The real reason Japan is better than America

[Hylian]

I will post this here as well considering it's related:

Also, banning mk to get other characters to catch up is backwards logic. It will only hinder other characters because they won't be getting one of the most important match-up experience, and it will hinder our MKs because they won't be playing him. The same people will be making the money, because they are the best players. It's ONLY the mentality that we need to change to improve our metagame.

A lot of this comes from the negative stigma associated with brawl. People complain about hating the game yet they still play it. They don't really hate it or they wouldn't be playing it, that's just stupid. It's just ingrained into some peoples minds that the game is bad and only minimal effort should be put in to get better at it or that gay strategies are the best way to go. If people weren't as ashamed to enjoy the game you would probably see a lot more effort put into it. Currently most players hardly play except for at tournaments.

In 2008 when the game first came out I would play for HOURS I mean like 5-7 hours a day by myself or on wifi. I discovered so many things, practiced so many characters, and just kept refining my skills because I wanted to be the BEST. And you know what? It worked. I won a LOT of tournaments in 2008, placed top 5 in like every tournament I entered for a year, and constantly improved to beat my rivals. Eventually, I just took my skill for granted(not attesting to all the practice I put in) and fell off. Since then I have never put in that level of determination to be the best because it seems like such a far shot. Why put so much effort into something that isn't likely to happen?

Currently I don't have the time or resources to put in that effort, nor the interest. For the people who do however, do it because it's your passion. So many people try to take the easy way out without even knowing about it. If you REALLY put in the work you will at LEAST be able to win regionals. If you have talent that's how you become a top player. It's the mentality and determination of players that has shaped our metagame, not the characters. It's very possible to change.

 

[Kuro~]

Not really much movement in this thread.

One thing I'm noticing is I think why the Japanese metagame is stronger is because they are playing Brawl, not Melee. I was noticing in the match with Ocean that he was playing solid. He played patiently, took opportunities where he could and never got himself into a bad situation. But the play style here is super aggression. Here is what I mean.

US game, stolen from link in last guy's post
Ocean vs M2K, all three matches

Notice the difference in styles. The first one is super aggressive. Players trade hits constantly. Both leave themselves very open. But Ocean does not. In fact, he plays very safe. He plays smart. He didn't use any cool tricks. Heck, the last game was won by a basic air. People say "Well, M2K shouldn't have gotten him." But Ocean was just waiting for his opening. Same for match 1, where M2K leaves himself open by doing a tornado.

The difference is like Marvel and SF4. Brawl players now are trying to play a very fast game with lots of offense. This was how Melee was too. But Brawl is a slower game. It moves slower in general, has no wavedashing or landing lag cancel and, of course, tripping. But people still tried to play Melee. They tried to play the game fast which is why there was resentment (they only saw fast, and Brawl was slower). But Ocean played it like SF4. Heck, he was doing pokes. Every attack M2K made was for aggression and to try to hit the opponent. When Ocean attacks, it was sometimes to keep him off his back. He won by playing tight.

Maybe this is jumping ahead too much, but this also can explain why Meta-Knight is so dominate. Meta-Knight is the best character for playing fast. He attacks fast and has little to no cooldown or start up on his moves. He's great at doing that. But Ocean won by letting Meta-Knight come to him. He just found opening in Meta-Knights offense. This would be possible in the US since no one is being defensive or solid. They just try to be aggressive themselves and lose because Meta-Knight just does it better.

I'm not very knowledgeable on tournament Smash, but I can see that the Japanese are playing Brawl more like Brawl. They played it slower and safer. I think this is the big take away.

Hate to ask after this big post that should make me look smart, but does anyone have other videos of Japanese players from Apex?

What game have you been watching o.0? Most brawl players are playing this like anything BUT melee. Most players camp severely and play extremely safe. Heck, that's one of the things that made people hate mk more. There's like one area in us that still plays like melee or tries to and that's like...hawaii.

 

[Flayl]

The URC gave lots of different reasons for banning MKs. One of the main criticisms was that they didn't make a list they all agreed on.

None of them said anything about banning MK so other characters could improve.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

At 40ppp (/overlord) I decided tl;dr after about page 9, which isn't too bad as I've been gone since Wednesday.

Hey Tuen:

If stages are the reason Japan is better at Brawl, then how do you explain Japan being ridiculously good at everything else? (Case in point. Name a single American that's that good at anything comparable. BTW, Beatmania shuffles the note chart every time IIRC, so this isn't even muscle memory, this is pure skill.)

Japan's ability is a combination of the work ethic inherent in their culture and their population density. The former is an individual thing IMO (though if you have any ideas to improve the work ethic of Americans/Smash players, I'm all ears), while the latter... have more babies LOL

Also, here's another one. Let's say we adopt not only Japan's ruleset, but their mindset and levels of practice as well. Great, now America = Japan. Now how do we get better?

I should really name search more... I hope I don't miss anyone else pinging me here, heh.

Anyways, their work ethic and the cognitive psychology work together in this case. For things like rhythm games, there's just one thing to focus on: hitting the rhythm in the way the game calls for. For that, their strong work ethic takes over and wins at everything.

In smash, we have the three things I outlined in an earlier post: Yourself, your opponent, and the stage. Human minds have a hard time juggling more than two variables at once, so reducing the complexity helps us deal with all the information coming in.

This reduction of complexity is included in the Japanese stage structure. Now, I have NO idea as to if they knew these principals going in, but they are working in their favor. And learning research does show that students can benefit from structured learning without knowing it, so they may have done this on accident.

Whether or not they did it on purpose or on accident, the simplified system helped them focus more on gameplay and less on stage specific actions. Combine that with their work ethic, and you get an APEX champion.

I think that the stage fix is a good way for us to start... but the work ethic is something else entirely. Someone mentioned that money is important because of the distance we have to travel... and that's true. We also prioritize money in general. The distance to travel could have some to do with it, the crappy wifi here in America could also play a role.

Either way, our work ethic is part II of this problem... and I don't have a good solution for that. Even with my theories. :-/.

 

[Gea]

Except most practice and playtime is done out of tournament on those exact stages. It's a bad excuse to say that players don't get enough time to work on fundamentals because in tournament you have stages like Brinstar.

Most players don't even practice counterpicks except the specific one they enjoy using.

 

[Kuro~]

I still honestly say the wifi is one of the biggest factors when looking at japan...


Just look at SLS. The guy CAME FROM WIFI and started wrecking...

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Except most practice and playtime is done out of tournament on those exact stages. It's a bad excuse to say that players don't get enough time to work on fundamentals because in tournament you have stages like Brinstar.

Most players don't even practice counterpicks except the specific one they enjoy using.

I think this varies by region, honestly. I mean, some people even talked about how they used AllBrawl rules for their APEX practice. So while it'd be hard to prove or disprove your statement, I'd be inclined to say that big 3 + 1-2 counterpick practice is not the case.

When you see practice degenerate to a bunch of tertiary characters on random stages, or all random on all random, that's us... losing focu-- oh hey! A nickel! Really though, we need to actually focus for long periods of practice time. We need to have a controller in our hands for serious practice at least once a day. Overcoming barriers of play is hard work.

Obviously that brings up the "why play if you're not having fun" argument... but that gets more into the 'what drives us?' question... and I don't know what to do about drive.

 

[Elessar]

We know, or at least, I know that the reason behind the ban is not to help the rest of the cast to improve, but I see it as a very positive side effect which I sincerely hope will happen.

 

[Exdeath]

Play to learn in practice, not tournament. If you want to spend money and put your bracket presence on the line with experimentation, that's up to you, but it's ultimately not what the tournament is about.

If this were true, there would be less necessity of a unified rule set. Furthermore, player mindset is a vital element of experience -- both the player and their opponent(s).

 

[Life]

In my (rather limited, to be fair) tournament experience, friendlies are played with the starter list on random. 5-7 stages plus counterpicks isn't much more complicated than three plus counterpicks, especially given that the extras are very similar to the big three. (Seriously, practicing on PS1 or YIB isn't very different from practicing on SV--Lylat a little more so if you or your character has trouble dealing with the ledge. The only particularly mobile one in Unity is CS, but even there phase one is comparable to BF and phase three to Lylat, just with different slopes--and since phase two is the easiest to wait out, AND since it wasn't a starter at Apex anyway...)

It's not totally unfounded (even then, more stages still generally means more depth, which means it would be best to practice on relatively static stages but still keep the complex ones for tournaments, which is what we do already), but it's tiny compared to the work ethic gap, travel/population gap, etc.

Another question: if you took this line to its logical extreme, wouldn't a single custom stage with one moving platform and a couple static ones be the best alternative? Less random than SV and practice with both static and moving (ie. platform-cancellable) platforms...

 

[Gea]

When you see practice degenerate to a bunch of tertiary characters on random stages, or all random on all random, that's us... losing focu--

So then a ruleset change wouldn't be the solution, now would it?


Edit: Additionally it wouldn't be that hard to prove. You're the one saying it's an issue, get some regional TOs to help gather data. It's been done before on which stages are picked how often at tournaments and whooop smashville was the number one pick by a large chunk, if I recall correctly.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

In my (rather limited, to be fair) tournament experience, friendlies are played with the starter list on random. 5-7 stages plus counterpicks isn't much more complicated than three plus counterpicks, especially given that the extras are very similar to the big three. (Seriously, practicing on PS1 or YIB isn't very different from practicing on SV--Lylat a little more so if you or your character has trouble dealing with the ledge. The only particularly mobile one in Unity is CS, but even there phase one is comparable to BF and phase three to Lylat, just with different slopes--and since phase two is the easiest to wait out, AND since it wasn't a starter at Apex anyway...)

It's not totally unfounded (even then, more stages still generally means more depth, which means it would be best to practice on relatively static stages but still keep the complex ones for tournaments, which is what we do already), but it's tiny compared to the work ethic gap, travel/population gap, etc.

Another question: if you took this line to its logical extreme, wouldn't a single custom stage with one moving platform and a couple static ones be the best alternative? Less random than SV and practice with both static and moving (ie. platform-cancellable) platforms...

Keeping 5-7 + Counterpicks is a lot. Castle Siege, Lylat, Halberd, and Frigate are examples of complex stage behavior that wouldn't go well with the variable reduction theory I outlined above. I still stand by this as one of the primary deterrents to our progression (though I agree with the ones you listed too).

The logical extreme doesn't work because that custom stage doesn't appear in tournaments. Transfer of skills to other stages is something I've been pulling for, but you still must root your base skill set in something that appears in events for this to work the best. If you put your practice conditions *too* far outside event conditions, the number of changes necessary for transfer becomes too great. It's a balance that needs to be struck.

So then a ruleset change wouldn't be the solution, now would it?

No, it would not fix the motivation problem. I do, however, outline two primary issues. The first being the process we use to learn, which can be fixed by a ruleset change. The second is our motivation which is a more difficult problem to approach.

 

[Calvonta "Calvo" parker]

Sounds like

 

[Gea]

Except tournaments are not where we practice, but where we test our skills. A ruleset change would not force people to practice any more of their fundamentals than they already do. Provide the data proving otherwise.

 

[Life]

I'm still thinking you're greatly overrating the impact of stages on the learning process (at least the Apex stages--now if Apex used MY ideal ruleset involving OSF and 20+ stages, you might have a leg on which to stand). As someone pointed out above, you can't adapt to jumping once when the big siren and flashing lights in the background go off? To moving out of the way when the giant laser/cannon come out (okay, the claw's slightly understandable, but still)? It's basically nothing. For 99% of the game, they're just differently shaped Battlefields.

Even assuming your premise is correct, it's not going to help enough to cover the gap.

 

[Exdeath]

In the context of this thread, PS2 is not a viable stage because it requires mutual familiarity for it to be as match-up neutral as it is commonly thought to be. If PS2 was legal at APEX, it would have been a powerful counter-pick against foreign players for this reason.

I'm still thinking you're greatly overrating the impact of stages on the learning process (at least the Apex stages--now if Apex used MY ideal ruleset involving OSF and 20+ stages, you might have a leg on which to stand). As someone pointed out above, you can't adapt to jumping once when the big siren and flashing lights in the background go off? To moving out of the way when the giant laser/cannon come out (okay, the claw's slightly understandable, but still)? It's basically nothing. For 99% of the game, they're just differently shaped Battlefields.

Even assuming your premise is correct, it's not going to help enough to cover the gap.

It is shallow to compare Frigate and Halberd with Battlefied. Their sizes are different (The differences are more noticeable in doubles, where spacing is even more delicate.). Even the requisite visual skill is different (there is not a necessity in the least to watch Battlefield's background). Their function is different (e.g. DDD has chain grabs available on Halberd and Frigate that aren't possible on Battlefield).

 

[Skadorski]

It is shallow to compare Frigate and Halberd with Battlefied. Their sizes are different (The differences are more noticeable in doubles, where spacing is even more delicate.).

I would also like to point out that recoveries are likely effected by the stage as well. You may have to recover in a different way than other stages (like Halberd's lip).

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Except tournaments are not where we practice, but where we test our skills. A ruleset change would not force people to practice any more of their fundamentals than they already do. Provide the data proving otherwise.

You *should* be able to utilize new skills in local events. If we're practicing right, local events should be treated exactly the same. Bust out your pocket Diddy/ICs, try that weird tech you repeated 100 times a day. Use the wider player base you see in that event to see how real people react. Your training buddy will see it coming, and that might not be a good indicator of the value of the new tech/method/read in tournament. You have to try it on fresh players, hence the use in local events.

Provide data? No thank you. I am willing to outline the framework for becoming better at this game, but I'm not so invested that I'd utilize free time to gather data for this purpose. I am, after all, a retired smasher. I would simply like to see the community grow, and the framework of learning science may help should players choose to adapt these methods.

 

[Gea]

First, I'd like to make the distinction between practicing and learning. You can learn at a tournament plenty. They are not for practicing, however. You may get better by attending events, but restructuring the ruleset to be "most efficient for practice" is saying that tournaments are there for practice and not a test of skill. You know, prior practicing.

You say that players are liable do whatever they want in friendlies regardless of ruleset (more or less anyways), and then say that training is indeed where new techniques are developed. You have a two pronged "attack" on this situation. One is changing the ruleset to get people to practice their fundamentals more. This is assuming that they actually practice under the ruleset. The second is they must actually practice... which you haven't seem to provide a solution for except that players should practice.

This is still discounting the years that people have done exactly this-- and severely understates just how much the stages japan's stagelist includes are played over those that are not. If players need to practice more seriously, then it is no fault of the ruleset in itself and their practice should come at no change of how tournaments are played. Players need to come to their own conclusions on what they need to work on and work diligently to become better.

Second, it's silly to blame the skillgap to players focusing on "stage gimmicks" and then go on to discount that the stages that Japan endorse all have their own "gimmicks." Is it not important for a Snake to understand how to use the moving platform on Smashville, an Olimar how to manipulate pikmin pulls on just about any stage, a MK to know how to use platforms to cancel his shuttleloop (battlefield comes to mind)? Any character with a chaingrab works much differently on FD than other stages-- these can and are all stage dependent tactics that can and do come into play.

Some of the people arguing for this stage list are doing it simply because they feel like it hurts MK and may avoid a ban situation, while others, like you, advocate it because you think it somehow facilitates faster learning. You're removing all of the external variables from the equation and altering the game to attempt and goad players into practicing well when those are choices players need to make for themselves to begin with. Don't change the game because you suck-- if your theory is true, then players who want to succeed should take it upon themselves to follow these directions, not force everyone to attempt in hopes every player grows.

This is an excuse and nothing more.

Also making a claim with no data doesn't provide a very solid "framework." You're giving us a theory based on what, your own intuition and assumptions? So the ruleset should be changed because your gut tells you this is the way to go? After all, you're assuming what you're saying coincides with other studies... but you have no evidence to back up this claim except conjecture that the ruleset is what allowed some Japanese players to win this tournament.

As a final note, I'd like to add that Japan actually practiced our ruleset before coming over here. You know, the stages they didn't know? Yeah, they practiced those so they would know them better.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

First, I'd like to make the distinction between practicing and learning. You can learn at a tournament plenty. They are not for practicing, however. You may get better by attending events, but restructuring the ruleset to be "most efficient for practice" is saying that tournaments are there for practice and not a test of skill. You know, prior practicing.

You say that players are liable do whatever they want in friendlies regardless of ruleset (more or less anyways), and then say that training is indeed where new techniques are developed. You have a two pronged "attack" on this situation. One is changing the ruleset to get people to practice their fundamentals more. This is assuming that they actually practice under the ruleset. The second is they must actually practice... which you haven't seem to provide a solution for except that players should practice.

This is still discounting the years that people have done exactly this-- and severely understates just how much the stages japan's stagelist includes are played over those that are not. If players need to practice more seriously, then it is no fault of the ruleset in itself and their practice should come at no change of how tournaments are played. Players need to come to their own conclusions on what they need to work on and work diligently to become better.

Second, it's silly to blame the skillgap to players focusing on "stage gimmicks" and then go on to discount that the stages that Japan endorse all have their own "gimmicks." Is it not important for a Snake to understand how to use the moving platform on Smashville, an Olimar how to manipulate pikmin pulls on just about any stage, a MK to know how to use platforms to cancel his shuttleloop (battlefield comes to mind)? Any character with a chaingrab works much differently on FD than other stages-- these can and are all stage dependent tactics that can and do come into play.

Some of the people arguing for this stage list are doing it simply because they feel like it hurts MK and may avoid a ban situation, while others, like you, advocate it because you think it somehow facilitates faster learning. You're removing all of the external variables from the equation and altering the game to attempt and goad players into practicing well when those are choices players need to make for themselves to begin with. Don't change the game because you suck-- if your theory is true, then players who want to succeed should take it upon themselves to follow these directions, not force everyone to attempt in hopes every player grows.

This is an excuse and nothing more.

I appreciate the well thought out discussion being had here. I respect that, and am glad we're not going down the 'whoever has bigger insults wins' type of pathway seen on forums.

But onto the points made here. It may be out of order, but I'd like to address the "you think it somehow facilitates faster learning". I did not mention rate in my framework, and I believe that it will be a slow process. I just think that this is a better learning structure for the cultivation and retention of fundamentals.

Next, there is the possibility of discounting player dedication. When our pros go to 'level up' so to speak, they spend weeks on end practicing their skills. I'm arguing that this is what needs to be maintained over even longer periods of time to truly hone our skills. There are other posts and interviews that show it to be more common that players fall out of practice and subsequently attempt a quick injection of practice just before a national with the hopes that it will be enough to work. I argue that it will not be. Technical execution must be maintained, just as an athlete's physique must be.

Stage gimmicks, a common theme in the discussions here, to me mean things such as stage transformations or movements, drastically limiting conditions (the ceiling on Halberd comes to mind, as do temporary walkoffs present in some stages), and stage hazards (halberd to an extent, brinstar's pseudo-random acid behavior, etc). Knowing how to utilize platforms for snake, pikmin pull rates for olimar, or shuttle loop cancels for MK are all great examples of basic skills that can be transferred from stage to stage (though for olimar, it's more of the general concept, since pikmin pulls vary). Players do not commonly hone these skills to perfection, since game 2 can be played out on a stage that allows for instant kills via flips (or at the very least, stage control disadvantage for the player that didn't utilize it right), walk off infinites, sharking and planking, and match up altering stage choices.

The stage gimmicks bit above still depends on the multiple variables idea. Considering more than three variables at once (self, opponent, stage) can be a burden on a learning mind. The reduction of stage choices will allow for greater focus.

But this focus comes back to player motivation. You made plenty of statements about player motivation, and I don't have a decent response for it. I have no idea how to get people to improve more.

Last bit here, you talked about events with respect to practice and trying to separate practice and skill testing. I believe that events can be used for both. It's a scaffolding issue. When a skill is developed you have the stages it goes through:

1. Conception and Refinement
2. Player Testing
3. Event Execution

I argue that the last one can only be done in tournament, as it incorporates your ability to remain calm, retain crisp execution, and deal with a player that has never seen your refined work (i.e. someone that's not involved in #2). This is a general outline as to how to scaffold knowledge integration in your gameplay. Since it does require some tournaments to be used as polishing grounds, I've suggested that this be used for locals. Hopefully you're not trying to make any major adjustments during a national...

Anyways, I hope that wasn't too jumbled.

 

[Gea]

You didn't have anything to add or discuss the idea that most matches and practice are not done on dynamic stages?

Once again I feel like you underrate how important and prevalent these matches are. So what if you get an easy win game 2? That implies game 3, the other player will also get the easy win. Ergo the winner of game 1 (on that neutral) is still the winner. Or that the loser of game 2 may go back to a neutral and use their superior fundamentals to win the set.

So under the assumption that those variable such as frigate's flip (which I would argue isn't even the most MU changing aspect of the stage, but rather the edgeless right side, platforms that come from the blastzones, and the middle platform are far more dominate factors on the stage) are powerful enough to auto-win a game, it still doesn't answer the question of "well what about game 1?" Game 1 would be the most important match of the set (and often is) and thus a changing of rules still wouldn't shift wins. In fact it would just behoove players to ignore practicing on counterpicks and for a lack of a better term "let them get gayed" because they will just win match 3 on a regular stage.

In practice... that isn't really the case.

 

[Ruuku]

I do, however, outline two primary issues. The first being the process we use to learn, which can be fixed by a ruleset change. The second is our motivation which is a more difficult problem to approach.

Could one argue that second issue could have a negative affect on attempting to fix the first one? And that there maybe is a difference in importance/significance between them?

 

[Dr. Tuen]

You didn't have anything to add or discuss the idea that most matches and practice are not done on dynamic stages?

Once again I feel like you underrate how important and prevalent these matches are. So what if you get an easy win game 2? That implies game 3, the other player will also get the easy win. Ergo the winner of game 1 (on that neutral) is still the winner. Or that the loser of game 2 may go back to a neutral and use their superior fundamentals to win the set.

So under the assumption that those variable such as frigate's flip (which I would argue isn't even the most MU changing aspect of the stage, but rather the edgeless right side, platforms that come from the blastzones, and the middle platform are far more dominate factors on the stage) are powerful enough to auto-win a game, it still doesn't answer the question of "well what about game 1?" Game 1 would be the most important match of the set (and often is) and thus a changing of rules still wouldn't shift wins. In fact it would just behoove players to ignore practicing on counterpicks and for a lack of a better term "let them get gayed" because they will just win match 3 on a regular stage.

In practice... that isn't really the case.

The way we practice is up to the people in question. I've heard a lot of varying stories. People that just do the big 3, people that just do smashville, people that use neutrals and CPs, and even people that use all stages. I'd like to say that consistent practice on the big 3 was the case, but I can't make a sweeping statement like that.

We have a lot of rules in place to prevent players from getting 2 great stages in a row. It enforces the idea of game 1 being very important. In a set that goes to third game, the winner of game 1 has two stages taken from him in the final counterpick: the first stage win and the opponent's ban. We seem to disagree on the importance of stages, but that's alright. It happens. The question you call is still very interesting. If the stages are as important as I think they are... then game 1 has become of even more paramount importance? What do we do?

If we're following the Japanese analogy, we learn to adjust to players in less than one game. They do not have DSR or stage banning, so of the six allowable stages, any can be used at any time by the player who is currently choosing a stage. It'd be interesting to learn about how often their sets go to game 3 and all, and I can't really make many more generalizations about this... but it seems like the importance of game 1 is known and accounted for via their quick adaptation skills.

Anyways, back to practice again for a bit here. I think the whole 'restrict to less stages thing' works, but it works over long periods of time. The other stages shouldn't be integrated until the foundation of your skills is complete. Until then, practicing one way and competing another way muddles this process.

I also don't think "most matches and practice are not done on dynamic stages" is entirely accurate either... but I can't prove it.

I'm starting to get a little ADHD (the condition, not the player) fried... and I have a party to get to. I'll be happy to return to the topic tomorrow.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Could one argue that second issue could have a negative affect on attempting to fix the first one? And that there maybe is a difference in importance/significance between them?

Yeah, this is essentially correct. Even if we go with "oh yay, Tuen's system is perfect!" (which it's not... it's just what i consider better given my background), it won't matter if people don't use it.

Motivation is so individual though... so I don't know where to start when addressing that.

 

[Gea]

Nah, I'm done discussing. In the end really it is up to the TOs and community. Even if it isn't for the best for the game, they are ultimately the ones that will be using the ruleset, and not us (I don't play Brawl any longer either).

 

[ElDominio]

Threads like these made me jump ship to UMvC3

 

[Ruuku]

Yeah, this is essentially correct. Even if we go with "oh yay, Tuen's system is perfect!" (which it's not... it's just what i consider better given my background), it won't matter if people don't use it.

Motivation is so individual though... so I don't know where to start when addressing that.

Well from experience, the easiest way would be to first get players that have the most influence over the metagame/community to agree with or at least work with you. The masses then often start following. I do have to say that the strong presence of individualistic behaviors seen in the American Brawl community doesn't seem to really smother collectivist ones like the sudden "us vs them". So if the "I vs all" was able to become "us vs them", it wouldn't be hopeless to think that this othering could eventually evolve to the arguably healthier "me vs me".

 

[B_AWAL]

This is 100% truth

We gotta focus on just being BETTER

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[B_AWAL]

rofl... it's all about the money!

Damn it you caught me RIGHT b4 I edited it!



lmfao

 

[SmashChu]

What game have you been watching o.0? Most brawl players are playing this like anything BUT melee. Most players camp severely and play extremely safe. Heck, that's one of the things that made people hate mk more. There's like one area in us that still plays like melee or tries to and that's like...hawaii.

Not sure what you really think safe is. Watching a match you gave in another thread, the difference is obvious.

I'll try to find out who it is, but there is an SC2 player (think it's MVP) who does X as long as he can and doesn't the minute he can't. Like, he will drop on a zerg all day but once Mutas come out, it immediately ends. Ocean does that. When he had a gyro, he would attack. His aggression and defense was based on the situation. The big thing is does what he can get away with. From what I'm seeing, it seems like a lot of US players are do something just because. A lot of the time, their aggression gets them in a bad situation

A quick example of what I mean. Watch how Marth puts himself in a bad situation.
Kadaj vs M2k (note the second KO on Marth)

 

[Gea]

I don't know why everyone keeps using M2K vs Ocean as the example. Yes, he lost, but it definitely wasn't his best play. No johns for him, I just don't think that set represented American MK play at it's best by any means, and I question those who do.

Come on now, we know better than to keep gliding into people, especially someone like ROB.

 

[WindMajor]

What's best is that he starts his UpB's from the other side of the map, lol.

 

[X1Type1]

Japan wins Brawl, Europe win Melee, Canada wins 64 and USA wins AllBrawl. LOL but seriously, theres more to it than just this. Japan doesnt play for money normally. What drives them isnt material, its the will to win. They want to be the best and so they practice every matchup and they think about every move they make. Also, they play smart. They are relaxed when they play and the phrase momentum, doesnt exist with them. For instance when Nario lost a stock, he would lose focus, as most USA smashers do. When Otori screws up, he dont let it affect his gameplay, and niether do any other of the Japaneese players. They dont think about it at all, they just keep a level head. Also they never blame a MU or a stage for losing. They blame thermselves and then look to improve, not rely on a counterpick. Their rulesets are very different. Like I said they don't have counterpicks, they only play Smashville, FD and Battlefeild. Also dont have a ledge grab limit, they have a minimum ground time rule in effect so u can just fly around and plank. I'm pretty sure theres some kind of rule with chaingrabbing but im not entirely sure how it works. In teams I'll bet in teams that Omnigay thing is banned too. Basically, our rulesets were designed to limit mk, while japans focuses on balancing the game so that the outcome resting soley on the skill of the players. It shudnt be whats in the tv that depicts the outcome, it shud be the one behind the tv.

 

[kailo34ce]

why do people keep saying the same thing over and over about japan and honor and why it effects etc and a bunch of things that obviously as americans we wouldnt understand because we dont operate that way. we can only assume. this hive-mind stuff is really annoying. when you read someones post and say like the same thing in different wording it doesnt make it your own opinion.

Issues with brawl in the USA:

1)mk rules and mk determines everything

2)we dont have "fundamentals" apparently and thats why we lost certain sets to Japan

banning mk would solve problem 1, and probably problem 2 because i mean mk takes skill to use but he is pretty autopilot, there are tons of janky mks out there that get higher placings than a janky stage might get someone.

banning all the stages may solve this problem two because the reasons given in this thread.

the evidence given by the pro stage ban group is that japan has fundamentals because ocean beat m2k, well if thats true we could just as easily beat japan mks without mk.

so by all reasonings mk being banned wouldnt hurt the game.

 

[Tommy_G]

Issues with brawl in the USA:

1)mk rules and mk determines everything

 

[PZ]

Idk how to reply to this thread lol

1st thought of replying: Title=Seibrik's last ditch effort to save his beloved character
2nd thought of replying: Japan adjusts better than America and although we have a good player for literally all our characters we still have a problem with mk:<
3rd thought of replying: Otori adrenalized...that is all

 

[kailo34ce]

tommy_g lol dude are you serious ? do you not see what like everyone is talking about lol? mk defines what competitive brawl is and is cited in pretty much every discussion about developing competitively. also he makes up for the majority of placings and is a measuring stick for what makes a player good and also the whole ocean ordeal. its not like either of my 2 points were my opinions, it was me citing issues that are being discussed. please go away

 

[Xaltis]

tommy_g lol dude are you serious ? do you not see what like everyone is talking about lol? mk defines what competitive brawl is and is cited in pretty much every discussion about developing competitively. also he makes up for the majority of placings and is a measuring stick for what makes a player good and also the whole ocean ordeal. its not like either of my 2 points were my opinions, it was me citing issues that are being discussed. please go away

Um what are you talking about? Did you even read the first post of this thread? Metaknight doesn't determine anything...

 

[SmashChu]

I don't know why everyone keeps using M2K vs Ocean as the example. Yes, he lost, but it definitely wasn't his best play. No johns for him, I just don't think that set represented American MK play at it's best by any means, and I question those who do.

Come on now, we know better than to keep gliding into people, especially someone like ROB.

Did the other US players have an off day too? Because the minute they met a Japanese player, they lost. Most of the top 8 was Japanese from my look.
EDIT:Could be wrong. Checking the results again.