The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Battousai780]

I think that we should have a group of people who go and only play their matches with items off. If they get kicked out, so be it. Hehehe, this is ridiculous.

 

[Serris]

I did mention that tournaments with items on are horrible. Evo has items on in their ruleset, doesn't it?

Your research even proves that "stage control" is total crap and that items favor the losing player. Therefore, Evo is being idiotic. They should be taking this research into account when making decisions about these sorts of things. Then again, people are people, and people aren't exactly smart most of the time.

 

[StrippersandBeer]

seriously. we don't go to evo and tell them how to run a street fighter tourny. ex: only left handed people allowed, must wear an eye-patch over right eye, and have to play only ken v ryu or else you're disqualified.

again though, rules are still beta. still have hope they might get their **** straight. items are for fun. well said, "i want to fight the other player and see how good THEY are, not how good they are with items."

(:

 

[Serris]

"i want to fight the other player and see how good THEY are, not how good they are with items."

I think that pretty much sums up everyone's opinion here.

Items disturb the flow of a match. It goes from the match being all about you and your opponent to you and items you can THROW at your opponent. It takes up time, and items have random effects that can unfairly take a stock or decide a match.

Items have no place in tournaments, and therefore have no place on Evo's ruleset.

 

[Yuna]

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.

You can still combo into some of them, some are impossible to dodge because of how long the hitboxes are out and you can camp with them since going near someone with an FS is kinda asking for it.

 

[BigRick]

Items disturb the flow of a match. It goes from the match being all about you and your opponent to you and items you can THROW at your opponent. It takes up time, and items have random effects that can unfairly take a stock or decide a match.

Low spawn rate. try it

 

[Serris]

Low spawn rate. try it

Changing the spawn rates doesn't change the inherent bias of the item system toward the losing player.

Green shells and star rods may seem like petty items, but they're going to decide the fate of someone's match at some tournament, and only because they're biased toward the person who was losing in the beginning.

 

[Yuna]

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

We don't "claim" anything. We're stating facts.

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.

MrWizard claims he has video evidence. He claims he's open to debate. These are lies. We are merely trying to debate with him openly.

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.

Neutral Stages is BS? As opposed to "Custom EVO stage only!" or, as it stands now, "Smashville only!" (unless both players agree on a special stage, like in normal tournies)?

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

I didn't even look at your join date as you spoke too eloquently and intelligently for me to even care when you joined. But now that you've revealed your deep dark secret, your insight is less impressive XD.

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.

Just to clear things up: I did not say that.

Stuff.

Was that pretty how they all reacted to this? I mean, what kind of idiots think everyone will and should spam out their Final Smashes within 3 seconds of obtaining them? This is why they think they're easy to dodge, because they suck at using them.

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.

Now while it's off-topic to talk about GameFAQ's, SRK are the people behind EVO. So it's kinda relevant to discuss their reactions to our items research... especially when it gives us further insight into why they have no idea what the hell items is all about ("Use your FS within 3 seconds of getting it!").

again though, rules are still beta. still have hope they might get their **** straight. items are for fun. well said, "i want to fight the other player and see how good THEY are, not how good they are with items."

Some people are just too optimistic. Aaah, naivety. MrWizard has categorically refused to listen to anyone even remotely negative towards items on in tournaments, he's bypassed rules he set up himself in order to not ban people bashing said anti-items people. Heck, our threads about items favouring the loser are being dismissed with BS like "You use your FS within 3 seconds of getting it, anyway!".

 

[Serris]

"You use your FS within 3 seconds of getting it, anyway!"

Before or after it gets knocked out by a jab? Sure, you can try and get it back, but it's going to take a hell of a lot longer than three seconds.

MrWizard shouldn't be making rulesets that are "open for debate" if they really aren't.

Anti-Item Person: "I have proof that items are biased toward the losing player, thus screwing up any chance of having a fair fight!"

Evo: "Meh. Screw that. We have Final Smashes!"

They're never going to budge. It'd probably be easier to try and convince MLG to run Smash again than it would be to get Evo to change its rules. That's sad.

 

[BigRick]

Changing the spawn rates doesn't change the inherent bias of the item system toward the losing player.

Green shells and star rods may seem like petty items, but they're going to decide the fate of someone's match at some tournament, and only because they're biased toward the person who was losing in the beginning.

lol I know that spawn rates have no effect on the bias, why do you even bring that up?

my last post was answering that comment:

Items disturb the flow of a match. It goes from the match being all about you and your opponent to you and items you can THROW at your opponent. It takes up time, and items have random effects that can unfairly take a stock or decide a match.

I'll make myself clearer. Are you going to say that on a low spawn rate, the whole match's focus is around items? Are you going to say these random gamebreaking chain of events will appear frequently enough to screw over tourney results?

This is why I proposed you to try items-on brawl with low spawn rate. Not to make you like this kind of play... its more to get the facts straight.

No smash balls of course, the spawn rate is so high on these badboys they can spawn like 3 times in 3-stock match.

 

[Serris]

lol I know that spawn rates have no effect on the bias, why do you even bring that up?

my last post was answering that comment

I brought it up because you made it seem like a low spawn rate makes a huge difference. The bias is still there, and so is the interruption. No matter what happens, you're always going to wind up running for an item, whether you're chasing someone, or getting chased. The rate of appearance never matters.

 

[BigRick]

I brought it up because you made it seem like a low spawn rate makes a huge difference. The bias is still there, and so is the interruption. No matter what happens, you're always going to wind up running for an item, whether you're chasing someone, or getting chased. The rate of appearance never matters.

Actually it does. I hope that you tried it and that you're not saying stuff only by theory here.

At Low, items do not spawn fast enough to get the whole match's focus shifted towards them.

Less items = less ''interruptions'' (like you say)

 

[Yuna]

Actually it does. I hope that you tried it and that you're not saying stuff only by theory here.

At Low, items do not spawn fast enough to get the whole match's focus shifted towards them.

Less items = less ''interruptions'' (like you say)

We're talking probability here. It's not like setting items on low will guarantee no Smash Ball will spawn within 2 minutes.

If the game decides a Smash Ball should be the 1st item to spawn, then it will be the 1st item to spawn.

 

[BigRick]

We're talking probability here. It's not like setting items on low will guarantee no Smash Ball will spawn within 2 minutes.

If the game decides a Smash Ball should be the 1st item to spawn, then it will be the 1st item to spawn.

check my previous post, I wasnt even arguing about that

By the way, Smash balls have a higher spawn rate than most items... they will spawn at least once or twice even on low settings

and you dont need to bring em up... I've mentionned a hundred times already that I'm against smash balls

 

[Serris]

Actually it does. I hope that you tried it and that you're not saying stuff only by theory here.

At Low, items do not spawn fast enough to get the whole match's focus shifted towards them.

Less items = less ''interruptions'' (like you say)

But there are interruptions. Even you conceded that with that post.

And less items could also mean more of a scramble to get to one when it appears.

 

[mog87]

Id just like to point out how dumb it is that after 3 games they still dont allow you to change individual item frequency..

 

[yostuffstank]

i will put in my 2 cents and state that the customer is always right. EVO attracts competetive players and nothing less, and competetive players want no items. Why not just give the attendees of the great event what they want? Melee in EVO had no items, does he have a reason to change it now? Just because it's there doesn't mean it has to be used. It is only there to appeal to a bigger variety of people, and it just so happens these people that like items on do not go to big tournaments like EVO.

I was planning on attending EVO2k8 and planning on buying plane tickets and registering early, but unless the rules change to make the majority of their customers happy, the brawl area will seriouisly be lacking.

 

[Revolver Roosevelt]

Couldn't you just let the people actually playing the match AGREE on whether or not to use items that match? I'm pretty sure with that setup, everyone will get what they want >_>

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Less items = less ''interruptions'' (like you say)

But there are interruptions. Even you conceded that with that post.

Yeah.... you know those little vertical lines that I bolded around "interruptions"? Those are called "quotation marks". He was using your words, not his. Either stop trying to troll, or get a basic understanding of reading comprehension.

What you may consider "interruptions", he apparently does not. As do those who see the value of items. Even the minigames of WarioWare aren't really interruptions, as the game does not separate you from your opponent intentionally at any given time. All in all, though, it's a matter of opinion. As has been a lot of things stated in this thread. Evo's ruleset is a compromise of opinions. Not based off undeniable facts. If it had, we'd have All-Brawl.

 

[Samochan]

Meh, anyone registered on srk wanna propose a selectable item rule for this? >.>

Both players can first ban 1-2 items that cannot be selected and put on from the allowed items list and then pick 3-5 items to be put on. But it both players agree on a same item it will count toward both players item list. Item selection, I'm not sure if it should be done before or after players have chosen characters.

With this rule, a player that does not wish to play with smash balls and hotheads or whatever item could ban those items so their opponent cannot use them (like stage banning), but we'd still be playing with items on and those that wish to use smash balls could still select such items to be on. You're also free to choose items from the list that benefits your own characters and hinder your opponents by both selecting and banning certain items.

And some stage striking needs to be there really, otherwise we're gonna see Olimar vs Metanite on Skyworld. >_>

And I still don't understand why they don't like advanced slob picks.

 

[-Aether]

If they truly are open to debate, a pole should be proposed as to a few of the major questions. This would show that they truly do represent the Smash community that plans to attend EVO. Do it on the EVO webpage, for all I care.

Has anyone proposed this to Mr.Wizard? If he declines, it's clear he's just as stubborn as he claims the SWF community is. It also proves he was never really open for debate, and that he just wanted people to discuss what he had already made up his mind on. If he accepts, than at the minimum he has been true to his word.

 

[Samochan]

Has anyone proposed this to Mr.Wizard? If he declines, it's clear he's just as stubborn as he claims the SWF community is. It also proves he was never really open for debate, and that he just wanted people to discuss what he had already made up his mind on. If he accepts, than at the minimum he has been true to his word.

I think no one as of yet has proposed an item rule I suggested on last page, but most probably because we still do not want any items on really. Wiz is not planning on removing smash balls, hotheads, beam swords or any other item that's clearly overpowered, but with this rule we could make it actually seem we abide to their ruleset and support items to some degree when we could use this to actually ban the most broken items from play if we so wished. A compromise, so to speak.

But it has been apparent that they're not really open to debate. The most changes I have seen is from the atrocious 2 stocks 3min to 3 stocks 5 min, and sudden death no longer deciding the outcome from a timeout but stock and %.

 

[BigRick]

Couldn't you just let the people actually playing the match AGREE on whether or not to use items that match? I'm pretty sure with that setup, everyone will get what they want >_>

This is not a reasonable idea. You get a tournament in which ppl are playing different games.

Also what happens when an items-on meets an items-off player? They fight to the death to enforce their ruleset?

Meh, anyone registered on srk wanna propose a selectable item rule for this? >.>

Both players can first ban 1-2 items that cannot be selected and put on from the allowed items list and then pick 3-5 items to be put on. But it both players agree on a same item it will count toward both players item list. Item selection, I'm not sure if it should be done before or after players have chosen characters.

With this rule, a player that does not wish to play with smash balls and hotheads or whatever item could ban those items so their opponent cannot use them (like stage banning), but we'd still be playing with items on and those that wish to use smash balls could still select such items to be on. You're also free to choose items from the list that benefits your own characters and hinder your opponents by both selecting and banning certain items.

And some stage striking needs to be there really, otherwise we're gonna see Olimar vs Metanite on Skyworld. >_>

And I still don't understand why they don't like advanced slob picks.

Very interesting idea Samochan. This would increase the depth of the game by alot if that choice is made after character selection. It would be complicated to do though...

About advanced slob picks, didn't Evo made a compromise for that rule?

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Meh, anyone registered on srk wanna propose a selectable item rule for this? >.>

Both players can first ban 1-2 items that cannot be selected and put on from the allowed items list and then pick 3-5 items to be put on. But it both players agree on a same item it will count toward both players item list. Item selection, I'm not sure if it should be done before or after players have chosen characters.

With this rule, a player that does not wish to play with smash balls and hotheads or whatever item could ban those items so their opponent cannot use them (like stage banning), but we'd still be playing with items on and those that wish to use smash balls could still select such items to be on. You're also free to choose items from the list that benefits your own characters and hinder your opponents by both selecting and banning certain items.

And some stage striking needs to be there really, otherwise we're gonna see Olimar vs Metanite on Skyworld. >_>

And I still don't understand why they don't like advanced slob picks.

That reminded me of something I thought up awhile ago to see if I could still make items viable competitively (yeah, I tried back in the day). I thought of making items counterpickable. Like, you'd play the first match and then the loser would have the option of turning items on (from a set list). I think it later evolved to allowing the loser to turn on 1-2 items, and if the winner wanted to they could turn on 1-2 items as well (again, from a set list). I never actually worked out the details of the system or even tried it in a competitive setting. I just lost interest.

 

[RDK]

There's no point in lowering the competitive standard to include something that could be potentially favoring to one player over the other. Again, if items didn't spawn randomly, this wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[Samochan]

There's no point in lowering the competitive standard to include something that could be potentially favoring to one player over the other. Again, if items didn't spawn randomly, this wouldn't be that big of a deal.

They still do spawn to certain spawn points that are close to players and with the above ruleset half of the items that can spawn should be good items for you to use, after all you chose them. We cannot change the game engine to equaly distribute each item, but we could still try and up the competitive value with this rule, it does take some degree of skill to analyse your opponent character choice or known reputation to decide on enabled and banned items.

SRK might not like actually counterpicking items, I can imagine it would be a bigger hassle than with the ruleset I proposed. But I do wish we could have some choice over this matter. If they wanna play with smash balls, okay. But since we don't, we should be given a choice.

 

[RDK]

If you're talking about merely trying to convince Wizard and his goonies to change the EVO rules, then fine. But I don't think making items playable in tournies universally across the board is a good idea.

However, I'm simply not going to EVO this year. Getting 3-stocked in the semifinals by a Snake who got the Smash Ball three times in a row would make me do bad things to people.

 

[BigRick]

Yeah.... you know those little vertical lines that I bolded around "interruptions"? Those are called "quotation marks". He was using your words, not his. Either stop trying to troll, or get a basic understanding of reading comprehension.

What you may consider "interruptions", he apparently does not. As do those who see the value of items. Even the minigames of WarioWare aren't really interruptions, as the game does not separate you from your opponent intentionally at any given time. All in all, though, it's a matter of opinion. As has been a lot of things stated in this thread. Evo's ruleset is a compromise of opinions. Not based off undeniable facts. If it had, we'd have All-Brawl.

Thank you. With a low spawn rate, I feel (yes my opinion here) that items add to the flow of the match instead of dramatically shifting it.

It also adds a certain layer of decision making, there's simply not enough of them to turn the game into ''okay ill wait for items then chuck them at my opponent''

I'll also mention that when I play with items, I play with containers on. Yes this might be surprising to hear but IMO the game is better when they're on. There's that added aspect of sacrificing advantage for items and there's less situations where an opponent that just got hit gets a free item because it spawned while he was sent flying.

That reminded me of something I thought up awhile ago to see if I could still make items viable competitively (yeah, I tried back in the day). I thought of making items counterpickable. Like, you'd play the first match and then the loser would have the option of turning items on (from a set list). I think it later evolved to allowing the loser to turn on 1-2 items, and if the winner wanted to they could turn on 1-2 items as well (again, from a set list). I never actually worked out the details of the system or even tried it in a competitive setting. I just lost interest.

I don't understand why the option of turning items on would only be given to the loser of the 1st match.

Lol I know that it isn't the point of your theoritical ruleset but it kinda makes ppl feel that items only favor the losers.

 

[Yuna]

Couldn't you just let the people actually playing the match AGREE on whether or not to use items that match? I'm pretty sure with that setup, everyone will get what they want >_>

No, because how happy would an itemnite be if he were to only face anti-itemnites? The anti-itemnites would be happy, but not vice versa. Adversely, if you must both agree on turning them off to turn them off, then anti-itemnites will suffer. The one is mutually exclusive to the other.

They just give you invincibility stars and Super Mushrooms >_>'.

If they truly are open to debate, a pole should be proposed as to a few of the major questions. This would show that they truly do represent the Smash community that plans to attend EVO. Do it on the EVO webpage, for all I care.

Has anyone proposed this to Mr.Wizard? If he declines, it's clear he's just as stubborn as he claims the SWF community is. It also proves he was never really open for debate, and that he just wanted people to discuss what he had already made up his mind on. If he accepts, than at the minimum he has been true to his word.

I saw at least one SRK-user (as in someone I think goes to SRK but not SWF) suggest this. In fact, I think he was the only one to suggest a poll. MrWizard ignored him.

I think no one as of yet has proposed an item rule I suggested on last page...

We actually did. MrWizard ignored the suggestion.

But it has been apparent that they're not really open to debate. The most changes I have seen is from the atrocious 2 stocks 3min to 3 stocks 5 min, and sudden death no longer deciding the outcome from a timeout but stock and %.

Those are the only changes.

About advanced slob picks, didn't Evo made a compromise for that rule?

AFAIK, it's still Winner Stays, Loser Picks Stage or Switches Character (Slob Picks).

 

[ph00tbag]

I really like the item cp rules that Samo has suggested. Someone should PM Mr. Wizard with that. If he's at all reasonable, he'll see that this is the best way to accommodate all styles of play.

You could even have it so that after the first round, loser can choose to remove any number of items, or add an item that is not already banned.

[edit] Posted a tad late, it seems. I guess Mr. Wizard is just an *** that doesn't give a **** about the real Smash community.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Yuna, Wizard just recently changed the counterpicking system to a "compromise" that still suffers from some problems, but is vastly superior to their original system. Here is the thread: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=156153

Not as good as the advanced slob, but a step in the right direction. They also changed the whole "custom stage" thing to Smashville, and they unbanned Norfair. I think they may have removed an item or two, but I don't remember because they weren't substantial.

 

[Samochan]

If you're talking about merely trying to convince Wizard and his goonies to change the EVO rules, then fine. But I don't think making items playable in tournies universally across the board is a good idea.

Which is why I posted this on the Evo topic and not simply smashboards. <_<

And Yuna... *sigh* If that's true... well, gg... Meh. But I did read trough the topic and I didn't see anyone suggest this... but I might've just missed it.

Though repetion might not hurt... make it bold and everything so it's hard to miss, lol.

And SamuraiPanda, why is your avatar too cute? I cannot bear to watch it.

 

[RDK]

Is there any reasoning behind SV being the first stage before slob picks?

 

[Yuna]

Is there any reasoning behind SV being the first stage before slob picks?

We managed to convince him it's neutral. You should've seen the original ruleset. "1st stage is either an agreed upon stage or a custom EVO stage"... yeah, you read that right.

Wow, the new counterpicking rules are just... what the hell is wrong with these people?! If loser picks character, winner gets to counterpick stage?! An entirely random stage from the entire non-banned roster?! How could they even suggest such stupid crap?!

 

[-Aether]

I saw at least one SRK-user (as in someone I think goes to SRK but not SWF) suggest this. In fact, I think he was the only one to suggest a poll. MrWizard ignored him.

Well if this is the case more people should go on to the forum and basically demand this. Could an organized group be created so 50-60 people could ask for a simple poll? There is strength in numbers, and this is something that SWF can exploit more so than SRK (I think.)

 

[BigRick]

Is there any reasoning behind SV being the first stage before slob picks?

It's considered as the most neutral stage of the bunch.

Looking at past experiences, SRK will never listen to the mass. The most obvious one is CvS2's Roll Canceling glitch.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Yuna, the new counterpick rules are a combination of advanced slob and the original rules. Loser can counterpick "stage", "character", or "both". If they choose to counterpick both, then the winner is allowed to change his character (i.e. advanced slob) but if the loser chooses stage or character then the winner isn't allowed to change.

 

[RDK]

It's considered as the most neutral stage of the bunch.

Looking at past experiences, SRK will never listen to the mass. The most obvious one is CvS2's Roll Canceling glitch.

I know that; I meant to say "How did SRK come to the conclusion that SV was the most neutral?" They've screwed up on every other front, so it's odd that they'd finally do something right.

Yuna, the new counterpick rules are a combination of advanced slob and the original rules. Loser can counterpick "stage", "character", or "both". If they choose to counterpick both, then the winner is allowed to change his character (i.e. advanced slob) but if the loser chooses stage or character then the winner isn't allowed to change.

The winner should be allowed to change character if stage is slob picked by the loser, only on the grounds of the terrible stage ban list currently in the EVO rules. Otherwise, said system would be perfect.

 

[BigRick]

I know that; I meant to say "How did SRK come to the conclusion that SV was the most neutral?" They've screwed up on every other front, so it's odd that they'd finally do something right.

lol well SV was our suggestion

The winner should be allowed to change character if stage is slob picked by the loser, only on the grounds of the terrible stage ban list currently in the EVO rules. Otherwise, said system would be perfect.

agreed

 

[RedPeppers]

Yuna is right that's why he's owning all the counter arguments. How can you determine who is the best when there is an infinite amount of luck involved? Item spawns, which items fall when, maybe even an item benefiting a specific character more: Snake laying mines under cover of a smoke ball (bad example, but you get the point)?