The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[RDK]

I like how he just writes off my response to his idiocy as "words" and fails to address any of the points I laid out.

Either you're being a d0uche and you know it, or you really are that idiotic.

 

[Nobie]

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.

I'll have Dave Sirlin justify it for me.

Say you're playing poker and you draw a card that makes you lose even though you're more skilled and odds were you'd draw a good card. Would anyone want to play that game?

Say you are playing Faust in Guilty Gear and you get 3 donuts in a row without any hammers or meteors. Would anyone want to play that game?

Say you're playing Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo and the damage randomness makes your combo barely not kill them when usually it would and they come back to win. Would anyone want to play that game?

Say you're playing Warcraft 3 where damage is done by fixed base + random extra amount. Well, you get the idea.

Items on is a different game, not a "broken" game.

 

[RDK]

I'll have Dave Sirlin justify it for me.

None of those analogies even comes close to being comparable to an exploding crate falling on your ****ing head, or getting stock-lifted by a randomly placed Smash Ball.

If Sirlin thinks Faust randomly getting 3 donuts in a row instead of hammers = getting hit by a Golden Hammer that just HAPPENED to spawn near your opponent, he's a bigger fool than I thought. It's not randomness that's inherently bad; it's what IS random.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

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.

Your idea of evidence is making us sacrifice the game we love, items-off Brawl, to play the game we hate to the extent of refusing to go to EVO, items-on Brawl, not in friendlies, but in multiple high-level tournaments. Why the HELL should we do that when logic should, and does, suffice? Actually, don't answer that. I already know how you're going to blow it off. And keep in mind that I don't like calling items inherently broken or anything, and I (along with most other people) don't really consider turning items off as "banning" items per se. But anyways, onto the next point.

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.

Ok, going along with your point that the "randomness" is the reason why it should be turned off (I'm not saying I agree or disagree of course), I want you to take a step back and define this competition. Isn't this competition a fight between two people to see who has superior skill in the game? So, when a random factor provides an advantage/disadvantage to a player, is that a true measurement of skill? Sure, if the skill gap is large enough, the player should be able to overcome the disadvantage. But at the highest levels of play, where the skill gap is miniscule at best, a random advantage/disadvantage can be a deciding factor, thereby making that match fail at the very definition of being competitive.

Try this for example: Two players are nearly equally skilled Pit players. Both of them play a very campy arrow spamming Pit. Pit 1 and Pit 2 are on opposite sides of FD shooting arrows at each other, and neither is moving. All of a sudden, a beam sword spawns in front of Pit 1, and Pit 1 now has an advantage given to him in a nearly equal match. Sure, you could argue that dodging the sword can be done, but hitting those trying to dodge the sword can also be done. The fact of the matter is that Pit 1 now has an advantages and Pit 2 now has a disadvantage. Since these two Pit players are nearly equally skilled, the advantage given to Pit 1, no matter how small it may or may not be, is enough to tip the game in his favor. Does that truly measure which player is more skilled at the game? Or does that merely measure which player was favored more in that particular match? Sure, you can still be competitive with these factors mixed in (i.e. SF2 or a card game)... but you have the CHOICE of taking those factors out. So why in the world would you leave them in when it is a better "competition" with them out?

For another perspective on this matter, check out this post I made long ago in the beta rules thread: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5125324&postcount=150


For the most part, I'm done with this thread (and long posts) for the night.
This eats up too much of my free time for absolutely no reason, since even if I win this argument, nothing is going to happen.



EDIT: By the way, I like how Sirlin agrees with me that items-on isn't a broken game; its just a different game. Sirlin thinks like I do, but the difference between Sirlin and I is experience in this particular game. He thinks that the items-on Brawl is worth a try (it may be for small local tournaments at first or something) but I've already tried it. For years. And it doesn't hold a card to the competition of items-off Brawl. Like we've been saying for a LONG while: EVO ignored our advice, help, and logic. So they have to learn the hard way everything we offered to teach them.

 

[Wuss]

I'll have Dave Sirlin justify it for me.

like panda said, if that randomness could be taken out, and it's not because someone decides not to listen to logic, then the player would be angry and rightfully so.

Also, your example of poker is not usable, simply because poker = gambling. If I wanted to gamble, I'd go to Las Vegas and play poker or blackjack. If I want to have a good competitive video game experience, I sure as he** wouldn't go to Las Vegas and play Evo...

If you're suggesting that we turn all competitions into gambling because it happens to be the standard setting, then I don't know what to say...

 

[-Aether]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but randomness in Guilty Gear, Warcraft 3, Poker, and Street Fighter may not destroy the game, but they are also not able to be turned off. I bet if said randomness could be disabled as easily as items are in smash, the random-free format would of become the competitive standard.

So, are we not trying to find the most optimal form of competitive gaming?

 

[thesage]

Well, I went to a smashfest last Saturday and I suggested the EVO brawl rules in friendlies. I got laughed at. I got a couple of matches in. We got bored after a couple of them. Went back to normal brawl. Then I went back to melee for the first time since brawl came out. I had the most fun with melee...

 

[Betaz]

^^^^
lol I c wut u did thar

 

[BigRick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but randomness in Guilty Gear, Warcraft 3, Poker, and Street Fighter may not destroy the game, but they are also not able to be turned off. I bet if said randomness could be disabled as easily as items are in smash, the random-free format would of become the competitive standard.

So, are we not trying to find the most optimal form of competitive gaming?

Turning off randomness in Warcraft 3 is pretty easy... proleagues use custom maps where they modify stuff like creep AI or they add macros... They do not mess with the randomness though.

EDIT: And yes theres also players that are complaining about the items and stuff... because of some freak occurences (like a weaker player getting a very very good item like Tome of Exp at the right time then he manages to beat the no1 ranked player) or imbalance (the Blademaster on some maps becomes a one man army cause he can collect lots of Atk up claws). But still, random items never broke the game and the results are very consistent.

IMO the boom capsule thing was the valable reason why items should be banned in Melee*. Since you can take care of this in Brawl, then there are no more valable reasons... its just an opinion thing now.

 

[Pimp Willy]

"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.

It's still being used wrong, even with that quote being pulled off wikipedia. For instance, I can look at the South West, and note that there is a high percentage of Snakes that are being used. Based on this, I can look at the south west metagame (high snake usage) and choose to learn a counter character and main him in an attempt to tip the odds in my favor. This is metagame.

Referring to a players skill level as "metagame," or saying that the "metagame" of a match is low, is a completely wrong use of the word.

Overall its just more of a funny thing that rubs some of us the wrong way, not that it's super important. It's right up there with calling casuals "Friendlies," except that at least friendlies/casuals both apply properly to what they're talking about : )

 

[Firestorm88]

Sirlin really shouldn't be using Poker (turn based game that focuses on prediction and controlling luck) and Warcraft III (role playing game, so it uses the dice roll as a basis for gameplay). The other two analogies are the only ones that can really be applied.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, isn't Brawl's default for VS mode Items Off?

 

[Nobie]

If you turn off Faust's randomness you hurt his character identity. It's built into him, like how Game & Watch has his Judgment attack.

Part of playing Faust is that you basically press your luck in certain situations. It's not always the most reliable, but it's also part of the balance of the character. It's simply how he plays. You can't win on luck alone, but it doesn't hurt to try to use it to your advantage.

Or can you? In regards to luck, what happens when someone tries their **** hardest to utilize luck in a competitive game? Not trying to manipulate probability, not trying to reduce randomness, but to try and utilize it as much and as often as possible. Like if I were playing a trading card game, be it Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, or whatever game is popular with the kids these days, and I loaded my deck with cards that require coin flips, dice rolls, guessing the opponent's cards, that sort of thing. Let's also assume that this is not really a winning strategy, and I'm just playing to see how far I can go with it. And let's say then that I win against you. How does it make you feel?

Is it different because I made the active decision to submit to luck? Is it because items are not a "player-made" decision aside from going to an items tournament that makes it such a point of contention? If you could remove the randomness from G&W, Peach, and Dedede, would you really?

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Overall its just more of a funny thing that rubs some of us the wrong way, not that it's super important. It's right up there with calling casuals "Friendlies," except that at least friendlies/casuals both apply properly to what they're talking about : )

Funny? It's pretentious and elitist. Especially when people are "corrected" for their use of the word, but never given the actual definition as if they aren't mentally capable of comprehending it. Please, lets not turn this discussion into correcting each other's "there"s, "too"s, "were"s, etc.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

It's still being used wrong, even with that quote being pulled off wikipedia. For instance, I can look at the South West, and note that there is a high percentage of Snakes that are being used. Based on this, I can look at the south west metagame (high snake usage) and choose to learn a counter character and main him in an attempt to tip the odds in my favor. This is metagame.

Referring to a players skill level as "metagame," or saying that the "metagame" of a match is low, is a completely wrong use of the word.

Overall its just more of a funny thing that rubs some of us the wrong way, not that it's super important. It's right up there with calling casuals "Friendlies," except that at least friendlies/casuals both apply properly to what they're talking about : )

*shrug* I don't really notice people using "metagame" like you pointed out. That would actually be quite annoying. Personally, I use the term metagame to refer to high-level play, and usually high-level play in the future.

 

[Inui]

Did I really just read a Sirlin passage about Smash?

SRK/EVO/etc. people don't know jack about Smash. They should let Smashers handle Smash. Morons.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

Ok for those who wondering earlier in the topic. I found the video of the Wolf vs MK finals (online *cough >_>) smash balls on.
and guess what? the MK wasn't a noob as I thought. he just didn't have the time to teleport ( during his second stock at least). wolf on the other hand >_>

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mzNQyMgIFXE

and guess whats even more amusing? Wolf actually got the smash ball again after that!

well at least for the people who still think items should be allowed in tournaments:

gg no re.

I doubt SRK cares about stuff like this though. >_>

EDIT:

another video for the lulz

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7VBTJe-nXyY

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Here's a couple more for posterity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ENFhzTbo9Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-fE746tEA8&NR=1


ITEMS ON.

PIT ONLY.

BATTLEFIELD.

GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO.

Smooth Criminal

 

[StrippersandBeer]

man... God tier post from samurai:

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5125120&postcount=126

exactly the point. iSmash v Smash (item v no item). which one you like better.

i'm still really hoping mr. wiz and srk will make things right for brawl.... sigh....

 

[Sliq]

I'm still waiting for that robot/ninja analogy.

 

[DoH]

I sent this to Wiz about a week ago via PM

I do take issue with one of your statements.

Much like in court, no evidence=you wont win your case. Brawl is not melee and the quicker people realize that the better. Just because you ruled out items in melee doesnt mean it rolls over.

However, in court precedent carries over and usually wins in most cases, unless the situation has drastically changed. Therefore, you still have the burden of proof to show how item gameplay has uniquely changed to allow enough of a reason to let them back in.

He didn't respond.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I sent this to Wiz about a week ago via PM

I do take issue with one of your statements.




However, in court precedent carries over and usually wins in most cases, unless the situation has drastically changed. Therefore, you still have the burden of proof to show how item gameplay has uniquely changed to allow enough of a reason to let them back in.

He didn't respond.

Yeah, its a good point. I sent him a PM awhile ago asking a very similar question, along the lines of "What changed between Melee and Brawl to make you think all of our experience with items doesn't carry over?" He didn't answer me, either.

One way or another, like I said in that giant post a couple pages back, Wizzy ain't going to listen to logic, since he has other reasons why he'd want to go ahead with items-on Brawl. Here is my post: http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4505419&postcount=479

 

[Yuna]

Jesus, you are dumb as ****.

COUM, this is not SRK, MrWizard is not in control here, we actually have objective and capable mods moderating this board. You cannot say stuff like this here.

 

[Yuna]

IMO the boom capsule thing was the valable reason why items should be banned in Melee*. Since you can take care of this in Brawl, then there are no more valable reasons... its just an opinion thing now.

Only now it's changed because now you're forced to grab items at the start of every aerial. What if i'm aerialing when a hammer spawns into my hands and my opponent proceeds to knock me out so far I die because I can't 2nd jum pr Up B while carrying a hammer? Or if it spawns into my hands when I just can't make it back at all, even without getting hit?

Someone launches me, my opponent jumps up and does an aerial, which I airdodge and would get away from safely, only his aerial gets canceled into an itemgrab of a Golden Hammer, since the hitbox is constant, my airdodge eventually ends and I get hit by the Golden Hammer and die.

But I guess I should've stage controlled.

 

[BigRick]

Only now it's changed because now you're forced to grab items at the start of every aerial. What if i'm aerialing when a hammer spawns into my hands and my opponent proceeds to knock me out so far I die because I can't 2nd jum pr Up B while carrying a hammer? Or if it spawns into my hands when I just can't make it back at all, even without getting hit?

Someone launches me, my opponent jumps up and does an aerial, which I airdodge and would get away from safely, only his aerial gets canceled into an itemgrab of a Golden Hammer, since the hitbox is constant, my airdodge eventually ends and I get hit by the Golden Hammer and die.

But I guess I should've stage controlled.

lol golden hammers only spawn from the floor IIRC

 

[Yuna]

lol golden hammers only spawn from the floor IIRC

And? You can still grab items when you're in the air even if they're on the floor.

 

[BigRick]

And? You can still grab items when you're in the air even if they're on the floor.

And? It means that your example fails. Golden Hammers have the lowest spawn rate of the whole game, combine that with the fact that they only spawn from the ground and you have very little probability to see what you described.

I play brawl with items about 50% of the time, so I can tell.

I see what your point is, but you need to stop exaggerating stuff in order to make your points more powerful... it just makes you look less credible.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

And? It means that your example fails. Golden Hammers have the lowest spawn rate of the whole game, combine that with the fact that they only spawn from the ground and you have very little probability to see what you described.

I play brawl with items about 50% of the time, so I can tell.

I see what your point is, but you need to stop exaggerating stuff in order to make your points more powerful... it just makes you look less credible.

Not to mention the item that spawns isn't the hammer, but the platform that SLOWLY generates it. This is the one item that people can't claim "random collection" on because it's so obvious when it spawns and takes forever to do so. You see it spawn, you have a solid 3 seconds to decide what to do. If that's not enough time for you, perhaps you have deeper problems than worrying about the oh-so-scary Golden Hammer.

Edit: About earlier vids. I looked at 'em and laughed. The Wolf vs. MK 4-stock doomsday vid showed little more than a MK that had no clue how to break a smashball right, let alone how to deal with a landmaster. His first and second stocks he shows that he has no idea how to properly ledgestall (jumps way to high during the barrel roll, no shuttle loop instagrab, no flying under the stage), and the second stock not only this, but failed a tech and rolled the long way down the landmaster. On his third was a legitimate kill that was probably too difficult to manage to avoid, and the fourth was him PACING on top of the landmaster. He was a fool.

After a bit of research into that Pit v Pit v Hothead match, my hypothesis was correct, so I'll share it. Even as far back as SSB64, reflection adds damage/power to whatever has been reflected. If it's too powerful, it will break the reflector like it would a shield. This was most notorious displayed with the classic Falco/Fox/etc. reflecting a red shell over and over, with the 6th hit breaking it. In this particular case, Pit's f+b reflected the hothead while sparking, which gave it the massive power boost that carried over even when it wasn't sparking. When it was attempted again, the reflection from Pit #2 occured against yet another spark, which broke the reflection then, because Hothead's don't change momentum unless a successful reflection occurs, also hit him for the 100%+ and sent him to his doom. Did he get screwed? Yes. Was it avoidible? Yes.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

Edit: About earlier vids. I looked at 'em and laughed. The Wolf vs. MK 4-stock doomsday vid showed little more than a MK that had no clue how to break a smashball right, let alone how to deal with a landmaster. His first and second stocks he shows that he has no idea how to properly ledgestall (jumps way to high during the barrel roll, no shuttle loop instagrab, no flying under the stage), and the second stock not only this, but failed a tech and rolled the long way down the landmaster. On his third was a legitimate kill that was probably too difficult to manage to avoid, and the fourth was him PACING on top of the landmaster. He was a fool.

After a bit of research into that Pit v Pit v Hothead match, my hypothesis was correct, so I'll share it. Even as far back as SSB64, reflection adds damage/power to whatever has been reflected. If it's too powerful, it will break the reflector like it would a shield. This was most notorious displayed with the classic Falco/Fox/etc. reflecting a red shell over and over, with the 6th hit breaking it. In this particular case, Pit's f+b reflected the hothead while sparking, which gave it the massive power boost that carried over even when it wasn't sparking. When it was attempted again, the reflection from Pit #2 occured against yet another spark, which broke the reflection then, because Hothead's don't change momentum unless a successful reflection occurs, also hit him for the 100%+ and sent him to his doom. Did he get screwed? Yes. Was it avoidible? Yes.

I said the guy wasnt a noob. not that he was good in anyway.
and its not so much that he didnt know how to break the smash ball. it had more to do about how smash balls work. they usually hover over the losers head for some period of time. notice how the smash ball goes straight for wolf the first time? of course it could've been bad luck, but that is just as bad...)

Can you honestly tell me the Wolf was trully better than the MK?

Like I said the second video was just for laughs, but you have to admit the other pit got really lucky when he reflected the hothead the first time. The second time was just a mistake...

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

I said the guy wasnt a noob. not that he was good in anyway.
and its not so much that he didnt know how to break the smash ball. it had more to do about how smash balls work. they usually hover over the losers head for some period of time. notice how the smash ball goes straight for wolf the first time? of course it could've been bad luck, but that is just as bad...)

Can you honestly tell me the Wolf was trully better than the MK?

Like I said the second video was just for laughs, but you have to admit the other pit got really lucky when he reflected the hothead the first time. The second time was just a mistake...

You said he wasn't a noob, but I'll disagree. At least when it comes to the smashball. In both occasions, he attempted to break it w/ u-air spam, which isn't the best way for MK to break it when his opponent is right below him, and doubly so when you spam it so hard you go over the smashball because MK's u-air doesn't knock it anywhere. Then he had no clue of what to do once the FS was out. So yeah, I'll definitely say that in that particular match, the Wolf was better with what was played. By far. He sat there and watched MK Soften up the smashballs for him and took the easy prize. MK made mistake after mistake until he was ousted the whole way.

As far as the Hothead incident, I don't see how he was lucky. I would like to say he pinned his opponent down with an attack he knew would keep him safe from the oncoming hothead. One could say, at this stage in the game, that most definitely was "luck-based", as I don't think he expected the outcome at all. But experience counters that kind of "luck" over time, as the situations arise more frequently, they're better understood. That's kinda what we're trying to convey here as a whole.

As far as the whole "why do we need to prove it on a new game" thing... key words are "new game". We don't know what has changed to show items are valid. We don't know if not enough has changed to say they're still not valid. The game is far too new to make a claim either way. What we do know is that the game has changed considerably from Melee, especially in the defensive aspects. To look at it for a minor period of time before deciding to do away with it when we haven't even a grip on the intricacies of the characters yet seems a bit short-sighted. Even if it's not the popular opinion.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I'm still waiting for that robot/ninja analogy.

So theres this Ninja right? And like, he trained in the shadows for years, honing his ninja skills and learning the way of the assassin. One day, he's tasked with killing a robot, lets call him...M2K. So he goes to kill this robot, he uses all of his advanced ninja spacing and battlefield control to get within killing range when suddenly a Giant Hammer that makes the robot invincible randomly appears out of no where next to the Robot. He grabs the hammer, smashes the Ninja, is just about to go for the kill when a Giant multi colored fish eats them both.

 

[Aesir]

So theres this Ninja right? And like, he trained in the shadows for years, honing his ninja skills and learning the way of the assassin. One day, he's tasked with killing a robot, lets call him...M2K. So he goes to kill this robot, he uses all of his advanced ninja spacing and battlefield control to get within killing range when suddenly a Giant Hammer that makes the robot invincible randomly appears out of no where next to the Robot. He grabs the hammer, smashes the Ninja, is just about to go for the kill when a Giant multi colored fish eats them both.

Sounds like something Douglas Adams would write.

 

[Rebel581]

As far as the whole "why do we need to prove it on a new game" thing... key words are "new game". We don't know what has changed to show items are valid.

Then show us. The burden of proof rests on smaller tournaments that want items on. Big tournaments use what we know to be successful. While we've given reasons why they haven't changed, you've just repeatedly said, "We don't know how they've changed." You haven't given us any reasons to how they've changed that would benefit competitive play. You've just told we can't remove something that was in the game. Yet you've never countered the "how have they changed?" argument.

 

[Battousai780]

Sounds like something Douglas Adams would write.

Except M2K isn't a robot, he's a god.

 

[IShotLazer]

Okay so what is the exact goal of EVO at this point? If it isn't to make the most profit the second option should be to make the most interesting tournament scene for viewers and the players at EVO. I STILL don't see items as any viable excuse in the slightest for either of these. Yes, yes weapon control yadayada it means something in Halo because there are set locations and set spawn points. There are also definitive weapons which are going to be there and stages were HEAVILY designed around the weapon spawns in the first place, unlike smash.
Lets say that one person is doing a great job at controlling the stage. He does a good job at keeping the other person at bay and takes nearly all the items. However everytime he gets an item it's just not cutting it, though it is helping. Then suddenly the other player gets a hit in and a Golden Hammer(Or w/e better item that would change the game) spawns right next to him. Stage control or not thats bull, and it happens.
Item matches aren't very intersting to an outside smasher either, so... whats going on here?

 

[Sliq]

So theres this Ninja right? And like, he trained in the shadows for years, honing his ninja skills and learning the way of the assassin. One day, he's tasked with killing a robot, lets call him...M2K. So he goes to kill this robot, he uses all of his advanced ninja spacing and battlefield control to get within killing range when suddenly a Giant Hammer that makes the robot invincible randomly appears out of no where next to the Robot. He grabs the hammer, smashes the Ninja, is just about to go for the kill when a Giant multi colored fish eats them both.

I can die happy.

Except M2K isn't a robot, he's a god.

Get off his nuts.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Then show us. The burden of proof rests on smaller tournaments that want items on. Big tournaments use what we know to be successful. While we've given reasons why they haven't changed, you've just repeatedly said, "We don't know how they've changed." You haven't given us any reasons to how they've changed that would benefit competitive play. You've just told we can't remove something that was in the game. Yet you've never countered the "how have they changed?" argument.

Wow, way to ignore the following sentence.

That aside, from what we do know so far, we know that containers now have a toggle, which removes the biggest complaint to ever get them removed in the first place, and defensive options have GREATLY widened, which makes it much more difficult to get the reward from a given item. The items didn't need to change. The game did. How much have the changes affected items play? We don't know yet. The game is just far too new to make that call.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

That aside, from what we do know so far, we know that containers now have a toggle, which removes the biggest complaint to ever get them removed in the first place, and defensive options have GREATLY widened, which makes it much more difficult to get the reward from a given item. The items didn't need to change. The game did. How much have the changes affected items play? We don't know yet. The game is just far too new to make that call.

1. Items were banned in half the country before the "randomly exploding containers" argument became the center point of the debate, eventually leading to items getting banned in the other half. There are many other complaints about items that still stand in Brawl.

2. How has defensive options "GREATLY widened" in terms of items? One of the only defensive options that helps the idea of items being on (this is something I've said in the past when I used to be in support of items) is that there are multiple airdodges so items aren't an instant edgeguard anymore (yet they are still an edgeguard). The only other thing that has really changed is options for grabbing items, but the problems were never in how you grab them. Also, with the REMOVAL of the powershield reflection, defensive options against items have also decreased with Brawl.

3. Like I said before, the changes did not completely eliminate many of the problems people had with how items affected gameplay in Melee, and thus these problems still persist in Brawl.

And if you ask what these "problems" are, you're asking the wrong guy. That is different for every person, and I don't like getting into specifics (i.e. "they're too random" or "they're totally broken") as those points have been argued to death already.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

1. Items were banned in half the country before the "randomly exploding containers" argument became the center point of the debate, eventually leading to items getting banned in the other half. There are many other complaints about items that still stand in Brawl.

And these debates then were at a constant standstill. Only when the argument of containers come into play and shown to be significant of an issue to warrant concern did the debate ever slide against items in play, and simply because there was no way to turn them off without turning all items off. If there had been in Melee, the debate would still be going on today in Melee.

2. How has defensive options "GREATLY widened" in terms of items? One of the only defensive options that helps the idea of items being on (this is something I've said in the past when I used to be in support of items) is that there are multiple airdodges so items aren't an instant edgeguard anymore (yet they are still an edgeguard). The only other thing that has really changed is options for grabbing items, but the problems were never in how you grab them. Also, with the REMOVAL of the powershield reflection, defensive options against items have also decreased with Brawl.

For one, items that had "reflection trumping" properties such as the Star Rod have lost that value. Second, and this is the biggest, item catching is incredibly easy to pull off by comparison to Melee. In Melee, if you weren't grounded, you air-dodge caught. That was your only choice. It was possible to do a dodgeless catch, but the timing it took made it far too dangerous to attempt. Here in Brawl, dodgeless catching is quite viable (how much more viable remains to be seen, as the game's too new. Only experience will show this fact). Adding in the fact that w/ air dodging being changed so much, coming back off the stage high is viable again, which means the terrifying edgeguarding tactics have been foiled two-fold by both the increased chance for a dodgeless catch and not having to put yourself in a position that a given item will finish you off.

3. Like I said before, the changes did not completely eliminate many of the problems people had with how items affected gameplay in Melee, and thus these problems still persist in Brawl.

And if you ask what these "problems" are, you're asking the wrong guy. That is different for every person, and I don't like getting into specifics (i.e. "they're too random" or "they're totally broken") as those points have been argued to death already.

Problems are subjective. Each has their own personal opinion on the matter and nothing will change that. Most of the arguments brought to light are subjective. Evo's done its best to compromise between all these different opinions, without weighing their importance based on popularity alone. If that's how Evo were to handle things, Roll Cancelling would never have seen the light of day in CvS2, as the popular opinion found it broken and made the game unplayable. To this day, there are some that believe it's broken, and yet, there's no ban on it. Is it really that hard to believe that Brawl would be treated any different? Honestly, I'm amazed we didn't get a ruleset less conservative than we got.

 

[Rebel581]

I'd also like to specify, "There are more defensive options," means nothing when items got a huge power boost. If you increase defensive options, but then increase item options by a huge amount greater than the defensive options, it doesn't make items balanced.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Problems are subjective. Each has their own personal opinion on the matter and nothing will change that. Most of the arguments brought to light are subjective. Evo's done its best to compromise between all these different opinions, without weighing their importance based on popularity alone. If that's how Evo were to handle things, Roll Cancelling would never have seen the light of day in CvS2, as the popular opinion found it broken and made the game unplayable. To this day, there are some that believe it's broken, and yet, there's no ban on it. Is it really that hard to believe that Brawl would be treated any different? Honestly, I'm amazed we didn't get a ruleset less conservative than we got.

I'm tired from studying all day so I don't really feel up to responding to the rest of your post right now. I just wanted to respond to a few points here.

First off, there is no dichotomy in our community (relatively of course). While people who hated Roll Cancelling may have been a majority, say 70% of the community, we here are more than the majority of the community. We ARE the community. I'd say that a good 95% of competitive Smashers, if not more, don't even like items. This isn't about popularity. By the way, your example for Roll Canceling is exactly what the SBR does for stage banning. Just because a stage is often banned, does not mean that it is deserving for a ban. We weigh the different options and debate the matter. There is always someone who feels the opposite way in the SBR, so we're able to cover all the bases.

But the real thing I wanted to address was that you're "amazed" we didn't get a ruleset less conservative. Listen, I'm a very, very liberal person when it comes to the ruleset. I argued for items back when the game was first released. I've practiced with them, tested them, debated with others on the matter, and finally realized that items simply don't have a place in our community. And that was a hard-earned realization. Then I moved onto Smashballs. The SBR debated that one to no end. Something most people automatically assumed we would throw out instantly became a thread with nearly every post being the length of an essay. We finally concluded that Smashballs are unfortunatly not fit for the community either. And now we are actually changing some traditional rules, and trying new things. The SBR itself is NOT conservative, nor is it liberal. The SBR only tries to make the most balanced competitive experience possible. We've provided a thousand different reasons here, in the SBR itself, and on SRK as to why items are not in the interest of the most balanced competitive experience. Decisions aren't made "just because." Don't assume things when you have no idea how they're handled.

That ended up being longer than I wanted it to be. Blah, I don't even feel like debating this anymore. Nothing will come out of this and there is no point in wasting my time anymore.