking, however do you know what's stupider? Melee without L-canceling. The game would be better if arbitrary entry barriers weren't there, heck it would've been better if the ATs were easier to perform.

HOWEVER, from a competitive standpoint the depth is more important then the difficulty of achieving that depth. Additional useful options makes it more a contest of skill and outwitting your opponent, therefore the greater the depth the better the game. Sure, it's preferable that it be easy to pick up, so it becomes about strategy, tactics, and outwitting your opponent even for scrubs, thus eliminating the "AT plateau" entirely, but if that elimination comes at the expense of making the game have depth, then it's not worth it.


Sure, it happens in real life, but when we're trying to make a contest to separate based on skill, should we encourage mechanics that randomly hurt and help people? Especially egregious are the things that spawn into people's f-smash and explode.

There is however, one way to do that, and this involves making the game more ratio-based, in other words, having a lot more matches to determine a set. As it stands, it's far too easy for items to cause a defeat in a match of 3 or even 5, so it doesn't really work in a direct tournament setting. 13/24 would be a start.


Free-for-alls, yes there is that issue, and if everyone is playing at the top of the metagame it could be quite interesting becayse you've got an in-game diplomacy aspect.

The problem is... it's ultimately a degenerate form because of a host of issues that cause it to be less based around in-game skill and more about pre-existing relationships, unless you're much much better. Splitting especially, that's turns it into a degenerate game by itself.


... War is entirely defined by the shuffle, it's an utterly pointless game except to observe the results of the random system. Since user input has no effect, you cannot possibly "win" war, just watch it unfold. In other words, you're not really the player, it's chance against itself.


Depends on the form of poker, 5 card stud is a degenerate game, overly dependent on luck and very shallow. Hold'em on the other hand, sure it's random but the fact that portions of everyone's hands are revealed adds a lot more depth to the metagame in terms of holding and folding and bluffing, unlike the shallow 5 card stud.

Of course, there's a major luck element, and it would be better if that could be eliminated, BUT there are enough tests to counterbalance that, making it a legitimately good game.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

I would love to hear what kind of point you have to make about poker, as I have played it for a solid couple of years and as often as multiple times a week.

 

[XienZo]

This question is impossible to answer, because the very mechanic of item spawns makes A have an advantage in the very beginning of a given game, but 5 minutes later and B is just as likely to get an item as A is. You're right, you don't know a thing about item spawns.

I'm curious, how DOES item spawning work if it isn't as simple as any piece of the stage having the same % as any other equal sized pieces of the stage?

 

[J4pu]

I hate minesweeper's 50/50 guesses

 

[adumbrodeus]

I would love to hear what kind of point you have to make about poker, as I have played it for a solid couple of years and as often as multiple times a week.

First, pick a poker variation, then we'll talk.

I'm curious, how DOES item spawning work if it isn't as simple as any piece of the stage having the same % as any other equal sized pieces of the stage?

There signifigant increase in the changes that items will spawn ear the plyer behind.

 

[XienZo]

There signifigant increase in the changes that items will spawn ear the plyer behind.

Seriously? Like, they actually had controlled tests and everything? That is... wow....

 

[Cross.]

Halloween captain you say you don't play the game competitively but really, thats what youve ended up doing. All this talk about 'depth' with items and who has the advantage if an item spawns where, examining all the options you have with items on, and thinking ahead of your opponents by doing things like 'letting them hit into each other' etc is really a competitive mindset. The way you talk it sounds like you ARE playing the competitively, just not by the rules that are used in this forum.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Halloween captain you say you don't play the game competitively but really, thats what youve ended up doing. All this talk about 'depth' with items and who has the advantage if an item spawns where, examining all the options you have with items on, and thinking ahead of your opponents by doing things like 'letting them hit into each other' etc is really a competitive mindset. The way you talk it sounds like you ARE playing the competitively, just not by the rules that are used in this forum.

Thus proving he's basically mindlessly ranting about something that wasn't even his first point.

He's in delusional land either way with this whole mind set that competitive gaming/sports is odd.

 

[vorpal]

I read the first post then lol'ed. Didn't even bother reading the rest of the thread.

There's a satisfaction that comes from playing competitively. This goes for any game. If you never play competitively, you'll never see it.

 

[bobson]

There signifigant increase in the changes that items will spawn ear the plyer behind.

Source? I wasn't aware anyone had done any definitive testing on this.

 

[MajinSweet]

Actually it's more like you seem tourney-dependent to me.

While fun is subjective, becoming pro is a long, difficult process. Often it is work. In fact, it is work more often than it is fun. It is also expensive. And unless you have a few friends you meet very regularly to play with, turning competitive typically involves a lot of work that is only rewarded by a tournament or so a month, often less. Don't get me wrong, these tournaments are very fun, but they are very expensive - they cost you all the time you spent working to perfect your skills. The trade-off is quality over quantity of fun. For me, with zero tournaments in months, I could have had high quality fun, but the quanity of fun hit 0 at that point.

Not everyone will ever hit 0 fun, in fact most of you will always have access to tournaments and the like. It will be high quality fun no doubt. It will often (not always) be very little fun overall though. Should the tournament scene ever be unavailable for an extended period to any one of you, that quantity could easily drop to 0.

Except your missing out on many simple fundamental ideas. A path of self improvement is a driving factor in any competitive game. From Baseball to Chess. Being able to think back to all the challenges you have over come, and be able to really know that you could learn, and become a better player is a big part of competitive games. This is a special sense of satisfaction that you will never get by playing a game just to fool around. And to top it off, people that do this can still just play for fun if they want to. They get the best of both worlds. A tournament scene going under isn't even an issue, there is always another game to play. So really, you have everything backwards. The only people missing out on any concepts of "fun" are people that argue over the semantics of "how the game should be played". While you are arguing meaningless non sense, other people are having a very rewarding type of fun.

Sorry about that. I don't believe humans are all that much of an enigma though. I believe that they are governed by a "human nature," that while not consistent, governs human behavior most of the time. In the reguard to competitiveness, I feel that people get good at competitive things to make the activity more fun, and ironically, it will often require work (which shouldn't be fun), and make the fun they do have more infrequent than before. I don't actually remember if I had more fun when I was good at smash or when I was bad, so I can't honestly say that what we tell ourselves is more fun, being competitive, is genuinely more fun. I only had fun when I could fight tough opponents in clever ways to win, and thus, I have and always will prefer items on FFA with only a handful of banned items and stages. That is the best way to take advantage of the player's weaknesses; it allows me to cause opponents to accidently hit eachother when trying to reach me, and lets me throw items straight up and throw opponents into them as they come down. Anyone who says FFA w/items isn't deep has never played it right.

This is quite amusing, because you are the one that doesn't understand the issue. Any sort of FFA will not be deep in any competitive environment because of one simple reason. Lesser skilled players will just gang up one the better ones until they are out of it. Then it degenerates into a one versus one anyway. Sure, you play FFA with your friends and determine it can be "deep" but, the problem is--you and your friends don't know how to play in that setting to win. Secondly, who said "work" cannot be fun? I have fun at my job every day, I think you have a very skewed idea of what is and isn't fun. Work is simply putting in effort to accomplish a task. When I don't need to put any effort into something, it isn't fun for me. It becomes "too easy". My games need to make me work or I won't have fun.

Actually, it's very ironic that smashers worry so much about removing random elements when trying to compete. A nice sentiment that the best player will always win because of the removal of random elements, but severely and brutally limiting the amount of quick thinking to only factors known in advanced, with the only variable being how you and your opponent use the known constants of your respective characters and stages. It's less random, but it's also much less deep. Especially since one of the few useful general AT's requires having items to throw.

Your really stretching the entire concept of "quick thinking" like most pro item debates do. In most cases, there is literally no thought process when an item spawns. If health spawns, you have to get it, or else your opponent will. If a good weapon spawns, you have to get it. or else your opponent will. It basically boils down to who is closer which is in no way "deep." Which leads me to my next point. You have a very misguided view of what gives a game depth. You seem to be suggesting "More=depth" when that is just plain wrong. The depth items add is pretty minimal to a lot of the bad things it can do to the game. With items on, many characters can get by without using there move set. Does that add depth? Would you consider Sonic running laps on Hyrule Temple waiting for a Smashball "deep"? If a feature you add can make game play degenerative, it will take away the depth of the game.

I honestly feel that you need to take a step back so to speak, and try to rethink a lot of this. A lot of your ideas seem to stem from your personal experiences, then dictating that on a wide range of situations. There is nothing wrong with finding things out for yourself, and in a lot of cases it can give you a deeper understanding of a situation. But you need to realize that your personal experience is a very narrow way to learn. We already know that FFAs will never be "deep", you need to study the broad range of others to see some things.

 

[WastingPenguins]

FFAs inevitably devolve into an idiotic game of player politics. At some point you're probably going to get ganged up on. If the other three players all say "Hey let's get Jim!"... what are you supposed to do?

Anyway, it's totally pointless to argue about which kind of play takes the most "skill". Who cares? I don't play 1v1 no-items because it takes more skill. I play it because it's more fun. For me. Period.

Halloween Captain: Different things find different things fun. That's it.

 

[KillL0ck]

Smash bros. has always been a fun game about battling with your favorite characters using unique, clever fighting mechanics. Win or lose, items or no items, 1 v. 1 or free-for-all, the premise stays the same, and a good time is had by all.

Competitive smash, however, doesn't make sense. It developed because people wanted to get better at this game. some of them went to extremes. That is, they began searching for frame-rate data, memorizing specific matchups, started relying on only "good" characters, and taking all the randomness out of the game.

Why?

It is not normal to study a game. Even the concept of "practice," which is seen often in the world of sports, is rather odd, as the objective is to become better so that you can win. The problem with this is it takes the "recreation" out of the game. It stops being as fun and light-hearted as it once was, and in many cases limits those involved to a select few characters, maps, and rulesets, while forcing them to learn new tactics and practice those tactics until perfected. A game with more than 3 dominant characters is often considered "balanced," and a game you have to invest a lot of practice and research to be good at is "deep." The exact depth is determined by how many levels of play there are, a game where many high level players can destroy eachother such that matches are consistently won by the slightly superior player tend to be "very deep."

The problem therefore shows itself thusly: If one is to be good and practice anything, why on earth would it be smash? The skills are only worth something until the next smash comes out. It limits the practical gameplay possibilities to few characters, and the number becomes especially small the higher up the player tiers one goes. It requires an absolutely incredible amount of knowledge and practice to be good at. And ultimately, all one learns from the experience is how to do a select few very precise button presses consistently. And maybe, just maybe, a player is enough of a genious (and a recluse) to win back the hours spent in front of a screen on a game that was meant to be played much differently than the way the player decided to play it.

How can being competitive be more fun than being non-competitive?

Your argument is based off of personal opinion. There's plenty of people that like Competitive Brawl, and as long as there is at least one person having fun doing so, then by it's own right it would be qualified as fun. Who are you to judge what's fun and what isn't? What's the right way to play the game and what's the wrong?

You're just a feeble, linear tool that tries to ruin the fun for others. Grow up.

 

[Psychoace]

wtf... people still don't understand that you can have different kinds of fun in different kinds of ways?

 

[Bluebottel]

And the elements that made the game deeper, complex AT's such as Falco's jump laser that can hit a ducking jigglypuff, and marth's wave-dash chain-grab, always were quite annoying not because there is anything wrong with having those techniques in a game but because there is something wrong with making those techniques prohibitively difficult to pull off for lower level players.

They werent made difficult since they werent made at all. They were simply a extension of the mechanics for other things combined into something else.

I wonder why there is so much need to feel "in control." Where's the fun in that?
And if we want to get very technical, there's not as much skill in that either; it takes more skill (and quite a bit of subtlety) to control 3 opponents with randomly spawning weapons than one opponent with a moveset that's known in advanced.

Controlling people in FFAs? Again, i want some of what you are smoking. FFAs are pointless to the extreme since the winning strategy is to not play. If the goal is to stay alive its always better not to fight at all leading to ******** situations were noone have motivation to engage.
If the goal were to get as many kills as possible however...

Also control is a cornerstone in a huge percent of all games. You want to control as much as possible at all times in the following types of games:

• Abstract strategy (space, key resources, position)
• Real time strategy games (resources, the map, chokepoints)
• Cardgames (order of the cards, your/the opponents hand, what the opponent can see)
• Racinggames (space, if you drive there noone else can)
• First person shooters (space, angles, spawnpoints, chokepoints, flags, powerups)
• Fightinggames (space, positioning)

Basically anything in any game that you can control, you want to control.
It takes a lot more to control you opponent and avoid getting controlled yourself while doing it, rather than whipping up some circus of a win.

Why?

Because that's how the game was designed to be played. As a multiplayer fighting game with random elements, a "party game" if you will. Competitvely it only grew because it was an awesome game, party and non-party wise.

Why do you even mention how it was designed? I dont care how things were "meant to be" only what they become. Its not our job to try to find the divine path of the designers.
If its a good one we might just walk it though.

 

[Dragonslayer9]

wtf... people still don't understand that you can have different kinds of fun in different kinds of ways?

Exactly.

Even if the random factor of the game takes away from the skill factor, its still fun enough to enjoy for SOME people. If you goto a place where they got items on then please, don't take it seriously, just have fun.

 

[Zankoku]

While I'm fine with a game being played for fun with items or whatever, I don't see what that has to do with competitive play being not fun.

 

[XienZo]

Controlling people in FFAs? Again, i want some of what you are smoking. FFAs are pointless to the extreme since the winning strategy is to not play. If the goal is to stay alive its always better not to fight at all leading to ******** situations were noone have motivation to engage.

What does that make planking?

 

[Melomaniacal]

It becomes more and more obvious that you do not understand competition or competitive Smash at all. In your mind, it's some kind of super serious way of life that we're doing wrong and making it less enjoyable. Or that we're bad people because we enjoy competition and winning.

We do not play competitive Smash to feel better about ourselves. We do not play to just win. We play Smash competitively because we ENJOY it. It is FUN to us.

It is a HOBBY. It is an ACTIVITY that we ENJOY.

That simple, and to suggest it goes any deeper than that is ignorant and, well, stupid.

 

[Zankoku]

What does that make planking?

It makes it all the more effective in FFAs.

 

[IrArby]

I can sort of see, or perhaps I'm just taking liberty with Halloween Captain's arguments when I say that competitive play becomes less fun when its centered around a smaller number of winning strategies/characters w/e. Spamming and winning by spamming is not fun or satisfying in the way that a huge tournament victory due to countless hours of training to sincerely be good is. Fighting a Spammer particularly good/effective spam is likewise not fun. This has been argued alot particularly when MK was completely dominant and I think its less true now but it still exists.

Sadly, games with narrower skill sets/physical attributes are highly popular in American culture (Football, Basketball) and probably other cultures as well. So its no surprise to me that people can enjoy beating 16 people consecutively using the same character and 1 or 2 different strategies.

As to More=Depth thats simply not true as anyone who has tried to play MarioKart Wii will tell you. The items are ridiculous, they reward the poorer player extremely well which is infuriating. A good general quality of options is much more depth enhancing than a number of poorer options. So you can probably tell how I feel about items in Smash.

And finaly, yes FFA were more fun before I learned the game (Melee) but theres a totally different feeling that you get from beating someone when both of you are well learned in your craft. It is simply to narrow to define it as "fun" or "not fun".

 

[The Sauce Boss]

First, pick a poker variation, then we'll talk.

I thought The Halloween Captain posted something about poker. I was talking about texas hold'em which you already kind of addressed so I guess nevermind?

While I'm fine with a game being played for fun with items or whatever, I don't see what that has to do with competitive play being not fun.

That is easy. It is called a** backwards logic.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

About me: Personally, I like Texas Hold'em. I'm not much of a pro, in that I pretty much don't play for money, but I like psycological games.

About competitive smash: My biggest question about competitive smash specifically, is that of all the useless things to get good at, smash has very little context outside of the competitive sphere. No amount of learning smash can amount to anything more than a proficiency at learn precision button presses, whereas even model ship-building at least builds manual dexterity. Of course, I'm not one to talk, as I love getting good at puzzles, and those can be really useless (except for maybe brain speed)

About "Competitive" FFA: Before bashing it, at least learn how truely, deceptively deep it is. FFA gives the advantage to those who avoid conflict. However, the golden rule of avoiding conflict is to not become the monkey in the middle. As a result, there is always a lot of conflict between players who are ironically trying to get out of conflict by going for the edges, which are also conveniently the easiest places to kill from. Not only that, but because the nature of FFA's is so political, it becomes a deeply complex affair of avoiding the notice of opponents while staying away from conflict, concluding with a 1v1 between the two players with the greatest understanding of "don't get hit." Even when players decide to team up against a single player, due to the fact that they have no true loyalties to eachother, the mastery of "don't get hit" is furthered by a need to pit opponents against eachother, causing them to hit their temporary allies in attempts to get at you and dissolving those temporary partnerships in annoyance with eachother's lack of loyalty and accuracy.

Yes, I am truely a competitive person, but I was late to knowing that competitive smash even existed, and the same is true of knowing the form in which it existed. I am competitive because I like the challenge, reguardless of who wins or loses. And my favorite games mix psycology with skill. I do sometimes wonder why I chose to get good at smash though, considering how many other things have these qualities as well as greater practical applications. Maybe because Falcon Punch is awesome?

EDIT: At below: I guess, because fun is good, hard work can be kinda fun if it's a hobby you feel strongly about. Well, there are two things that confuse me slightly about the fun factor -
1. Why do people keep playing Brawl competitively? I've heard a lot of complaints about it being boring, but I'll accept that people have changed their minds.
2. Why do you play FFA's mindlessly?

 

[Melomaniacal]

About competitive smash: My biggest question about competitive smash specifically, is that of all the useless things to get good at, smash has very little context outside of the competitive sphere. No amount of learning smash can amount to anything more than a proficiency at learn precision button presses, whereas even model ship-building at least builds manual dexterity. Of course, I'm not one to talk, as I love getting good at puzzles, and those can be really useless (except for maybe brain speed)

That's why it's for FUN. Not everything has to have some kind of use for everything in life, you know. It's a HOBBY. It's a GAME. It's for FUN. Some people think competition and competitive Smash is MORE fun than mindless FFAs (I'm not even going to bother responding to that other BS about how "deep and political" FFAs are).

Why can't you grasp that concept?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Halloween concept stop using the term useless. Eating good food is essentially useless towards doing much about anything, right? You could eat ****ty food that's equally nutritious but taste like balls, but you dont for a reason.

We play to win because we find it funner than sucking *** at the game. We've said this so many ****ing times, so stop asking why we play the way we do.

You're being a huge jack *** right now, stop it.

 

[Eddie G]

I agree with Falcon. Halloween, at this point you're just being stubborn for the sake of continuing a pointless argument. We all have our reasons for doing what we do, and we all have fun in different ways. No one is and should be obliged to play in any one way. Seriously...just drop it already.

 

[Waza]

I'm obviously going to have to explain what the problem with this is.

Winning is not a basic need. Those who feel a need to win, those who need to be good at something, they equate their worth with being better at something than someone else.

What I love is that despite you claiming to stick to your so-called "logical argument", you gradually change it and deny your previous statements. Why? You love to perpetuate your illogical beliefs.

How could anyone claim winning/competition is not a basic need? I ask you this: Are basic needs unlimited? By basic needs I refer to food/shelter/etc... Since the basic answer is NO, then you must have to COMPETE for your basic needs. This can be reworded in your lingo as: You must have to WIN your basic needs for survival. It's simple human nature and has been from the dawn of life all the way to modern civilization.

If you're not competing for basic needs, then you are either: 1. dead or in the process of dying, or 2. your on welfare (). I'm assuming you must feel the right way for people to exist is under one of those two choices if you follow your so-called "logic".

Hence, I reiterate my previous mantra: Competition is simple human nature. Those who can (or choose to), do. Those who can't (or choose not to), COMPLAIN.

Ankoku or some other mod, just end the thread....though i am enjoying this free post "increaser"...

 

[KillL0ck]

Waza, you're such **** <3

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Why do people keep playing Brawl competitively? I've heard a lot of complaints about it being boring, but I'll accept that people have changed their minds.

And yet you haven't accepted it after eleven pages of pretty much unanimous disagreement with you. If you based this idiotic idea of a competitive problem off of listening to other people, I have no idea why you're still holding onto it when we've all made it more than clear that you're wrong in saying what's fun for us.

From Burntsocks
Stauffy too good

O hai Socks. *Wave*

This is really all you had to say but then you made it even better.

I think we should make out.

I, uh... lost my tongue in 'Nam?

 

[Man of Popsicle]

This is stupid.
It's fun to be good.
Humans want to be better than other humans.
You lose.

 

[CRASHiC]

Can someone lock this thread so everyone can stop attacking the OP.

 

[mobilisq]