The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[polarity]

I think it's reasonable to deduce that if something can happen at all, it can happen in a tournament. In fact, in many cases it has.

The fact that something can - or even has - happen(ed) doesn't mean it will happen consistently enough for it to be a major issue.

The people arguing in favor of items here seem constantly to brush off the experience of the SBR in this regard, but they really shouldn't, because believe it or not, Smash used to be played with items on. For the longest time, this very debate raged over items in Melee, and there were very many tournaments that used items. In fact, items were so important to the metagame that were it not for item tourneys, it would likely have taken even longer for wavedashing to be discovered. The depths of the item metagame were plumbed long before this debate ever took place.

Ultimately, what ended up happening? Items off became the standard. I don't pretend to know the extent of why items are off as standard, but since plenty of much more experienced players than I have actually played the style the whole way through, and found it in fact to be less deep, I'm going to trust their judgement.

You're welcome to, but it's far from unreasonable to a) expect compelling evidence before trusting their authority and/or b) believe that their judgment was flawed. Given the philosophy of the average items-off Smash player seems to be "anything that might result in a less-skilled player winning, no matter how rarely, is bad", an argument that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny from anyone with experience in a wide variety of competitive games, I can easily believe that the SBR's judgment is founded in the same baseless dogmas various posters in this thread continue to spout over and over again.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

You're welcome to, but it's far from unreasonable to a) expect compelling evidence before trusting their authority and/or b) believe that their judgment was flawed. Given the philosophy of the average items-off Smash player seems to be "anything that might result in a less-skilled player winning, no matter how rarely, is bad", an argument that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny from anyone with experience in a wide variety of competitive games, I can easily believe that the SBR's judgment is founded in the same baseless dogmas various posters in this thread continue to spout over and over again.

You mean just how you, Mr Wizard, Sirlin, and all the SRK users spout baseless dogmas, too?

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, I can't understand how you can continue to be this ****ing dense. Tournament evidence is the only viable evidence in determining bans, and your pathetic attempts to portray my refusal to accept any other evidence as indicative of a lack of intelligence aren't going to change that.

There is tournament evidence. It's all from Melee, though, so MrWizard disqualifies it, even though the mechanics of how items work haven't changed enough to matter. Some people managed to pinpoint matches from SRK's own examples of videos from tournaments with items on where unfair item spawns decided the outcome of matches, but those were ignored.

And my point is that: It's too much of a hassle for us to host our own tournaments in order to prove MrWizard wrong since he'd demand extensive footage.

I assure you, if the traditional fighting game scene made pre-emptive bans based on apparently logical theories of how certain features would affect the game, we'd have a hell of a lot of stuff banned that turned out to be relatively benign. The strange thing is that you guys seem aware of this with regard to every feature of the game except items; with some local exceptions, you seem to have generally taken a very liberal attitude to what is allowed in the game. But when it comes to items, the unsubstantiated theories of their affect on the game come out in full force.

Then why aren't all stages allowed? Did the items-on tournaments also test all stages? I didn't hear anything about that.

The only acceptable way to determine that a game feature warrants removal is to allow it to turn a tournament (or perhaps even two or three) into a joke. Harsh, but worth it to avoid unnecessarily neutering the game.

EVO is not a place for experimentation, that's what you have minor tournaments with less money on the line for.

You're right that there's absolutely no chance of anti-items players organizing tournaments with items on to demonstrate they're broken, but so what? That's your prerogative, and your problem. Tough ****, so to speak. Evo will conduct the tests that you refuse to.

Yeah, biased ones... by people with no insight into how the game works. How could not a single person notice in two months of "extensive testing" what it only took a handful of SWF:ers only days determine?

 

[dirty1]

ummmm

If you dont like items... dont go.

otherwise.... i dont think we are getting anywhere with this.

 

[Battousai780]

ummmm

If you dont like items... dont go.

otherwise.... i dont think we are getting anywhere with this.

Most people aren't, but they WANT to.

 

[KosukeKGA]

Most people aren't, but they WANT to.

I like stroking my ego too. Join the club.

 

[C@sH Mooney]

No, King of the Couch was the one that was brought up as an example of an items-on tournament, Family Fun Arcade was the one everyone boycotted due to the rules.

That was a two time thing only.

Once, which was the first tourney the held EVER, and they didn't know ****.

And 2, the first brawl tourney they held.

TSF stoped though, so its all good.

 

[HugS]

No, King of the Couch was the one that was brought up as an example of an items-on tournament, Family Fun Arcade was the one everyone boycotted due to the rules.

The first family fun arcade was an items on tournament, but it was such a disaster that people refused to attend the 2nd event if their rules weren't fixed.

 

[polarity]

There is tournament evidence. It's all from Melee, though, so MrWizard disqualifies it, even though the mechanics of how items work haven't changed enough to matter.

Nobody's even bothered to present it.

Some people managed to pinpoint matches from SRK's own examples of videos from tournaments with items on where unfair item spawns decided the outcome of matches, but those were ignored.

I saw people trying to argue that, but these arguments were countered by the players, explaining how the effects those items had were the result of inferior strategic decisions.

Besides, if the videos in question were too low level to determine that items shouldn't be banned, then that holds for determining they should be banned, too. Isn't it possible that the players weren't adept enough at playing in a style which mitigates the randomness of items, and a more proficient items-on player might have not been affected so badly by the randomness? You can't have it both ways; if the videos are so low-level that Wiz shouldn't be listening to them as evidence that items are suitable for competitive play, then you can't cite them as evidence that they're unsuitable.

And my point is that: It's too much of a hassle for us to host our own tournaments in order to prove MrWizard wrong since he'd demand extensive footage.

Again, tough ****.

Then why aren't all stages allowed? Did the items-on tournaments also test all stages? I didn't hear anything about that.

Wiz has stated on IRC that the current item and stage bans are an attempt at compromise between SRK and SWF. It is of course a totally worthless attempt, but still, the notion that he'll listen to SRK but not SWF on what should be banned isn't true.

EVO is not a place for experimentation, that's what you have minor tournaments with less money on the line for.

Evo tournaments only have as much money on the line as they have attendants, like every other tournament. Regardless, who the hell are you to judge what Evo is "a place for"? There's absolutely no reason why Evo can't use an experimental rule set. They're running SSF2T HD Remix, a game which will have been out for all of about 2 weeks before Evo starts, so it's not like this is just happening to Brawl.

Yeah, biased ones... by people with no insight into how the game works. How could not a single person notice in two months of "extensive testing" what it only took a handful of SWF:ers only days determine?

That's your problem if you choose not to show up.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

I saw people trying to argue that, but these arguments were countered by the players, explaining how the effects those items had were the result of inferior strategic decisions.

See below, your own words.

Tournament evidence is the only viable evidence in determining bans, and your pathetic attempts to portray my refusal to accept any other evidence as indicative of a lack of intelligence aren't going to change that.

I'm sorry, but where is the tournament evidence to suggest that the "effects those items had were the result of inferior strategic decisions"?

A perfect example of SRK's double-standard. "Tourny vids are the only accepted method of proving something should be banned. Logical deductions about banning things in the game don't hold any weight." Except when it's conveniently used to counter the tournament evidence that supports the opposing side, right?

 

[RDK]

Nobody's even bothered to present it.

Once again, SRK and EVO have some pretty big stones if they think we should have to provide you with video evidence that will obviously take a lot longer than it should just to prove to you that items don't belong in tournaments. You forget that the competitive Smash community went through a several-year phase of playing items in tournaments, and the SBR made a decision based on their effect on the game.

Besides, even if we did provide video evidence, it would never be conclusive enough, or you would write it off as "stage control" or "the players aren't used to items, so they aren't adept enough". It's always an excuse with Wiz.

Besides, if the videos in question were too low level to determine that items shouldn't be banned, then that holds for determining they should be banned, too. Isn't it possible that the players weren't adept enough at playing in a style which mitigates the randomness of items, and a more proficient items-on player might have not been affected so badly by the randomness?

The fact that randomness is added to the game when it very well could be left out leaves some questions. You're trying to explore a corridor that just shouldn't be explored. Number 1, it's already been explored--just on another game; Number 2, we have enough Smash experience to determine what the effects of items in tournaments will be.

Also, developing a new playing style will still not offset someone getting a free stock off when they shouldn't due to a randomly appearing FS.

Wiz has stated on IRC that the current item and stage bans are an attempt at compromise between SRK and SWF. It is of course a totally worthless attempt, but still, the notion that he'll listen to SRK but not SWF on what should be banned isn't true.

Of course it's true. He hasn't responded verbally or physically to any of our arguments.

Evo tournaments only have as much money on the line as they have attendants, like every other tournament. Regardless, who the hell are you to judge what Evo is "a place for"? There's absolutely no reason why Evo can't use an experimental rule set. They're running SSF2T HD Remix, a game which will have been out for all of about 2 weeks before Evo starts, so it's not like this is just happening to Brawl.

EVO doesn't need to be used as an experimental ruleset when the entire Smash community AND the SBR have experimented with every possibility. That's what you're not understanding.

If we didn't come up with any different results, what makes you think you will? Again--any fool can see the result of items in tournaments.

That's your problem if you choose not to show up.

Actually, it's EVO's problem, because if not enough people show up, they'll realized they fvcked up royally. Which is funny, because all this could be avoided if you listened to reason.

Which begs the question, why take the side of pro-item people over anti-item people to begin with? Shouldn't there be some experimentation done by SRK outside of EVO so that the matter is considered more heavily? What EVO is doing now is just an excuse to suck SRK's collective c0ck.

 

[IShotLazer]

Okay to put it simply. Theories won't get anywhere with EVO (It'd be nice and easy, but unfortunately... we know better). Luckily we have more than theories and we have previous tournament PROOF that the item ban is a ban that most players ESPECIALLY the type of players that are going to travel and pay that kind of money to enter a tournament such as EVO play by. You also have to remember who you are appealing to in the first place just because more people might like something they might not go out of their way to go to a tournament they know they will lose at in the first place because a casual player still knows whether or not he/she is experienced in a game or not.
As I said a while ago even casuals play with items off when they want to get a fair match in. Local tournaments also know themselves that no items are the best to have the most people come in. Local tournaments are important in this issue for the same reasons.
Locals want the most people to come in so they can make money.
In this sense EVO wants exactly that as well.

To Enigmatic. It's not that tournament evidence would suggest a better tournament necessarily, it's what set of rules will make more people come in. So EVO like the rest of their games is going to "Out of the Box" approach were they barely change any of the rules, keep them as they are, and hope for the best. This is pretty logical, the game creators themselves should have known how the game should be done so obviously this is it. However, this still isnt the case in Brawl. If it were we'd be playing on "Time" matches. I have watched a good share of Brawl tournament videos and have never found items on yet unless it was in friendlies, so right now there is NO evidence to suggest items on would attract more people.

 

[polarity]

^^^^

Why don't you get it? Evo isn't interested in attracting as many people as possible. I think that should be totally obvious by now. It's totally obvious that most competitive players play with items off, but it's also totally irrelevant. To Evo, supporting what the players want is secondary to adhering to an ideology of competitive gaming which involves playing the most complete form of the game possible.

See below, your own words.



I'm sorry, but where is the tournament evidence to suggest that the "effects those items had were the result of inferior strategic decisions"?

A perfect example of SRK's double-standard. "Tourny vids are the only accepted method of proving something should be banned. Logical deductions about banning things in the game don't hold any weight." Except when it's conveniently used to counter the tournament evidence that supports the opposing side, right?

Uh, if you can't understand the difference between analyzing a single match to explain what a player could've done to prevent certain situations from arising, and baselessly theorizing on what warrants a ban based on no solid evidence, you are really stupid. They aren't even remotely comparable.

words

You claim there is solid evidence; put up or shut up. If your don't, all your whining just makes you look childish.

 

[IShotLazer]

Logic would imply EVO wants to attract more people. So what evidence do you have to support the contrary?

 

[polarity]

Logic would imply EVO wants to attract more people. So what evidence do you have to support the contrary?

Uh, the fact that they're running an items-on Brawl tournament?

"Logic" in no way dictates that Evo would want to attract more people. You have to realize that Evo is pretty much at critical mass already; they can't afford to get any bigger unless they get A LOT bigger. There is simply too much to do and too little time to do it at Evo. They've had to cut 2 slots from the lineup this year because 8 games was simply too many to run efficiently. Those are not the actions of a tournament that is primarily interested in higher attendance.

 

[IShotLazer]

Meh I guess you win. They're just being ridiculous at this point. I'm out.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Uh, if you can't understand the difference between analyzing a single match to explain what a player could've done to prevent certain situations from arising, and baselessly theorizing on what warrants a ban based on no solid evidence, you are really stupid. They aren't even remotely comparable.

How many times do I have to say it? You can't discount tournament evidence with the theory that so-and-so could've done this or that when the whole purpose of tournament evidence is to establish what's ACTUALLY happening as opposed to endless theories on what could happen!

SRK - "Tourny vids only, proof behind your theories"
SWF - "Here's some tourny vids that support our argument"
SRK - "Based on our theories, your vids suck"

This is a very simple concept, and a pristine example of circular reasoning.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

How many times do I have to say it? You can't discount tournament evidence with the theory that so-and-so could've done this or that when the whole purpose of tournament evidence is to establish what's ACTUALLY happening as opposed to endless theories on what could happen!

SRK - "Tourny vids only, proof behind your theories"
SWF - "Here's some tourny vids that support our argument"
SRK - "Based on our theories, your vids suck"

This is a very simple concept, and a pristine example of circular reasoning.

Ok, This is tiring. A video to show the argument that is still based on theory , when shown a contrary theory that is just as valid does not prove EITHER theory. It's a nullified for both sides. No proof has been shown for item usage, and no proof has been shown against it. Merely opinions on both sides. No concrete evidence one way or another. That means it is left up to preference until undeniable evidence to disprove a theory has been shown. Evo's preference is to give it a try until disproven. With all this behind it, Evo has still compromised in the ruleset, as it is not All-Brawl. When evidence can be shown to prove, undebateably, that ALL items are detrimental to the game, only then will you dispel all items from Evo. Until then, you can dispel single items with evidence, which might convince Evo staff to remove that item, if, once again, it is deemed detrimental to play. Not based on opinion, but actual facts that are significant enough to pose a threat to this game in a competitive manner.


Oh, and people, please, PLEASE stop ****** the word metagame. I know, it's a big word, and you think it helps you make yourself sound more knowledgeable, but to those that understand what it means, it makes you sound stupid. Stop it.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

stuff

Oh, so you support the notion of circular reasoning? Whatever

 

[polarity]

How many times do I have to say it? You can't discount tournament evidence with the theory that so-and-so could've done this or that when the whole purpose of tournament evidence is to establish what's ACTUALLY happening as opposed to endless theories on what could happen!

SRK - "Tourny vids only, proof behind your theories"
SWF - "Here's some tourny vids that support our argument"
SRK - "Based on our theories, your vids suck"

This is a very simple concept, and a pristine example of circular reasoning.

Jesus, you are dumb as ****. Also, that's not circular reasoning. Please don't start abusing that term like you abuse "metagame".

The players arguing not to change the game don't have to prove their theories until you manage to present a compelling argument to disprove them. The game exists in its default state until compelling argument demonstrates it warrants changing. The burden of proof is on you. The problem is that a single incidence is not compelling evidence of anything.

An example: Early in Competitive Game 3000's life, before much high level footage exists, Player A has a theory; "Fighter A's Punch attack is broken and should be banned!" Player B says "You don't have any evidence to back that up!" Player A presents a match video where a Fighter A player destroys another player by doing his Punch move over and over. Player B states "That's not evidence! The other player could've just shielded to avoid getting hit!". Player A whines "I thought we were dealing with evidence, not theories! You're using circular reasoning! Ban Fighter A's Punch!"

Isn't it pretty obvious what's wrong with this argument?

 

[Zankoku]

Default state?

Does that mean we have to collect all the music CDs to prevent them from spawning in a tournament match?

 

[Sliq]

Isn't it pretty obvious what's wrong with this argument?

No, do another analogy, but this time use robots or ninjas.

 

[Wuss]

polarity: if Mr. wizard is going by that logic, why aren't all of the items on? And why are we not doing time matches? I mean, the type of matches are the one thing that you can not save at all in regards to settings, so wouldn't it make sense to use that as the default setting for tournament play? Because he's not using that, there must be some proof that isn't a single incident involving a reason as to why time matches should not be used, and that stock is the way to go. Why not coin? That hasn't been tested in tournaments, at least not by Evo or Mr. Wizard I would assume. I demand evidence for why I'm not able to play coin matches at the Evo tournament. I want videos of an entire tournament that clearly demonstrate that coin mode is not competitive, and then an entire tournament's worth of videos from a stock tournament showing that it is better and more competitive. If you can not give me this evidence, I will assume that smashboards is completely wrong in everything they have established as the best way to play smash competitively.

[/sarcasm]

see the problem? I would f'ing hope so...

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, do another analogy, but this time use robots or ninjas.

I approve of this post.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

snip

First off, as it's been said several times over, this is a compromise ruleset between what is believed by the conglomerate of ideas from all sides.

Second, I would fully support a time/coin battle option in a tournament if seen. I'd also like to see how these modes pan out in competitive play. I don't recall coin battle ever being attempted in Melee seriously, and who knows what has changed between the games anyway. I doubt these modes would ever become the focus of all tournaments everywhere, but I wouldn't want to stifle someone's attempt to explore the unexplored options to their fullest. You never know what kind of treasures you may find.

No one is saying that Evo's rules is right and everyone else is wrong. Evo is simply wanting to give this an honest shake. If it's that big of a problem for you, don't attend. If you think it's bad, come prove it. Otherwise, go with the flow and see what comes out of it.

 

[polarity]

Default state?

Does that mean we have to collect all the music CDs to prevent them from spawning in a tournament match?

Allow me to rephrase: The default state of a game, competitively speaking, is its most complete manifestation.

polarity: if Mr. wizard is going by that logic, why aren't all of the items on?

Because he's trying to compromise with the items-off crowd, which admittedly is stupid.

And why are we not doing time matches? I mean, the type of matches are the one thing that you can not save at all in regards to settings, so wouldn't it make sense to use that as the default setting for tournament play? Because he's not using that, there must be some proof that isn't a single incident involving a reason as to why time matches should not be used, and that stock is the way to go. Why not coin? That hasn't been tested in tournaments, at least not by Evo or Mr. Wizard I would assume. I demand evidence for why I'm not able to play coin matches at the Evo tournament. I want videos of an entire tournament that clearly demonstrate that coin mode is not competitive, and then an entire tournament's worth of videos from a stock tournament showing that it is better and more competitive. If you can not give me this evidence, I will assume that smashboards is completely wrong in everything they have established as the best way to play smash competitively.

[/sarcasm]

see the problem? I would f'ing hope so...

The difference is that choosing between time/stock/coin is not a factor that affects the completeness of the game either way - it changes the game, but one option does not provide 'more game' than any other. Therefore, seeing as stock has shown to hold up well, there seems to be no reason to quibble with it (although I agree with Cyntalan that there would certainly be no harm in exploring those modes). The situation with items is totally incomparable. Items-off play certainly works well, but it's also undeniably 'less game' than items-on.

 

[Wuss]

^ i know the ruleset is a compromise, but that doesn't change the fact that his logic in asserting that his philosophy about what ruleset to use is iffy. He's saying that you should use the default one unless there is good proof for it not being competitive. I'm pointing out that there is no proof that time mode is bad, so why didn't Evo even consider that? If they are looking for the most competitive way to play the game, how do they know it's not time or coin mode?

polarity: you're saying that switching the gameplay to coin mode would not be a large factor in the game? Wow, Imma say you're dead wrong on that...
what if it was stamina mode? We NEED to explore these modes right? I'm trying to prove that you don't need tournament proof to prove every thing. It's easy to understand why coin mode is not going to work well for tournaments. Hopefully, one could then also listen to why items would not work, and take that into account. You shouldn't need tournament proof just prove that something is broken. if we do need tournament videos, I DEMAND TOURNAMENT VIDEOS PROVING THAT TIME AND COIN MODE ARE NOT AS COMPETITIVE AS STOCK MODE!!

 

[Pink Reaper]

Allow me to rephrase: The default state of a game, competitively speaking, is its most complete manifestation.

Default State: Two Minute time limit, all items on, all stages on, Sonic, Snake, Wolf, Falco, Falco, Ness, Marth, T.Link, G&W, Jiggs, ROB banned for not being unlocked yet.

 

[polarity]

Default State: Two Minute time limit, all items on, all stages on, Sonic, Snake, Wolf, Falco, Falco, Ness, Marth, T.Link, G&W, Jiggs, ROB banned for not being unlocked yet.

You've misunderstood, dummy. I mean that for the purposes of competitive play, the MOST COMPLETE state of the game is considered the default, i.e. you start with the most complete iteration (everything unlocked, everything on) as a base and make changes from there.

 

[Zankoku]

IOW, we do have to collect all the music CDs, because those replace item spawns.

 

[Wuss]

IOW, we do have to collect all the music CDs, because those replace item spawns.

no we don't, because you should be able to control the stage when the cds don't spawn, and not care about when they do spawn. Don't you see, if you were controlling the stage better, cds wouldn't spawn when you could get the items spawning. Stage control can answer all questions man.

 

[Pink Reaper]

You've misunderstood, dummy. I mean that for the purposes of competitive play, the MOST COMPLETE state of the game is considered the default, i.e. you start with the most complete iteration (everything unlocked, everything on) as a base and make changes from there.

I didn't misunderstand, I was making fun of you. And if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that the community went through the "everything on" stage with melee and moved away from it. EVO and Mr. Wizard understood that, EVO had Melee AND Brawl without items before so why randomly add them in now?

 

[polarity]

I didn't misunderstand, I was making fun of you. And if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that the community went through the "everything on" stage with melee and moved away from it. EVO and Mr. Wizard understood that, EVO had Melee AND Brawl without items before so why randomly add them in now?

Uhh when the hell did Evo have Brawl without items?

 

[Sliq]

Uhh when the hell did Evo have Brawl without items?

Yesterday. You missed it.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Yesterday. You missed it.

Good **** at EVO yesterday in the Brawl Pools Sliq.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Oh, and people, please, PLEASE stop ****** the word metagame. I know, it's a big word, and you think it helps you make yourself sound more knowledgeable, but to those that understand what it means, it makes you sound stupid. Stop it.

"Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame. A player who is aware of the metagame for their particular gaming environment may make play choices that are objectively inferior for the game in general, but are optimized against the play styles of the majority of players they are likely to face in that specific competitive arena. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits"


I know, it was weird when I first heard Smash players say metagame, but it actually almost perfectly to the Smash scene according the definition above.

An example: Early in Competitive Game 3000's life, before much high level footage exists, Player A has a theory; "Fighter A's Punch attack is broken and should be banned!" Player B says "You don't have any evidence to back that up!" Player A presents a match video where a Fighter A player destroys another player by doing his Punch move over and over. Player B states "That's not evidence! The other player could've just shielded to avoid getting hit!". Player A whines "I thought we were dealing with evidence, not theories! You're using circular reasoning! Ban Fighter A's Punch!"

Isn't it pretty obvious what's wrong with this argument?

You seem to be misunderstanding his point. Let me try to use your silly little analagy to explain what Enig was trying to say.

Lets say that halfway through Competitive Game 3000's life, a certain boss character was banned for having an attack that no other character could stop when combined with a certain strategy. Then the sequel, Competitive Game 3001 is released. Early in Competitive game 3001's life, players who have played Competitive Game 3000 have seen that the boss character is relatively similar and back with that same attack. But Competitive Game 3001 didn't change a whole lot with the sequel, only adding a few defensive options but largely remaining the same game with a different pace. Competitive Game 3000's players try out the boss character a bit and quickly realize that the new defensive options do not allow other characters to stop this exact same attack. So a tournament is being run that doesn't ban this boss character in 3001.

Player A: "The boss character still has that inherently broken attack, and the game hasn't changed to the extent that it isn't broken anymore!"
Player B: "You don't have any evidence to back that up!"
Player A: "We have years of playing 3000 to back it up."
Player B: "3001 is a new game!"
Player A: "But the game hasn't changed to the point that this attack is different. Here's why..."
Player B: "That's not evidence! Its just baseless theories! I want to see videos!"
Player A: "Ok, here is a video"
Player B: "They could have jumped!"
Player A: "Well, the point wasn't what they COULD have done, the point was what was happening"
Player B: "Baseless theories again!"
Player A: "Ok... got anything to prove your side?"
Player B: "Take a look at this video. See how they dodged it?"
Player A: "Actually, take a look at what happened. If the other guy did X and Y then you wouldn't really be able to dodge it."
Player B: "More baseless theories!"

Notice how when Player A made a theory and presented video evidence, Player B counters with a theory and refuses to hear Player A's counter. Then Player B presents a video that Player A counters with a theory, but then Player B refuses to listen calling it baseless. So apparently Player A's videos are meaningless to Player B, and Player A's theories don't mean anything to Player B either. But Player B thinks he's totally justified in his OWN theories/videos, and that his theories/videos somehow hold more weight or are somehow special. Notice how hypocritical and circular Player B is being. That is exactly what Enig was saying.

I hate using the word "broken" or proposing that a character should be banned. But DO NOT ARGUE THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS ANALOGY LIKE THINGS BEING BROKEN OR CHARACTERS THAT SHOULD BE BANNED. Thats just a flaw in the analogy that I reworked to fit the situation better. The entire point of this is to show how one-sided and circular this debate has become.

 

[polarity]

Player A: "Actually, take a look at what happened. If the other guy did X and Y then you wouldn't really be able to dodge it."
Player B: "More baseless theories!"

Again, the onus is on those who want to remove something from the game to provide solid evidence in favor of their case before those in support of maintaining the current game state are required to provide evidence for theirs. The opposite idea (that those in favor of the current game should have to provide evidence in favor of keeping it) is clearly insane, as, early in a game's life, this could lead to absolutely any claim of brokenness, no matter how ridiculous, warranting serious consideration.

Really, the pro-item side shouldn't even dignify citations of single videos with a response, regardless of how obviously wrong the conclusions made from them are. A few freak occurrences aren't enough to prove anything of worth when nobody is denying that freak occurrences do happen in items-on play; the dispute is over the frequency.

It's okay to have a personal acceptable level of randomness, and obviously for most of the items-off crowd that level is close to zero, but it's important not to confuse personal preference with more objective principles of what constitutes a good competitive game. Play items-off if that's what you enjoy, but the only way to prove that items-on is an outright bad game is to show that several large tournaments featuring the many of the same high-level players have wildly inconsistent results.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Thanks SamuraiPanda, that's exactly what I was saying.

Jesus, you are dumb as ****.

I stopped reading after this. All further posts as well.

 

[Wuss]

Btw polarity, I just want to clarify. Are you saying that because there is some inherent randomness in items, there will be some inherent freak occurrences in brawl tournaments that have items on? If so, I would argue that this is still not good. If one of these so-called "freak occurrences" makes me lose a match that determines the winner of a set in which the winner is rewarded money and the loser is not, I would be soooo **** mad that I just lost money because of a so-called "freak occurrence". I would like to know how you justify this. You could say, well it's just one person, but well, that's a pretty sh*tty a** philosophy if you ask me.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

It's okay to have a personal acceptable level of randomness, and obviously for most of the items-off crowd that level is close to zero, but it's important not to confuse personal preference with more objective principles of what constitutes a good competitive game. Play items-off if that's what you enjoy, but the only way to prove that items-on is an outright bad game is to show that several large tournaments featuring the many of the same high-level players have wildly inconsistent results.

Have fun neg repping each other when the **** hits the fan, Polarity.

Smooth Criminal