The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[SynikaL]

Heeere we go...

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.

It only took you a single paragraph to discredit yourself. If any philosophical concept cannot be applied to any civil matter, no matter how big or small, it is worthless. Civil matters often inspire philosophical thinking. Socrates wasn't executed because he decided to let his mind wander one day whilst resting in the shade -- he was stimulated by the civil matters of his day.

Seriously, seeing the parallels in disparate ideas, elements and concepts is a fundamental attribute of a free-thinker. If you graduate with that mindset intact, you're doomed to be another degree squatter, bartending indefinitely at your local Outback.

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

Every approach has its critics. Every philosophy has its critics. Every philosopher has his critics. Like most philosophies, Occam's Razor can be seen by many people to be a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. No one posited Occam's Razor to be the definitive approach to this situation. It was merely brought up, because on the surface, that seemed to be the method Sirlin was employing (wittingly or unwittingly) to arrive at his conclusions.

Furthermore, Occam's Razor can easily be applied here. I mean, seriously all you need to do is read the first paragraph of a Wiki article to see the parallels between what Sirlin is doing and the philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Rasor

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

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.

Please. You haven't caught me in anything. Sarcasm is more than a high-minded tool of arrogance, it inspires thought.

Anyway, this is where you begin making yourself look very unintelligent in my eyes. Being a "Philosophy Major" you'd think someone with credentials in such areas would use more applicable terms; such as "Sophism", which is an actual philosophy and debate tactic. But no, you've simply clung to the "Double-Talk" nonsense like the fvcking parrot that you are.

Regardless, that is not how this debate thing works. You don't scream "Double-Talk! Double Talk!" and "Artificial Reason!" when you suspect it. You analyze my argument as a whole -- like any respectable philosopher would -- and you extract and highlight whatever airy or corruptible elements exist therein. From which point, you present your case.

Without this methodology on display, you simply fall victim to the very same criticism you are leveling towards me: unsubstantiated phraseologies pillaring your arguments.

Irony and Hypocrisy carpool at times.

If my vocabulary is as weightless as you say, the onus is on you to show where it floats and flutters. If my reason is as artificial as you say, the burden is yours to highlight the artifice. Otherwise, you and every other idiot tossing this accusation about is saying nothing.

You've been offensive.

Not intentionally, my means is to be only direct. Unfortunately, young people on the internet with inflatable Egos tend blur the necessary distinction between Directness and Arrogance. They don't like the idea that someone they don't know may know things or possibly be more intelligent than them.

Fortunately for me, I do not need the consent of the populace to recognize my own merits.

You also are a liar

In this entire rail against my character, this is the only substantial point you've made.

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.

My suggestion is that this tirade stems from the fact that I ignored your initial post towards me, in an attempt to pick my battles. The fact that the post you quoted seemed to potentially validate me in some way; in light of the thread's current return to a state of harmony (at the time), infuriated you.

What a petty polemicist you are.



-Syn
(sorry Panda, I tried I really did)

 

[-Aether]

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.

Wow, all caps really helped you make a point.

Anyways, the majority of chain throws in this game do not zero to death anyone. DeDeDe may be high tier because of the chain throw, but seeing as his tournament preformance is pretty bad, even with his powerful chain throw, apparently these things do not warrent a ban. Lazer locking never happens in competitive play, I don't even know why it was brought up. Besides that, the only infinites I know of involve walls or extremely skilled Ice Climbers. Even then, no one has managed to perfect the Ice Climbers multitude of theoretical infinites. None of the things you mention have any effect on fair and balanced play. If they did, the tier list would look completely different.

However, when I use a final smash that does * zero to death * you, the thing that you * oh so hate * about chain throws, I fail to see how you derive the meaning of balance. Marth anyone?

If I was a mod, you would get a warning for harrassment of my eyes with the ******** arguments and capitalizations. I guess it's a good thing I'm not.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

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.

lol

Good to see you're still around, Wes. Your posting style has always gotten a laugh out of me.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

>_> 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?

I thought the reason Synikal brought it up was because some people, Sirlin among them, were using the concept to show why we should use a simpler, "less ban happy" ruleset instead of one similar to the one in use at most Melee tournaments.

 

[SynikaL]

I thought the reason Synikal brought it up was because some people, Sirlin among them, were using the concept to show why we should use a simpler, "less ban happy" ruleset instead of one similar to the one in use at most Melee tournaments.

Exactly. If you actually understand the concept of Ockham's Razor, the parallel's between Sirlin's decisions and the philosophy are undeniable. I never said it was a definitive approach one way or another.


-Kimo

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Oddly enough, I'm siding with Synikal on this one. Behavioral Neuroscience being one of my majors, I'm exposed to much more science and research than the general populace. Occam's Razor, a concept generally used most often in the scientific world, can apply to this situation. The best definition of Occam's Razor is "The most simple solution is often the best solution." No Wikipedia necessary.

And I also agree with Synikal in the assertion that Sirlin's philosophy, which mirrors Occam's Razor in this case, does not actually apply to the competitive metagame. In fact, I think many of you are thinking that Synikal is firm in his pro-item (and in a sense pro-SRK) mentality, so anything he says is to further that ideal. But Synikal was actually criticizing Sirlin in this case. It may be hard to tell because he is rather wordy, which can make it difficult for some to follow along his logic.

 

[SynikaL]

Oddly enough, I'm siding with Synikal on this one. Behavioral Neuroscience being one of my majors, I'm exposed to much more science and research than the general populace. Occam's Razor, a concept generally used most often in the scientific world, can apply to this situation. The best definition of Occam's Razor is "The most simple solution is often the best solution." No Wikipedia necessary.

And I also agree with Synikal in the assertion that Sirlin's philosophy, which mirrors Occam's Razor in this case, does not actually apply to the competitive metagame. In fact, I think many of you are thinking that Synikal is firm in his pro-item (and in a sense pro-SRK) mentality, so anything he says is to further that ideal. But Synikal was actually criticizing Sirlin in this case. It may be hard to tell because he is rather wordy, which can make it difficult for some to follow along his logic.

Thank you.

Being a maverick all the time gets tiring.


-Kimo

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Thank you.

Being a maverick all the time gets tiring.


-Kimo

This doesn't mean I like you. You directly insulted my intelligence several times, which isn't something I take lightly or forgive easily.

 

[SynikaL]

This doesn't mean I like you. You directly insulted my intelligence several times, which isn't something I take lightly or forgive easily.

When I say someone lacks "intellectual maturity", that is far from saying someone is strictly "unintelligent". I'm sorry you took that offensively, but as I've said time and time again, my intention is not to offend, but to stimulate (through being direct). This thread was going nowhere.

Can't say I wasn't successful there.

I don't care if you don't like me. I like you.

-Kimo

 

[thumbswayup]

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.

I actually laughed pretty hard reading this.

 

[DAlegendarysamus]

silly pup aether

are those words from ur mouth or its a copy and paste from the rest of the community yeah right now the infinited and all those other things seem hard yea of course ,but the game jsut came out once everyone knows how to make oppurtunities to pull **** like tha toff game over. you ppl dont see the future if u dont ban these things.
all that **** is hard but like i said. Its like this its hard for a dude to get this girl some ***** from the girl he likes on the block but give him a a few months to weeks once he figures out how to get the ***** or she gives him it up once its over for her *** same ****t. But i cause ur not familar with things related to ***** lol so i can understand why u say the things u do.

i have been around for the longest and i can see what is a potential threat and what isnt and those things these are dude.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

I thought that's kinda what the SBR does? Oh yeah, there was this huge discussion in the IC boards because TGM banned IC Chaingrabs at his tourneys. Don't be an fool Wes, what could possibly happen should have no bearing on what gets banned or not. If it becomes broken, ban it. Right now, it's not broken, live with it.

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=168615

About halfway through the thread, SBR members start setting things straight.

Sorry for off topic by the way.

 

[DAlegendarysamus]

nofool here

like i said i dont want ppl like u making a post about how the things that i already stated that should be banned banned lol.

 

[Yuna]

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.

Funny. I seem to remember at least 10 people on SRK claiming there is... including MrWizard.

 

[RDK]

When I say someone lacks "intellectual maturity", that is far from saying someone is strictly "unintelligent". I'm sorry you took that offensively, but as I've said time and time again, my intention is not to offend, but to stimulate (through being direct). This thread was going nowhere.

Can't say I wasn't successful there.

I don't care if you don't like me. I like you.

-Kimo

Despite being right about Occam's Razor when applied to the item argument, you're still a pretentious jack@ss who says way too much with almost little substance.

And about Sirlin: I'm surprised at the stance he's taking regarding the simplification of current Smash tournament rules (items aside). After agreeing with most of his views on competitive gaming, it seems odd that he would be so uninformed when it comes to Smash.

 

[-Aether]

Heeere we go...



It only took you a single paragraph to discredit yourself. If any philosophical concept cannot be applied to any civil matter, no matter how big or small, it is worthless. Civil matters often inspire philosophical thinking. Socrates wasn't executed because he decided to let his mind wander one day whilst resting in the shade -- he was stimulated by the civil matters of his day.

Seriously, seeing the parallels in disparate ideas, elements and concepts is a fundamental attribute of a free-thinker. If you graduate with that mindset intact, you're doomed to be another degree squatter, bartending indefinitely at your local Outback.



Every approach has its critics. Every philosophy has its critics. Every philosopher has his critics. Like most philosophies, Occam's Razor can be seen by many people to be a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. No one posited Occam's Razor to be the definitive approach to this situation. It was merely brought up, because on the surface, that seemed to be the method Sirlin was employing (wittingly or unwittingly) to arrive at his conclusions.

Furthermore, Occam's Razor can easily be applied here. I mean, seriously all you need to do is read the first paragraph of a Wiki article to see the parallels between what Sirlin is doing and the philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Rasor

"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".




Please. You haven't caught me in anything. Sarcasm is more than a high-minded tool of arrogance, it inspires thought.

Anyway, this is where you begin making yourself look very unintelligent in my eyes. Being a "Philosophy Major" you'd think someone with credentials in such areas would use more applicable terms; such as "Sophism", which is an actual philosophy and debate tactic. But no, you've simply clung to the "Double-Talk" nonsense like the fvcking parrot that you are.

Regardless, that is not how this debate thing works. You don't scream "Double-Talk! Double Talk!" and "Artificial Reason!" when you suspect it. You analyze my argument as a whole -- like any respectable philosopher would -- and you extract and highlight whatever airy or corruptible elements exist therein. From which point, you present your case.

Without this methodology on display, you simply fall victim to the very same criticism you are leveling towards me: unsubstantiated phraseologies pillaring your arguments.

Irony and Hypocrisy carpool at times.

If my vocabulary is as weightless as you say, the onus is on you to show where it floats and flutters. If my reason is as artificial as you say, the burden is yours to highlight the artifice. Otherwise, you and every other idiot tossing this accusation about is saying nothing.



Not intentionally, my means is to be only direct. Unfortunately, young people on the internet with inflatable Egos tend blur the necessary distinction between Directness and Arrogance. They don't like the idea that someone they don't know may know things or possibly be more intelligent than them.

Fortunately for me, I do not need the consent of the populace to recognize my own merits.




In this entire rail against my character, this is the only substantial point you've made.




My suggestion is that this tirade stems from the fact that I ignored your initial post towards me, in an attempt to pick my battles. The fact that the post you quoted seemed to potentially validate me in some way; in light of the thread's current return to a state of harmony (at the time), infuriated you.

What a petty polemicist you are.



-Syn
(sorry Panda, I tried I really did)

First of all, if a philosophical concept cannot be applied to a civil matter, you're probably talking about half the philosophy, from the presocratics to post-modern crap. You do realize that Socratic thought encourages distrust of the human senses, as well as devaluing regular reasoning as extension of sensory stimulus bias? His philosophies are some of the most difficult things to relate to basically anything tangible. But, I refuse to continue this conversation. It's detrimental on all ends.

Philosophy isn't something you discuss in anger; it's an exchange, and it's an exchange you and I are not making in any sort of productive way. Philosophy is more about intrinsic things than anything else, and it's certainly not about the EVO Ruleset. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm not upset that you ignored me in an attempt to pick battles. I'm not trying to have an intellectual contest with you. I'm not surprised by the fact that other people, maybe even including you, are more intelligent then me. I am not any of these things. You're clearly not an uneducated. Knowing this fact, I'd suspect you would agree that is is foolish to pass judgement on me through SWF alone. I'd also suspect you would agree that most of your statements which attacked my character and intelligence were unsubstantiated because of the fact I stated in my last sentence.

I said Occam's Razor was unapplicable. I stand behind my saying; even when people like SamuraiPanda agree. I stated my reasons without trying to be long winded. So what, if you disagree with me? One hundred pages could be written on either side of this argument. I wasn't even trying to take a side, in fact I'm not sure who used the ****ed argument in the first place. I was trying to discredit the concept as a whole. It's almost discouraging to me that we're discussing this.

Can we not stop having mock intellectual battles on an online forum, and talk about what we originally were discussing? There's no reason for you to put up any sort of charade with language and vocabulary, because no one should be trying to have a proverbial "who's got the biggest ****" contest on SWF.

Let's discuss the topic. An online forum isn't even effective at discussing the other concepts that we're posting about.

 

[Banks]

Yea, they shouldn't have items so people can continue to win tournaments by shielding, walking and tilting with Snake. Anyone who didn't play melee would think playing with no items is the most ******** thing ever. Brawl is a campfest without items, and that is the main reason why a lot of people don't like it. If you disagree that camping and being a defensive douche isn't the best strategy, then you don't know ****. Playing with items would actually fix that, and make this game more of what it is supposed to be. PARTY GAME WOOOOO

 

[Sliq]

Brawlio Party Brothers FTW

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Yea, they shouldn't have items so people can continue to win tournaments by shielding, walking and tilting with Snake. Anyone who didn't play melee would think playing with no items is the most ******** thing ever. Brawl is a campfest without items, and that is the main reason why a lot of people don't like it. If you disagree that camping and being a defensive douche isn't the best strategy, then you don't know ****. Playing with items would actually fix that, and make this game more of what it is supposed to be. PARTY GAME WOOOOO

Well then, I guess I don't know **** when it comes to Brawl then.

I still find it hilarious how people think Snake is the ultimate broken in the game. I want to see how long it will take them to figure out his weaknesses. From the looks of things, it will be quite a while before most people figure them out.

 

[Sliq]

Well then, I guess I don't know **** when it comes to Brawl then.

I still find it hilarious how people think Snake is the ultimate broken in the game. I want to see how long it will take them to figure out his weaknesses. From the looks of things, it will be quite a while before most people figure them out.

I didn't know Samurai Panda was going around, beating Snakes and winning tournaments. I'm clearly out of the loop. @_@

 

[BigRick]

lol snake = imba

 

[RDK]

Well then, I guess I don't know **** when it comes to Brawl then.

I still find it hilarious how people think Snake is the ultimate broken in the game. I want to see how long it will take them to figure out his weaknesses. From the looks of things, it will be quite a while before most people figure them out.

F-tilt.

Spoiler

10F-TILTS

@ Polarity:

It's hard to convince someone one way or the other when said person ignores sufficient evidence, pleas of logic, common sense, and 7+ years of Smash knowledge.

 

[polarity]

Funny. I seem to remember at least 10 people on SRK claiming there is... including MrWizard.

What does that have to do with me?

Wiz never said anything of the sort, though. He said there was more solid evidence presented to him to support keeping items than to support banning them, which is true (although you are right that the evidence in support of keeping them is really not much at all, given the low level of play on display), but I hardly think he considers that evidence conclusive proof that items don't warrant a ban. To be pedantic, it's impossible to conclusively prove that anything doesn't warrant a ban, as it's always possible that a feature of that thing could be discovered in future which renders it broken. This is why we don't ban based on suppositions and theories, no matter how obvious their factuality may be; it's a slippery slope. If a theory regarding some feature's affect on the game is so obviously true, it shouldn't be hard to present real, gameplay evidence...). Items-on is simply the default format until someone provides a compelling argument for items' unsuitability for tournament play. As yet, though, all Wiz (and I) have seen is abstract theorizing.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I didn't know Samurai Panda was going around, beating Snakes and winning tournaments. I'm clearly out of the loop. @_@

Strangely enough, I'm the only consistent Snake main in my area. The only other Snakes you really see at tournaments here are when people use him just to beat MK or G&W (both of whom are seen quite often in my local tournaments). So you're getting this from a guy thats had this stuff done on him, quite frequently.

 

[Zankoku]

I didn't know Samurai Panda was going around, beating Snakes and winning tournaments. I'm clearly out of the loop. @_@

SamuraiPanda's been going around, losing as Snake in tournaments, ze. Michigan hasn't had a single Snake in the top4 in any of its tournaments yet. @_@

 

[SamuraiPanda]

SamuraiPanda's been going around, losing as Snake in tournaments, ze. Michigan hasn't had a single Snake in the top4 in any of its tournaments yet. @_@

*sigh* very true. But I still blame that on my lack of tournament experience, and something I like to call the MCATs. Oh yeah, and because the best player in the country for one of Snake's biggest counters goes to every tournament. I've attended 1 whole tournament where I didn't face him in the first round =D

Oh ****, why am I still posting right now? I need to study.

 

[Sliq]

So what you're telling me is that Michigan doesn't have any good snakes.

 

[Zankoku]

I believe Panda's got a pretty decent Snake, but other than that?

...eh. Pretty much. Michigan's getting dominated by a Pikachu and a G&W main.

 

[RDK]

So what you're telling me is that Michigan doesn't have any good snakes.

Michigan is riddled with Snakes. Whether or not they're any good depends on the region.

In any case, Snake is one of the most-played characters in any given state.

 

[Rebel581]

If we're still applying Occam's Razor, item switch to OFF is less complicated than this long list of banned items.

I still don't find it applicable though, and still don't understand why everyone has to insult each other with big words.

Either way, Wes wins this thread. The internet is serious bizness.

 

[Banks]

Brawl Singles

1: Cort ($435.60) (Snake)
2: PC Chris ($237.60) (Snake)
3: Nuro ($118.80) (Snake)
4: Jinx (Metaknight)
5: Solid Jake (Snake)
5: Darc (Snake)

 

[polarity]

@ Polarity:

It's hard to convince someone one way or the other when said person ignores sufficient evidence, pleas of logic, common sense, and 7+ years of Smash knowledge.

The 'evidence' presented by the items-off crowd doesn't even come remotely close to sufficient.

Logic, common sense and experience do not bear consideration in this matter when your premises are based entirely in the abstract. What Wiz is asking for is very simple; concrete evidence (i.e. a substantial quantity of match footage and tournament results) that items are detrimental to the game. If your views are as self-evident as you guys act like they are, providing this should be a breeze, but so far none of you have managed it.

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Snake is imbalanced now, but people will learn to adjust, just like they are to MK now .


Hell maybe then, if that ever happened the "Brawl is more balanced than Melee" might actually hold some water. Granted it still won't be true, but it still wouldn't be overly farfetched like it is now.

 

[BigRick]

Brawl Singles

1: Cort ($435.60) (Snake)
2: PC Chris ($237.60) (Snake)
3: Nuro ($118.80) (Snake)
4: Jinx (Metaknight)
5: Solid Jake (Snake)
5: Darc (Snake)

^^^

lol snake = too cool (simply cause I dont want to say too good)

honorable mention goes to imbaknight

 

[RDK]

Snake is imbalanced now, but people will learn to adjust, just like they are to MK now .


Hell maybe then, if that ever happened the "Brawl is more balanced than Melee" might actually hold some water

I lol'd.

@ Polarity:

How do you expect this evidence to come about? We're certainly not going to allow items in tournies just so we can catch footage of items fvcking up competitive play. That would be a huge waste of time, and EVO is honestly not worth it.

You guys can play the game however you want, but you can be sure that anyone who is serious about Smash will not go. Common sense should be enough. Items do not belong in tournament play.

Although I do hope you're not too butthurt when you end up wasting $50 on the entry fee only to lose by a Final Smash in the first round.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Snake is imbalanced now, but people will learn to adjust, just like they are to MK now .

^---This.

The game came out and everyone thought Marth was incredible. When that passed, everyone though MK was unbeatable. Now, everyone thinks Snake can't be touched. This is the basic cycle every fighter goes through in its early stages, despite how much experience the players may have with the series. Sure, most of the characters everyone thinks were broken at one point in time will likely stay at the high end of the tiers for the game's lifespan, but that doesn't mean they are the new SF2T Akuma or something. Right now, the characters winning tournaments are the easiest to pick up and hardest to fight against characters. But once people start picking up the more difficult to learn characters, and understand how to beat the harder to fight against characters, the balance will change again. If that wasn't the case then the SBR would've already released a tier list. But its unanimous back there that we have to wait for awhile before we can make anything nearly accurate.

And its not just fighting games that you see this trend in. RTS games, MMORPGs, even some FPS games. History repeats itself. I happened to see this exact same thing first hand for many different games spanning many different genres. Watching the evolution is one of the most enjoyable things (for me at least) about being part of a game early in its cycle. I'm just honestly surprised that so few people outside the SBR are able to step back and look at it like I do. Then again, that might just be the vocal minority drowning out the majority, but the lines between minority and majority tend to blur on the internet.

 

[Banks]

My point in bringing up Snake was that people should be able to understand why EVO has chosen to include items. If you pay attention at tournaments without items and smashballs, it becomes apparent that being campy and patient in your sheild, and spamming the most effective attacks is the winning strategy. It seems quite logical that turning off items would encourage this type of play, and so far it really has. In such a new game, playing with items is just as valid as playing without them, maybe even moreso because the game was made with the intention of being a random crapfest. My view is that Brawl isn't a very good tournament game, so if you strongly disagree then just ignore me and don't start a brawl versus melee argument.

On a side note, the whole items / no-items thing reminds me of the brawl / melee debate. People think it's random and dumb and takes no skill... >__>

 

[undyinglight]

Question: As of current do you think that it is even still possible to get the rule set changed for evo? The odds are low, but I am wondering if you think it is still possible

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Hell no at this point. Wiz has basicially stuck his head under the sand at this point in time

 

[SynikaL]

Despite being right about Occam's Razor when applied to the item argument, you're still a pretentious jack@ss who says way too much with almost little substance.

That's cool. When you've figured out how to provide an actual case to prove my words lack substance, I'll be waiting.

*edit*

I like you too RedDarkstarKirby.

-Kimo