The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[SamuraiPanda]

Can you please allow another thread for the item research SamuraiPanda? I want to follow it without having to be subjected to posts by Yuna or SynikaL.

If you are willing to take all of the research found in this thread, credit the research to the source, and repost it into a thread dedicated to studying items in the Brawl Tactical Discussion, then yes, I believe its time that this research has its own thread. Plus, I'm sure this thread will die out soon enough.

And be sure to post a link to the new thread in this thread, just in case some of the previous "researchers" don't notice this exchange.

 

[SamuraiPanda2]

i think some of us take smash waaay to serious, but hey it's a great game, right?

 

[IShotLazer]

Panda I see what you're saying.
SRK is going to be missing out. I guarantee that when 90% of the local people that go there to play smash and they have items on people are going to feel giped out of their money and they will not go back to play smash. I guess it really matters on how many people go there. If they think they can get enough people in one scene than they will make a profit over having a smaller crowd come back again and again then we are doomed.
Either way, people aren't as stupid as perceived especially when they have money on the line (God I can be beaten for saying this...) They don't wanna lose to luck, and frankly a casual player still knows when they get **** end of the stick.

As to watching Smash from a casual's scene I really don't have much to say there. I can say that when I don't know what's going on a game is very boring. When I saw MvC2 I had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on, people were coming in outta no were Triangle jumping and juggling and I had no idea about any of it. It was boring.
But having items on wouldn't make it much more interesting to watch, at least profitiable. There is no guy to root for. When you have someone to root for, some planted figure (metaphorically), you are more attached and pay more attention. With items its chaos and jumbling everywhere with little to no side.

 

[SynikaL]

I agree with what Sirlin is saying, but what about inevitable meta-game refinement? An Occam's Razor approach to high-level Brawl just doesn't seem like it could hold up in the future, especially when concerning items. There are simply too many variables to consider.

But maybe that's part of the point.

Eh.


-Syn

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I agree with what Sirlin is saying, but what about inevitable meta-game refinement? An Occam's Razor approach to high-level Brawl just doesn't seem like it could hold up in the future, especially when concerning items. There are simply too many variables to consider.

But maybe that's part of the point.

Eh.


-Syn

QFT.

Nice reference to the Law of Succinctness, btw.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Polarity, out of curiosity, where did Sirlin say that? I've never really seen him post much about Smash (yet).

Anyways, to respond to your post, I've had ideas of why Mr. Wizard would go about putting items on in tournaments, and that confirms many of my thoughts. Items not being on in this tournament is NOT a matter of brokenness any longer. They have established amongst themselves that the "unfairness" or "brokenness" of items is not enough to warrant a ban. They are correct, to an extent, with that thinking. However, I have addressed that issue in one of my posts that I continually respond with; Items-on versus items-off is NOT a matter of banning items. It is simply a setting within the game, much like time or stock. Many people cite that items are "random" or "broken" as reasons for why they aren't used in competitive Smash. To a point, that may be true, but the best reason is simply because this is the setting that the competitive Smash scene enjoys to play with. I've continually asked them to not look at this as a matter of brokenness, but they have either ignored me, or more likely, have other reasons for having items on.

So let me list out the reasons I believe EVO chose to put items on in their tournament:

1. They aren't "broken"
I have just addressed this above.

2. The rules for competitive Smash are too complex, and need simplification
Simple rules make smoother and easier tournaments, and give newcomers an easier time adjusting to the competitive scene. This is true. And trust me, the future ruleset is going to become increasingly complicated. I can see why, from their perspective, that this is a bad thing. They are used to fighting games where they only need to emulate the arcade versions and they are good to go for tournaments. But Smash isn't made to be a competitive game. Smash was meant to be a party game, but ended up being much deeper than anybody could have possibly expected. Yet, because of what Smash was meant to be, we have inherent balance issues when we convert it to a competitive game. Thats the entire idea. We, the competitive Smash community, are collectively converting a party game into a competitive game, almost like making a new game altogether. In a way, we are almost like developers (albeit with limited options). As developers of competitive Smash, it is our responsibility to tweak the game and make sure the game is as fair as possible for all parties. Smash is not inherently balanced for one on one situations in a tournament setting like normal fighting games are supposed to be. That is why Smash is unique in terms of rules, and requires a unique perspective from other fighting games. We are responsible to balance this new game. This is a tough job given what limitations we have in the game. Which is, unfortunately, why our rules are so complicated.

3. Smash is a huge game now, and SRK is missing out
This one is actually from a business standpoint. Those behind SRK have seen how popular Smash has become. They've seen the incredible growth in the community and the size we have grown to be. SRK is supposed to be the best place to go for nearly every fighting game out there. But not Smash. No, they didn't like Melee or 64 very much in the past. So, they want to open their doors now that Brawl is out, and try to get a piece of the Smash pie. But between SWF and AllisBrawl, who would want to go to SRK? There is no reason for yet another site for Smash. But, with Brawl, there is an influx of new people. Many of those new people barely know how competitive Smash works, despite wanting to be a part of it, and are likely still playing with items on, because they can't figure out why they've been banned. That is SRK's ticket to a new community. A niche that has opened with the release of a new game that will allow them to be a source that none of the other sites can provide: An alternative ruleset, with items. While they may be losing out on us, they are actually investing in the future. If they had a tournament using our rules, why would anybody stick to SRK over SWF? They would definitely have a bigger turnout, but their own community wouldn't grow very much at all. With items on, they're hoping that this becomes a long-term investment, by planting a seed they hope will grow. And you know what? Its smart from a business standpoint, and I can't fault them for thinking that way. But from SWF's experience, there really isn't very many people interested in competitive Smash with items on, and this new community they may or may not build, probably won't last very long. But who knows what the future holds. They may actually succeed.

4. This early in the game, Brawl is just not very fun to watch
Every Melee player, and many Brawl players, all complain that Brawl is so boring to watch. Many players play overly defensive games, and the entire game itself just plain runs slower. If you've ever seen videos of EVO, you'll notice the crowd cheering when something awesome happens. That is one of the biggest appeals of EVO; a game that is fun to play competitively AND is fun to watch. I've heard that Melee at EVO last year was awesome... for Smashers. Some SRK members are adamant that anybody who wasn't in the Smash scene just plain didn't enjoy watching the Melee finals. They didn't know what was going on! And the same applied for Smash fans to other EVO games. The majority of people who play Smash have only really played Smash at a competitive level. Hell, many of them likely haven't even played MvC2 before. So Smash fans don't really watch the other games as much, and they don't really "add" to the EVO spectatorship. But they can at least alleviate one of those two problems. The game boring to watch for EVO regulars, Melee, just became more boring to watch. But throw in something like items, and now the game speeds up a bit. There is more speed, more action, more things going on, and overall more fun to watch. Also, if items are on low, then that really doesn't matter. An item every now and then really doesn't add too many items, so its still not entertaining. But what about a steady stream of items every 8-14 seconds when you up the spawn rate to medium? That is definitely more crazy, and will definitely provide a better experience for the people watching who never liked watching Smash before.

5. They honestly believe they can create a better competitive Smash than we can
This is one of the few truly negative points here. They believe that with all their "experience" and "intelligence" that they would create a better version of competitive Smash than we at SWF can. Like I said before, the community is essentially the development team for this new competitive version of Smash. The guys behind EVO/SRK don't like our competitive version. And they think they are better "developers" than we are. This is truly a smack in the face to every person who considers themselves a competitive Smasher, and is one of the main reasons so many people are up-in-arms about this entire issue. It takes a special and deep kind of arrogance to do what they are doing.



I'm sure there are more reasons than that, though. I even forgot a point or two while I was typing that all out. But I honestly believe that no amount of logic, evidence, or debate will change what EVO is doing. Its unfortunate, but its true.

I'm sure that right there is the number one reason, when it all comes down to it, why SWF is so pissed at SRK

 

[SynikaL]

QFT.

Nice reference to the Law of Succinctness, btw.

Smooth Criminal

Hey look! All that "double speak" I employ with a superfluous vocabulary managed to stumble into something concrete!

Let's see if I can make lighting strike twice!

*edit*

Thinking about this more, the Anti-Item faction could just as easily state that Occam's Razor can be applied more efficiently to their ideals. Without Sirlin providing a real foundation for his philosophy or delineation of reason (outside tournament running time, like Panda mentioned), there's no real way to use that, specifically, against him.

I think the real point, as he said (and I've stated numerous times) there's no reason to see one style as more competitively suitable than the other.


-Kimo

 

[IShotLazer]

Simple won't work with brawl. As Panda said the game isn't like streetfighter where all one must do is revert to arcade style of play.
In fact the simplest thing we can do is just take items off all together.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Thinking about this more, the Anti-Item faction could just as easily state that Occam's Razor can be applied more efficiently to their ideals. Without Sirlin providing a real foundation for his philosophy or delineation of reason (outside tournament running time, like Panda mentioned), there's no real way to use that, specifically, against him.

I actually find it quite ironic that he called our rules too complicated, even saying that we'd have item "tiers" for which items are on or not if we had them, yet SRK is doing exactly that by choosing which items to include

 

[Axis]

However, at that point I was under the impression that popularity was the single most important factor in determining a game's inclusion for Evo, so I argued that point on the basis of consistency. It's become evident that there are other factors that Evo considers more important, so "we're the biggest scene" isn't going to cut it as an argument, sorry.

The point isn't that "were the biggest scene", the point is that the type of players that play in live tournaments and compete a high levels of play (ie the type of players that would attend an event such as evo) play without items. In fact, I would bet that MORE people play with items on than items off, these people also are more likely playing 4 player timed mode at lunchtime at their high school. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...in fact it's a hell of a lot of fun and lots of people enjoy playing that way, but again thats not how people play competitively.

The only point I don't seem to get is the whole "other factors" that Evo considers more important. I'd assume those factors would be the best way to maintain the integrity of the games they host...which I genuinely do believe is true, because they've done an amazing job with every game until now (including melee) and I have nothing but respect for them and everything they do. That being said, I think their hearts are in the right place about making the "tough" or "unpopular" decisions and sticking to their guns in order to maintain that level of integrity, but I think they are just misinformed and/or inexperienced with this game. Basically, without getting into a huge political thing with anyone else, I feel the same way about the Bush administration as I do the EvO administration...I think they're doing what they think is best for everyone in the long run...I just think they're completely nuts.

 

[SynikaL]

Panda:

The thing is, that behavior is inevitable and would naturally, potentially spill into the meta-game.

But then, I guess that's why informed tournament organizers exist. Sirlin is about as informed as any. Though I don't agree with his approaches often, (I often find Mathematicians to be too rigid in their thinking), I hold his opinion in high regard.

IShotLazer:

I edited my post addressing that possibility.

-Kimo

 

[House M.D.]

Panda's probably explanations are reasonable. I'd like to add one to the list (that would force the list to be altered).

-mr. wizard/EVO/SRK are truly ignorant, and believe that items would add a new dimension to the gameplay

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Panda:

The thing is, that behavior is inevitable and would naturally, potentially spill into the meta-game.

But then, I guess that's why informed tournament organizers exist. Sirlin is about as informed as any. Though I don't agree with his approaches often, (I often find Mathematicians to be too rigid in their thinking), I hold his opinion in high regard.

IShotLazer:

I edited my post addressing that possibility.

-Kimo

Don't get me wrong, I find Sirlin to be a very intelligent indivudual, who is incredibly well-versed in any game that falls into the fighting genre. But the thing is, Sirlin isn't the only person in the world who understands game balancing. And you're also right that their behavior will likely spill into the meta-game. The rather unanimous reaction from the SBR to Mr. Wizard's actions were, essentially, "Wow, you have absolutely no respect for our opinions at all. And you don't even care about crushing the hopes of the many people looking forward to attending EVO from our community. Go do what you want to do; you'll eventually learn why we came to our conclusions on your own some day. But don't expect any help from us in the future."

Those were my own words of course, but I think that pretty much sums up the SBR's feelings on the matter to an extent.

 

[IShotLazer]

Sums up mine at least.

 

[polarity]

The point isn't that "were the biggest scene", the point is that the type of players that play in live tournaments and compete a high levels of play (ie the type of players that would attend an event such as evo) play without items. In fact, I would bet that MORE people play with items on than items off, these people also are more likely playing 4 player timed mode at lunchtime at their high school. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...in fact it's a hell of a lot of fun and lots of people enjoy playing that way, but again thats not how people play competitively.

So.... "we're the biggest scene", then. I'm obviously not including people who don't play competitively in this.

You guys are trying way too hard to feel slighted by all this. Nobody has a vendetta against you, Evo is just doing what it does with every other game. The fact that you all feel so insulted by that says more about your own egos than about Evo's respect for you.

I'm amused that the SBR feels Wiz has no respect for their views; I'm guessing they provided about the same amount of evidence for their claims that you guys have, i.e. approximately nothing. What kind of ****ed up worldview do you possess that people should accept opinions with no evidence backing them up based simply on status alone?

The claim that switching items off is just a setting like choosing stock or timed is ridiculous, too. Choosing between stock and timed matches is an essentially arbitrary decision that has to be made either way; there may be differences in how the game plays in either format, but they are rather minor. Removing items is not a matter of "well, we have to make a decision one way or the other, which should it be?". The difference between items-on and -off is more significant than that. With items off you are intentionally removing a feature from the game while offering nothing to replace it, which cannot be said for any of the other options.

Finally, I find it strange that you are addressing Sirlin's point that the Smash rules are too complex with "Smash needs to be shaped into a competitive game by complex rules" when the rest of Sirlin's points argue that it's far more competitive out of the box than you guys are willing to accept. Why not address that point instead?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Finally, I find it strange that you are addressing Sirlin's point that the Smash rules are too complex with "Smash needs to be shaped into a competitive game by complex rules" when the rest of Sirlin's points argue that it's far more competitive out of the box than you guys are willing to accept. Why not address that point instead?

Wait for it...

I agree with what Sirlin is saying, but what about inevitable meta-game refinement? An Occam's Razor approach to high-level Brawl just doesn't seem like it could hold up in the future, especially when concerning items. There are simply too many variables to consider.

Simpler does not always equal better.

As Einstein would put it:

Make things simpler, but don't make them simple.

But, eh. I can see where you guys are coming from. Like I said, I'll wait and see what people have to say about this year's EVO.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Firestorm88]

polarity, then SRK should probably have worked together with SWF instead of shunning it as it has for years. This is what has evolved over the past decade. We've had to do it separately because Smash was ridiculed. Now Evo sees the marketing potential of the series and wants in on it.

I'm calling it as I'm seeing it.

 

[polarity]

Wait for it...



Smooth Criminal

What is your obsession with posting meaningless white-noise responses?

polarity, then SRK should probably have worked together with SWF instead of shunning it as it has for years. This is what has evolved over the past decade. We've had to do it separately because Smash was ridiculed. Now Evo sees the marketing potential of the series and wants in on it.

I'm calling it as I'm seeing it.

Evo has never, ever been a profit-making venture and will continue not to be, so you "calling it as you see it" is simply talking out your ***.

Evo never shunned Smash. SRK as a whole is probably something like 60-70% opposed to the game, but Evo is not run SRK; it's run by a collection of OG SoCal SF players, some of whom were responsible for founding SRK, but are on the whole a hell of a lot smarter than the average SRK poster. Hell, Wiz is the only one of them that really even regularly posts on SRK, and even he doesn't post that much.

Most of the Evo staff respect Smash as a competitive game. At the very least, I've personally heard/read statements from Sirlin, Ben Cureton, James Chen, and Tony/Tom Cannon that they respect Smash as a competitive game. It took so long for Evo to pick up Smash because you guys already had a major competitive scene with MLG; why include a game that already has national backing when there are so many other great fighting games to choose from.

You think it's a coincidence that as soon as MLG dropped you, Evo stepped in?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>.>;

That's funny. You responded to one of my "white noise" comments before. You'd think that Syn had something of a point there when he brought up the refinement of the meta-game, a gavel that's gonna be dropped at some point in time.

So how do you think things are going to pan out, Polarity? Metagame wise?

And no, allusions to Street Fighter's metagame do not count.

Smooth Criminal

 

[polarity]

Why does it matter how things are going to pan out? We are only concerned with what can be known right now. Address issues as they become issues, not pre-emptively.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Why does it matter how things are going to pan out? We are only concerned with what can be known right now. Address issues as they become issues, not pre-emptively.

The only thing that WE, the SWF, are calling you guys out on is your lack of experience in the Smash franchise. David Sirlin and Wiz may be highly informed, but it is pretty thick-headed to NOT even consider our points for turning items off and things of that nature. We know from previous experience. Just because this is the latest iteration of Smash does not mean that some of the core elements that we had banned previously do not apply. Same can also be said vice-versa.

But, whatever. Let EVO run its course. Like Syn says, egoegoego. It'll win in the end.

Edit: And I must note that I understand where SRK is coming from in their experimentation. Really, I do. I harbor no ill will. But you guys should really consider listening to us on some things.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Rebel581]

I'm amused that the SBR feels Wiz has no respect for their views; I'm guessing they provided about the same amount of evidence for their claims that you guys have, i.e. approximately nothing. What kind of ****ed up worldview do you possess that people should accept opinions with no evidence backing them up based simply on status alone?

I really couldn't give a **** whether or not Evo has items or not as of now. I will not be going regardless. At this point, even if they turn items off and tell me free hookers and gambling, I would not go with the **** they're spewing out of their ****ing mouth. We have provided evidence. Evidence that continues to be ignored. You can interpret the evidence differently, or discredit it in some way (albeit not very smartly), but stop saying we haven't provided ****ing evidence. We've done research on items, tried them ourselves, devoted tournaments to testing items. Have you ever run a tournament? Would you really like to put your tournaments success on the line for some stupid *** testing when you have already TESTED the result.

Planning a tournament takes time, experience, effort, and a love of the community to host the thing. Tournament hosts don't get jack **** most of the time. Then there's seeding, collecting money, distributing the pot, settling disputes among those in the tournament. I've got enough **** on my hands, usually a TV I'm carrying to the venue, to have to tell each individual person what items are on. And then they don't really care about items to begin with. Do you really think that nobody in the community wanted final smashes to be legitimate? I thought they were one of the coolest ideas ever. Eventually though, every match just degraded into killing with the smash ball. Remove that, and we had to learn to play the game.

When was the last time you held a local tournament that had 64 people, all stuffed in the basement of a college dorm room, with around 8 TVs to run a double elimination bracket? Do that. Maybe we'll talk afterwards. Then maybe we can talk about the numerous videos that have been shown, of tournament videos, of why items should not be in.

And then maybe we can get into the other issues that are wrong with the rules, but don't get me started, as you probably won't listen anyways. Then when I provide evidence with my experience, and the experience of others, along with "theory fighter", you can write it off as me giving no evidence.

Sorry for the flames, but polarity and SRK has been pissing the **** out of me. No evidence my ***.

EDIT: Oh yea, items are broken as **** in this game. If we're going to compare Melee to Brawl, I'd much prefer items in Melee. In Melee, items sucked *** unless they were just being hurled at your opponent. Weren't even the best for that. Limited your options so much that you'd rather chuck it off the edge. In Brawl, every item can kill faster than Pit's fsmash. I might debate the smoke ball's also more effective at killing than half the moves in the game, but I'd need to provide "evidence", wouldn't I?

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Wow... I honestly didn't expect someone to actually try to debate my points. I thought they were all pretty logical conclusions, and that they were neutral enough to not really incite anything. Guess I was wrong. Then again, its COUM I'm dealing with, so I probably should've expected this much.

You guys are trying way too hard to feel slighted by all this. Nobody has a vendetta against you, Evo is just doing what it does with every other game. The fact that you all feel so insulted by that says more about your own egos than about Evo's respect for you.

Not at all. I don't even understand where you're getting that from. Look, the people behind EVO essentially came into our community, told us that we were welcome at the next tournament, then turned around and told us that we were playing our game wrong and their way is the better way. It wouldn't have been a problem if they said that their way was a different way or something, but they had the gall to claim their way was actually better than ours. That may be a simplification of things, but I went into more detail in my post. The fact that you think we have no right to feel insulted says more about your lack of understand of the situation than anything else.

I'm amused that the SBR feels Wiz has no respect for their views; I'm guessing they provided about the same amount of evidence for their claims that you guys have, i.e. approximately nothing. What kind of ****ed up worldview do you possess that people should accept opinions with no evidence backing them up based simply on status alone?

What kind of ****ed up worldview do you possess that you think people who have dedicated their lives towards this game, and have proven their place at the very top, have opinions worth nothing? If Wiz and Sirlin came out and said that they felt items were too random, would you accept that? And before you answer no, I know you would. Don't even try to lie your way out of that one. And why do you think logic and intelligence isn't enough to prove things? Why do you think that YOUR "theory fighter" is stronger than OUR "theory fighter"? We HAVE presented you with evidence for our opinions, and they were subsequently brushed off or ignored. I've provided reasons as to why that happened. I've shown that EVO had plenty of other reasons for including items. But its a FACT that the Smash community has more knowledge and experience with our series than every person behind EVO, combined. How items impact Smash has NOT CHANGED from Melee to Brawl. They are still the SAME THING. Our knowledge and experience CARRIES OVER. And none of that Melee =/= bull argument. That isn't true at all. If Melee =/= Brawl, then why are the vast majority of tournaments won by the Melee Pros? Oh wait, is that because the game hasn't fundamentally changed to the point to start everything back at a blank slate? Yeah, yeah it is.

By the way, I'm not even sharing how the SBR contributed. I'm simply arguing your point of "if the SBR only used opinions."

The claim that switching items off is just a setting like choosing stock or timed is ridiculous, too. Choosing between stock and timed matches is an essentially arbitrary decision that has to be made either way; there may be differences in how the game plays in either format, but they are rather minor. Removing items is not a matter of "well, we have to make a decision one way or the other, which should it be?". The difference between items-on and -off is more significant than that. With items off you are intentionally removing a feature from the game while offering nothing to replace it, which cannot be said for any of the other options.

You are SO RIGHT. Lets all go play flower, heavy, fast, invisible, curry, stamina Brawl, because those are all features in the game that aren't being used or replaced by anything else!

Listen, at higher levels of play, everything changes between items-off and items-on. The characters chosen, playstyles, speed, strategies, counterpicks, how you KO, the tier lists, what constitutes the most "neutral" stage selection for the first pick, etc. It is a different game altogether. And you know what? Time vs stock works in the same way. At higher levels of play (I'm talking top competitive level here) it changes everything. These kinds of settings make Smash a different game altogether in how its played. Its not like you remove items and nothing changes from the game. The tier list doesn't stay the same, the optimal strategies completely change, and the meta-game evolves in a completely different manner. Note that I said "different." I didn't say deeper, nor did I say less deep. I didn't say better, nor did I say worse. Just different. And THAT is the game that competitive Smashers enjoy playing.

Finally, I find it strange that you are addressing Sirlin's point that the Smash rules are too complex with "Smash needs to be shaped into a competitive game by complex rules" when the rest of Sirlin's points argue that it's far more competitive out of the box than you guys are willing to accept. Why not address that point instead?

....
You... can you even read? Did you not see my entire paragraph that I've written? Actually, I don't even care anymore. I don't even WANT you to read it. You'll probably quote a sentence or two, if that, and start spouting the "theory fighter" that you accuse all of us doing too much.


If some of this is written odd or sounds too harsh, thats probably because I'm utterly dumbfounded, angry, and quite tired. I cannot believe that some people can have such a thick outer skull yet let everything of substance pass through their ears without even touching anything resembling a brain. Arguing with stupid people sucks.

 

[Nick A]

Man, Mr. Wiz has always rubbed me the wrong way, that guy is so freaking stubborn.

I feel as if we have to get the attention of some of the other influential EVO people to have any chance at changing the rules. WRU Cannon brothers?

 

[BigRick]

Wow... I honestly didn't expect someone to actually try to debate my points. I thought they were all pretty logical conclusions, and that they were neutral enough to not really incite anything. Guess I was wrong. Then again, its COUM I'm dealing with, so I probably should've expected this much.

lol polarity =/= COUM

clarifying things out

 

[SamuraiPanda]

lol polarity =/= COUM

clarifying things out

From what I've been told, and what I can tell, they are indeed the same person.

 

[BigRick]

From what I've been told, and what I can tell, they are indeed the same person.

hmm I was sure there was a dude named polarity on SRK... but yea its kinda odd that I havent seen one of his posts for awhile... oh well if youre right he probably changed his account name then

Btw, are you really sure about the following statement:

How items impact Smash has NOT CHANGED from Melee to Brawl. They are still the SAME THING

Because there's a difference to me... In Melee the characters have many more effective offensive options. Also items were weaker in overall... many times you didnt even need to bother with them. On the other hand items improve offensive abilities in Brawl by alot.

Unless you're talking about something else?

 

[Yuna]

Stuff

I play other fighting games Competitively (I have and still am). In fact, I'm friends with the Top Players of almost every single fighting game in Sweden.

SynikaL, go troll some other forum. Lately, the majority of your posts are nothing but themselves over-bloated nonsense which can be summed up in two sentences. Your posts in this thread consist of mainly slamming both SWF and SRK, though it's shifted to slamming SWF exclusively as of late.

You never actually contribute to the debate. This is pretty much what you've said:
* SRK won't listen
* SWF are whiny little *****es/look like whiny little *****es/Stop being whiny little *****es!
* You're wrong... because (seriously, you've actually said that)

In fact, the majority of your posts as of late that I've seen anywhere on these boards have been disguised trolling. You seem to think that if you write your posts in such a dull way that people will stop reading half-way, alternatively using big words so a lot of people won't understand you/get bored half-way, you'll be able to get away with it (which you seem to have). That or you use blanket statements to mask your lack of real arguments (a very SRK-thing to do).

The guy who once claimed "Peach has an obvious advantage over Marth!" and argued his brains out for it (without any valid arguments on your side, really) should not talk about arguing without facts on their side). The fact that you disagree with me doesn't mean I don't have valid facts and arguments on my side (it's the same facts others on SWF are using, SWF and SRK just disagree on what's valid and what isn't to the issue at hand).

The fact that you aren't even trying to contribute to the discussion but are merely quasi-trolling us all the time is annoying.

Look at you assuming this has been one of the only posts I've made in this thread (or the one prior).

Anyone willing to utilize the sophomoric "kthnxbai", while resting his opinions on another man's shoulders isn't worth my time. Thanks for helping epitomize the stupidity present in this thread.


-Syn

Yeah, you've only posted, like, thrice previously with anything of any semblance to real arguments.

SamuraiPanda then pointed out that this line of debate should end. I'll let what I just said still stand, though, and stop here.

 

[Yuna]

I actually argued with Wiz at first that, despite my personal feelings that a ban on items was unwarranted, the items-off scene was the biggest competitive scene for Brawl, and thus Evo should defer to that scene in determining its rules. However, at that point I was under the impression that popularity was the single most important factor in determining a game's inclusion for Evo, so I argued that point on the basis of consistency. It's become evident that there are other factors that Evo considers more important, so "we're the biggest scene" isn't going to cut it as an argument, sorry.

More from Sirlin (who, by the way, is a member of the Evo committee who make their decisions democratically, as far as I know; Wiz is not the Hitlerian figure some of you seem to think)

Sirlin just implied that Competitive Mario Kart is "OK" despite the "rubber band" effect of items... ... ... ... like, say, Lightning and the Blue Shell.

He also disregarded the "broken" argument without providing reasons why it should be disregarded. Smash Balls are broken on a whole other level than any tiers in Brawl. Getting your hand on a Smash Ball almost guarantees you getting a stock off (or more) when you're some characters, that's the equivalent of a random occurence in SSFT2 letting you win the round when your opponent is at 100% health.

Also, SSFT2 does not have the loser getting as much auto-handicapping as in Brawl. Someone one stock behind will have a much easier time holding onto a Smash Ball, the strongest item in the game (character dependant).

Then he whines about the Smash community having too "complicated" rules... and claims we (the Smash Community, not SRK) are in dire need of much simpler rules. O... K... then. What does that have to do with anything?

Is that actually Sirlin's writing? Because he provided very little real arguments.

I'm amused that the SBR feels Wiz has no respect for their views; I'm guessing they provided about the same amount of evidence for their claims that you guys have, i.e. approximately nothing. What kind of ****ed up worldview do you possess that people should accept opinions with no evidence backing them up based simply on status alone?

He won't even listen or address those views. He either ignores us entirely or just says "You're wrong. Our research proves this!" without even telling us exactly how the research proves it.

 

[a lot of effs]

I actually argued with Wiz at first that, despite my personal feelings that a ban on items was unwarranted, the items-off scene was the biggest competitive scene for Brawl, and thus Evo should defer to that scene in determining its rules. However, at that point I was under the impression that popularity was the single most important factor in determining a game's inclusion for Evo, so I argued that point on the basis of consistency. It's become evident that there are other factors that Evo considers more important, so "we're the biggest scene" isn't going to cut it as an argument, sorry.

Hey idiot im pretty sure its impossible to argue on SRK when you've been banned for 6 months.

Also I really don't care that Brawl at Evo has items one way or the other, but the way Mr. Wizard decided it was kind of annoying because it's pretty clear he didn't really give a crap. There was no way to actually argue against items by his given requirements.

 

[polarity]

That's good, because mere words alone should never determine the direction of a competitive game.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Sirlin just implied that Competitive Mario Kart is "OK" despite the "rubber band" effect of items... ... ... ... like, say, Lightning and the Blue Shell.

Well, you can change the items set so that it only includes weaker items, and excludes Lightning and Blue Shell.

 

[-Aether]

Hey look! All that "double speak" I employ with a superfluous vocabulary managed to stumble into something concrete!

Let's see if I can make lighting strike twice!

*edit*

Thinking about this more, the Anti-Item faction could just as easily state that Occam's Razor can be applied more efficiently to their ideals. Without Sirlin providing a real foundation for his philosophy or delineation of reason (outside tournament running time, like Panda mentioned), there's no real way to use that, specifically, against him.

I think the real point, as he said (and I've stated numerous times) there's no reason to see one style as more competitively suitable than the other.


-Kimo

Stop with the Occam's Razor philosophy nonsense. I'm a philosophy major and I can tell you this is not the time or the place to deal with concepts like this. We're discussing the rules to a fighting game, not complex or profound matters.

Even in modern science, Occam's Razor does not hold. Simplist is not always best. Assumptions need to be made.

Anyways, Cynical, you've been caught in a contradiction, which you admitted to. You're clearly trying to use ridiculous vocabulary to add authority and artifical reasoning to your post, which has also been pointed out to be double talk. You've been offensive. You also are a liar, because you said you would unsubscribe to this post, yet miraculously managed to continue posting. Of course, this last fact is the most unfortunate one because we have to continue to hear your unsubstantiated nonsense.

As for any of the comments Sirlin made, I think people might better understand why I stated his arguments are poor and easily debunked. His argument for having a broken character being bad and broken item being just fine makes absolutely no sense.

Yuna, as I pointed somewhere between page 24-28, David Sirlin's book, as well as this thoughts are competitive gaming are relatively narrowminded. His ability to publish his book came from his massive success in Street Fighter competitions as well as his radical, no mercy ideals. If you see no argument provided, and find yourself questioning if it was David Sirlin to begin with, it's really not all that far fetched.

 

[Aesir]

Occam's Razor isn't really correct here, as the simplest approach should only be used when the other approaches don't work.

If you have a slightly more complicated rule set, but works. why would you get rid of it for a less complicated rule set that has no barring whats so ever aside from guys saying. "hey guys we have research." Thats all well and good, but the burden of proof rests on them.

 

[Rebel581]

Stop with the Occam's Razor philosophy nonsense. I'm a philosophy major and I can tell you this is not the time or the place to deal with concepts like this. We're discussing the rules to a fighting game, not complex or profound matters.

Even in modern science, Occam's Razor does not hold. Simplist is not always best. Assumptions need to be made.

Anyways, Cynical, you've been caught in a contradiction, which you admitted to. You're clearly trying to use ridiculous vocabulary to add authority and artifical reasoning to your post, which has also been pointed out to be double talk. You've been offensive. You also are a liar, because you said you would unsubscribe to this post, yet miraculously managed to continue posting. Of course, this last fact is the most unfortunate one because we have to continue to hear your unsubstantiated nonsense.

As for any of the comments Sirlin made, I think people might better understand why I stated his arguments are poor and easily debunked. His argument for having a broken character being bad and broken item being just fine makes absolutely no sense.

Yuna, as I pointed somewhere between page 24-28, David Sirlin's book, as well as this thoughts are competitive gaming are relatively narrowminded. His ability to publish his book came from his massive success in Street Fighter competitions as well as his radical, no mercy ideals. If you see no argument provided, and find yourself questioning if it was David Sirlin to begin with, it's really not all that far fetched.

I think I may love you after this post, platonically.

Not to mention Occam's Razor, after I just refreshed myself on what it was from wikipedia, doesn't even apply to this game at all. It applies to philosophy and how taking the simplest approach to assume nothing yields the best results. Assume nothing is the important part. Simplest approach is the other. I personally think a banned list of items is more complicated than no items. I already have to memorize the counterpick stage list so I can tell it to other people at my tournaments, because nobody else is going to memorize it. An item list too?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

o.o;

But he was saying that an Occam's Razor approach would not work for high-end play.

Smooth Criminal

 

[polarity]

If you have a slightly more complicated rule set, but works. why would you get rid of it for a less complicated rule set that has no barring whats so ever aside from guys saying. "hey guys we have research." Thats all well and good, but the burden of proof rests on them.

Nobody with any sense is claiming there is substantial research to support items-on play. The only valid argument is that there is a lack of substantial research that proves items are the game-ruining factor some claim they are.

 

[Rebel581]

o.o;

But he was saying that an Occam's Razor approach would not work for high-end play.

Smooth Criminal

>_> Then disregard my post. As SynikaL has slowly been losing my attention span. When you post walls of text that don't really SAY anything, and then post a small portion of text that does mean something, it usually gets lost.

Also Occam's Razor doesn't even apply to low level play. It doesn't even apply to video games. How did we even get it into this conversation?

 

[-Aether]

>_> Then disregard my post. As SynikaL has slowly been losing my attention span. When you post walls of text that don't really SAY anything, and then post a small portion of text that does mean something, it usually gets lost.

Also Occam's Razor doesn't even apply to low level play. It doesn't even apply to video games. How did we even get it into this conversation?

That was my point. Occam's Razor is a philosophical concept that doesn't even make sense when you apply it to Smash. I don't see why it originally was brought it to the conversation to begin with; usually people who think they have a grasp of philosophy like to throw the concept around whenever they see the chance. I think it should be left out and we should get back to actual conversation about the 2008 Evo Brawl Ruleset.

On that note, is there actually a plan or action or idea that anyone has that will allow our voices to be heard by the people who are making the decisions? I've suggested a pole, but Yuna told me it has already been tried. Anyone else who would like to suppose a feasible idea to facilitate a change to these atrocious rules?

 

[DAlegendarysamus]

Lol The Brawl Community

If the community doesnt want to BAN ALL TYPES OF CHAINGRABS ,LASER LOCKS, INFINITES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THEN **** IT LEAVE ITEMS ON. ITS GOOD FOR US THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS PPL NEED TO JUST MAN UP AND TAKE OFF THOSE DUMB *** THINGS THAT I STATED ABOVE AND BRING BACK GOOD STAGES LIKE GREEN HILL ZONE OR SHADOW MOSES. SO WE CAN ENJOY THIS GAME AND STILL MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT.
SO PUT SMASH BALLS ON LET A DEDEDE TRY TO CHAINGRAB THEN WITH ITEMS ON AND SMASH BALLS. NOW I CAN TURN INTO SUPER SONIC ON HIS *** OR GET OT ITEMS B4 HIM LOL LETS SEE HOW MANY DEDEDE USERS COME TO EVO.