The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

I think the thing that missed here is that there is some level of agreement here. This is why containers aren't even in the Evo ruleset. It is part of the compromise that some people seem to think isn't happening. If things weren't voiced at all to the contrary, Evo Brawl could very well have been All-Brawl. The rules they've decided on are a compromise in that regard.

In even most SRK members' view, without a question, Hearts/Stars/Tomatoes/Curry are out of the question, as well as a vast majority that believe the "attack/touch activation" items like containers/explosives should not be in play. Similarly, NPC/Temple/Spear are also something that is, without a doubt, removed from play due to undeniable evidence supporting it. Beyond this point, it's really a gray area. Some people are more liberal in their selection (Keits), while some are more conservative (UltraDavid, for example). A compromise was met in the middle and that was pretty much how it fell the way it did.

In this case, the example isn't very valid in proving against what Evo has decided on in the first place, as that's Melee. The game's mechanics have changed considerably since then, and the defensive options have increased in potency. Even if this were a Brawl match (and videos I've seen linked in SRK, AIB, and here that provided "proof" like that), would have shown that yes, that item has already been noted as not worth the added depth to warrant their value and is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that all items can be ruled out of play because one bad seed is in the list.

But it's not just a specific example of how broken the star rod and proximity mine are, but a general one that displays how an unfortunate combination of random item effects can combine to something ridiculously broken, that neither player could foresee.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Even after asking for facts to why the contrary, opinion was brought to their attention more than facts...

The same can be said for SRK.

Mr. Wizard asked for proof behind banning items. What happened? SRK provided their opinions on which items should be banned, SWF provided proof behind theirs supported by vids. SRK's opinions were all agreed upon, yet SWF's vids were discounted because "he should've done that," "he wasn't playing for stage control", "he wasn't playing as if items were there." That's bs because it doesn't matter what could've happened - the whole point is what DID happen.

As far as I'm concerned, they're all just excuses for making the rules that they want to make.

 

[Yuna]

But it's not just a specific example of how broken the star rod and proximity mine are, but a general one that displays how an unfortunate combination of random item effects can combine to something ridiculously broken, that neither player could foresee.

"But... stage control!" people cry! Just don't get grabbed/hit right when good items spawn! In other words "Don't get hit, ever".

 

[Sliq]

EVO's tournament rules don't affect me. I'm not going. Especially because of the rules.

It is sort of unfortunate that I'm not going. EVO wouldv'e been fun. =<

 

[BigRick]

Would anyone like to help me with my research?
The other day I finally decided to test a theory, based on:
1) Designer stating items level playing field
2) Knowledge that the game records who the current winner is by stock count(view big screen on Pokemon Stadium)
3) Rubber band affect of Mario Kart items
---
My test was simple, two Mario's spread apart to each end of FD. 1 Mario is suicided at start of match, items set to high, starman only.
Since I did a quick test, I simply wanted to see which side (half of FD) got to 10 items first.
Trial 1: losers side 10, winners side 2
Trial 2: losers side 10, winners side 3

I posted this in the SBR about a day ago, M3D just recently mentioned he did a test after mine with Falco on Lylat using Pokeballs, and that in 10 games to 4 minutes, the number of items spawning on the losing players side was in that players favor by a ratio of about 2-1.

I plan to record 10 4 minute matches and make note of where each item spawns. I'm not willing to conclusively say anything yet, but so far this definitely warrants more testing. This would be an epic breakthrough.

Great stuff right there, I want to try this as soon as I get back home.

It really wouldn't surprise me if this is really how items work.

It would also not surprise me if SRK just went "Well, then so be it" and "Stage control!" if we prove that this is the case.

you should be banned from ur own thread

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

you should be banned from ur own thread

Why? I must have missed something here....

 

[Rebel581]

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't notice how broken they are because they're plain bad at the game. The unfair spawns is one thing. But that can be seen as random (although they obviously suck at testing if AZ is right, and he probably is), and something you race to get too.

They don't seem to see items as MUCH better in Brawl. Items in Melee sucked. I'd rather chuck them off the edge than use them most of the time. Or chuck them at someone. Using them was suicide. This is not the case with Brawl, as every item has gotten a buff to the level of broken. But because they aren't throwing out constant hitboxes, they've never seen an item literally spawn in someone's hand. Playing with their ruleset against someone, an item spawned in one of our hands (usually the one being chased and run down) 3 times. I cancel out my tumbling animation with an attack. Due to the low hitstun, this allows me to use Pit's nair pretty soon after getting hit. I was picking up an item as it spawned.

Occasionally, I would be using Pit's nair offensively, and as I was hitting my opponent, I'd get a free green shell in my hand because it literally spawned there. They may call this stage control. I consider that unfair. I had no forseen way to know that item would be in my hand.

Then I had one match where the entire match degraded into chucking one home-run bat at each other for the entire 3 minutes. The item never disappeared, and was involved in every kill. The home-run bat is incredibly powerful when thrown, and was thus a better kill move than any of Pit's attacks.

Oh, and people who argue about the time (Yuna), stop. Time's not an issue with the items on. The matches go a lot faster. Think about what would happen if you gave Pit a projectile that could kill at 80%. This projectile can be angled to go below the stage. The time is only an issue if they turn items off mostly. Alternatively, it may not have taken long because my Pit rushes the opponent a lot and uses an arrow when he can't catch the person.

EDIT: Very strangely, I just did the same test on FD. Two Marios. First test is one Mario suicided twice. The spawns SEEMED about the same (I didn't count this one though, but that's because I kept getting a 1:1 ratio when I was counting.

Then I had one Mario kill the other one twice, and separated them to other sides of the stage. The winning Mario either had a starman spawn on his side, or if a starman landed in the center, I counted whichever side it moved towards (aka whoever had the best chance of getting it). It was 10:3 in favor of the winner at the end. The video was 2:57 when I finished, so it's recorded.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I also ran some of AZ's tests a little while ago with the smashball, starman, and the banana. The setup was also 2 Marios on FD with high item spawn, and I actually switched sides a few times only to see no change in the bias towards the loser. I also tried SDing twice to see if there was a difference one stock to three stock. There might have been, but I couldn't really tell since I wasn't recording the numbers and there was already a bias to begin with.

The banana is just the standard item, but IIRC, disappears quickly. When I used Mario/FD with the banana, I noticed that the banana would spawn 1-2 times on the loser's side, then 1 time on the winner's side. The bananas would continue to spawn increasingly closer to each player, but it only got very close to the loser. Also, the starman has 2 values that you can observe: where it spawns and to whom it bounces towards. When I did it myself, I noticed a significant bias towards the loser in spawn location, and the few times it spawned near the winner, it almost always bounced towards the loser. But I'm suspecting another factor with that would be bouncing towards the center of the stage vs bouncing off of the stage completely. Finally, the smashball is unique in its "random" hovering, which I discovered isn't random at all. The SB will spawn on random sides (as far as I can tell), but nearly immediately after spawning will hover around the loser for a bit almost every time before moving away.

I think there is much more "depth" to the item spawning than we had previously noticed, but I'm positive all of that "depth" goes towards a rubber-band effect to promote equality, as M3D put it.

Oh yeah, and the Mario I suicided with was P1. I don't know if there is a difference between slots, but we might as well see.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Shrug, hence we all need to do lots of testing and video recording.

 

[Samochan]

...

So even items are seemingly programmed to be on the losers side, just like pity final smashers. Man, just how far did sakurai go with the "everyone is a winner" attitude? <_>

But if this thing can be proven, it's probably the most anti-competitive thing with items on ever. No way they can be included in any tournament if items themselves are biased.

Oh and the enabled stages still give me nightmares... *thinks of Dk and his springs of doom 75mm*

 

[Pyronic_Star]

I don't have any video proof... however, a local tournament was held at my college with items, and majority of the people got so mad at random deaths due to smash balls and other various items... that the tournament organized ended up restarting the entire tournament. i will say that for the most part, the better smash players did better than less skilled ones when items were on, but that only applied to great gaps between skill... but when the skill level was remotely close... items chose the winner.

 

[Yuna]

you should be banned from ur own thread

For speaking the truth? They consider a hammer spawning right in front of someone when the other person has just been knocked off stage "Stage Control" as opposed to sheer dumb luck.

I'd help testing if I could but I don't have the time at the moment. Good luck with it and I really hope it does favour the loser so we have some really good arguments against items they cannot refute... other than possibly saying "Well, the winner just needs to have better stage control"... ...

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I'd also be interested to see if winner vs loser was also determined by percentage differences. I'd probably start with a 0% to 80%, and if that proved positive, then a 20% to 60%, then finally a 30% to 50%. It'd be interesting to see if the game still chose one of the two to bias when the match is close, but I don't think that would happen.

Oh yeah, and I wonder if 0% (loser, on his second stock) to 80% (winner, on his first stock) would also be a factor.

 

[BigRick]

For speaking the truth? They consider a hammer spawning right in front of someone when the other person has just been knocked off stage "Stage Control" as opposed to sheer dumb luck.

No, it's for bringing nothing constructive on the table.

Btw guys, an important test to do would be to have the winning mario stand in the middle of stage and the loser at the edge and check who gets most items. That would really tear apart the stage control theory.

Panda: also, since the game is also able to remember who won and who lost the last match, we would need to check out if it has an effect.

In SF2 the loser of 1st round has a higher random chance to deal more damage... in Brawl something similar with items would be worse because it would carry from match to match.

 

[Firestorm88]

Maybe this item discovery needs a new topic? It's a pretty big breakthrough into how items work. It also makes a lot of sense because of how it works in Mario Kart and it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Have you tried seeing what happens when the winning player has more stage covered than the losing player? So maybe situated further along the stage with the losing player backed up a bit.

Although as SamuraiPanda said, they increasingly started to spawn even closer to the loser so this already shows that effect...

 

[Fuzzyness]

oh wow >_> poor evo

 

[Xiivi]

I've noticed a similar effect concerning the smash ball and dragoon pieces. I've seen multiple times where the losing player can knock dragoon pieces/smash balls out of the winning player with a single jab. The winning player usually needs to hit the losing player much more to knock these out of their opponent. I know this is true between CPU and Human players, and I've had the feeling it's the same between winning and losing players.

 

[I_R_Hungry]

Would have been kind of nice if these things were discussed before the SRK thread was locked, but alright >.>

 

[AlphaZealot]

Surely, though, I guess they didn't uncover anything in their extensive testing of items either.

 

[Yuna]

I've noticed a similar effect concerning the smash ball and dragoon pieces. I've seen multiple times where the losing player can knock dragoon pieces/smash balls out of the winning player with a single jab. The winning player usually needs to hit the losing player much more to knock these out of their opponent. I know this is true between CPU and Human players, and I've had the feeling it's the same between winning and losing players.

This could kinda explain how I often lose my Smash Balls and Dragoon Pieces much easier than my opponents (I'm usually winning as this often happens at anime conventions where I'm almost always among the best players) no matter which character I play as.

It could be true. People need to test this as well. It would be idiotic if it were true, though.

Surely, though, I guess they didn't uncover anything in their extensive testing of items either.

You mean their limited and biased research wherein they probably deleted tons of vids that could be used against them and only kept the ones illustrating their own points? How you can prove that items can never decide the outcome of important matches due to random spawning, I'll never know.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

You know what? Why should WE bother with doing these tests? Let the people at SRK do more research into why items weren't meant for competitions. AZ, since you were the one who found this out, do you want to try making a thread with some of these findings and just let them go at it? Or do you want to research a bit more?

EDIT: Yay for Wobbles =D

 

[Wobbles]

Well, at this thread's request I did a bit of "Stage Control" testing. Here's how I set up the test:

Timed Match, 3 minutes.

Mario 1 sits in the middle of Final Destination. Mario 2 SD's, then runs over to the right edge.

Items are on high, Franklin Badges only (they don't bounce around and they're easy to measure distance with).

Mario 1 is currently the winner. If item bias is real, then Mario 2 will get a larger share of Franklin badges, even though Mario 1 is "controlling the stage."

Trial 1:

Mario 1: 6
Mario 2: 8
Neutral: 2

At this point, however, I realize that I can't see all of the stage. I run Trial 2 with Fixed Camera on.

Trial 2:

Mario 1: 22
Mario 2: 1
Neutral : 1

Only one of the Franklin Badges was in a position where both could easily obtain it. 22 of the Franklin Badges that fell, however, were closer to the first Mario, being on the left side or immediately next to him. Only 1 was clearly in Mario 2's favor for obtaining it. This suggested that controlling the stage was, in fact, more important to item collection than being the losing player.

Trial 3:

Same situation.

Mario 1: 20
Mario 2: 5
Neutral: 2

Mario 1, the winner, still has access to a greater share of the items. I'm going to test this with a different item to see if that makes any difference. I don't know why it would, but... whatever.

Trial 4: Green Shell Test

Mario 1: 16
Mario 2: 6
Neutral: 3

Trial 5:

Mario 1: 16
Mario 2: 2
Neutral: 4

Keep in mind that Mario 1 is the winner and Mario 2 is the loser. It seems that if the winning player is controlling the center of the stage, he will continue to have the majority of the items. I'm going to try testing this later with Mario 2 at several SD's, just to see if that has an impact.

 

[Xiivi]

This could kinda explain how I often lose my Smash Balls and Dragoon Pieces much easier than my opponents (I'm usually winning as this often happens at anime conventions where I'm almost always among the best players) no matter which character I play as.

It could be true. People need to test this as well. It would be idiotic if it were true, though.

I know it's true between Human and CPU players. CPU opponents will always be able to knock things out of you very quickly with even 1/2 soft hits. However, you can juggle the CPU across the stage and back and they'll hold onto it for dear life. (The scenario I'm using assumes the Human and CPU players are tied.) I've seen people on gamefaqs continually complain about this. I've also had plenty of experience with this first hard.

So if Sakurai implemented this between CPU and Human players, I don't anything preventing him from applying the same thing to winning vs. losing players. Especially since I've slowly begun to notice the trend as of late.
--------
Ok, I just ran a few tests about Dragoon pieces and how they fall out. I went to Final Destination with Player 1 and Player 2 as Mario. I set the only item to Dragoon pieces on high. I had player 2 suicide right away (thus P2 is losing by the game standards). I waited for the 3 Dragoon pieces to spawn. I had P1 pick up 2 of the Dragoon pieces. P2 went over to P1 and did 1 jab. Nothing. Then I performed a second jab (just the first jab again, not the jab combo). This knocked out a Dragoon piece. A third single jab knocked out another Dragoon piece. Then I had P2 (who is still losing by a stock at this point with 0% while P1 is at sub-10%) pick up 2 Dragoon pieces. I had P1 do single jabs on P2, however this yielded NOTHING. I did this to 30%. At which point I decided to try a forward smash, still nothing. Then I did another forward smash. Still nothing. Then I did some more jabs. Nothing. Then I performed an up smash, still nothing. Needless to say, I got P2 to 150%+ and was not able to knock out the dragoon pieces.

I then repeated this experiment 2 more times. Neither time was P1 able to knock the dragoon pieces out of P2. However, P2 was always able to knock BOTH dragoon pieces out of P1 with single jabs. In one of the trials both dragoon pieces fell out with 1 jab.

It's very obvious that items have been designed to favour the losing player. It's not even random anymore, the whole system is completely set-up in the losing player's favour.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Hrm... Interesting stuff Wobbles. Although, what are you counting towards Mario 1? Is it everything that spawns on the left side of the stage, or is it just proximity to him? I would think that on FD the best "neutral" places for items to spawn would be between the two Marios, or far to the left of Mario 1.

I'd also wonder if this is because Mario 2 was on the edge while Mario 1 wasn't. Perhaps the spawn location not being bias in your tests is the game thinking that Mario 2 was either about to go flying, or try to run back to the center of the stage. Because think about it: If the game were to give items to Mario 2, and Mario 1 kicks 2 off the stage, then Mario 1 now has all of the items. Maybe, if the game were to give Mario 1 an item or two, he'd let up on Mario 2 and let 2 get back to the stage. My suggestion would be to try doing a few of those trials again, but this time use a custom stage on the large map with a platform that runs from one side to the other, so neither Mario is too close to one edge.

I'm just thinking in terms of "what problems may have arisen with this bias when Sakurai was testing it?" I doubt a simple algorithm of 'spawn closer to the loser' would have worked for Sakurai, because if the winner is beating the loser, then the loser's items will all go to the winner. And by the way, yes, the game CAN tell when you're close to the edge. I believe that low level computers in training mode will only airdodge when you hit them if you hit them near the edge.

EDIT: ROFL at the dragoon pieces. Thats HILARIOUS.

 

[Sliq]

I think they'd have an argument for stage control if items spawned at regular intervals at set places.

If item spawns were like FPS weapon spawns, they'd have an argument.

Or if a ghost of the item was shown on screen 10 seconds before it spawned. However, neither of those is the case. T_T

 

[Wobbles]

Everything that counted towards Mario 1 was an item that was easier for him to reach than it was for Mario 2. Neutral meant an equal distance between them.

I also didn't count sticker drops. Funnily enough, the majority of them went towards Mario 1 as well.

My next tests are going to include having characters on either side of the stage and having Mario 2 be several points behind rather than just one.

I have one issue with "what counts as neutral" or "what counts as helping the loser," which is that the winner doesn't HAVE to get items if he doesn't want to. He can make the strategic decision to sacrifice the middle of the level (where you have more access to items and better survivability from most attacks) or he can just continue pressuring Mario 2. Mario 2 isn't getting the help from items that we're worried about, and Mario 1 can continue to hog them if he chooses.

In short, let's not get too abstract about "what helps the loser." If the powerful item suddenly spawns next to him, it's probably helping him. If the winner comes in and stomps on him and takes it, then the whole item balance thing isn't really being a factor in that case anyhow.

In a closer match, maybe this would have an effect... but then, there wouldn't be any loser bias if it was a dead heat. I dunno, I'm pretty neutral on this whole subject. I plan to go to Evo and stomp face regardless.

 

[Xiivi]

EDIT: ROFL at the dragoon pieces. Thats HILARIOUS.

Oh don't worry. It isn't just the dragoon pieces, it's the smash balls as well. I just ran a few tests with them, and was essentially faced with nearly identical results. The most it took in any trial for the losing player to knock the smash ball out of the winning player was 20% from jabs. I was unable to knock the smash ball from the losing player as the winning player, even when using various smash attacks after building damage while they held the smash ball for dear life.

Items are biased. At least in the case of these 2 in particular.

 

[Samochan]

I just had a thought...

I've always had this "bad luck" at dropping my better turnips when even single lasers hit me, while my friends (who also happen to be worse than me now) almost never drops his better turnips.

Could this possibly apply to all item dropping on both brawl and melee?

But there is now proven bias toward the losing player with the dragoon pieces. Seems like Sakurai did indeed do more than just the obvious pity final smash to favor the losing player. Which is ridiculous, sad and hilarious at the same time.

Xiivi, I hope you managed to record some (or someone else). That way we could show some definite and indisputable proof to those srk-members why smash balls detract from competitive play. They're not only random, but amazingly enough are programmed to favor the loser. That is very, very unfair concept. Oh the glory, I can't wait to see their faces.

Oooh wow, I just now remembered. By allowing final smashes on the evo rule set, they are also allowing pity final smashes. I don't see any rule about disallowing pity final smashes if I recalled correcly. But I'm not sure if you can turn off the pity final smash or not. :/ Can't remember. I double-checked the rules and they state nothing about pity final smashes. Talk about a loop-hole.

 

[Xiivi]

I just had a thought...

I've always had this "bad luck" at dropping my better turnips when even single lasers hit me, while my friends (who also happen to be worse than me now) almost never drops his better turnips.

Could this possibly apply to all item dropping on both brawl and melee?

I can start testing this if you wish.

But there is now proven bias toward the losing player with the dragoon pieces. Seems like Sakurai did indeed do more than just the obvious pity final smash to favor the losing player. Which is ridiculous, sad and hilarious at the same time.

Xiivi, I hope you managed to record some (or someone else). That way we could show some definite and indisputable proof to those srk-members why smash balls detract from competitive play. They're not only random, but amazingly enough are programmed to favor the loser. That is very, very unfair concept. Oh the glory, I can't wait to see their faces.

I can see their explanations: "Well obviously this means you want to be losing until the VERY end of a match. Obviously part of stage control."

Oooh wow, I just now remembered. By allowing final smashes on the evo rule set, they are also allowing pity final smashes. I don't see any rule about disallowing pity final smashes if I recalled correcly. But I'm not sure if you can turn off the pity final smash or not. :/ Can't remember.

Pity smashes cannot be turned off, however I doubt they will occur in a 3 stock match, you need to be losing by more than 2 stocks in order to get a pity smash IIRC.

 

[Lib3r4t3]

Now, go back 3 years in time, tell people Sonic and Snake are in the new smash game, and that major tournaments will have items.

Does anyone else see the complete wackiness of this? Anyone else feel the urge to pinch themselves, to wake up from this dream (or rather, nightmare)?

 

[Rebel581]

Pity final smash is 3 stocks behind. It won't be possible to get anyways.

Either way, I thought smashboards moderators were facist >_> The SRK moderators make this forums moderators look like the relaxed uncle that lets you borrow the car, even if your parents said not to use the car. Then covers and lies to your parents for you.

BTW, that implies they won't listen to you, at all. Ever. It seems if you make a post about items on that forum it gets locked and the person may get banned. They also insist evo uses their own ruleset. They want to be different. Plain and simple.

Either way, knowing how this stuff works is still good to know. I'm just betting that even if we bring a bunch of proof about why it isn't competitive, accompanied by videos, they'll ignore us.

 

[Deadandlivin]

Items in tournements. lol

 

[Samochan]

Mm, forgot how many stocks you had to be behind. And I agree with rebel about the mods over srk, they ban buzz for posting valid and intelligent arguments and stuff, but they seem to approve COUM for posting whatever **** comes to his mind. >_>

And test if you have the time to do so, Xiivi. :3 It would be awesome. ^^

"It's obviously mindgames to lose till the end, then make a comeback with a final smash that favors you"

 

[Wobbles]

Well... from what I saw in those threads, it was more that people posted a lot of conjecture and "what-ifs" rather than some of the research we're trying to conduct here.

I support a large-scale items tournament, if only because it will settle the debate once and for all.

Also, dragoons are off, so even though they make us say "lol pity items," we really don't need to bring them in.

Lastly, strawman arguments aren't so cool. Saying that the SRK people will ignore all reasonable evidence by screaming "STAGE CONTROL ARGLE BARGLE" doesn't really help relations.

 

[a77]

I did some tests with Ike and Captain Falcon on FD with pokeballs. Each character was on the very edge of one side of the level; Ike had a 3 stock lead (2 KOs, 1 SD) and both characters were at 0%. In the first 30 item drops, 19 went to CF and 11 went to Ike. I kept going and CF hit 50 first with 50/43. Eventually they both reached 70 at the same time and I stopped. In a few "first to 10" tests I did, with the same conditions, CF won all of them. The closest was 10 for CF, 8 for Ike, I believe. Most of them were more like 2:1 for CF, though.

 

[Fat Otaku]

I really find it funny. SRK members who play some of the best 2D fighters are going to have items on, and SWF members who focus on Brawl and Melee want items off. Kind of funny honestly. You would think it would be the other way around.

 

[Steck]

Okay so like the poster above me has said it is odd that players of traditional fighting games really want to use items. Why exactly would they want this? maybe its just because items are in the game. They are part of the game and can not be removed from the game. How do play smash?With items. Why because then smash would not be smash Though that would not really hold up considering they do ban some stages and items. Maybe these people simply don't care about skill and competition and just want to attract people to their event. The average n00b plays with items and so they might get the idea that they are hot stuff and go to evo.

With rules like these they might win.

 

[Axis]

I really find it funny. SRK members who play some of the best 2D fighters are going to have items on, and SWF members who focus on Brawl and Melee want items off. Kind of funny honestly. You would think it would be the other way around.

I laughed so hard at this because its so true!

To me its painfully obvious (and has been for the past 6 years I played Melee; even though thats besides the point) that items drastically reduce the direct player interaction. As you all know in Brawl medium items is still pretty high, and items falling all over the place take away from what your focus should be...beating the other player. When items are introduced it causes you to have to keep a whole non-enemy factor in your mind and more than anything i think these games should be about beating your opponent, not racing to get items.

 

[StripesOrBars]

It really makes no sense what so ever.

It's like they're trying to make no one go to EVO for smash.

Honestly, who do these a A holes think they are?

 

[polarity]

If items spawn closer to the losing player, isn't that a good thing to all you guys whining about how 'campy' Brawl is? The player who's winning sure as hell can't camp any more...

P.S. The tears in this thread are hilarious. Why do you guys care so much about one ****ing tournament? It's not like you don't have plenty of other tournaments to go to, whereas people who like items-on play pretty much only have this one. Why is it such a big deal?