The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[Yuna]

either way, no worries. it's their tourny and the result will come from their actions/non-actions. (:

Of course, in the end, it's their tourney. They're free to have the rules they want. I and the majority of Smashers I know will just not go because we dislike the rules. I could've seen myself going to EVO just to have gone to EVO, but not anymore. I think Helios (from Sweden) was at Evo 2007. He likes Brawl so he might've planned on going to EVO 2008, but I don't think he's going to anymore.

 

[polarity]

Pay attention, please.

MrWizard has "done extensive testing" (read: Done a little testing of his own, maybe, and delegated the rest to other people, who held online items-on tournaments without any prizes). He's got "conclusive evidence" for allowing these items. Meanwhile, since we cannot provide video evidence for every single one of our points, he's obviously right and we're obviously wrong.

That's the logic he's employing.

All he ever claimed was that there was a lack of evidence that items are the game-ruining factor you guys claim they are.

You still don't seem to understand how the fighting game scene operates. We don't ban stuff unless it is inarguably demonstrated to be game-ruining. We don't ban stuff because the game would be marginally better without it. We don't ban stuff because it's 'random' - unless that randomness was proven enough to ruin the game competitively. And we most definitely don't ban stuff because most people don't like it.

Are some of the rules inconsistent, given this? Perhaps, but this is the philosophy they're basing those decisions on, even if you think some of those decisions are flawed. You'd probably have a better chance of getting assist trophies turned on than items turned off.

And I still don't see why you care so much about a tourney you don't plan to go to. Again, all you're doing is reinforcing the stereotype that SWF players can't stand to see anyone play the game in a different way to them.

 

[Zankoku]

And I still don't see why you care so much about a tourney you don't plan to go to. Again, all you're doing is reinforcing the stereotype that SWF players can't stand to see anyone play the game in a different way to them.

I figure it's 'cause it's one o' the better venues for a big tournament to happen, so people would rather be able to still play by the rules they want than have to outright not go because they can't stand the rules.

That's odd.... I'm almost certain I saw you post that you were "done here" a while ago.

 

[Ryuker]

"Improvise, adapt to it" - Yeah, we don't want to. We don't want randomness that we have to "improvise" and "adapt" to. Not when said randomness gives the opponent a random Golden Hammer.

Like I said take a golden hammer out of the equation cause it's presumably too broken would you feel the same about having to adapt to a green shell or a fire flower dropping on the screen. Cause non of these items cause an auto lose stock or auto win. The situation has changed but thats just a matter of adapting. You can hardly KO with a fire flower and you can't rack damage like you would with a fire flower using a green shell.

If you say you don't want to adapt and improvise to that then that's your choice but it does remind me of a scrubby attitude. You want to play by your rules but a scrub just as much wants too play by his/her own rules that he made up for the game. I'm not saying your a scrub but I do have to say that I'm started too get confused of the definition of a scrub here...

We also have to be consistent here. If we are allowing stages that change the battlefield midway then why are we banning items which essentially do the same to the meta game of a match? I thought we banned items in melee purely cause the exploding boxes were to dangerous but we can turn them off in brawl then whats stopping us from turning items on?

 

[Rebel581]

You still don't seem to understand how the fighting game scene operates. We don't ban stuff unless it is inarguably demonstrated to be game-ruining. We don't ban stuff because the game would be marginally better without it. We don't ban stuff because it's 'random' - unless that randomness was proven enough to ruin the game competitively. And we most definitely don't ban stuff because most people don't like it.

I'm perfectly aware of how the fighting game scene operates. If you're going to keep bringing up that bullcrap argument and how it doesn't relate to smash (which btw, that one rule is the reason why no character has ever been banned in smash, and stages like Skyworld are still on counterpick. Nobody likes Skyworld.) Can I get our game a genre change? Metroid Prime is an FPA, that genre doesn't exist. If Metroid can be an FPA, Smash can be a Platform Fighter or something.

And we keep proving it ruins the game competitively. Just because you have this seeming need to even out a skill gap between people (which I thought the competitive fighting game community would see as the BAD thing that it is), doesn't mean that we want someone good, but not great, beating Ken. If items sole purpose is to even out the playing field, they should not be allowed. Evening out the playing field should only be done by being BETTER at the game. If anything other then your own personal skill is factored into a victory, it's a failure as a competitive game.

And we don't plan on going to it NOW that the rules are like this. Many people DID plan on going. They have every right to *****. Look at EnigmaticCam. He was going to go with his wife to Vegas and hit up a major smash tournament on the way. Now he's not because of these rules.

Considering I agree with Yuna on all counts, you guys have to be wrong. As Yuna is the person that I find I disagree with the most on this entire forum.

And if disliking items = scrub, you guys will get your ***** kicked by a bunch of scrubs chain grabbing you in a bunch of infinites. Have fun with your tournament wobbles. It pretty much seems like EVO just wants to give you free money.

EDIT: Oh yea, we tested Final Smashes, and we tested them a lot. I was one of the people advocating for their use in tournaments. It just doesn't work. The game degenerates into every kill being by a final smash. We played many matches with final smashes on, both working through counters. But why learn how to kill when I can just get Pit's final smash, use it without a thought whatsoever, and then continue attacking you like nothing happened? All while 16 damage per hit piecies of death rain from the sky. Why should I bother killing you legitimately when I can land a "CRITICAL HIT" and take off an entire stock? Which is unavoidable if used correctly, and if you wiff, can be canceled so the Marth doesn't die.

 

[polarity]

And we keep proving it ruins the game competitively.

That's funny cause I've seen absolutely nothing that would quality as conclusive proof at all. 'Proof' to the fighting game scene = major tournament-level competition. If several major tournaments with items on prove to have negligible consistency in placings at the top of the bracket, THAT will qualify as proof that items are too random. Nothing else will.

'Proof' to you = posting on an internet forum.

If anything other then your own personal skill is factored into a victory, it's a failure as a competitive game.

Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo. Dizzy points are random. Damage has a random scaling on it. When you are behind a round, you have a random chance to deal more damage (or not!) and the amount of boost you get is also random. When you do a combo with a Sonic Boom (just an example), the hitstun from projectiles slows down the game. During the slowdown, your input frames are dropped meaning combos with two Sonic Booms tend to fail literally randomly about 50% of the time (lucky for us, because the game would be broken otherwise). Also, the faster the game speed is set, the more frames are dropped in general, so it's possible for your reversal dragon punch to just not come out because of random factors (can be mitigated by piano method). Anyway there's a lot of randomness and even more than I mentioned here. Isn't it possible that some of this lead to closer tournament matches and added to the excitement? Awfully coincidental that the SF game with probably most randomness is also one of the best. Counter example 3 that "all randomness in competitive multiplayer games is bad."

ST has been a competitively successful game for 14 years, and will likely continue its success long into the future. But, oh wait, it has randomness, so clearly it's a failure of a competitive game. SWF poster and competitive gaming expert Rebel581 has spoken.

And its randomness doesn't even add elements to the game's strategy, unlike items.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff

Green Shells kill at semi-low percentages. They also inflict semi-high damage. Take them out.

I'm alright with us keeping only the items that wouldn't be able to turn a match around too much by providing too strong a weapon (it's not OK if the weapon just inflicts a lot of damage instead of outright KO:ing you). But then we'd be stuck with 4 or so items.

But feel free to host an item tourney with only 4 items, I'm alright with that.

That's funny cause I've seen absolutely nothing that would quality as conclusive proof at all. 'Proof' to the fighting game scene = major tournament-level competition. If several major tournaments with items on prove to have negligible consistency in placings at the top of the bracket, THAT will qualify as proof that items are too random. Nothing else will.

"Major tournament-level competition"? Hardly. SRK-standards of "high level Smash tournament play" isn't much since very few there actually play Smash, let alone on a "high level" (by high I mean having a chance of making it top the Top 32 in a major US tournament).

Also, from what I hear these supposed major tournament-level competitions were either held by random people who took your challenge and/or by online tournaments... without prizes. How is that any better than me, AlphaZealot, Samuraipanda or anyone else who plays Smash on a high level playing the game against other people?

How the hell is a n00b tourney online more important than that?

'Proof' to you = posting on an internet forum.

Easily verified by, you know, playing the game. Just because you're apparently incapable of visualizing something doesn't mean it ain't true.

ST has been a competitively successful game for 14 years, and will likely continue its success long into the future. But, oh wait, it has randomness, so clearly it's a failure of a competitive game. SWF poster and competitive gaming expert Rebel581 has spoken.

Randomness = OK to a certain extent
Randomness that's not OK but that can be turned off = Gets turned off

And its randomness doesn't even add elements to the game's strategy, unlike items.

You're still supporting Final Smashes, I'm assuming since you haven't even addressed our points against them. I'll end this argument with: You're supporting Final Smashes!

Further ruining your credibility is your claim that Slippery Slope exists in fighting games and that game mechanics to favour the losing player is good!

 

[polarity]

Yuna, I'm just going to ignore you from now on because it's pretty clear you're not interested in having an actual discussion. You constantly make baseless assumptions (such as that I support final smashes, which I have never said - in fact, I hope/expect them to be one of the first things to go after Evo, but they should still be in Evo, because we don't just ban things without high level testing), totally fail to understand the value of real-life evidence over theoretical musings, and ignore parts of my argument as it suits you (saying I said fighting games have slippery slope, when in fact I only stated that items-on Smash and MvC2 do. I gave reasons for why items-on Smash does which you ignored, and the reason MvC2 does was addressed in the Sirlin article I linked).

I see no point to continue discussing anything with you when it's clear you're incapable of seeing beyond the petty SWF vs SRK slap fight you so badly want to instigate and actually exchanging ideas rather than simply using whatever underhanded techniques you can muster to try to appear the victor in a stupid argument.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, I'm just going to ignore you from now on because it's pretty clear you're not interested in having an actual discussion. You constantly make baseless assumptions (such as that I support final smashes, which I have never said - only that they warrant further testing), totally fail to understand the value of real-life evidence over theoretical musings, and ignore parts of my argument as it suits you (saying I said fighting games have slippery slope, when in fact I only stated that items-on Smash and MvC2 do. I gave reasons for why items-on Smash does which you ignored, and the reason MvC2 does was addressed in the Sirlin article I linked).

We're told you the one bazillion reasons why Final Smashes are broken. You say "It warrants further testing" as if that'd make them less broken, as if it'd change how they work. I missed you saying this, as well, so I assumed you support them. If I was wrong, then I apologize.

Real life evidence of what, really? What evidence does SRK have? That in the very limited and biased testing they performed through low level online tournaments (they're trying to pass them off as High Level, though) with no prizes and some random tournaments consisting if mostly if solely by newbies, they managed to somehow prove that item spawns don't really change the outcomes of matches that often?

I never said they didn't prove that, the problem is that you and I don't agree on what constitutes "OK levels of item influence". Meanwhile, the most of the arguments provided by you and SRK as "proof" have been invalid, either from the start or later proven invalid by our testing (in only two days, so what the hell were SRK doing for two months?!).

Items-on Smash does not have any more slippery slope than Items-off Smash does. So what if knocking you off stage gives you a greater chance of grabbing items? The losers and the winners can both do this, regardless of who's currently winning. Losing simply means that you're losing.

It's not like in Chess where with every piece lost, you lose more and more options. No, Slippery Slope does not magically come to be just because items are turned on.

I see no point to continue discussing anything with you when it's clear you're incapable of seeing beyond the petty SWF vs SRK slap fight you clearly want to instigate and actually exchanging ideas rather than simply using whatever underhanded techniques you can muster to try to appear the victor in a stupid argument.

I understand good arguments quite well. You haven't provided many. Whenever we tell you why your arguments are bad, you use blanket statements like "SWF vs. SRK" (this is how I argue against everyone, SRK, SWF or my personal friends! Heck, I've traded blows with AlphaZealot as well) and "video proof!".

 

[polarity]

No, you clearly have this idea that because I'm from SRK I support everything they've done and every claim they've made, and that I must defend those decisions for any point of my own to be valid. When did I ever say I felt the testing that SRK had done was valid? If Evo ran a tournament with all stages and all items legal, would that make you happy?

Probably not, because you seem to have this idea that the burden of proof is on the pro-item players to prove that a feature is suitable for tournament play before it can be included in tournaments. Can't you see how ridiculously screwed up that line of thinking is? How the hell are you supposed to prove a feature is suitable for tournament play when there are no tournaments in which it's legal to motivate people to explore the feature at high levels?

Taking your reasoning to its logical extreme, no game would ever have a competitive scene at all; if items have to prove their worth before they can be included in tournaments, then why not everything else? No tournaments would ever happen because nobody would have the motivation to prove something is worthy for tournament play when no tournaments exist!

It's clear to almost everyone in every competitive gaming scene, except many of you on SWF apparently, that the correct approach is to include as much as possible and subtract as appropriate when something is proven to be significantly and inarguably damaging to competitive play. Are the Evo rules perfect as far as this logic goes? No, but they sure are a hell of a lot closer than the rules you guys propose.

 

[Yuna]

No, you clearly have this idea that because I'm from SRK I support everything they've done and every claim they've made, and that I must defend those decisions for any point of my own to be valid. When did I ever say I felt the testing that SRK had done was valid? If Evo ran a tournament with all stages and all items legal, would that make you happy?

You haven't said that all of SRK's testing is "correct", you've claimed that some of it is. I don't agree.

Probably not, because you seem to have this idea that the burden of proof is on the pro-item players to prove that a feature is suitable for tournament play before it can be included in tournaments. Can't you see how ridiculously screwed up that line of thinking is? How the hell are you supposed to prove a feature is suitable for tournament play when there are no tournaments in which it's legal to motivate people to explore the feature at high levels?

We already proven that items are bad. We did it several years ago, we did it just now. We've got a mounting pile of evidence. You haven't been able to refute any of this evidence, yet you claim there's proof items should be on in tournaments, hence, there must be at least some evidence to support your standpoint since we've got tons of evidence to support ours.

It's clear to almost everyone in every competitive gaming scene, except many of you on SWF apparently, that the correct approach is to include as much as possible and subtract as appropriate when something is proven to be significantly and inarguably damaging to competitive play. Are the Evo rules perfect as far as this logic goes? No, but they sure are a hell of a lot closer than the rules you guys propose.

That's your opinion. We disagree. We feel that items are damage for Competitive play. We feel that our evidence (which you have yet to even manage to dent other than proclaim that everyone should just possess "Stage Control" and "Clairvoyance" in spades and demand "high level tournament videos" (though SRK lacks said videos themselves)) has sufficiently proved this. MrWizard and SRK can disagree, but the problem is that they won't even take a look at it (though some SRK:ers have).

You proclaims all of our evidence is invalid... while by the same standards, all of SRK's evidence is invalid as well (to an ever higher degree than ours, which would be "less invalid").

 

[polarity]

We already proven that items are bad. We did it several years ago, we did it just now. We've got a mounting pile of evidence. You haven't been able to refute any of this evidence, yet you claim there's proof items should be on in tournaments, hence, there must be at least some evidence to support your standpoint since we've got tons of evidence to support ours.

Ignoring that Brawl is not Melee, where is the evidence? Can you provide results from old items-on tournaments that demonstrate that the placings were considerably more random than the placings for items-off tournaments? Because that would be the only valid evidence. All your theory fighting doesn't count for jack. No matter how much your analyzing and note-taking may indicate that items are random, or favor the loser, or whatever, the true test of how much impact this has on high level play CAN NOT be known until the format actually SEES high level play. How can you possibly deny this?

Do you have any idea how many different competitive gaming scenes have seen a tactic, feature, whatever, that appeared to be insanely overpowered, random, or whatever, and called for a ban before the game was ruined? Do you have any idea how often saner minds prevailed, the thing in question saw tournament play, and it turned out to not be that big a deal at all? It's happened hundreds, perhaps even THOUSANDS of times. Hell, it's happened in SMASH ITSELF! I don't know what makes some of you think you're so special that you can accurately predict the effect things will have on tournament play with the power of your minds alone, but you are mistaken.

 

[Yuna]

It does not matter if there weren't many cases where we could clearly say "Hey, that person is clearly worse than that other person but won due to items.", it's enough if many sets are decided by lucky item spawns, which happens in, say, cases where people of moderately the same skill face up. A lucky Final Smash spawn would literally, in that case, decide the outcome.

If it didn't, then the opposing side either managed to win despite being put at an unfair handicap or managed to evade the hit, things he shouldn't have to do due to sheer dumb luck alone, anyway.

Why must we prove ourselves again digging up old evidence when SRK has provided nothing valid that I can see? It's basically SRK saying "We don't agree. Prove it! We'll run it this way without any valid proof whatsoever claiming it's proof".

Why must we provide countless hours of video footage when it's easily understood by anyone with half a brain through talking, reason and logic alone?

And stop repeating "Brawl is not Melee" like a mantra. The game changed, but the way items work and how one interacts with items have not changed so drastically in ways which invalidate the arguments against items in Melee.

Items saw high level play with Melee. Someone who was around back then and infinitely more capable of explaining it can give you a point-by-point run of the findings. For one thing, Eddie, a very "high level" player, lost in both Winner's and Loser's due to obvious lucky item spawns at a tournament in Japan.

It's as if we were to introduce Akuma in SF4 just as strong as he was back in SSF2T + more options. Wow, we should let him be played in tournaments for a few months before determining he needs to be banned, shouldn't we? Because the game is new, the fact that it's at once obvious he's leagues better than everyone else and the game hasn't changed and he hasn't changed so much he's no longer overpowered means nothing. Because it's a new game, after all.

And what happened to the argument of "Slipper slope exists in Items-on Brawl1!!!!"?

 

[polarity]

Why must we provide countless hours of video footage when it's easily understood by anyone with half a brain through talking, reason and logic alone?

Because this is Brawl, not Theory Fighter. You haven't proven anything regarding the effect your discoveries will have on the game; you just have a whole ton of theories. Do you understand the principles of the scientific method?

Items saw high level play with Melee. Someone who was around back then and infinitely more capable of explaining it can give you a point-by-point run of the findings. For one thing, Eddie, a very "high level" player, lost in both Winner's and Loser's due to obvious lucky item spawns at a tournament in Japan.

See, that's more like it... real evidence, from an actual, high-level tournament, rather than theory bull****! Maybe if someone can detail enough of these occurrences that they clearly happened frequently enough to exceed the threshold of acceptable randomness, you might have something resembling a point!

It's as if we were to introduce Akuma in SF4 just as strong as he was back in SSF2T + more options. Wow, we should let him be played in tournaments for a few months before determining he needs to be banned, shouldn't we? Because the game is new, the fact that it's at once obvious he's leagues better than everyone else and the game hasn't changed and he hasn't changed so much he's no longer overpowered means nothing. Because it's a new game, after all.

Firstly, let me say that there is obviously a point where something is so clearly busted it doesn't warrant further testing to justify banning it. However, short of it being something like a character having an attack that spans the entire screen in range, is unblockable and does 100% damage, or a feature which leaves the outcome of the game entirely up to a coin toss, regardless of the skill of the players involved, it's extremely difficult to establish that that is the case. If there's any room for debate at all among knowledgeable players (as there clearly is here - Wobbles at least is advocating Evo as an items-on tournament), then further testing is warranted.

In the scenario you presented, I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that yes, he would be allowed in tournaments, because there would be no way we would be arrogant enough to assume we understand the game enough prior to it seeing any major high-level competition to judge that he was overpowered enough to justify banning.

And what happened to the argument of "Slipper slope exists in Items-on Brawl1!!!!"?

It does, or at least something resembling it. Controlling the stage = more access to items = more ability to control the stage = more access to items... etc. It's an anti-competitive positive feedback loop. The gains are not exponential, so maybe it doesn't technically qualify as slippery slope, but surely you can see what I'm saying?

 

[Yuna]

Wobbles is not "advocating" anything. Wobbles is saying "Whatever, if EVO wants to do this, I don't care. I'll probably go and pick up some easy money since no one else good is apparently planning on going".

We've already brought the example with Eddie up. I think AlphaZealot brought it up on SRK. Nobody apparently cared about it since it worked against the thesis that items aren't really that bad.

It does, or at least something resembling it. Controlling the stage = more access to items = more ability to control the stage = more access to items... etc. It's an anti-competitive positive feedback loop. The gains are not exponential, so maybe it doesn't technically qualify as slippery slope, but surely you can see what I'm saying?

What part of the following facts are too hard for you to grasp?

* Stage Control is almost moot since items will most often spawn close to players and not randomly on the side of the stage. So controlling the entire stage = Not that big a deal.
* You can control the stage just as good when you're behind. There is absolutely nothing to keep you from controlling the stage when you're behind one stock! Nothing! Hence, there is no slippery slope here. Losing a stock while your opponent hasn't does not in any way make items favour your opponent more.

 

[SynikaL]

Wow.

You kids are all so stupid.

-Syn

 

[polarity]

Wobbles is not "advocating" anything. Wobbles is saying "Whatever, if EVO wants to do this, I don't care. I'll probably go and pick up some easy money since no one else good is apparently planning on going".

I don't care enough to go back and find the quote, but I'm pretty sure he said somewhere (paraphrasing) "I think Evo should be an items-on tournament".

We've already brought the example with Eddie up. I think AlphaZealot brought it up on SRK. Nobody apparently cared about it since it worked against the thesis that items aren't really that bad.

Maybe because one example does not a valid argument make? Nobody is denying that items do introduce an element of luck into proceedings, and yes, sometimes a player may get screwed out of a match due to bad luck. We take issue with the fact that you guys seem to believe that either a) this will happen so often that there will be no reliability in tournament results at all or b) that even a single match decided in this way is completely unacceptable, regardless of what benefits items bring. You have almost no evidence to support the former, and the latter is a matter of opinion, though one that runs contrary to the established philosophy of a lot of people way more educated regarding game design than you guys.

 

[Yuna]

I don't care enough to go back and find the quote, but I'm pretty sure he said somewhere (paraphrasing) "I think Evo should be an items-on tournament"

No. Quote or it didn't happen.

Maybe because one example does not a valid argument make? Nobody is denying that items do introduce an element of luck into proceedings, and yes, sometimes a player may get screwed out of a match due to bad luck. We take issue with the fact that you guys seem to believe that either a) this will happen so often that there will be no reliability in tournament results at all or b) that even a single match decided in this way is completely unacceptable, regardless of what benefits items bring. You have almost no evidence to support the former, and the latter is a matter of opinion, though one that runs contrary to the established philosophy of a lot of people way more educated regarding game design than you guys.

We don't think it'll happen so often there'll be no reliability. We just think it'll happen too often, especially with the current items on the list (which MrWizard is refusing to revise as he won't even address my points against the two hammers and Smash Balls).

These educated people also think Smash Balls are A-OK in tournaments. Not a single one of them took to heart my essays against Smash Balls. Shows how educated they are.

 

[polarity]

No. Quote or it didn't happen.

Whatever, I'm sure he'll see this and clarify his feelings if he wants to.

We don't think it'll happen so often there'll be no reliability. We just think it'll happen too often, especially with the current items on the list (which MrWizard is refusing to revise as he won't even address my points against the two hammers and Smash Balls).

These educated people also think Smash Balls are A-OK in tournaments. Not a single one of them took to heart my essays against Smash Balls. Shows how educated they are.

You already know why they didn't take it to heart. Regardless, without any solid evidence that it'll happen too often, why are you complaining that they're choosing to try it out? If all you guys just said "We believe this is going to make the outcome of matches too random, but there is little solid evidence to support this belief, and we respect your right to discover for yourselves." people would respect your views. You wouldn't come off like insufferable brats, and, if your predictions turn out to be correct, you get that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you were right all along.

Yet instead you choose to whine and moan and make claims of "evidence" when it's clear that, for all your discoveries, you don't really have any proof of how they will affect the matches themselves come Evo.

 

[Samochan]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4494192&postcount=297

I think this should be important read to everyone here.

Every single droppable item favors the losing player and by how much depends of the power of the item, items themselves are ranked by sakurai himself ingame. The more powerful the item, the more it favours the losing player.

And we keep proving it ruins the game competitively. Just because you have this seeming need to even out a skill gap between people (which I thought the competitive fighting game community would see as the BAD thing that it is), doesn't mean that we want someone good, but not great, beating Ken. If items sole purpose is to even out the playing field, they should not be allowed. Evening out the playing field should only be done by being BETTER at the game. If anything other then your own personal skill is factored into a victory, it's a failure as a competitive game.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4494963&postcount=325

No more needs to be said about why items are bad for playing competitively, I think Rebel summed it up pretty well. If you play or do something competitively, you should win/lose by your own skill, not with anyone or anything else's aid. If that happens, it is unfair in competition, it would be the same as cheating to get you outside aid to win the game. Fact is, the most powerful item in this game is the most biased one, is capable of granting you a win with certain characters from 2 stock disadvantage with simple ease.

If anyone likes to bring in counterargument, tell me why thing such as this would be good for competitive play (aka not casual) and why this format should be used instead of items off where this only exists in minimal quantities due to droppable projectiles?

 

[polarity]

Haha, how does that mean that it's not rewarding personal skill? Isn't the ability to exploit the benefits given to the losing player, or conversely, as the winning player, to negate them, a skill in itself? That doesn't make the game not about skill, it just adds new skills.

I'd love to hear what you guys think about Puzzle Fighter, a game where getting attacked provides you with the ammunition required to win. Many people think it's an excellent competitive game.

 

[Samochan]

Haha, how does that mean that it's not rewarding personal skill? Isn't the ability to exploit the benefits given to the losing player, or conversely, as the winning player, to negate them, a skill in itself? That doesn't make the game not about skill, it just adds new skills.

I'd love to hear what you guys think about Puzzle Fighter, a game where getting attacked provides you with the ammunition required to win. Many people think it's an excellent competitive game.

It is not rewarding personal skill because you do not do anything by yourself to make yourself hold onto these items more, the game does it for you. It is only about if you're losing so hard because you suck on the game itself, the game should not reward such action. Why in the world should the losing player be given any benefits or aids simply because they're losing? Out of Pity? To even out the competition between these players? Hardly.

Should a football player be rewarded with a free kick onto the goal for plain sucking at the game? Should anyone be rewarded for not working properly and letting others do the work for them or giving them so much aid they don't need to even work themselves? Sucking at something is not a skill, it's lack of skill.

 

[Yuna]

Super Puzzle Fighter is not Super Street Fighter 2. Stop comparing random games that aren't even much like Brawl to Brawl.

And it's funny how you again just ignored my arguments against Slippery Slope. Apparently they were so good you can't even reply to them.

And wow, it's personal skill that the game is auto-handicapping the winner? That is total and utter BS. It's "personal skill" to be losing so the game favours you? It's personal skill to have to fight under an unfair handicap because you're winning?! Why should the winning player have to fight with a constant auto-handicap as soon as he's 1 stock ahead?! What kind of Competitive fighting game is that?

"Don't win 'til the last stock"?

 

[kirbstir]

I'd love to hear what you guys think about Puzzle Fighter, a game where getting attacked provides you with the ammunition required to win. Many people think it's an excellent competitive game.

That's different though, because your opponent's drop pattern is known from the start of the game, and both players receive the same gems throughout the battle.

 

[Zankoku]

Whatever, I'm sure he'll see this and clarify his feelings if he wants to.

My, my, you people certainly are lazy, aren't you? I'll have to determine my payment for this later, but this is the quote.

Well if I'm the only person who shows up, I win by default. Hooray.

So there's a fairly consistent drop rate, and having control over the middle of the level does drastically increase the chance that you'll get items. SRK arguments are not entirely without merit.

Right now I'm actually leaning to the pro-item, at least for ONE tournament, just because of the way Brawl is set up compared to Melee. I'd like to petition for the removal of Unira and Bumper though. They're stupidly strong and safe -_-

 

[Rebel581]

ST has been a competitively successful game for 14 years, and will likely continue its success long into the future. But, oh wait, it has randomness, so clearly it's a failure of a competitive game. SWF poster and competitive gaming expert Rebel581 has spoken.

And its randomness doesn't even add elements to the game's strategy, unlike items.

I actually DO understand the competitive gaming mindset. Seems to me like I understand it better than you. Name the last time you saw Akuma chuck a beam sword at someone.

I've also never heard this slippery slope argument before. Let me get this. You're saying that the slippery slope argument is that if someone loses, they will have an increasing chance to keep losing. I don't see how this exists in smash or any other fighter. I can see a case being made against it in smash, but in SF? If you're worse at the game, you SHOULD lose. I don't see your character magically getting less options in between rounds. Although I can see your opponent gaining their health back being an issue, but that's again going into the area of stop sucking at the game.

Smash might have even LESS of this. Each time you kill, your health does not get reset. Generally, the respawning character can kill a lot more easily with taking little damage (assuming equal skills and not sucking at the game). Even someone who does suck at the game with get at least one kill, even moreso in Brawl. 4 stocks were incredibly rare in Melee, and 3 stocks are even less often seen in Brawl. So how exactly is Brawl subject to slippery slope and why should we care if it is? I understand overly rewarding the winner is bad, but rewarding the loser at all for being bad is anti-competitive. Somehow you lost that fact somewhere in your competitive mindset.

And thanks for the information on Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I will never play that game competitively now. I would not have programmed that into the game. I want to be a game programmer/designer myself, and when I can equate SSF2T to Mario Party, we've got issues here. Do I really have to explain how Mario Party giving you stars for sucking (I'm assuming it still does that, I haven't played it in forever) is bad for competition? If you can't see that, I request Mario Party be at the next Evo.

Still don't understand slippery slope. Sounds like the whine of someone who sucks at the game.

 

[BigRick]

And thanks for the information on Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I will never play that game competitively now. I would not have programmed that into the game. I want to be a game programmer/designer myself, and when I can equate SSF2T to Mario Party, we've got issues here. Do I really have to explain how Mario Party giving you stars for sucking (I'm assuming it still does that, I haven't played it in forever) is bad for competition? If you can't see that, I request Mario Party be at the next Evo.

Talking like this about the longest played competitive video game of all time doesn't make you look very intelligent.

 

[polarity]

And thanks for the information on Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I will never play that game competitively now. I would not have programmed that into the game. I want to be a game programmer/designer myself, and when I can equate SSF2T to Mario Party, we've got issues here. Do I really have to explain how Mario Party giving you stars for sucking (I'm assuming it still does that, I haven't played it in forever) is bad for competition? If you can't see that, I request Mario Party be at the next Evo.

Fun fact: despite the fact that you can equate the game with Mario Party, it has some of the most consistent tournament results of any tournament fighting game ever. Funny how that works out, huh?

 

[Rebel581]

That is funny. I still don't want to play it competitively though, and I don't see why smash should be required to copy street fighter.

How much IS this boost anyways? You say there exists a boost, but how much does it actually effect gameplay?

 

[GenericKen]

Items are perfectly balanced... for timed matches.

From what I read of the EVO thread, their primary motivation seems to be a desire to modify as few of the game's default settings as possible (which is a somewhat understandable aesthetic desire, given that most fighters don't have any settings at all).

But you need to communicate to them somehow that it's not just the randomness of items, but the variability. It's true that random events will typically even out over time, but with items on, it will take far more time than tournaments can afford to individual matches.

 

[BigRick]

That is funny. I still don't want to play it competitively though, and I don't see why smash should be required to copy street fighter.

It's fine, you don't have to like it... but you can't say that it's a bad game when it has clearly stood the test of time.

I understand overly rewarding the winner is bad, but rewarding the loser at all for being bad is anti-competitive.

I definitely agree with this.

But I believe that Items do not only reward the loser... You can see this with the notion of ''stage control'' (it was demonstrated that it isn't exactly this but I couldn't find another expression). When the better player knocks his opponent off the level, the item will spawn for him and not his opponent. Items rewarding players go both sides.

 

[IstariAsuka]

It's worth noting that just because ST has randomness and is still a good game doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a better game without the randomness.

Isn't ST HDremix going to have the rebalanced mode, worked on by Sirlin and other top players, which removes this randomness? And, in fact, that mode is going to be used in Evo?

Sounds like, given the opportunity to remove that randomness, the best players of ST choose to do so (as well as some other tweaks). This is very much like how Smash players turn off items, since they can choose to do so.

So probably items, handled well, don't break the game sufficiently for traditional SRK players to deem them warranting a ban. However... you ban items in Smash for very different reasons than you ban most anything else in a fighting game. You might ban Akuma, for instance, since the character design of every other character makes it impossible for them to win against a good Akuma. You might ban some type of glitch for making the game not able to be played (like the IC freeze glitch in melee). You might ban a stalling tactic. These are all the types of things that need to be shown to be exploitable in a truly huge sense to warrant a ban. Items are different.

You're not banning items for any of the types of reasons that other fighters ban things. They're relatively unique in as far as this goes, you don't see these types of neutral 3rd objects in other games (as noted by UltraDavid, etc. etc. on SRK). If you have them on, sure, you have to make adjustments of which items are OK and which aren't, from an overpowered perspective (as you would with any traditional fighting tactic). The argument for turning them off is basically that they are too random, which is a bad thing in a competitive game in general. (Yes, exceptions exist, like MTG, but note that is so successful because the majority of the mechanics in the game basically boil down to ways to manipulate luck. Card draw, card filtering, search, shuffle effects, mulligan, cycle, etc. etc. Furthermore, card games which remove luck exist. See: tournament bridge play.) It's just like how, given the chance to remove the randomness in ST, Sirlin is doing so. Sure, this changes how the game is played. The randomness has all sorts of consequences, as that Sirlin post noted. That doesn't mean that the game won't be better for it. Evo is adopting the revised ST. Turning off items is the same reasoning. Given the chance to remove a huge source of randomness from the game while still being left with a thoroughly competitive, deep, interesting, viable competitive game, then of course you remove the randomness. That's why people want to remove items in Smash.

 

[Ryuker]

Why are items being compared to akuma now :S. Akuma is a character that has been proven to be game breaking. He's the best option you have in that game and that's why they banned him. Item on the other hand haven't been proven to be game breaking. They have only been proven to be ingame alternating. When you get an item it does not guarantee you a win. It does however provide you with a new attack while also limiting you from using your other attacks. If you lose cause you got hit by an item it's still your fault that you lost and not the games fault. The only thing they do is change the current metagame of a match. All the players got to do is handle the situation.
Ofcourse there are items as well that are simply to powerfull but we can debate about turning those off and no one is saying that all items should be on.

Interesting to hear they might favor the losing player though but I don't think it's enough prove to say items are bad for competitive play. Even if they drop close to the losing player if both players seem to be playing relatively close then the fight can still go either way.

 

[Yuna]

But I believe that Items do not only reward the loser... You can see this with the notion of ''stage control'' (it was demonstrated that it isn't exactly this but I couldn't find another expression). When the better player knocks his opponent off the level, the item will spawn for him and not his opponent. Items rewarding players go both sides.

Keep up, will you? How hard you need to get hit to drop items (Dragoon parts and Smash Balls in particular) depends on who's winning. The game literally rewards the loser for losing.

Meanwhile, Stage Control has nothing to do with it. Nothing is stopping the loser from gaining momentum back and gaining Stage Control. Stage Control is in no way dependent on whether or not you're leading, it's entirely dependent on who's in control, that's it.

Whether you're behind by 2 stock or ahead by 2 stock, you can still control the stage equally well. However, if you're behind by one stock, your opponent will have to beat you much harder for you to drop a Smash Ball than vice versa. The same with Dragoon Parts and every single item that you can drop in the game, which is literally auto-handicapping people as soon as they're ahead by even one stock.

Stop saying "The better player". When talking about balance, we have to assume both are of around equal strength. Let's assume both players are approximately equally good at Stage Controlling. At this point, it just comes down to who's controlling the stage when. If you and me go at it and both control the stage equally well 50/50, item spawns will pretty much spawn 50/50 (including the facts that most items will spawn near one of us or between us, almost none far across the stage) for us both, it'll come down to who just happens to be controlling the stage when the Smash Ball feels like appearing.

But then the unfairness of auto-handicapping jumps in. I'm at 137%, you just lost a stock, a Smash Ball appears. I grab it, but because of auto-handicapping, you just need to Smash me once for me to drop it. I Smash you, using the same Smash from the same character once you've stolen it, but you don't drop it and then use the FS to KO me. Fair? Balanced?

 

[Yuna]

Why are items being compared to akuma now :S. Akuma is a character that has been proven to be game breaking. He's the best option you have in that game and that's why they banned him. Item on the other hand haven't been proven to be game breaking. They have only been proven to be ingame alternating. When you get an item it does not guarantee you a win. It does however provide you with a new attack while also limiting you from using your other attacks. If you lose cause you got hit by an item it's still your fault that you lost and not the games fault. The only thing they do is change the current metagame of a match. All the players got to do is handle the situation.
Ofcourse there are items as well that are simply to powerfull but we can debate about turning those off and no one is saying that all items should be on.

Oh come off it.

I grab a Golden Hammer, what are you going to do? Infinite Pound (which is against the rules, by the way) 'til the 20 or so seconds during which the Golden Hammer lasts wears off? The only other options are pretty much quadruple jumping into a glide and then Up B:ing as Pit and you might be able to stall it out. Peach's float is nowhere near long enough.

But it's obviously your fault that I grabbed an overpowered item and obviously your fault for not having 4 jumps and a glide to help you evade it.

How is that different from Akuma? If the Akuma-player sucks enough, he won't win. It's your fault for getting hit by Akuma's broken ****! It's not a guaranteed win just because someone picks Akuma if the opponent can just outsmart him one jillion times.

Now play me when I get two Golden Hammers and one Smash Ball. It's obviously your fault you got hit by all 3... including my Fair into Final Smash as Marth. These items are on at EVO. And did you just not read my post where I said that I'm fine with EVO having items on if they just turn off all of the broken ones? They can play with Mr. Saturns, Smoke Balls and whatever. But they'd be stuck with, like, 4 items if we ban all broken ****.

Interesting to hear they might favor the losing player though but I don't think it's enough prove to say items are bad for competitive play. Even if they drop close to the losing player if both players seem to be playing relatively close then the fight can still go either way.

Keep up. It's much easier for the losing player to knock an item out of/off the winner and vice versa.

 

[polarity]

Sirlin isn't removing randomness in STHD, as far as I know. All he's talked about is removing the random input windows for certain moves. Seeing as he's spoken positively about the randomness in ST, I don't think he's removing it.

 

[Wuss]

To quote Phil Hellmuth: "IF there wasn't luck involved I guess I'd win every time."

Poker is amazingly successful as a competitive game, and yet luck is a major factor in that game. So much so, that noobs often win major tournaments. However, like people were saying, if the luck in poker could be reduced, there would be a lot of people in favor most likely (although in poker, the luck adds a lot to the drama of the game, so in that way, luck is a good thing). In smash, the luck and randomness that comes with items does not in any way make the game more dramatic. The main reason i believe is because when there are items, the game devolves into who can get the items the fastest. When you should be focused on taking out your opponent, items distract from that focus, and take all of the attention. That's another reason why smash balls can't be allowed either (by themselves i mean), because the game just devolves into who can get the most smash balls. regardless of the randomity of the items (which sux as well), items make the game have a focus on items, and not on the players themselves. Just like how when peach pulls a bomb-omb, the entire game revolves around her getting that bomb at her opponent. With the items, the entire game is like this, which sux imo...

 

[Sago]

DDD is gona run EVO...take it into sudden death and throw some waddle dees and you win

 

[BigRick]

Keep up, will you? How hard you need to get hit to drop items (Dragoon parts and Smash Balls in particular) depends on who's winning. The game literally rewards the loser for losing.

Meanwhile, Stage Control has nothing to do with it. Nothing is stopping the loser from gaining momentum back and gaining Stage Control. Stage Control is in no way dependent on whether or not you're leading, it's entirely dependent on who's in control, that's it.

Whether you're behind by 2 stock or ahead by 2 stock, you can still control the stage equally well. However, if you're behind by one stock, your opponent will have to beat you much harder for you to drop a Smash Ball than vice versa. The same with Dragoon Parts and every single item that you can drop in the game, which is literally auto-handicapping people as soon as they're ahead by even one stock.

Stop saying "The better player". When talking about balance, we have to assume both are of around equal strength. Let's assume both players are approximately equally good at Stage Controlling. At this point, it just comes down to who's controlling the stage when. If you and me go at it and both control the stage equally well 50/50, item spawns will pretty much spawn 50/50 (including the facts that most items will spawn near one of us or between us, almost none far across the stage) for us both, it'll come down to who just happens to be controlling the stage when the Smash Ball feels like appearing.

But then the unfairness of auto-handicapping jumps in. I'm at 137%, you just lost a stock, a Smash Ball appears. I grab it, but because of auto-handicapping, you just need to Smash me once for me to drop it. I Smash you, using the same Smash from the same character once you've stolen it, but you don't drop it and then use the FS to KO me. Fair? Balanced?

no smash balls, no hammers

 

[EnigmaticCam]

The biggest problem I have with items is simply that I don't want to compete with them on. If I want to play a game that requires me to manipulate probability in my favor, I'll go play poker. There's plenty of that in Vegas.

Maybe if Evo were just allowing a few small items that didn't make much of a difference, like a Mr. Saturn or a Home-run bat, or whatever. Maybe then it wouldn't be so bad. But smash balls? ray guns? Hammers? Now the entire match COMPLETELY changes. I have to spend the whole match worrying that a strong item, one that could potentially grant my opponent or myself a HUGE advantage, could spawn and I may not be there to get it.

Now I have to fight aggressively without any strategic consideration. I have to make sure I'm always in the best position to get an item when it happens. Who cares about the opponent? I'll just obliterate him when I get the item. And if he's good at dodging it? Well that sucks for me, but it won't change my play because I'm certainly not letting him get the next one.

As far as I'm concerned, items only stagnate the game. And when only allowing small items that don't do very much, they simply get in the way and add no value anyways. It's not a game I want to play, and it's not a game I will travel hundreds of miles to compete in.

I just wanted to share this really quickly. I seem to remember a little while ago someone was saying "Are you kidding? Of course SRK recognizes Smash as a real fighting game!"

http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=155923

Sure they do.

After reading some of that thread, I've decided I want nothing to do with SRK anymore. The whole elitist prick attitude is just staggering. I don't care if they change the rules to no items. I don't care if they change the rules to "if your name is enigmaticcam, you get first place automatically". I'm done with Evo, as well as this whole argument.