The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Chomp The Fourth]

YO BRO!

WTF IS UP WITH THIS ****?!

What do we have here? A ruleset made by EVO?

We all got to understand that we need to adapt to certain environments and certain rules played by other people.

BUT I SAY **** THAT **** AND HAMMER THEM IN THE GUT!

LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST!!!

(sponsored by Red Bull)

 

[Samochan]

Have you made that Image yet? XD

Goon' farmin' FTW!

At least EVO could tell that the Goon' was too strong. >.>

Nah, I dun have the inspiration nor humour sense to get the image just right. ;__;

Hmm

"I'm in ur smashville, farming ur itemz" ?

or

"You have no time to ponder such questions...

since DDD just farmed your smash balls"


Oh and to add to rebel's post, fthrow takes longer time to actually throw than dthrow, at least from what I recall, along with different animation where sheik leans forward and could have gotten hit by the capsule instead of marth. If sheik had happened to fthrow, the capsule would have hit before the actual throw was commenced, thus not affecting the trajectory, unless it were to break the grab and marth sliding on ground as a result. Marth was also too far away to get hit by the mine with that % from fthrow and would have been able to recover before hitting the ground simply by jumping.

 

[polarity]

Thats not the argument. The argument is that items-on Brawl is a completely different game from items-off Brawl.

You know what? I'm not gonna type it up again, just read it here: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5125120&postcount=126

And then there is always this in addition to what I posted above: http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=5125324&postcount=150

If that's the argument, then what are you whining about? That Evo should run items-off Brawl purely because you like it more? *****ing that another game got included over yours doesn't do anything to help your cause; it just makes you sound like a bitter *******.

All completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what could've happened. As soon as you start arguing about what someone should've done, the whole purpose of tournament vids as proof is defeated.

Are you ********? So if I made a video where I just do one move over and over vs. an opponent who neglects to shield for the entire match, you can't take the fact that they could've shielded into account, and the character I used is clearly overpowered, right? Seriously, this is the most ridiculous argument I've heard yet. If you can't take into account what a player could have but didn't do, then every technique that wins in any given video is going to look broken.

No matter how much Stage Control you have, even if you control the stage for a majority of a match, nothing's stopping only ****ty items to spawn while you're in control and golden hammers only while your opponent is..

Yeah nothing except THE LAW OF PROBABILITY.

You don't seem to understand that nobody on the pro-item side is saying the randomness of items can be mitigated completely. Of course, there is a chance that randomness will give undeserved advantages at times, and yes, on rare occasions a player may win a match thanks to randomness. Firstly, though, there's no reason to believe these occurrences will be anything but extremely rare if both players are adept at items-on play, and secondly, items-on players are willing to take a tiny little bit more randomness in results for the strategic benefits that items-on play brings. You don't see MTG players saying all randomness in the game should be gotten rid of simply because of the lucky wins which can and do happen, because they know it's worth it for how much is added to the game.

If you disagree that the benefits items bring are valuable enough to justify the randomness, then argue that point, rather than acting like any randomness in a competitive game is inherently bad. I'd still disagree with you, but at least you won't be a blithering ****** spewing out "ZOMG RANDOME!!!!" over and over again like 99% of SWF posters.

 

[Samochan]

If you disagree that the benefits items bring are valuable enough to justify the randomness, then argue that point, rather than acting like any randomness in a competitive game is inherently bad. I'd still disagree with you, but at least you won't be a blithering ****** spewing out "ZOMG RANDOME!!!!" over and over again like 99% of SWF posters.

Okay, what benefits are you speaking of? >_> That Marth just got a projectile and can camp other characters even worse now? Or that you just died twice because falco got his hands on a smash ball and you could do nothing to it since he got lasers and you don't.

Please elaborate the benefits items supposedly present to competitive brawl. They do not bring balance, they do not end camping but enforce it, they are random, the most powerful items (smash balls and dragoon parts) favor the losing player and they are not strategic cause you cannot influence over what items spawn and where and the way they are used has minimal strategic value. So I ask, what benefits are you speaking of that items bring, that are irreplaceable on competitive brawl?

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Are you ********? So if I made a video where I just do one move over and over vs. an opponent who neglects to shield for the entire match, you can't take the fact that they could've shielded into account, and the character I used is clearly overpowered, right? Seriously, this is the most ridiculous argument I've heard yet. If you can't take into account what a player could have but didn't do, then every technique that wins in any given video is going to look broken.

Because a video represents what actually happened at a tournament, not what WOULD happened or COULD happen or WILL happen. Isn't that the whole purpose behind "tournament vids onry"? Doesn't that premise take the stand that no one can argue about anything until we actually see what happens? If what WOULD happened or what COULD happen or what WILL happen doesn't mean squat before we see tournament vids, why should it mean anything after tournament vids?

You can argue about what could've been done, but if it what could've been done never happens and what actually happened continues to happen, you're just ignoring the truth and grabbing at straws. Thus, the only argument against one tournament vid is another.

Do I agree with the whole "tournament vids onry" attitude? Nope. But I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies with demanding evidence from only one avenue and explaining away all the evidence from that avenue that doesn't fit the way you want it to.

 

[SynikaL]

So I ask, what benefits are you speaking of that items bring, that are irreplaceable on competitive brawl?

Another person skimming posts and failing at comprehension. What a surprise.

The last 3 pages or so hosted discussion regarding a few of the possible strategic benefits of Items in competitive play. I mean, if you just sit and think without the bias lenses, the possibilities are fairly obvious.


-Kimo

 

[Samochan]

Do I agree with the whole "tournament vids onry" attitude? Nope. But I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies with demanding evidence from only one avenue and explaining away all the evidence from that avenue when it doesn't fit the way you want it to.

Along with the fact that they did their testing on an online tournament with bunch of nonames and a gallup on forums, yet demand us to showcase "omg isai vs ken matches" where items supposedly mess up their "stage control" or something akin to that.

 

[polarity]

You can argue about what could've been done, but if it what could've been done never happens and what actually happened continues to happen, you're just ignoring the truth and grabbing at straws.

This isn't what you said before, so whatever.

Okay, what benefits are you speaking of? >_> That Marth just got a projectile and can camp other characters even worse now? Or that you just died twice because falco got his hands on a smash ball and you could do nothing to it since he got lasers and you don't.

Please elaborate the benefits items supposedly present to competitive brawl. They do not bring balance, they do not end camping but enforce it, they are random, the most powerful items (smash balls and dragoon parts) favor the losing player and they are not strategic cause you cannot influence over what items spawn and where and the way they are used has minimal strategic value. So I ask, what benefits are you speaking of that items bring, that are irreplaceable on competitive brawl?

That it makes the game more about quickly and creatively responding to unforseeable circumstances rather than simply executing your pre-planned strategy to the best of your ability? That it offers greater rewards for controlling the stage, and controlling space around third objects (dragoon parts etc.)? That it introduces strategic choices that didn't exist before, such as how best to utilize the dragoon parts, how to deal with the smash ball, evaluating whether an item's risk/reward in a specific situation makes it worth using at that moment?

I mean, Jesus dude, there's a whole plethora of benefits. If you can't recognize them then your personal preferences has blinded you to reason.

 

[Zankoku]

That it makes the game more about quickly and creatively responding to unforseeable circumstances rather than simply executing your pre-planned strategy to the best of your ability?

What's this about pre-planned strategy? Short of spamming Neutral B with Meta Knight, I really don't see this "executing your pre-planned strategy" happening all that often in tournaments.

That it offers greater rewards for controlling the stage,

Except that items tend to spawn right next to one of you, so "stage control" would better be described as "being somewhere on the stage."

and controlling space around third objects (dragoon parts etc.)?

Third objects?

That it introduces strategic choices that didn't exist before, such as how best to utilize the dragoon parts, how to deal with the smash ball, evaluating whether an item's risk/reward in a specific situation makes it worth using at that moment?

Collect Dragoon parts when they appear near you, knock parts out of opponents if you're losing because you can and they can't. The smash ball is pretty much turning Smash temporarily from a fighting game into a "break the target!" minigame.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Along with the fact that they did their testing on an online tournament with bunch of nonames and a gallup on forums, yet demand us to showcase "omg isai vs ken matches" where items supposedly mess up their "stage control" or something akin to that.

100% agreed. The inconsistency behind their ruleset is undeniable. Yet, as soon as you look at it with the eye of no one's opinion means anything except theirs, suddenly there is no more inconsistency.

 

[SynikaL]

I mean, Jesus dude, there's a whole plethora of benefits. If you can't recognize them then your personal preferences has blinded you to reason.

I mean, if you just sit and think without the bias lenses, the possibilities are fairly obvious.

This community's shallow free-thinking abilities are becoming so clear, two individuals from disparate, warring communities unwittingly find themselves on the exact same page.



-Kimo

 

[SamuraiPanda]

If that's the argument, then what are you whining about? That Evo should run items-off Brawl purely because you like it more? *****ing that another game got included over yours doesn't do anything to help your cause; it just makes you sound like a bitter *******.

First of all, you're an idiot. Second of all, did you even READ my post? Items on Brawl vs items off Brawl are two completely different games to 99% of the Smash community. We like items off Brawl. Thats the game we play.

And you're also completely ignoring that items off Brawl has an enormous community behind it. You know, the people on SWF. Items on Brawl has... Wobbles =D

 

[EnigmaticCam]

This community's shallow free-thinking abilities are becoming so clear, two individuals from disparate, warring communities unwittingly find themselves on the exact same page.

To me, it's no different than a complex chess position.

One opponent sees many variations leading to many different positions of unclear advantages. To him, the current position is an interesting one and is worth analyzing.

Yet his opponent has already analyzed each variation down to the win. To him, the position is nothing more than 'If he plays this, then I play that', and at best play, some variations will lead to his win and others will lead to his opponent's.

This is usually the type of thing you find with an amateur against a grandmaster, and best illustrates the two different mind-sets of SRK and SWF.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

This is usually the type of thing you find with an amateur against a grandmaster, and best illustrates the two different mind-sets of SRK and SWF.

Okay. So what you're really saying is:

SRK= Grand Mastah SWF=Amateurs.

Right?

Smooth Criminal

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I think the issue that many SWF people isn't the potential of benefits, but rather the negatives associated with items. I don't many SWF people could ever admit the benefits of items migrate the negative associated with them, mainly revolving around consistency. The community has grown fond of Melee's tendency to be extremely consistent. Very, very rarely do people IN THE TOP END OF COMPETITION complain about a factor out of their control causing a loss. And those people enjoy that about Melee. You win because you are better.

Now we look at Brawl. Yes, its a different game, but almost all of the old pros have entered this game with the same mindset; the game should be as consistent as possible. Any outside factors beyond the control of the players should be avoided, thus why items as a whole, and many stages have been banned from play. It doesn't take much research to realize that consistency is skewed from items. The RANDOMNESS of items that SWF constantly complains about are automatically inconsistent.

However, SKR is of the mindset that increased strategy is a great payoff for consistency, thus, they are exploring this avenue. Its a great goal in my opinion, as it allows to expansion of Smash. Two venues is perfectly acceptable, especially when their aims are so entirely different.

Thus, this argument is going nowhere, because each party is looking for something completely different.

SWF is placing priority in Consistency.

SKR is placing priority in Strategic Depth.

Does that make sense?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

There's nothing deep about camping around for a game-changing item to spawn, though.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SynikaL]

EnigmaticCam:

Terrible analogy, as there are variations between various elements in our situation that don't exist in your Chess example.


For example, it could awkwardly pillar a SWF member taking the pro-item position -- a position that would be thoroughly cognizant of the benefits regarding the non-item position, but can also analyze the value of the pro-item position through intuition.


Yeah.

*edit*

Smooth Criminal's got it.

-Syn
(why the h3ll does this community love bringing up Chess so much in regards to Brawl?)

 

[Samochan]

SWF is looking for Consistency

SKR is looking for Strategic Depth

Does THAT make sense?

And yet, can it be proven that items on has more strategic depth than items off? That it brings in more depth that it takes out?

There's nothing deep about camping around for a game-changing item to spawn, though.

Items off has established depth on it, items on while smash balls and dragoon parts are concerned has already been proven to favor the losing player, which lowers it's competitive value.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

SWF is looking for Consistency

SKR is looking for Strategic Depth

No. You're saying that SWF doesn't look for depth? Oh god.

You know what? I'm done here. I just don't want to deal with this anymore, and its silly as hell.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

And yet, can it be proven that items on has more strategic depth than items off? That it brings in more depth that it can take out?

Items off has established depth on it, while items on has already been proven to have bias towards the losing player, which lowers it's competitive value.

Well, your already wrong in one respect.

We know that Smashballs and Dragoon favour losers. Thats all that's proven. Dragoons are already banned, and I'm sure that SKR is going to learn the folly of Smashballs very, very quickly.

Items spawns haven't proven to be biased yet. Alpha Zealots finding were preliminary, he admitted that himself. My research is finding no consistent favour towards the loser, which directly conflicts with AZ's findings. This needs to be researched more before we claim it as fact.

So, items haven't proven to favour losers. We have some hints that it might, but we have other hints that it isn't the case as well. Don't get to hasty.

 

[SynikaL]

And yet, can it be proven that items on has more strategic depth than items off? That it brings in more depth that it takes out?

Which one you'd consider "better" in regards to quantity of depth is irrelevant -- though, I can assure you, I can argue easily that having items "On" offers undeniably more depth.

It's simply "different".


-Syn

 

[Samochan]

Well, your already wrong in one respect.

We know that Smashballs and Dragoon favour losers. Thats all that's proven. Dragoons are already banned, and I'm sure that SKR is going to learn the folly of Smashballs very, very quickly.

Items spawns haven't proven to be biased yet. Alpha Zealots finding were preliminary, he admitted that himself. My research is finding no consistent favour towards the loser, which directly conflicts with AZ's findings. This needs to be researched more before we claim it as fact.

So, items haven't proven to favour losers. We have some hints that it might, but we have other hints that it isn't the case as well. Don't get to hasty.

I did actually mean the smash balls and dragoon parts, I should have said "some items" instead of them all. Sorry.

But Wiz is not going to budge till evo is over and done with anyway. >_>

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Terrible analogy, as there are variations between various elements in our situation that don't exist in your Chess example.

For example, it could awkwardly pillar a SWF member taking the pro-item position -- a position that would be thoroughly cognizant of the benefits regarding the non-item position, but can also analyze the value of the pro-item position through intuition.


Yeah.

*edit*

Smooth Criminal's got it.

-Syn
(why the h3ll does this community love bringing up Chess so much in regards to Brawl?)

The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that limited depth and understanding of something tends to make it more interesting. And not all variations have to be analyzed. Many many different types of end-game positions are considered won/drawn/lost positions - no matter how many different ways to play it, at best play the result is always the same.

AZ and I are big chess players, though I think he doesn't play anymore. So you see us using Chess a lot, simply because Chess works so well as a competitive game.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I did actually mean the smash balls and dragoon parts, I should have said "some items" instead of them all. Sorry.

But Wiz is not going to budge till evo is over and done with anyway. >_>

Okay, no harm then. I was assuming you meant all items were biased towards the loser. xD

Still, DDD ITEM FARMING FOR THE WIN!?!?!?!?

 

[polarity]

First of all, you're an idiot. Second of all, did you even READ my post? Items on Brawl vs items off Brawl are two completely different games to 99% of the Smash community. We like items off Brawl. Thats the game we play.

And you're also completely ignoring that items off Brawl has an enormous community behind it. You know, the people on SWF. Items on Brawl has... Wobbles =D

I understand your point, but if that's the only grievance you guys have (which it clearly isn't to most people), then your *****ing about items-on Brawl being included in Evo makes no more sense than *****ing about Marvel or 3rd Strike being included would. Putting down other games isn't going to get your game included.

And yet, can it be proven that items on has more strategic depth than items off? That it brings in more depth that it takes out?



Items off has established depth on it, while items on has already been proven to favor the losing player, which lowers it's competitive value.

Whether one game has more strategic depth than another is a pretty nebulous thing and practically impossible to objectively establish.

Why is it relevant that items off has established depth to it? Does that preclude anyone from even trying anything different? If everyone held to your logic, chess would've never evolved from the radically different game it was some 1500 years ago.

Giving the loser benefits does not necessarily lower a game's competitive value. You guys need to slow way down on what you consider the hallmarks of good competitive games, because practically every claim you make demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seeing as, in items-on, being in control of the match generally means not only having a stock/percentage lead, but also better access to items (i.e. winning gives you even more ability to win), giving the loser small benefits can really help to minimize slippery slope.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Giving the loser benefits does not necessarily lower a game's competitive value. You guys need to slow way down on what you consider the hallmarks of good competitive games, because practically every claim you make demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seeing as, in items-on, being in control of the match generally means not only having a stock/percentage lead, but also better access to items (i.e. winning gives you even more ability to win), giving the loser small benefits can really help to minimize slippery slope.

No offense, man, but if that's your logic then perhaps SRK should start employing the handicap system in fighting games that have it.

Smooth Criminal

 

[polarity]

No offense, man, but if that's your logic then perhaps SRK should start employing the handicap system in fighting games that have it.

Smooth Criminal

yes good point oh wait no that's completely incomparable to what i was talking about

edit: I will say though that extreme benefits like the dragoon and final smashes are not good tools to give to the losing player to assuage slippery slope (they're too extreme), but the principle that "giving any help to the losing player is anti-competitive" is just plain wrong. in games with slippery slope, not giving any help to the losing player is anti-competitive, in fact.

 

[SynikaL]

The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that limited depth and understanding of something tends to make it more interesting. And not all variations have to be analyzed. Many many different types of end-game positions are considered won/drawn/lost positions - no matter how many different ways to play it, at best play the result is always the same.

Which player is most likely to recognize best play? In the context of the debate, neither, because neither side knows any possibility that will provide a definitive conclusion. SRK nor SWF has any notion or claim of "best play" in this wholly subjective arena. To claim otherwise is stupid and arrogant.

I do agree that a mystifying system is inherently intriguing to most individuals. So the question is:

What's your malfunction?

-Kimo

 

[Zankoku]

yes good point oh wait no that's completely incomparable to what i was talking about

How is it not? Dragoon parts and Smash Balls favor the losing player. Their inclusion as items (though other items might be okay - we'll see, though not in EVO's tourneys >_>) is essentially turning on an automatically-scaling handicap setting.

 

[SynikaL]

How is it not? Dragoon parts and Smash Balls favor the losing player. Their inclusion as items (though other items might be okay - we'll see, though not in EVO's tourneys >_>) is essentially turning on an automatically-scaling handicap setting.

There are obvious parallels, unfortunately, you're clinging to the one that, while it may be most pertinent to you, is ironically most irrelevant: the fact that they're both handicaps.

One is a preliminary, static arbitration, the other a dynamic and algorithmic element that hinges strongly on player situation and behaviors making it ultimately more compelling.

Next.


-Kimo

 

[Zankoku]

One is an static arbitration, the other a dynamic and algorithmic element that hinges strongly on player situation and behaviors.

Certainly, Smashballs and Dragoon Parts will shift in whom receives the advantage, but... would that actually be any better? As far as I can tell, it would just mean that none of the stocks really matter until each player's last one, because then the game will stop intentionally favoring one player over another.

 

[SynikaL]

Certainly, Smashballs and Dragoon Parts will shift in whom receives the advantage, but... would that actually be any better? As far as I can tell, it would just mean that none of the stocks really matter until each player's last one, because then the game will stop intentionally favoring one player over another.

Please, stop being caught up in the idea that one particular avenue has to be definitively "better". This is what is skewing people's logic.

As for the deduction, I don't think we know enough about the item spawn system to come to such dramatic conclusions. If it ended up working out that way, that would indeed suck. But until we test items at a tournament level we can't know for sure.


-Kye

 

[Ryuker]

An interesting question this whole situation has raised is if randomness is bad for competitive play. There seems to be a large group in this community that thinks this is so but if you look at players outside of swf there is an even bigger group that doesn't think the same way. I try to get in the heads of both and try to understand why both groups are so determined that randomness is either bad or good. I haven't made up my mind yet but I don't agree with the point that says skill isn't measured anymore when a player is forced to adapt to a random situation. I think adaption is just as much of a skills as pre battle knowlede is and knowledge of effective comboes so on. I think it's all connected and randomness simply requires more adaption and caution.

Players like Yuna clearly seem to be arguing from a viewpoint that says randomness is bad for competitive play. They too prove items are bad for competitive play cause they have this view point. But they seem to be forgetting one thing. When a player grabs a item it still hasn't had any effect on the other player. A player getting crappy items but using them well can be better then a player getting strong items but not using them efficiently.

Like other posts in this thread have pointed out though I think the real shock too the community is that by using this ruleset we have to play a different game. We have been dealing with a lot of changes already and have had to adapt too so many tweaks in brawl that using items is again a big change. A large majority in the community doesn't seem too like change. And there is no denying that using items in tournaments changes the game and adds new elements to it.
Too understand what they add you need to break down what happens when an items spawns. I like too make a comparison too the wario ware stage cause what happens on that stage is similar to what happens when items spawn and what randomness influence has on the current metagame in a match.

Element1:
When a fight is happening and we disregard stage changes for a moment only the players influence the other players actions.
When a item spawns suddenly the situation is changed. Both players now have to decide weither they go for the item that spawned or weither they attack the other player. They have to determine weither the item is worth the risc and what will happen when the other player goes for the item. When they go for the item they have to get it which means they are on a hunt. The goal has changed for them at this point. There not trying to attack there opponent but they are trying to reach a certain place to aquire a object and that object will give them a new ability. These situations can be brief but they are there.

So what is added is a chase and somewhat a puzzle ( but not with a best solution)

Element 2: a temporary change of the normal battle.

When one of the player has aquired the item they can use to against there opponent. The opponent is now forced to change his gameplan cause the conditons have changed. When using a fireflower there is a constant line of attack going on and this changes the choices the other player has too make.

Element 3: The payoff and the trade off

Ofcourse this depends per item but most items exhaust or lag the player when used. This influences the use of the item obviously and makes hitting a homerun bat unlikely for example yet definetly possible. When the fire flower is exhausted the player has to discard it and this will give the other player a time to attack. At the same time items also limit the itemuser cause when using a fire flower the player can't attack in the normal way. This means the player is open at the back for example so on. Simply put items have been balanced. We can argue how much they have been balanced but getting a item doesn't not guarantee a win and thus if you wanna argue if they are too powerfull you'll get the whole wobbling kind of debate again.

After the item left the field the fight continues as normal.

Now compare this too the random events in the wario ware stage. With this stage the same type of forced adaption is present.
- When an challenge comes up it is announced( equivalent to a item being dropped).
- There is a time frame in which the players have to act and a moment in which both players can't be busy attacking but rather have to make sure they don't get hit(equivalent to hunting for the item a change of the metagame in the match = a pause of the fight).
- When one of the player completes the challenge they get a reward(equivalent to using the item).
- The item disappears and they can resume normal battle.
- after a while new situation is presented( equivalent to a new item is dropped) .

If you look at this you can be pretty sure that items change our current meta game a whole **** lot and we really get a different game then we have been used too. But is this bad? Our is this just scrubby thinking. If you have read sirlin's article you'll know that a scrub is a player who plays the game by his/her own set of rules. They change the games rules to fit there own expectations and say something is disallower purely out of reasoning: " I don't like that". We can't just say items are bad cause randomness is bad. We have to back it up if that is our point of view and too be honest I see potential for items in competitive play and don't feel like backing up it is bad for competitive play. We have to remember the only ligimate reason to ban items in melee was cause of exploding boxes dropping down but this has been fixed in brawl and thus the debate is wide open again.

I guess players have to make the decission for themselves though weither they want to play smash as a game of adapting to your opponent alone or a game in which you're forced to adapt to extreme changes in the battle.

And regarding camping. This is starting annoy me. Everytime something new is presented there are arguements of increase of camping= bad for competitive play. I'm really puzzled why camping is so bad and why everyone thinks its a stupid strategy. It's always been a style of play and you can't claim one style is better then the other and claim everyone needs to play the way you play. Thats scrubby thinking right there and if there is a increase of camping strategies then k. It's just another way to play and shouldn't be labelled as bad. Items can just as well increase offence cause you get safer attacks but if used right can of course also be just effectively to defend your ground.

I get the idea that there is a large number in our community that fears the random aspect brought too brawl. Understandable though cause large sums of money are on the line.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Which player is most likely to recognize best play? In the context of the debate, neither, because neither side knows any possibility that will provide a definitive conclusion. SRK nor SWF has any notion or claim of "best play" in this wholly subjective arena. To claim otherwise is stupid and arrogant.

Not really. The whole idea behind items adding another layer of depth to the game is silly. It's nothing more than taking a checkmate in 3 position and giving the loser a bunch of extra pieces that can't stop mate. The position seems more complex, but it's still checkmate in 3.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

Not really. The whole idea behind items adding another layer of depth to the game is silly. It's nothing more than taking a checkmate in 3 position and giving the loser a bunch of extra pieces that can't stop mate. The position seems more complex, but it's still checkmate in 3.

Essentially, your saying that the better player is going to win anyway, so why give the loser more options right?

 

[Zankoku]

Please, stop being caught up in the idea that one particular avenue has to be definitively "better". This is what is skewing people's logic.

As for the deduction, I don't think we know enough about the item spawn system to come to such dramatic conclusions. If it ended up working out that way, that would indeed suck. But until we test items at a tournament level we can't know for sure.


-Kye

The thing I am paying attention to in particular has nothing to do with the item spawn system and everything to do with the two items' behaviors based on player situation. The ability to deal with random events in the best way possible can arguably be called a skill. The ability to use the items dealt to you in an effective fashion is most certainly a skill. The ability to not lose your Dragoon Parts or break a Smash Ball in fewer hits only because you're losing by a stock is not a skill, it is only being in the losing state when a Smash Ball spawned/when you collected a Dragoon Part.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

There are obvious parallels, unfortunately, you're clinging to the one that, while it may be most pertinent to you, is ironically most irrelevant: the fact that they're both handicaps.

One is a preliminary, static arbitration, the other a dynamic and algorithmic element that hinges strongly on player situation and behaviors making it ultimately more compelling.

Next.


-Kimo

Well, Syn, "compelling" is a matter of opinion. Ultimately, though, you are right about the handicap analogy.


I'll take a wait and see approach. I personally think that Ego is going to win out, though.

Edit: And yes, the "ego" statement was purposely left ambiguous.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SynikaL]

Not really. The whole idea behind items adding another layer of depth to the game is silly.

Only when perceived through the very rigid lens of Chess' gameplay, which in itself is silly.

The very definition of depth implies the concept "how much". Extracting from any complexed system causes that concept to suffer.

Brawl's system is an order magnitude more complexed than Chess'.

Now, with your current mindset, I'm going to preemptively address your most logical response:

You: "The important parallel to draw, is Chess' filtering of superfluous depth through lack of variety in its design, to push a more pristine strategic depth to the forefront."

You're welcome. My response:

Me: "The fact that the strategic depth is more refined does not make this qualifiably "Better", only, "Different".

Me: "Checkmate".


-Syn

 

[Yuna]

You're obviously not following the current developments, nor are you comprehending my posts. Stop skimming posts, or I'm going to ignore your tirades more than I typically do.

We're attempting to figure out the Spawn system with the sole hope that we can use the knowledge gained to make it less unpredictable (maybe even completely predictable). I've already explained why I felt the effects of the Items Containers themselves being random is relatively negligible in my last post.

What part of this post contradicts any of what I said? What part of my post contradicts any of what you just said? What part of said posts are mutually exclusive to the other post?

You claim you're trying to do something, I clearly state "It won't work". I'm not saying you're not doing what you're trying to do, I'm saying it won't work. It's "random" for a reason. Even if it's just semi-random because it's based on algorithms. The only way to be able to use probability calculations (which you shouldn't have to in a Competitive fighting game, anyway!) to your advantage would be to me at least quasi-psychic as well, knowing which spawn point you should stick the closest to and when to get the greatest chance of nailing a Final Smash or Golden Hammer.

polarity: Read my sig.

 

[SynikaL]

The thing I am paying attention to in particular has nothing to do with the item spawn system and everything to do with the two items' behaviors based on player situation. The ability to deal with random events in the best way possible can arguably be called a skill. The ability to use the items dealt to you in an effective fashion is most certainly a skill. The ability to not lose your Dragoon Parts or break a Smash Ball in fewer hits only because you're losing by a stock is not a skill, it is only being in the losing state when a Smash Ball spawned/when you collected a Dragoon Part.

Definitely a valid concern. Fortunately, it has been addressed: through refinement of the metagame, those items will be proven to be broken if they truly are and subsequently weeded out. Only way to know for sure is to let it play out in a tournament setting.

For the record, most people agree Final Smashes and Dragoon pieces are a bad idea.


Smooth Criminal:

Haha, at least someone is getting something out of my posts.


-Kimo