The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Yuna]

EVO is stupid enough to let Mr. Wizard to set the rules anyway.

EVO is run by SRK, which I'm told is owned by the honourable MrWizard.

Why would we even go to a tournament that is hosted by an organization that has no respect whatsoever for Brawl anyway?!

To win easy money. But unless you live close to it and are sure you'll take Top 3, yeah, it's not worth it.

SCREW EVO. They can suck my big popsicle.

Hey, hey, now. Either offer everyone a chance at it or don't flaunt it like that.

 

[Sliq]

Hey, hey, now. Either offer everyone a chance at it or don't flaunt it like that.

 

[polarity]

Basically every response to my last post can be answered with "So don't go and stop whining". With no more sponsor money, it's not like Evo is anything special outside of the status others choose to attribute it. If you don't like the rules, there is no reason to care about this tournament any more than any other random items-on tournament. It's not like it has any effect on anyone else's ability to hold a national Brawl tournament. Put up or shut up.

 

[AlphaZealot]

EXACTLY!
Polarity the 8 post member for the win.

 

[Renegade]

That AIM chat is hilarious, and not in good way.

DMBrandon was being a total douche.

You guys have to understand that EVO and SRK are a BUSINESS. It's not some 20 year old in his basement running a Brawl tournament. This is serious to these people.

You can't just walk up and say "let me run this for you" and they be like "OK" .

Not. Going. To. Happen.


Btw. His 'proof' of beating m2k in a 17 person tourney would mean something... if the game was SSBM. But it is brawl, and Melee =/= Brawl... In case you guys didn't know.

You guys are going to have to grow up and deal with this like adults if you expect to get anywhere. For the most part, 90% of you are not. You're just saying "OMG ITEMS UNFAIR"

Studies like what AZ and Wobbles are doing is good. Keep that **** up.

ALSO:

The current FAD argument against EVO being "so where was the testing banning Heart Containers and Spear Pillar et al" is a fallacy. It's not a proper argument. And it just makes you look even less professional.

Honestly, I have no opinion on the subject. I play Smash with my friends in FFA with all items on.

Game's more fun that way.

 

[happypants]

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.

Q4T

SRK calls "what ifs" theory fighter and random vids from a brawl tourney online with 2 scrubs with the date Decemeber 2,1876 isn't proof either.

Start getting actually visual proof people,yes I know it's fun to write up long winded paragraphs about what you think is broke but that won't convince the Wiz.

 

[kirbstir]

Bunch of words

You've conveniently ignored a lot of our responses about "burden of proof."

 

[Zankoku]

Btw. His 'proof' of beating m2k in a 17 person tourney would mean something... if the game was SSBM. But it is brawl, and Melee =/= Brawl... In case you guys didn't know.

Uh, didn't dmbrandon beat M2K in a Brawl tournament? I can't imagine him even getting close to beating M2K in Melee.

 

[kirbstir]

The current FAD argument against EVO being "so where was the testing banning Heart Containers and Spear Pillar et al" is a fallacy. It's not a proper argument. And it just makes you look even less professional.

I disagree - when we didn't provide proper, high level tournament testing of items on, we were called scrubs. We're wondering if these stages were ever "tested" before being turned off, or if it was a bunch of SRK people providing reasons for the ban - the "scrubby" way it seems.

Keep in mind that polarity defined proof as:

"Nothing outside of top-level competition"

 

[Renegade]

I disagree - when we didn't provide proper, high level tournament testing of items on, we were called scrubs. We're wondering if these stages were ever "tested" before being turned off, or if it was a bunch of SRK people providing reasons for the ban - the "scrubby" way it seems.

Keep in mind that polarity defined proof as:

"Nothing outside of top-level competition"

But you're using EVO's past actions (in this case banning certain items/stages with whatever evidence they found) in your current argument (getting all items banned).

That is a flawed argument. And it certainly isn't going to get you guys anywhere.

 

[MarsFool!]

Oh yeah I can visualize it now. Grand Finals last match the score is 3-3. *Trip* *Ike Fsmash* *Bomb drops and kills Ike before his opponent dies* *Announcer continues talking like he knows what hes looking at* I know everyone remembers the announcer from melee (Whack Whack Whack). Everyone is like wow...how anti-climactic and lucky. Well, the best thing that Brawlers can do is be patient, try to talk some sense into Mr. Wizard and hope for the best. I saw somewhere that maybe smash and Guilty Gear players should get together and try to work something out.

 

[kirbstir]

But you're using EVO's past actions (in this case banning certain items/stages with whatever evidence they found) in your current argument (getting all items banned).

That is a flawed argument. And it certainly isn't going to get you guys anywhere.

My argument in this case is whether or not banning it in the way they did was "scrubby." They constantly say the way we play (without items) is scrubby because we never provided "top level national tournament" type proof.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

My argument in this case is whether or not banning it in the way they did was "scrubby." They constantly say the way we play (without items) is scrubby because we never provided "top level national tournament" type proof.

Exactly. They demand "Top level national tournament" proof to ban ANYTHING, yet somehow they've got bans to certain stages and items without ANY "Top level national tournament" proof that I've seen. And I'm sure others who were part of that giant Brawl rules discussion thread at srk as I was can vouch that there was never any evidence of that sort to support their bans.

In other words, their open invitation to provide proof behind banning items doesn't mean squat because it will just be ignored. SRK's subjective opinions hold more weight than any hard earned proof we can surmise.

 

[Rebel581]

That's because an online tournament amongst themselves at the lowest level of play in Brawl is considered "Top level national tournament" proof to them. FFA was not "Top level national tournament" proof because those people came from Smashboards and were thus scrubs. They were obviously not taking it seriously, because money was involved. No money was involved in the online tournament, just pride. So obviously that takes precedence over any of our tests.

Despite that we've found evidence for items being unfair in THEIR videos along with ours -_-'

This sarcasm filled post is sadly what they believe.

And items off is still the default setting when I turn my console on btw. So I don't know what game they're playing, but I play time, 2 minutes, with no items. That's the way the game's MEANT to be played since obviously changing any settings is bad for the competition of the game. If evo doesn't change their rules to that, they're elitists changing the way you were meant to play the game.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Here's the thing I think people are missing about a good reason why the rules are the way they are for Evo. Had they just taken what data they knew to be fact, Brawl probably would have been run as All-Brawl. The rules you have before you are a compromise between what they've found to be fact and what is in demand based on overall opinion. To think that the voice hasn't been heard is crazy. The voice simply just isn't law.

And items off is still the default setting when I turn my console on btw. So I don't know what game they're playing, but I play time, 2 minutes, with no items. That's the way the game's MEANT to be played since obviously changing any settings is bad for the competition of the game. If evo doesn't change their rules to that, they're elitists changing the way you were meant to play the game.

You do realize that the item switches and the random stage switch are settings that the game saves... right?

 

[polarity]

You've conveniently ignored a lot of our responses about "burden of proof."

i agree that they didn't do enough testing re: the stuff they chose to ban, but at least they did testing at all, unlike you guys

 

[Rebel581]

Yes, your point? They are still the default settings when I turn on my console.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I didn't really care about this at first, but now I'm just thoroughly disappointed. This whole debacle is really rather infantile and it's just as disappointing to see the SWF community causing such a big deal over this. EVO is not the end-all-be-all of tournaments (even if it is pretty important). It is obviously run by a douche. There is almost no reason any of us should care past the point of thinking that EVO's ruleset is wrong. It's been proven that they won't change (if not on the SRK forums, then in that AIM chat), the SWF community certainly won't change (the majority of veteran competitive Smashers would never play with items on, or even entertain such a blatantly foolish sentiment)... so why keep butting heads? The only thing any of us can do is make a decision and act on it; if you don't like the ruleset then don't go to the tournament, and if you do like the ruleset then go have fun. If things go as badly as everyone is predicting, then EVO will never make such a foolish mistake again. Simple as that.

I'm all for item play, but it has to be done intelligently or it will never work; I've learned that through experience. If these guys aren't willing to be intelligent about their decisions, then it won't work and you all have literally nothing to worry about. And if you really think that EVO's ruleset is going to cause a significant problem, then there is always a second course of action: give the Smash community a better alternative. If people are going to try to push item play anyway, SWF can always try to mitigate the damage done. That's why I like the testing that I've seen so far in here based on spawn points; at least it's mitigating the damage in its own way.

So, yeah. Less complaining would be nice. Less complaining leads to more acting and less people viewing you as whining brats. I'm sure the boards have enough of a stigma as it is, what all thanks to the Melee/Brawl, Casual/Competitive crap that's gone on in the recent past.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Yes, your point? They are still the default settings when I turn on my console.

And with a few switches here and there, I have my console turn on with Maxims Only on High w/ the only random stage allowed being WarioWare "by default". My point is this isn't default. Wipe your save or boot up Brawl on a virgin Wii and come back w/ the default information.

 

[SynikaL]

So, after much internal deliberation I've decided I'm siding with Wizard and Evo on this one.

Both sides are being absurdly close-minded in regards to the debacle, but only one side is being closed-minded in regards to the actual game itself (Clue: It's not SRK).

Just observing the responses in this thread -- specifically, the responses to Wobble's/Panda's research -- it's easy to see how convention has imprisoned this community's free-thinking abilities. Here, we have a situation that is forcing you to learn more about your own game than you literally cared to know. The results are providing hard, statistical data that can provide you perspective on SRK's ideals and a lot of you are hastily brushing the findings aside as irrelevant.

Now, I can see that if Smash/Brawl is to be fully explored, maybe the methods, or at least the stimulation, must originate outside the core community.

I generally can't stand Brawl. Nonetheless, the idea of Items in competitive play is starting to sound very intriguing to me, but the possibilities will never come to light through close-minded, internet theory fighting. One or more large scale tournaments with tangible stakes on the line; must exist, in order to literally force people to take the idea seriously enough to prepare, evolve and adapt to the concept and derivative strategies involved in an Item populated Brawl environment. Definitive conclusions regarding Items in a competitive environment cannot and will not derive from failure to provide that competitive institution.

As I've stated before, EVO itself does little to stimulate, validate or pillar the core Smash community's growth/lasting potential. If you do not wish to be an agent of change, let Mr. Wizard and his community be. Let Evolution be. Everyone else should simply await and subsequently analyze the results.


-Kimosabae

 

[Yuna]

You guys have to understand that EVO and SRK are a BUSINESS. It's not some 20 year old in his basement running a Brawl tournament. This is serious to these people.

That's one of my theories. They're trying to attract Casuals who love items... but it's not going to work out well since Casuals usually don't fly half-way across the country to stay in a hotel and then enter a tournament that costs money.

You can't just walk up and say "let me run this for you" and they be like "OK".

Nobody did. DMBrandon certainly didn't, even if MrWizard kept saying "We're not going to let you run it" over and over again.

All DMBrandon did was offer to show MrWizard some things, to discuss things with him. MrWizard just kept saying "We're not going to let you run the tourney" and then left. Who was the douche here? MrWizard.

Btw. His 'proof' of beating m2k in a 17 person tourney would mean something... if the game was SSBM. But it is brawl, and Melee =/= Brawl... In case you guys didn't know.

Yes, and? It's Brawl we're talking about at EVO.

You guys are going to have to grow up and deal with this like adults if you expect to get anywhere. For the most part, 90% of you are not. You're just saying "OMG ITEMS UNFAIR"

No we're not, we've provided good reasons for why they must be banned. The fact that you disagree does not mean we didn't.

Studies like what AZ and Wobbles are doing is good. Keep that **** up.

As opposed to the many studies done before, which are still valid because the game hasn't changed enough to invalidate them? The ones we frequently reference but apparently they have to be redone again just because, gasp, the game is different?

The current FAD argument against EVO being "so where was the testing banning Heart Containers and Spear Pillar et al" is a fallacy. It's not a proper argument. And it just makes you look even less professional.

How is it not a valid argument? One of their most commonly used arguments are "We need to test everything out in tournaments! Even broken stuff!" (yet they also ban all stalling and "excessive camping", that is, if their "judges" deem them excessive. So that mid-tourney, they might tell you you just lost a match because you camped too much using a tactic that was up-'til-then-unknown... hypocrisy at its best).

Honestly, I have no opinion on the subject. I play Smash with my friends in FFA with all items on.

Game's more fun that way.

Do you play in tournaments? If not, why do you care?

i agree that they didn't do enough testing re: the stuff they chose to ban, but at least they did testing at all, unlike you guys

I'm sorry, what part of me spouting off countless facts about Smash Balls and repeatedly saying that I regularly play with items on made you think I've never tested items out? I have. In fact, I've probably got more experience with items than the majority of people in this thread. And I play the game Competitively even with items on, so I'm constantly trying to find ways "around" them and ways to use them better.

I did testing, this is why I know Smash Balls must be banned.

 

[Rebel581]

And with a few switches here and there, I have my console turn on with Maxims Only on High w/ the only random stage allowed being WarioWare "by default". My point is this isn't default. Wipe your save or boot up Brawl on a virgin Wii and come back w/ the default information.

Then I can't play as Marth. And even then, it was a joke of a point, just like how I feel about their reasoning entirely. Wobbles finding proved that they didn't spawn next to the loser. They spawned randomly on the stage (thus stage control would be an issue). Then Fishkeeper showed that items spawn next to people, probably to avoid the Hyrule Temple effect that existed in Melee. They will randomly spawn next to a person evenly. The there's a small percentage they'll spawn someplace else. It's most likely a position (x coordinate only) that has y degree of variance. Say a random number from -10 to 10 is generated, and then added to the x coordinate of a random player. In fact, the players are PROBABLY placed in a queue for when an item spawns next to them. Probably with a random chance to skip a person in the queue.

Or, to create a more random spawning, they have multiple queues (say 4), where the players are put into different areas on the queue. Say:

Queue 1: 2, 3, 1, 4
Queue 2: 3, 1, 2, 4
Queue 3: 1, 4, 3, 2
Queue 4: 4, 3, 1, 2

And the player it spawns next to it dequeued from one of those queues, randomly. After being dequeued, they are placed onto the back of the queue. This would still result in random item spawns, so theoretically, Queue 2, 1, 1, 4, 4 would result in one item for 2 and 3, and 3 items for player 3. After this though, the only time player 3 is then going to get an item (after an incredibly lucky streak), is after queues 1, 2, and 4 get dequeued 3 times each, or queue 3 starts gettign dequeued multiple times. That would show why it balances out in the end for item distribution.

In this case, the reason for Wobbles tests would be that some of the player 2 spawns had a high degree of variance and spawned closer to player 1, due to their relatively close distances from each other. Also, the game COULD modify the variance variable by a certain amount to ensure no off stage item spawns. Meaning if you were near an edge, it would have a -20 to 0 instead of -10 to 10. This would result in MANY of player 2's items spawning next to player 1, and player 1's spawns would be either behind, or in front of him. If you can say player 1 receives all of his spawns, then you can safely say that they are more than 10 apart from each other. If they are exactly 10 apart from each other, then half of player 2's item spawns would be player 1's (values -20 to -11). This would result in 3/4 of spawns going to player 1, and 1/4 going to player 2. This sounds like the close number distribution to what Wobbles got in his tests.

This is assuming the stock difference means nothing. The stock difference could (logically) change the variance to a smaller value to allow the loser to get more items.

Someone want to test this theory? I've got a Linear Algebra final and a Low-Level Programming file to go take now.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Wobbles tests are fine, but, they may not prove its entirely random. If I control 5% of the stage, but recieve 25% of the spawns, that is a bit disproportionate, don't you think?

I don't think the theory can be written off one way or another yet, especially since no one, not even I, have provided proof. Though, obviously, the assumption is that they are totally random.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Ok, I didn't really care about this at first, but now I'm just thoroughly disappointed. This whole debacle is really rather infantile and it's just as disappointing to see the SWF community causing such a big deal over this. EVO is not the end-all-be-all of tournaments (even if it is pretty important)

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have really liked to have gone to Evo. You see, I'm a married man and have a wife to think of. It's not any fun for her for me to go to some guy's basement for a tournament, whether she comes with me or stays home by herself. Las Vegas has plenty to offer, and Evo is a great opportunity for me to get in on major Smash competition while she and I can both enjoy what Vegas has to offer.

However, I'm not going to Evo with these crappy rules. We'll probably still go to Vegas this year, but it won't be during the heat of August, this tournament no longer justifies it for me.

Here's the thing I think people are missing about a good reason why the rules are the way they are for Evo. Had they just taken what data they knew to be fact, Brawl probably would have been run as All-Brawl. The rules you have before you are a compromise between what they've found to be fact and what is in demand based on overall opinion. To think that the voice hasn't been heard is crazy. The voice simply just isn't law.

There's no logic behind any of their rules. The only "demand based on overall opinion" are what those at SRK feel; that's the only voice that was heard.

 

[Zankoku]

Wobbles tests are fine, but, they may not prove its entirely random. If I control 5% of the stage, but recieve 25% of the spawns, that is a bit disproportionate, don't you think?

I don't think the theory can be written off one way or another yet, especially since no one, not even I, have provided proof. Though, obviously, the assumption is that they are totally random.

I'm wondering how item spawns actually work on stages like Temple and New Pork City. Those stages seem to be ideal in testing whether item spawn locations truly are relative instead of absolute now.

 

[Jink]

Is it matter if I use the Wiimote+Nunchuk?, Which controllers can be used in official tournaments?

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I'm wondering how item spawns actually work on stages like Temple and New Pork City. Those stages seem to be ideal in testing whether item spawn locations truly are relative instead of absolute now.

Through my testing, it was obvious that the game has a very heavy sway to put items near, or directly between players. However, the game is very very bad at noticing layers in its levels. Thus, New Pork City and Hyrule gave me weird results, as items would often spawn horizontally very close to players, but vertically way off.

So I tested on custom stages and learned that the game does not have any bias vertically. So, tall stages are the most balanced for spawning because the items have no or little bias in that direction.

Another very interesting thing I should mention:

The game appears to have set spawning points for items. That SOUNDS ridiculous, but hear me out on this one. My tests had the players stand, never moving. I noticed as I did my trials the items consistently spawned in set spots on the screen. However, if you moved your characters, those "set" spots moved as well. It would appear that the game is programmed to change its spawn points based on a character position, so that they may stay close to the players themselves.

So, the reason why we find spawning points "random" isn't because they are actually random, but because we constantly give the game varying coordinates to figure out its "spawn points". However, since the spawning itself chooses randomly between the set points, you can not viably predict where something will land. Thus, stage control is still a bunk theory in my opinion.

 

[-Linko-]

You are all missing the point.

EVO and SRK are all about traditional fighting games. Most traditional fighting gamers HATE Smash Brothers, especially after Melee's incredible big and awesome tourney scene. They even had to surrender to Smash Brothers last year.

But now they have an opportunity to prove how much does Smash Bros. suck: Hosting a Casino-Style (Heck, if it is in Las Vegas...) Brawl Tournament.

This way, it all makes sense to me.

Ps: I'm pro-item and fully supporter of Jack Kieser's ISP project. But this rules are just insane. Golden Hammers? Smash Balls? WTF?

 

[SynikaL]

So, the reason why we find spawning points "random" isn't because they are actually random, but because we constantly give the game varying coordinates to figure out its "spawn points". However, since the spawning itself chooses randomly between the set points, you can not viably predict where something will land. Thus, stage control is still a bunk theory in my opinion.

Elaborate on the "set points", please. It sounds like you're saying the game chooses a specific spawn area in relation to where the characters reside onscreen. The area itself houses spawn points chosen at random. Is this correct?

If so, can you place give us a visual idea of where the spawn areas reside on the stages you tested?


-Syn

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

Elaborate on the "set points", please. It sounds like you're saying the game chooses a specific spawn area in relation to where the characters reside onscreen. The area itself houses spawn points chosen at random. Is this correct?

If so, can you place give us a visual idea of where the spawn areas reside on the stages you tested?
-Syn

Okay, imagine your on FD, your standing near on edge, and your opponent is on the other. Neither of you are taking any action.

The game takes this info, and develops "Spawn Points", based on where you stand. If you stand in the same spot long enough, you'll notice there is about ~12 spots that items will drop. However, amongst these 12 points, they are 7-9 points that are about a dash animation or two from a player, while on 1-3 are outside of that range.

Visually, its like this:
S = Spawn Point
C= Character
M= Middle or Mirror Point of the level

SSCSS__S__________S____S_S_M

You'll notice that most of those "Spawn Points" surround the player. The rest are biased toward the middle. Thus, even if the game randomly selects the "Spawn Point", items will most likely land near the player because the spawn points themselves are focused near the player.

My theory is that the "Spawn Points" are calculated based on character positions, but the actual "Spawn Point" that the game itself chooses is random. Does that make sense?

 

[Samochan]

What fishkeeper says makes sense to me, after all players do not stay in place for the whole match.

However...

I do think this would be one of the key reasons why camping would be the best and viable strategy with items on. Not only character differences and strenghts would be obvious, but if you camp near a spawn point, you're certain to get an item cause then the game would not need to randomly decide between each item spawn hot spot near the moving players. This practically ensures you items if you just camp on a set spot. And Falco is going to be truly unbeatable beast with this ruleset, oh my. Lasers to camp, shine to reflect opposing projectiles, one of the best final smashes in the whole game, chaingrabs... and all the while cause you do not even need to move, you'd get items and if your opponent even tries to come to you, just shine him away or shield and start a chaingrab or something with a hothead roaming around and killing your opponent. Broken I say.

And even if for some god-knows-what reason you'd be losing with falco... just grab the stupid smash ball from either from air or from your opponent since it's biased anyway and breeze trough the rest of their stocks like no other. >_>

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

What fishkeeper says makes sense to me, after all players do not stay in place for the whole match.

However...

I do think this would be one of the key reasons why camping would be the best and viable strategy with items on. Not only character differences and strenghts would be obvious, but if you camp near a spawn point, you're certain to get an item cause then the game would not need to randomly decide between each item spawn hot spot near the moving players. This practically ensures you items if you just camp on a set spot. And Falco is going to be truly unbeatable beast with this ruleset, oh my. Lasers to camp, shine to reflect opposing projectiles, one of the best final smashes in the whole game, chaingrabs... and all the while cause you do not even need to move, you'd get items and if your opponent even tries to come to you, just shine him away or shield and start a chaingrab or something. Broken I say.

I too thought this was an issue. If "Spawn Points" (SP) are truly stagnant when the players are, a camper is at an even greater advantage, as he an more reliably get items because he isn't moving. Great defensive characters that lack projectiles like Marth get the most benefit from this.

 

[Samochan]

I too thought this was an issue. If "Spawn Points" (SP) are truly stagnant when the players are, a camper is at an even greater advantage, as he an more reliably get items because he isn't moving. Great defensive characters that lack projectiles like Marth get the most benefit from this.

And to think some even thought items were to reduce camping which is one of the pro-items arguments... *sigh* More like enforces camping lol.

Oh and I totally forgot, Dedede can get items with his waddle dee throw. >_> I mean seriously... free smash balls anyone?

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

And to think some even thought items were to reduce camping which is one of the pro-items arguments... *sigh* More like enforces camping lol.

Oh and I totally forgot, Dedede can get items with his waddle dee throw. >_> I mean seriously... free smash balls anyone?

Holy McJebus! I completely forgot about that! I don't know if he can throw Smash Balls though, but imagine his camping game? Screw stagnant SP's, I CAN FARM MY ITEMS! xD

 

[Samochan]

Holy McJebus! I completely forgot about that! I don't know if he can throw Smash Balls though, but imagine his camping game? Screw stagnant SP's, I CAN FARM MY ITEMS! xD

xD Yea, totally broken. I heard of such thing occuring even when items were off but the certain items were on still. It's probably rare, but it'd love to get the ratio for this.

I also got this sudden desire to make an image out of this. Dedede farming smash balls.

But hmm hmm hmm, so what proof do we have against items in total?

1. Smash balls and dragoon parts are biased toward the loser, takes little to knock em out of the winner but almost nothing can make the loser to drop the items

2. Stagnant spawn points of items enforces camping

3. Dedede can get items out of the waddle dee throw with luck

Quite detrimental for competitive item-play no? Along with the possible all items favoring loser in amount of spawning.

 

[SynikaL]

Thank you Timmay, things are clearer.


I think you guys need to slow down that Theory Fighter freight train for just a second. Brawl, obviously would still be a campy game with Items on or off -- the game's base mechanics help dictate that. Your Marth scenario is ignoring the fact that a projectile character can still apply pressure to him and obviously there are many more things to consider in regards to the Item spawns themselves -- a winning/losing camping Falco still gets his shot at items too.

It's as if your thought processes end with capsule/Final Smash spawning, with no regard for the Items themselves or the behavior of the Final Smashes. There's way more to consider here.

-Kye

 

[StripesOrBars]

Oh crap, end of discussion.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

Thank you Timmay, things are clearer.


I think you guys need to slow down that Theory Fighter freight train for just a second. Brawl, obviously would still be a campy game with Items on or off -- the game's base mechanics help dictate that. Your Marth scenario is ignoring the fact that a projectile character can still apply pressure to him and obviously there are many more things to consider in regards to the Item spawns themselves -- a winning/losing camping Falco still gets his shot at items too.

It's as if your thought processes end with capsule/Final Smash spawning, with no regard for the Items themselves or the behavior of the Final Smashes. There's way more to consider here.

-Kye

Obviously our context is a little extreme, but we are merely pointing out things. Items ruin character balance somewhat, though, they could also FIX a lot of them as well given time. That is one thing I can give EVO kudos for, they are exploring territories that could potentially "solve" issues that we have with Brawl. Could, however, is the important word in that sentence.

I'll admit I have quite a bit of bias towards items... I've hated them since SS64. Anything thats out of my control, or gives characters undeserved advantages irks me. However, I'm not completely against their entry to the game, I just wish we weren't testing it at such a big venue. But according to EVO logic, big venues is the only way to make people bring their "A" game, so it makes sense.

My suggestion to everyone is, if you don't like the rules, attend the other tournies. If the EVO guys hold the tournament, find the issues that we've had before, then thats fine. If they don't find issues, and continue to have big venues with items, so be it, they've essentially created the kind of tourny that MANY players have been asking for. It's perfectly possible to have two parallel tournament types.

 

[a77]

I did 6 tests to see if items spawned closer to characters. All of them were done on Final Destination; 5 minutes; two Pikachu (hat and headband) sitting on each end; 3 stocks, 0% on both. Anything within the >> or << arrows on the stage counts for green/red. Anything outside them is neutral (anything borderline was considered neutral). Items set to medium. Current Evo ruleset items only (minus smashballs).

Of course, the neutral zone is a bit smaller than the red/green zones combined.

Test 1
Green - 3, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26 - (11)
Red - 2, 6, 8, 18, 22, 25 - (6)
Neutral - 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 21, 24 - (9)
G: 42%; R: 23%; N: 34% --- (65% to 34%)

Test 2
Green - 4, 5, 13, 23, 24, 26, 27 - (7)
Red - 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 22 - (9)
Neutral - 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28 - (12)
G: 25%; R: 32%; N: 42% --- (57% to 42%)

Test 3
Green - 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24 - (7)
Red - 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 27 - (14)
Neutral - 3, 6, 17, 19, 21, 23, 28 - (7)
G: 25%; R: 50%; N: 25% --- (75% to 25%)

Test 4
Green - 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 22, 27 - (11)
Red - 2, 3, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 - (9)
Neutral - 1, 6, 7, 16, 18, 25, 26 - (7)
G: 41%; R: 33%; N: 26% --- (74% to 26%)

Test 5
Green - 4, 5, 12, 19, 22, 23, 30 - (7)
Red - 2, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28 - (9)
Neutral - 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 25, 27, 29 (11)
G: 26%; R: 33%; N: 41% --- (59% to 41%)

Test 6 was a little different. I put both Pikachus on the same side. Anything within the << arrows is R/G, anything else is neutral.

Test 6
Green/Red - 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 26, 27 (11)
Neutral - 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (16)
G/R: 41%; N: 59%

 

[rogueyoshi]

EVO is stupid enough to let Mr. Wizard to set the rules anyway.

Why would we even go to a tournament that is hosted by an organization that has no respect whatsoever for Brawl anyway?!

SCREW EVO. They can suck my big popsicle.

Mr. Wizard is pretty much the face of EVO. SRK is his site too...