The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Yuna]

no smash balls, no hammers

Yeah, go try telling MrWizard that.

 

[Ryuker]

Oh come off it.

I grab a Golden Hammer, what are you going to do? Infinite Pound (which is against the rules, by the way) 'til the 20 or so seconds during which the Golden Hammer lasts wears off? The only other options are pretty much quadruple jumping into a glide and then Up B:ing as Pit and you might be able to stall it out. Peach's float is nowhere near long enough.

But it's obviously your fault that I grabbed an overpowered item and obviously your fault for not having 4 jumps and a glide to help you evade it.

How is that different from Akuma? If the Akuma-player sucks enough, he won't win. It's your fault for getting hit by Akuma's broken ****! It's not a guaranteed win just because someone picks Akuma if the opponent can just outsmart him one jillion times.

Now play me when I get two Golden Hammers and one Smash Ball. It's obviously your fault you got hit by all 3... including my Fair into Final Smash as Marth. These items are on at EVO. And did you just not read my post where I said that I'm fine with EVO having items on if they just turn off all of the broken ones? They can play with Mr. Saturns, Smoke Balls and whatever. But they'd be stuck with, like, 4 items if we ban all broken ****.


Keep up. It's much easier for the losing player to knock an item out of/off the winner and vice versa.

I'm sorry I missed the part in which you said items can be turned on as long as golden hammers and such are off. I guess that's why you were using the golden hammer as argument each time. If your opinion is items can be turned on then I don't have to argue with you.

I read that items are harder to knock out of the hand of the losing player but I don't see that as a good enough reason to say items are bad for competitive play. I know it's harder to hit them out of his hand so I can prepare for that.

 

[BigRick]

Now I have to fight aggressively without any strategic consideration. I have to make sure I'm always in the best position to get an item when it happens. Who cares about the opponent? I'll just obliterate him when I get the item. And if he's good at dodging it? Well that sucks for me, but it won't change my play because I'm certainly not letting him get the next one.

lack of logic

not caring about your opponent = u not getting said item

 

[EnigmaticCam]

lack of logic

not caring about your opponent = u not getting said item

Lack of context. Reread the paragraph.

 

[SynikaL]

lack of logic

Just ask him to illustrate a Chess allegory for you with no alleged relation to Smash, Items or Chess and it'll all make sense. I promise.


-Kimo

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Just ask him to illustrate a Chess allegory for you with no alleged relation to Smash, Items or Chess and it'll all make sense. I promise.


-Kimo

Not my problem if you don't understand illustrations. And I never made any retorts to you, don't see why you felt the need to do to me.

 

[Jack Kieser]

For the record, it's totally possible to ledgestall both of the hammers. The Golden Hammer requires near perfect timing to pull it off, but after a little practice, it isn't hard at all to dodge either hammer with a ledgestall.

 

[BigRick]

Lack of context. Reread the paragraph.

okay ill give it another shot, Yuna style

The biggest problem I have with items is simply that I don't want to compete with them on. If I want to play a game that requires me to manipulate probability in my favor, I'll go play poker. There's plenty of that in Vegas.

very strong argument. can I feel that your following arugments will be biased towards no-item play

Maybe if Evo were just allowing a few small items that didn't make much of a difference, like a Mr. Saturn or a Home-run bat, or whatever. Maybe then it wouldn't be so bad. But smash balls? ray guns? Hammers? Now the entire match COMPLETELY changes. I have to spend the whole match worrying that a strong item, one that could potentially grant my opponent or myself a HUGE advantage, could spawn and I may not be there to get it.

I agree, hammers and smash balls would be detrimental to gameplay, the fact that they give too big of an advantage is an argument, but I feel that there's much more to that.

Now I have to fight aggressively without any strategic consideration.I have to make sure I'm always in the best position to get an item when it happens.

Yes you have to be more agressive, but do you remember how strong defensive options are in this game? I really doubt that applying pressure without any strategic consideration will give you results versus a decent opponent.

Who cares about the opponent? I'll just obliterate him when I get the item.

Again, not outplaying your opponent beforehand will reduce your chance of getting said item.

And if he's good at dodging it? Well that sucks for me, but it won't change my play because I'm certainly not letting him get the next one.

If he's good at dodging it it doesn't only sucks for you it means that he's better than you at defense. If you can manage to get the next item then good job, try to punish him hard for his mistakes.

As far as I'm concerned, items only stagnate the game. And when only allowing small items that don't do very much, they simply get in the way and add no value anyways.

I dont think so, most items have their use... look at Yuna, he thinks 95% of them are BROKEN.

It's not a game I want to play, and it's not a game I will travel hundreds of miles to compete in.

It's good, enjoy Vegas with your wife then. Some will want to play that game, even though there will definitely be less people.

 

[BigRick]

For the record, it's totally possible to ledgestall both of the hammers. The Golden Hammer requires near perfect timing to pull it off, but after a little practice, it isn't hard at all to dodge either hammer with a ledgestall.

Exactly, the real issue with Hammers/timer FSes/Invincibility Star is that they literally stop the match for half a minute (but theyre still too powerful)

 

[Yuna]

I read that items are harder to knock out of the hand of the losing player but I don't see that as a good enough reason to say items are bad for competitive play. I know it's harder to hit them out of his hand so I can prepare for that.

You can prepare for it by doing what? Just not letting him get the really good items? Or simply never allowing your opponent to stay one stock behind for a prolonged time? It's not fair and it's not good for Competitive play to auto-handicap the winner.

Why should it be OK for you to drop the Smash Ball from a single hit yet you have to hit him 4 times for the same effect?

For the record, it's totally possible to ledgestall both of the hammers. The Golden Hammer requires near perfect timing to pull it off, but after a little practice, it isn't hard at all to dodge either hammer with a ledgestall.

I'm sorry, you must not know that Golden Hammers can float. So I'll just jump off and hit you off the stage. Even if you airdodge it, I can just keep floating at the same spot, forcing you to eventually Up B into it. The only way for you not to die from it is for me to be floating where you Up B hits me.

 

[BigRick]

You can prepare for it by doing what? Just not letting him get the really good items? Or simply never allowing your opponent to stay one stock behind for a prolonged time? It's not fair and it's not good for Competitive play to auto-handicap the winner.

Why should it be OK for you to drop the Smash Ball from a single hit yet you have to hit him 4 times for the same effect?

I agree, there is no fairness in that. Handicapping the winner with something that doesnt fit in the game design (unlike puzzle games) is not a good idea.

However I do not think that it's really relevant to argue that items are unfair because of that particular example if the smart pro-item crowd generally agrees that smash balls should be turned off in the first place for other logical reasons.

Furthermore, if these auto-handicapping measures are not strong enough to greatly increase variability in tournament results, theres is no reason to remove them even though we dont like them... Think of it as a scrub-level balance tool that high level players can get over... even though it's anti-competitive, sometimes devs have to do stuff like that to obtain balance at all levels of play.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

okay ill give it another shot, Yuna style

For the most part, you got everything right But let me just clarify a couple things...

can I feel that your following arugments will be biased towards no-item play

That's fine, for the most part they are. But this discussion is the Evo rule-set, and it's obvious by now that "I don't want to play smash with items on" isn't going to cut it for SRK. So I'm doing my best to find reasons why items don't work for competitive play. You don't see me in other items threads that are strictly SWF-based because I really don't care about those. I honestly cared about going to evo this year though, and that's why I was there from the beginning.

I agree, hammers and smash balls would be detrimental to gameplay, the fact that they give too big of an advantage is an argument, but I feel that there's much more to that.

Glad we can come to an agreement. Honestly, I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for a few select items they're allowing. I would probably still would argue that without the big items there's no point in adding the small items, but not to the degree that I was before, and I probably would still go to Evo.

Yes you have to be more agressive, but do you remember how strong defensive options are in this game? I really doubt that applying pressure without any strategic consideration will give you results versus a decent opponent.

Perhaps, but the whole point is that I'm forced to play aggressively, which suddenly take out a whole plethora of approaching options. Just to spite SynikaL, Ima throw out another chess analogy. It would be as if you were forcing everyone to stick to one single opening in every game they play. That one opening is certainly not without it's strategies, but there's a lot more to the game than that one opening.

Again, not outplaying your opponent beforehand will reduce your chance of getting said item.

I never said you should just sit there without a thought to your opponent and hope to get an item. My point was that you're really just aggressively fighting to get the item - you're not really fighting your opponent till you get an item that can KO.

If he's good at dodging it it doesn't only sucks for you it means that he's better than you at defense. If you can manage to get the next item then good job, try to punish him hard for his mistakes.

My point is that as long as smash balls and hammers are turned on, it doesn't really matter how good either competitor is at dodging them (a common argument used by the pro-items). Mistakes are made by all, including the pros, and a poorly spaced fsmash is not nearly as punishable as a badly timed dodge of a final smash. Thus, if your opponent totally sucks at dodging them or is really good at dodging them, you're still gonna be playing exactly the same way.

I dont think so, most items have their use... look at Yuna, he thinks 95% of them are BROKEN.

They do have their uses, but I don't think people would care enough about changing their game to fight for them. At that point you have to ask, what's the point?

It's good, enjoy Vegas with your wife then. Some will want to play that game, even though there will definitely be less people.

Thanks. No hard feelings to you or anyone in this thread, I'm just mostly peeved at SRK and their attitude towards anyone who plays smash.

 

[-Aether]

Let me start off by saying I've been playing high level gaming for the last decade of my life. I played Starcraft and Chess competitively, getting an upwards of 250 APM's in SC and playing in Chess tournaments like sweet 16's etc. While I'm not professional at either, I take them pretty **** seriously and have won money in both. The same is also true for Smash.

I'd like to say that people using the "Slippery Slope" argument from David Sirlin's book "Playing to Win" should really consider the nature of gaming and competition as a whole; I for one believe it's completely invalid, and a lot of other competitive gamers do so as well. Do some more research on David Sirlin and you'll find wonderfully written essays that completely debunk his insane opinion on games like Chess and Starcraft which he claims suffer from the slippery slope problem, when in reality they do not.

Also, I saw Polarity talking about randomness being a good thing in MTG. While MTG is extremely competitive, the randomness does result in losses that may of otherwise been wins. Of course, just like in poker, if you play enough rounds, probability will eventually weed out the outliers. However, in Smash and in MTG, you don't play enough rounds for probability to take its course; single losses can hugely impact a set.

I for one played MTG on the PT for a season, back in Ody. Block. I've lost several matches playing MBC vs. UG Aggro/control on lucky top decks. Literally, when your opponent has 30 cards left in the deck, and one of them when drawn will result in a win, you can acutely feel the randomness factor taking it's toll.

This is the problem with Smash; Ultimately if you play 10 matches, the best player will have a better record, even with items. But, YOU CANNOT PLAY TEN MATCHES BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS. This fact alone should be used to keep randomness out of smash. Until every set is played in numbers as drastic as best of nine, a clearcut mathematical case can be made as to why items should remain off. I don't care if you think items require a larger skill set. I will concede this point to you, because it is moot. Competition should be about assessing the better player, that is its nature. However, until a method of accurately assessing skill with items comes about without taking 20 ****ed hours to run a tournament, everyone on the item side of the argument should kindly step down.

 

[Yuna]

-Aether, while that's one very eloquently written post, what you've just said has been said countless times by, among others, me. They just won't listen/don't agree with it.

The following counter-arguments have been used:
* It's more fun and varied
* Some randomness is OK and might even make it better
* Hey, as long as a huge number of sets aren't decided by this randomness
* STAGE COOONTROOOOOOL!

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Dangit, Yuna and others are owning every counterarguement that's brought up to this subject. But the thing that makes me mad is that they just brush it off and either repeat what they just said, or just laugh and go on being idiots.....

 

[RyuuAqua]

I'm with Yuna and Aether on this issue, among others who agree that EVO's thoughts on items are ridiculous.

The chess analogies seriously don't work, guys. The only analogy I could think of between item Smash and chess is this, which I call "Chess with Items".

Imagine that every turn, before any player makes a move, that player rolls, let's say, a 6-sided die. If this die comes up a 1 or a 2, one piece among Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, and Queen appears on any random unoccupied space of the board. A coin flip determines who gets it, or, alternately, it comes under the control of the player closest to it. Of course, it doesn't happen all the time, and better players COULD win regardless, it's pretty much a slap to the face when a know-nothing suddenly has two queens without advancing a pawn to the end, or suddenly spawns a piece for instant checkmate. Not only that, it's impossible to predict when or where your opening or your endgame could be instantly ruined by falling pieces.

It becomes clear pretty quickly that a better way to determine skill in a tournament setting, where money and rankings are on the line, is to get that type of absurdity out of the game as best as possible. In Brawl, this means no items, and bans for a lot of stages.

As to the Smash Balls/Golden Hammers arguments: Smash Balls are on at Evo. Golden Hammers are on at Evo. Regardless of the merit of items (which I believe, as my analogy to a Chess game "with items" shows, should not interfere with competition), those two ARE incredibly dangerous and nigh-undodgeable attacks that ARE on at Evo.

 

[Samochan]

-Aether, while that's one very eloquently written post, what you've just said has been said countless times by, among others, me. They just won't listen/don't agree with it.

The following counter-arguments have been used:
* It's more fun and varied
* Some randomness is OK and might even make it better
* Hey, as long as a huge number of sets aren't decided by this randomness
* STAGE COOONTROOOOOOL!

Well I actually do not care about SRK anymore because I don't feel the need to go there, type my fingers sore and just see them brush it all off like it's nothing. >_> I prefer hanging around on SWF. But maybe some people here can go and agree with the viewpoint Aether presented. After all, it was different, well written post that did not come from usual posters on this thread. It's good to have more people discussing with different views about the subject.

But dangit Yuna, stop confusing me with such fancy english words like "eloquent". @_@ I dunno even how to spell it lol. You're making me bring out my textbook more often than I should. :<

 

[AlphaZealot]

As to the Smash Balls/Golden Hammers arguments: Smash Balls are on at Evo. Golden Hammers are on at Evo. Regardless of the merit of items (which I believe, as my analogy to a Chess game "with items" shows, should not interfere with competition), those two ARE incredibly dangerous and nigh-undodgeable attacks that ARE on at Evo.

Its not that I want items on, but people on the anti-item side of the debate need to brush up and actually know the arguments for pro-items. Golden Hammer can be dodged, and pretty much every final smash can be dodged as well or at least you can make it supremely difficult for them to connect.

 

[-Aether]

-Aether, while that's one very eloquently written post, what you've just said has been said countless times by, among others, me. They just won't listen/don't agree with it.

The following counter-arguments have been used:
* It's more fun and varied
* Some randomness is OK and might even make it better
* Hey, as long as a huge number of sets aren't decided by this randomness
* STAGE COOONTROOOOOOL!

Wow, I guess even when intelligent people can spell it out for the opposition they fail to recognize their blatant ignorance.

 

[crazygoose]

OK, so what I'm not getting is this:

You claim that the Smash Bros competitive scene grew into what it is without the aid of major sanctioned events like Evo or MLG.

If this is the case, then WHY do you care now? They have their rules, you have yours. This constant b*tching about how they run things is the equivalent of walking into someone elses house and complaining that you can't smoke inside.

For years I've always thought that no items/neutral stages was a bullsh*t way to run a tournament, but I didn't complain or try to persuade tournament runners to change their rules because it wasn't what I wanted. If a tournament held rules I didn't want to play by, I simply didn't play. Emphasis on SIMPLY.

Why this has turned into a god d*mned e-war and spanned multiple topics here is beyond me. It blows my mind.

You don't like their rules? Don't go. You won't be missed.

Now if you're all done crying, lock this.

 

[Samochan]

OK, so what I'm not getting is this:

You claim that the Smash Bros competitive scene grew into what it is without the aid of major sanctioned events like Evo or MLG.

If this is the case, then WHY do you care now?

It's still smash, that's why. <_<

 

[SamuraiPanda]

OK, so what I'm not getting is this:

You claim that the Smash Bros competitive scene grew into what it is without the aid of major sanctioned events like Evo or MLG.

If this is the case, then WHY do you care now? They have their rules, you have yours. This constant b*tching about how they run things is the equivalent of walking into someone elses house and complaining that you can't smoke inside.

For years I've always thought that no items/neutral stages was a bullsh*t way to run a tournament, but I didn't complain or try to persuade tournament runners to change their rules because it wasn't what I wanted. If a tournament held rules I didn't want to play by, I simply didn't play. Emphasis on SIMPLY.

Why this has turned into a god d*mned e-war and spanned multiple topics here is beyond me. It blows my mind.

You don't like their rules? Don't go. You won't be missed.

Now if you're all done crying, lock this.

The thread doesn't warrant locking as the debates have not degraded into ad hominem spam posts yet. I've stated multiple times that I absolutely love EVO. I want to go, and I've wanted to go for years. I've wanted to go even before I picked up Smash competitively. But the problem is, I've wanted to go as a competitor, not a spectator. And now, after all these years, the chance is right in front of me... only to pulled out from under me by all of this crap. That, among other things, is why I care now.

Not only that, but read this quote from the EVO website:

Smash players embody EVO's competitive spirit and we're proud to invite them to show that SSBB belongs among the greatest competitive fighting titles in the world.

Who do you think they're talking to? What community do you think they're aiming this at? Thats right, its OURS. After telling us they loved our community last year, they wanted us back this year, and things similar to the quote above, they go ahead and pull THIS on us.

Now do you see some of the reasons why I care about this?

 

[-Aether]

Although Evo and MLG may of had their parts, they have always respected the community. I think it's relatively common knowledge that SWF has contributed far more to the evolution of this wonderful series than the professional gaming industry has. This change is rules is a bold slap in the face to veterans of the smash community.

We are, at the core, a model competitive gaming community. This is my opinion and I believe many others would share it.

If you havent figure it out, my join date does not reflect the time I've spent playing competitive smash. I've been here for over 5 years and I hope to see this webpage continue.

 

[Samochan]

Although Evo and MLG may of had their parts, they have always respected the community.

MLG yes, but not Evo, definitely not. Only at 2007 they started to show some respect toward smash community, but now... *sigh* The thread SamuraiPanda posted sums it up pretty well. >_>

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=155923

 

[polarity]

Although Evo and MLG may of had their parts, they have always respected the community. I think it's relatively common knowledge that SWF has contributed far more to the evolution of this wonderful series than the professional gaming industry has. This change is rules is a bold slap in the face to veterans of the smash community.

So because your community made competitive Smash what it is today, anyone who wants to run a Smash tournament should remain beholden to your community's desires? Please.

 

[kamekasu]

So because your community made competitive Smash what it is today, anyone who wants to run a Smash tournament should remain beholden to your community's desires? Please.

The point is that the people who understand the game and who have spent years developing fair and balanced rulesets for tournaments should have some say in the rulesets for major national events such as EVO. The people at SRK, including Mr Wizard, obviously do not understand, nor do they wish to understand, competitive smash and as a result, created this ridiculous ruleset. It's not the community's 'desires,' it's necessary for fair play, the foundation of competitive gaming, something that SRK should understand.

 

[StrippersandBeer]

MLG yes, but not Evo, definitely not. Only at 2007 they started to show some respect toward smash community, but now... *sigh* The thread SamuraiPanda posted sums it up pretty well. >_>

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=155923

no, actually, 2006 is when MLG sponsored a smash tourny at evo. was too good then. last year was even better. 2008. man. we'll see who goes and who don't. it's a new game. it's brawl.

 

[Samochan]

no, actually, 2006 is when MLG sponsored a smash tourny at evo. was too good then. last year was even better. 2008. man. we'll see who goes and who don't. it's a new game. it's brawl.

The point still stands, albeit I was a bit misinformed. I never was good with dates and years.

 

[RDK]

Its not that I want items on, but people on the anti-item side of the debate need to brush up and actually know the arguments for pro-items. Golden Hammer can be dodged, and pretty much every final smash can be dodged as well or at least you can make it supremely difficult for them to connect.

I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate Alpha, but to the party in question: this isn't Halo, or Quake, or some other game where items spawn at set points. Items in Smash wouldn't be as big a problem if didn't spawn randomly.

Also, on the topic of EVO--it's been going downhill for a number of years now, thanks in part to our friends over at Shoryuken, so it's really no surprise when they pull **** like this on us.

@ Panda: making threads like that at SRK won't help much. It's been done before with similar response.

 

[BananaHammock]

Just want to chime in with something I saw in a different forum. I don't remember who said it. Could have been Yuna. That's beside the point. Here it is: Items might add a new skill to the game, but the issue is that it's not a skill that anyone cares to test. The skill we want to be testing is how good you are with your character against everybody else's characters. I don't care how good you are with a beam sword and I DEFINITELY don't care how good you are with a golden hammer. Nobody does, or at least, shouldn't care.

I've said my peace. Good day.

 

[Samochan]

After SamuraiPanda posted about Xiivi's test of items favoring the loser here...

The mere ***posibility*** of rubberbanding built into the 'randomness' was one of the key reasons to play 2 STOCK matches in 3 out of 5 sets.

While the rules state as follows and reasons behind them.

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5123056&postcount=1

So.. hardly, lol. >_>

Also..

Ok the dragoon is banned,shame you guys can't read and whats the problem with the smashballs hits while winner having it?

Who isn't going to use their special within 3 sec after getting it? The only reason would be if you have the SB and your opponent is at 100%+ and you want to get rid of that stock without using your SB but thats taking a risk. So you just proved the game takes more skill with items on! Are you sure you're not pro-items?

*facepalms*

But anyways, here's actually something we could go and test out.

my question is if someone is if player 1 is down 1 stock to 2 stock, and he gains the fs, k.o's the other person, if player 2 attacks player 1, will he be able to knock it out?

So if player 1 gets smash ball, is losing and KO's player 2 without using FS, does it change how much you need to beat the losing player in order to knock out the smash ball since the stocks are even/more even now? I'd be interested to see the test results on this.

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Personally, I've lost just about all respect for SRK. Thinking they know better about a game they've shunned and disrespected for so long than the people who made the game's scene what it is to point of wanting it in their Tournaments. When they have the audacity to go as far as saying Smash isn't a fighting franchise and is on the same level of crap as SOUL CALIBUR, that's were I draw the line.



And they think WE'RE the idiots.......

 

[RDK]

Arguing with SRK is like arguing with people in the Brawl Boards. Just say no.

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

You should see the Gamefaqs Brawl Boards.



Swarmed by casual elitists, scrubs who think Ike is overpowered, trolls, stupid fads. I'd say it comes close to the stupidity of the SRK boards. I'm like Moses trying to bring the Ten commandments on tha site, but all of them just seem to cling to their horrible misconceptions about competitive Smash and "Tiers don't exist" crap.

Altough I did manage to get My Tier list topic a total of 2000 posts before I stopped and brang it to the Tier discussion Topic here.

 

[Samochan]

Holy crap, I just forgot the brokeness that's kirby's final smash with items on till I gazed at the funny brawl pics.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9420/cd930051a563a86eimageak8.jpg

Cept that I'm not sure how many items you get with each char on the pot and do items depend on what items are actually on.

...

Kirby's on ur battlefield, farming ur itemz.

 

[Xiivi]

This topic is about Evo's ruleset and the effects items may have during it. Not about bashing other forums such as SRK, gamefaqs, etc... or joking about farming items. That gets us nowhere. Please discuss the topic at hand as I would not like to see this topic locked, especially when it causes people to actually test multiple aspects about items.

 

[Serris]

All joking aside, a tournament with items is a bad idea. It just ruins any chance of having a fair match. The research from earlier proves it.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

As funny as that picture is, that stops here. As Xiivi said, we need to stick to discussing about the topic at hand, the Evo ruleset, in an intelligent manner without posting spam. This thread was doing well in the beginning when people were doing research. Lets not degenerate this thread to the point of locking.

 

[Samochan]

This topic is about Evo's ruleset and the effects items may have during it. Not about bashing other forums such as SRK, gamefaqs, etc... or joking about farming items. That gets us nowhere. Please discuss the topic at hand as I would not like to see this topic locked, especially when it causes people to actually test multiple aspects about items.

Aww man, dun be so uptight about the farming joke. :< And even when joking I presented a valid concern about kirby's final smash granting free items (though I was too lazy to elaborate further). There isn't much about it on boards so I'm not certain do the "off" items spawn when kirby cooks or only the "on" items, and how much per character kirby cooks. I hope it's the latter... cause otherwise we can say hello to spicy curry, hearts and maxim tomatos.

Along with this:

So if player 1 gets smash ball, is losing and KO's player 2 without using FS, does it change how much you need to beat the losing player in order to knock out the smash ball since the stocks are even/more even now? I'd be interested to see the test results on this.

Soo... up for some test runs? :3 At least we can do some good to wobbles here if we get more info bout items.


And Serris, I didn't really need that image stretching mah screen. >.>

 

[RDK]

As funny as that picture is, that stops here. As Xiivi said, we need to stick to discussing about the topic at hand, the Evo ruleset, in an intelligent manner without posting spam. This thread was doing well in the beginning when people were doing research. Lets not degenerate this thread to the point of locking.

I seriously doubt anything we throw at Mr. Wizard will say their decision to change the ruleset in time, let alone ever. Logic didn't help; videos of items causing homosexual things to happen in matches won't change their minds either. This is SRK we're talking aboug.

There are plenty of other [Brawl] tournaments to go to. Trust me, I wanted to go to EVO as much as you. All of P2W was going to go as a group. But after seeing the ruleset, there's just no point in going.