Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 Thinking of joining the Pro Tour

[ph00tbag]

First of all, I can think of discreet and rational competitive reasons for stock matches... If you'd all like, I can list them.

Please do. Whether you like it or not, the validity of your whole argument kind of rests on this point in my eyes.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, would you like the reasons in and of themselves, or do you mean "why stock matches, and not coin matches"?

EDIT: Jesus, it's almost 3 AM here. If I don't respond immediately, it's because I've passed out. Just warning you.

 

[ph00tbag]

Ok, would you like the reasons in and of themselves, or do you mean "why stock matches, and not coin matches"?

Why is a two minute timed match, the null state of any smash game, less valid than an eight minute stock match? What about timed matches makes the game unplayable at a high level, and thus makes eight minute stock matches the next viable option?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, that's easy.

Let's start with the null state: the 2-minute time match. For the thought experiment, we'll have two pairs of players: 2 players evenly matched, and one pair with an obvious skill difference. The purpose of a contest is to decide who is more skilled; keep that in mind during this post.

So, we play the 2-minute match. The pair with the obvious skill difference (let's call them pair A for now) has a match that isn't even a contest; one player has 5 kills and 0 deaths. It's not even fair. The evenly matched pair (pair B) has a very different match, and neither player gets a kill. The match goes to sudden death, and they start camping for that single ending blow... and one player gets TOASTED by a bomb. "No fair!", he claims. "The game didn't even let us find out who was better; it just arbitrarily finished the match for us!" Ok, fair enough point; he didn't even get time to react to the bomb. Obviously the game's built in sudden death isn't going to cut it. Time to make a new win state for the game.

Since getting KOs is so important to figuring out who is better, and since (gimping aside) you need to give damage to KO, we deduce that damage % is a relatively accurate measure of how well a player is doing during the match. Thus, it is decided that we'll supersede the game's sudden death mechanic, and simply state that, if the game WOULD have gone to sudden death, whoever has taken the least damage at time will win the match. We're reinforced by the fact that this mechanic has worked for various fighting games for over a decade, so it's tried and true.

This brings us to ANOTHER problem, though. One of the players mains Sonic, and he's gotten REALLY good at playing keep-away. He's figured out that if you rack up some quick damage, it's pretty simple, especially on certain stages, to simply run away for the remainder of the two minutes and win the match that way. Now, the game is steadily degenerating, because the players aren't actually fighting each other, which is kind of a big deal in a fighting game. *sigh* Ok, so now how are we going to force the players to still try for KOs and make the timer less influential? Well, if we add a stock to the match and increase the amount of time necessary to time out, it will make stalling harder, and so it will be less rewarding. Not to mention, if the staller messes up, especially on certain stages, he can get gimped at low % and lose the match early, putting him at greater risk.

Oh, but let's go back to our other pair. Out of ten matches, one player wins 9 times. That 10th match, though, he trips into an Ike F-smash and dies. Crap, now we have ANOTHER problem: consistency. Trips happen, but if one trip can cost a better player the match, that's a big deal. It's even worse if it happens in bracket. *sigh* Well, what if we increase the number of stocks? What are the odds of a stock-losing accident happening twice in one match? Lower, that's for sure. Ok, stocks increased. Problem solved.

...oh, but wait, now that there are two lives to kill, more matches are going to time again, and we already don't want that. In the name of not artificially inflating the power of camping like we did before, we increase the time limit to compensate.

At this point, we now have a 2-stock, multi-minute match (most likely, 5 or 6 minutes). As play becomes more refined, it may become necessary to tweak the time limit or stock amount, but that's only a hypothetical at this point. This is the basic evolution of how our stock/time format came to be. Obviously, there are subtle nuances that I simplified for the sake of argument (and for the sake of not having a 10-page post), but I'm sure you get the point.

It's wordy, but that's because I wanted to MAKE SURE everyone understood. Question answered?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Also I don't quite see how 2 minutes is more of a default state than any other when the designer gives us the switch to change it up.

 

[ph00tbag]

You have shown why Sudden Death is degenerate, Jack. Not two minute timed matches.

Try again.

 

[TheLastCacely]

phoot is the best person in the world.

 

[rathy Aro]

You have shown why Sudden Death is degenerate, Jack. Not two minute timed matches.

Try again.

Well one problem I see is that with only two minutes the game is likely go to time without either player getting a KO. For it to not go to sudden death we would have to enforce our own arbitrary rules about percent lead wins. The game would basically center around keeping the percent lead for two minutes, which isn't even a component of the game.

Another problem with timed matches is that suicides don't give the opponent an extra point, which means you can get the KO and then kill yourself to guarantee your lead. Also at a high percent everyone would try SD. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't seem to suite the nature of smash to me. I think you can adjust suicides to count as -2 anyway so it doesn't even matter.

Aside from that, I personally just prefer stock. I'd rather not get destroyed for 6 minutes if my opponent is a lot better than me and I'd rather not destroy someone for 6 minutes if I'm much better than them. With stock one sided matches are much quicker and the more entertaining, even matches take longer.

edit: I just looked at the previous page. Its seems like an arguement over what is (everyone else) vs. what should be (Jack). We are arguing about the way the game should be so countering Jack by saying "well this is just the way it is" really doesn't refute anything. Instead everyone should just concede that people agreeing on something doesn't it make it right and instead find what is most right (to the best of our abilities). After we've done that we can worry about practicality.

P.S. Items shouldn't be banned.

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

wow you two should consider what and why u r arguing
and smoke a joint|D

 

[Jack Kieser]

ph00t... everything is connected, you realize that, right? I've shown why 2-minute matches are degenerate because a facet of two minute matches is that A LOT OF THEM GO TO TIME. 2 minutes has been demonstrated to be too short, and that was in FASTER games, that were LESS campy!

If you can't see that from my post, it's because you don't WANT to see, plain and simple. I layed it out so that a TWO YEAR OLD could understand; you're just trying to cause problems.

Jesus, what are you going to say next? "Temple was never proven to be degenerate, circle camping was; just play on the rest of the stage"?

 

[ph00tbag]

It's not connected. Not at all. Sudden Death appears in every game mode. It is Smash's sole arbiter of who wins in the event of any tie. And it is broken. It is so broken that in a correctly played Sudden Death, no KO will ever, ever obtain. Since Sudden Death is so degenerate and unavoidable, we are going to have to invent an arbitrary set of rules to circumvent it. So why bother changing the game from its null state if your reasoning (Sudden Death) is not going to change when you change game modes?

It's not because a two minute timed match would be campy, either. If you don't like the notion of someone winning a match by percent lead, then you need to rethink the game. In other fighting games, winning by time out is not unheard of at all, and doing so requires as much skill as winning by KO. So why should Smash be any different?

As to tripping, it can decide close matches no matter how many chances you have. It's a moot point.

You have to understand, Jack, you're laying out these arguments as though I already agree with you about two minute time matches. I don't. I genuinely find nothing wrong with two minute timed matches, and you genuinely have pointed out nothing that I haven't thought of. You're acting like Sudden Death is the reason we don't play two minute time matches, but it's not Sudden Death is the reason we don't play Sudden Death, period. This is something I'm all too aware of. And the short time's effect on the campiness on the game, and the impact of tripping are both moot points, because they're elements of the game that you're just going to have to man up and accept, no matter how you play the game. I already thought of these, and they didn't really affect my opinion.

Thankfully for you, rathy Aro has brought up an interesting point that you haven't, and in a much less belligerent way, so I'll address that.

Another problem with timed matches is that suicides don't give the opponent an extra point, which means you can get the KO and then kill yourself to guarantee your lead. Also at a high percent everyone would try SD. Maybe this isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't seem to suite the nature of smash to me. I think you can adjust suicides to count as -2 anyway so it doesn't even matter.

Well, to begin with, Brawl's SD system circumvents such abuses. You cannot be awarded a self destruct unless you have never been hit by your opponent in your entire stock. So SDing to reset your percent to zero after KOing your opponent would still count as their KO. However, it doesn't solve the problem of someone trying to maintain infinite invincibility by dying, then perpetually SDing to stall. This would be a problematic abuse of game mechanics.

But you've already given the solution. And that strikes me as the better answer. Why switch to a completely different game mode for nebulous reasons, then further alter that game mode from its null state, when doing so won't really solve the problems you sought to fix in the first place, when you can just tweak one setting in the default game mode, and not have to worry about stock matches? Set SDs to -2, and be done with it.

Well, rathy actually gives a very, very good answer to that question in the next paragraph.

Aside from that, I personally just prefer stock. I'd rather not get destroyed for 6 minutes if my opponent is a lot better than me and I'd rather not destroy someone for 6 minutes if I'm much better than them. With stock one sided matches are much quicker and the more entertaining, even matches take longer.

Although in all reality, any destruction would only last two minutes.

wow you two should consider what and why u r arguing
and smoke a joint|D

Who says I'm not smoking a joint? I just like to argue.

PS: Items still are not banned.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Also I don't quite see how 2 minutes is more of a default state than any other when the designer gives us the switch to change it up.

Still this, somehow.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, the designer gives up plenty of stuff. Doesn't mean we use it. Also doesn't mean it's helpful to us. Sak gave us a heavy mode switch, why don't we use that? He gave us tournament mode, why don't we use that? He gave us the Stage switch, why don't we use that (for stages other than starters or match 1)?

The thing that throws a wrench into all of these arguments forever will be the stage counterpick system. Why do we give the LOSER an advantage? Why do we give ANYONE an advantage? What's wrong with only turning off banned stages in the stage select and players can't choose the stage at all? In a practical sense, it's better for tournament run times; you're cutting out all that time people take CP'ing stages. We don't have to EXPLAIN this wordy system to new players. And, the game defaults to random stage selection, anyway; press start at the CSS, and the cursor starts on "Random". Just press start twice, stage selection problem solved. We play with the maximum number of stages possible, and we ensure that one of the original skills of the game (stage knowledge) is maximized (you better know all the legal stages if you don't know which one you're going to).

See, we want to SELECTIVELY say "well, there's a switch for that". Well, there's a switch for stages, too. It's Brawl; there's a switch for EVERYTHING. That doesn't mean that every switch maximizes competition, and considering we're a COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY, when we use switches or make rules, MAXIMIZING COMPETITION IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Everything else is scrubbiness. If you use a switch or ban something or make a rule because you WANT to, and not because it maximizes competitiveness, you're doing it wrong in a tournament setting. Do whatever you want at home, but in a tournament setting, our only goal is maximizing competitiveness.

 

[rathy Aro]

It's not connected. Not at all. Sudden Death appears in every game mode. It is Smash's sole arbiter of who wins in the event of any tie. And it is broken. It is so broken that in a correctly played Sudden Death, no KO will ever, ever obtain. Since Sudden Death is so degenerate and unavoidable, we are going to have to invent an arbitrary set of rules to circumvent it. So why bother changing the game from its null state if your reasoning (Sudden Death) is not going to change when you change game modes?

It's not because a two minute timed match would be campy, either. If you don't like the notion of someone winning a match by percent lead, then you need to rethink the game. In other fighting games, winning by time out is not unheard of at all, and doing so requires as much skill as winning by KO. So why should Smash be any different?

The problem, IMO is that 2 minutes makes going to time not only more likely, but the focus of the battle. Percent lead win is not naturally in the game (like in other fighters) and that's why I feel we should try as hard as possible to make the game not center around it; it should play as small a role as possible. But this is really only a problem with 2 minutes not playing time matches (2 minute 3 stocks would have the exact same problem). I also want to point out that matches shouldn't rarely go to time in an 8 minute match. When you camp in brawl, you camp to force your opponent to approach, NOT to time them out, even when planking, If your opponent tries to out camp you when they can't, its their own fault that they got time out. With 2 minutes, its realistic (and probably optimal) to camp to time out as opposed to force an approach.

Thankfully for you, rathy Aro has brought up an interesting point that you haven't, and in a much less belligerent way, so I'll address that.


Well, to begin with, Brawl's SD system circumvents such abuses. You cannot be awarded a self destruct unless you have never been hit by your opponent in your entire stock. So SDing to reset your percent to zero after KOing your opponent would still count as their KO. However, it doesn't solve the problem of someone trying to maintain infinite invincibility by dying, then perpetually SDing to stall. This would be a problematic abuse of game mechanics.

But you've already given the solution. And that strikes me as the better answer. Why switch to a completely different game mode for nebulous reasons, then further alter that game mode from its null state, when doing so won't really solve the problems you sought to fix in the first place, when you can just tweak one setting in the default game mode, and not have to worry about stock matches? Set SDs to -2, and be done with it.

Well, rathy actually gives a very, very good answer to that question in the next paragraph.


Although in all reality, any destruction would only last two minutes.

I didn't know about the suicide thing before; that's interesting.

And I'm speaking under the assumption that we would have to adjust the game from 2 minutes to something more reasonable like may 6, at the minimum 4.

edit:

Well, the designer gives up plenty of stuff. Doesn't mean we use it. Also doesn't mean it's helpful to us. Sak gave us a heavy mode switch, why don't we use that? He gave us tournament mode, why don't we use that? He gave us the Stage switch, why don't we use that (for stages other than starters or match 1)?

The thing that throws a wrench into all of these arguments forever will be the stage counterpick system. Why do we give the LOSER an advantage? Why do we give ANYONE an advantage? What's wrong with only turning off banned stages in the stage select and players can't choose the stage at all? In a practical sense, it's better for tournament run times; you're cutting out all that time people take CP'ing stages. We don't have to EXPLAIN this wordy system to new players. And, the game defaults to random stage selection, anyway; press start at the CSS, and the cursor starts on "Random". Just press start twice, stage selection problem solved. We play with the maximum number of stages possible, and we ensure that one of the original skills of the game (stage knowledge) is maximized (you better know all the legal stages if you don't know which one you're going to).

I agree that the CP system isn't necessary. When you think about it, the reason we play 3 games was probably to make sure that the better player is even more likely to win the set. That said the three games should be of equal weight and test the same skills. Everyone knows that the first game is by far the most crucial and often secures the winner the set. If the better player loses the first game against someone they're close to in skill, they likely aren't actually going to win the set even if they play better for the next two games due to CP disadvantage defeating the point of having three games anyway.

Anyway back to the point, random stages is probably what I would consider part of the null state, but any element of randomness that can favor the lesser player of hurt the better player is bad. Now if everyone played MK dittos then random stages wouldn't really matter as it wouldn't affect the matchup. If the stage could be chosen first and then characters be picked, that would pretty much solve the problem.

tl:dr version: CP system isn't needed and random stages is bad unless you can pick character first (double blind) after the stage is chosen.

 

[ph00tbag]

The thing that throws a wrench into all of these arguments forever will be the stage counterpick system. Why do we give the LOSER an advantage? Why do we give ANYONE an advantage? What's wrong with only turning off banned stages in the stage select and players can't choose the stage at all? In a practical sense, it's better for tournament run times; you're cutting out all that time people take CP'ing stages. We don't have to EXPLAIN this wordy system to new players. And, the game defaults to random stage selection, anyway; press start at the CSS, and the cursor starts on "Random". Just press start twice, stage selection problem solved. We play with the maximum number of stages possible, and we ensure that one of the original skills of the game (stage knowledge) is maximized (you better know all the legal stages if you don't know which one you're going to).

It's a fair point. Japan actually does it this way. A minor complaint I see is that it ultimately reduces stage variety, because there are some stages that are just too unbalanced to be a randomly selected stage, but that are acceptable when used to benefit a counterpicking player. Japan only has three available stages that are randomly selected every game. We might have five, maximum.

However, in no game ever has there been an internal system for counterpicking. And in every fighting game community where more than one game is played (American Street Fighter, American Guilty Gear), the counterpick system benefits the loser, because the winner can't even change characters. The Smash Community has character counterpicks, like other fighters, but since it also emphasizes stage knowledge, the option for a counterpicking analogue for stages is also there.

Or would you also ban character counterpicking? By your argumentation, since there is no internal setting to allow for character counterpicks, then they shouldn't be there.

The problem, IMO is that 2 minutes makes going to time not only more likely, but the focus of the battle. Percent lead win is not naturally in the game (like in other fighters) and that's why I feel we should try as hard as possible to make the game not center around it; it should play as small a role as possible. But this is really only a problem with 2 minutes not playing time matches (2 minute 3 stocks would have the exact same problem). I also want to point out that matches shouldn't rarely go to time in an 8 minute match. When you camp in brawl, you camp to force your opponent to approach, NOT to time them out, even when planking, If your opponent tries to out camp you when they can't, its their own fault that they got time out. With 2 minutes, its realistic (and probably optimal) to camp to time out as opposed to force an approach.

This is a really good point. I suppose I have to concede on this point. Even though I disagree with some of your evidence, minimizing reliance on a win condition that the game doesn't naturally refer to is an admirable goal. Although, I will say that I don't think this makes 3 stock 8 minutes any more preferable. I think it's equally preferable, since it doesn't really solve the problem, it just covers it up. Bottom line, Sakurai needs to either seriously rethink the Sudden Death concept, or scrap it altogether. It's really a stain on the game as a whole.

I really have to say this, though, Smashers really need to stop thinking of camping in order to time out as a bad thing.

 

[ryuu seika]

Banning items? Seriously? Maybe one hit KO (or near that) items like the motion senser bomb, bobom and pow hammer should be banned but surely the rush to grab an item is a fight in itself, adding a whole new depth to competetive play. Yes, it may add a bit much luck but should you really be removing this integral part of the game?

 

[Ackya v2.0]

Look at these pre-pubescent *******! They think Daigo can speak English this well! I can never underestimate the intelligence of Brawl kids...

 

[Djent]

Look at these pre-pubescent *******! They think Daigo can speak English this well! I can never underestimate the intelligence of Brawl kids...

Look at this guy. He's still stuck on page 3 of the thread, not realizing that the discussion shifted away from Daigo pages ago. I can never underestimate the intelligence of trolls.

 

[JesiahTEG]

I won't get into this argument really, but I will say this. If we were fortunate enough to have every player from every other fighting game community competitively test Smash for 2 years...One year with items on and one year with items off, I'm positive they would all realize why we've banned items. It's just too hard to describe to other communities why we turn them off. The only way is if they were in our position and that will never happen lol

 

[Ackya v2.0]

Look at this guy. He's still stuck on page 3 of the thread, not realizing that the discussion shifted away from Daigo pages ago. I can never underestimate the intelligence of trolls.

I know you have trouble thinking, you little ****, but let's just try for one moment.

My point was that you ******* actually thought this wad was Daigo. I don't give a **** about you idiots rambling about items in incoherent fragments of sentences.

 

[Djent]

Well, so much for the actual discussion.

I know you have trouble thinking, you little ****, but let's just try for one moment.

My point was that you ******* actually thought this wad was Daigo. I don't give a **** about you idiots rambling about items in incoherent fragments of sentences.

If you actually read the thread, you would know that virtually no one bought this guy's act. They all demanded proof of his identity (very reasonably, I might add) or called him out on the spot. Of course, you're a troll, so you either don't know, don't care, or both. I'm not wasting any more time with you, but I will let you know this: you're on Smashboards. I promise that you will not be able to outtroll us. You're an amateur in getting a rise out of people, but if you stick around for awhile you might learn something.

Thread reported.

 

[BlueTerrorist]

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/items/item11.html

^^^ Sakurai wants us to master all the items. What do you think about that? Had he had our mindset he probably would think of us as scrubs (Then again, there would be less options with no tripping if that happened lol). Items are a touchy subject, lots of doom prophecies here and there but yet there's no proof whether they're broken or not. Maybe it's worth looking into.

In the end though, it's all about preference and it seems alot of smashers here aren't open minded to anything not "No items, Fox/MK only, Final Destination". Just gather like minded people and show items and more stages can work. If anything, it will be a new smash scene born from it or just another way to play at tourneys in the end. Who knows, maybe items can be the answer to all the problems in the metagame, but that's just speculation since noone's gonna go through with it.

 

[Reizilla]

^^ actually, most people prefer BF and SV over FD. Especially if playing MK.

 

[Djent]

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/items/item11.html

^^^ Sakurai wants us to master all the items. What do you think about that? Had he had our mindset he probably would think of us as scrubs (Then again, there would be less options with no tripping if that happened lol). Items are a touchy subject, lots of doom prophecies here and there but yet there's no proof whether they're broken or not. Maybe it's worth looking into.

In the end though, it's all about preference and it seems alot of smashers here aren't open minded to anything not "No items, Fox/MK only, Final Destination". Just gather like minded people and show items and more stages can work. If anything, it will be a new smash scene born from it or just another way to play at tourneys in the end. Who knows, maybe items can be the answer to all the problems in the metagame, but that's just speculation since noone's gonna go through with it.

I'm willing to bet Sakurai would be disappointed knowing we never played with items, but I doubt he'd think we were "scrubs." Based on previous statements he's made about the series (some of which are available earlier in this thread), it's obvious he never wanted Smash to be played solely to win in the first place, as I'm sure you know. To apply the label of "scrub," one has to intend for such a high level of competition, which Sakurai does not. I doubt he agrees with our scene regardless, but hey, I can live with that.

And yes, the Smash community seems to be very conservative regarding rulesets overall. I'll be attending my first tournament in a week (Apex :embarrass), so hopefully I'll have a better idea of how these changes to the metagame will play out. I too would really like to see more things tried, but as of now I'm just some random. I really don't have any weight in pulling for those kinds of things, you know? I guess if you're really passionate about items play, you could always try organizing something yourself, but you will be met with resistance.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Who cares what Sakurai thinks? Who cares what ANY outside organization thinks? We should act responsibly when maintaining our community not for anyone else, but for ourselves. It doesn't matter if the decisions we make are judged from the outside, as long as they are justified and wise. Although, if we act responsibly anyway, chances are we WON'T be judged, at least by other competitive organizations.

You don't maintain personal responsibility because someone tells you to; you maintain personal responsibility for your OWN well-being.

 

[ryuu seika]

Also, how the hell is Final Destination neutral? It has no platforms, meaning Pikachu can hit anywhere on the stage from anywhere with his projectile, Fox is a lot harder to attack from above and Kirby loses all his Final Cutter tricks and such. Pokemon Stadium is neutral, FD is not.

 

[Jack Kieser]

FD isn't neutral. It never WAS. This community just got REALLY used to ground-based combat in Melee, and when Brawl's mechanics were shifted to allow for a greater degree of air-based combat, the community didn't allow the stage list to adapt properly.

FD is INCREDIBLY biased towards ground-based characters like Diddy, Snake, and the IC (to name a few). Most people just like to ignore that fact out of conservatism.

 

[ryuu seika]

Ok, well atleast we're clear on that then.

 

[ph00tbag]

To be fair, FD was never a balanced stage. But then, none of the neutrals have ever been well-balanced. FD gets in the list because it is a supremely boring stage. It is impossible to be surprised by anything that happens on that stage. So it gets in on account that everyone knows how it works intrinsically. This is the same thought process behind Battlefield being in the neutral list.

Sure, perhaps there should be a more rigorous definition for what the most neutral stages are, but that really doesn't have anything to do with why the neutrals are neutrals. To understand that, imagine several trials where all stages are available, and two players playing to win strike stages to begin on based on their knowledge of the stages, and their confidence in their ability to play on those stages. Over the course of many years of similar trials, the smash community has found that it's roughly at the point of the neutral stages that the stricken stages become unpredictable. Good players have a feel for what stages are more likely to be stricken first in such a process, primarily because they know what they would strike. This is why Lylat is no longer a neutral. So many people are not confident in their ability to win on the stage, that the chances of it being played first are nil. Thus, it is automatically stricken.

 

[Jack Kieser]

ph00tbag, that is NOT the reason FD, Battlefield, and Smashville are the most common starters. It's because of conservatism, plain and simple. People equate little stage interaction with neutrality, which is a flawed concept, because some characters LOVE little interactivity. Imagine setting up banana tricks on an interactive stage. Imagine keeping up infinite grabs on an interactive stage. Imagine setting up bomb traps on an interactive stage.

It'd be harder, and players don't like that.

There was no universal testing period for stages, and you know it. Day one tournaments had four neutral stages: FD, BF, YI, and SV. They are also 4 of the most boring stages in the game. It's been like that from the start.

 

[BlueTerrorist]

I'm willing to bet Sakurai would be disappointed knowing we never played with items, but I doubt he'd think we were "scrubs." Based on previous statements he's made about the series (some of which are available earlier in this thread), it's obvious he never wanted Smash to be played solely to win in the first place, as I'm sure you know. To apply the label of "scrub," one has to intend for such a high level of competition, which Sakurai does not. I doubt he agrees with our scene regardless, but hey, I can live with that.

And yes, the Smash community seems to be very conservative regarding rulesets overall. I'll be attending my first tournament in a week (Apex :embarrass), so hopefully I'll have a better idea of how these changes to the metagame will play out. I too would really like to see more things tried, but as of now I'm just some random. I really don't have any weight in pulling for those kinds of things, you know? I guess if you're really passionate about items play, you could always try organizing something yourself, but you will be met with resistance.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's worst since I'm in EC, imagine the resistance from regular people here. Now multiply that by 1000x and that's the resistance you'll get especially in NY/NJ.

Who cares what Sakurai thinks? Who cares what ANY outside organization thinks? We should act responsibly when maintaining our community not for anyone else, but for ourselves. It doesn't matter if the decisions we make are judged from the outside, as long as they are justified and wise. Although, if we act responsibly anyway, chances are we WON'T be judged, at least by other competitive organizations.

You don't maintain personal responsibility because someone tells you to; you maintain personal responsibility for your OWN well-being.

Do you think the decisions the smash community has made were justified and wise? Are you aware that we are the running joke for every competitive community (Even the Dissidia Final Fantasy community) due to our ban-happy ways? Forget items for a minute, what's the reason for all these stage bans? Do you know how hard it is to make someone understand the tourney rules? Yeah, the outside matters too you know. They fuel our numbers and can sometimes help us acheive things we normally couldn't have done. That's how things like MLG happens or other awesome tournaments. Believe it or not, Sakurai does matter, put yourself in his shoes for a moment. If we knew what he was truly thinking, we might understand what's the best way to make the rules for tourneys (Not saying worship the guy, just see why he did what he did to this to the game aside from anti- competition).

Ok, now what is this game catered to everyone right? So do you want the game competitive or not? No? Add tripping then. Ok we go into balance of the game and characters, after all you want everyone to not feel like a loser right? So you need balance at least close to games like GG or any balanced game you can think of. How will Smash as a game do this? After all you have items and stages to contend with too. What is your appeal for Smash? Multiplayer? Ok, balance them so that they can do well in FFA. Let's have a system that fighter's had since ST which is supers. Ok we'll have Smash Balls. Think about the nerfs your favorite character got, even though you felt it was unwarranted for some and they were lower than high tier in Melee (Samus anyone?). Why did that nerf take place? Why did Sakurai beat poor Samus with the nerf bat? What came into Brawl for that to happen?

That's just food for thought, I could go on. If anything, pay attention to the first question. After all, items outside of All-Brawl and ISP was never given a chance. Also, items could make a stage balanced I'll let you figure out why.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Do you think the decisions the smash community has made were justified and wise?

Not in the slightest. Banning Temple and 75M, yes. Most decisions? No.

Are you aware that we are the running joke for every competitive community (Even the Dissidia Final Fantasy community) due to our ban-happy ways?

Absolutely. There's a reason we aren't being invited back to EVO ever again.

Forget items for a minute, what's the reason for all these stage bans? Do you know how hard it is to make someone understand the tourney rules? Yeah, the outside matters too you know. They fuel our numbers and can sometimes help us acheive things we normally couldn't have done. That's how things like MLG happens or other awesome tournaments. Believe it or not, Sakurai does matter, put yourself in his shoes for a moment.

Have you designed a game and/or worked with game designers? If not, I'm closer to Sakurai than you've ever been. Read my other posts (again, if you already have). I've already talked about Sakurai in this thread.

Ok, now what is this game catered to everyone right? So do you want the game competitive or not? No? Add tripping then. Ok we go into balance of the game and characters, after all you want everyone to not feel like a loser right? So you need balance at least close to games like GG or any balanced game you can think of. How will Smash as a game do this? After all you have items and stages to contend with too. What is your appeal for Smash? Multiplayer? Ok, balance them so that they can do well in FFA. Let's have a system that fighter's had since ST which is supers. Ok we'll have Smash Balls. Think about the nerfs your favorite character got, even though you felt it was unwarranted for some and they were lower than high tier in Melee (Samus anyone?). Why did that nerf take place? Why did Sakurai beat poor Samus with the nerf bat? What came into Brawl for that to happen?

I'm not really sure what your point is here. That the game is made for a broad audience? Could you reword this part, because I don't get what the argument is.

That's just food for thought, I could go on. If anything, pay attention to the first question. After all, items outside of All-Brawl and ISP was never given a chance. Also, items could make a stage balanced I'll let you figure out why.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I've had people not come to tournaments I've tried hosting WITH THE BBR RULESET because I was "the items guy". I've had a lot of hate thrown at me, personally, both on the boards and IRL because of ISP. I know it was never given a true competitive chance. But, hey! People here don't like the concept of stage control. Go figure.

What I think you missed in my post was that we are a part of a larger community (competitive gamers), but we're also our own community. We shouldn't necessarily do something just because everyone else is doing it, because our game is fundamentally different, mechanically, from any other fighter. However, on the same token, we can't just ignore the tenants that bind all competitive games (digital or not) together. If we want to be athletes, we should act like athletes.

When we ban things without a competitive justification, we are acting irresponsibly, by the tenants of competition. If we ban something WITH competitive justification, the Street Fighter guys may call us names, but screw them: we had a good reason. For instance, if the SF guys heckle us for banning Norfair, I'd totally be on their side. If they heckled us for banning Temple, I'd tell them to go screw themselves.

 

[BlueTerrorist]

Not in the slightest. Banning Temple and 75M, yes. Most decisions? No.



Absolutely. There's a reason we aren't being invited back to EVO ever again.



Have you designed a game and/or worked with game designers? If not, I'm closer to Sakurai than you've ever been. Read my other posts (again, if you already have). I've already talked about Sakurai in this thread.



I'm not really sure what your point is here. That the game is made for a broad audience? Could you reword this part, because I don't get what the argument is.



Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I've had people not come to tournaments I've tried hosting WITH THE BBR RULESET because I was "the items guy". I've had a lot of hate thrown at me, personally, both on the boards and IRL because of ISP. I know it was never given a true competitive chance. But, hey! People here don't like the concept of stage control. Go figure.

What I think you missed in my post was that we are a part of a larger community (competitive gamers), but we're also our own community. We shouldn't necessarily do something just because everyone else is doing it, because our game is fundamentally different, mechanically, from any other fighter. However, on the same token, we can't just ignore the tenants that bind all competitive games (digital or not) together. If we want to be athletes, we should act like athletes.
When we ban things without a competitive justification, we are acting irresponsibly, by the tenants of competition. If we ban something WITH competitive justification, the Street Fighter guys may call us names, but screw them: we had a good reason. For instance, if the SF guys heckle us for banning Norfair, I'd totally be on their side. If they heckled us for banning Temple, I'd tell them to go screw themselves.

This was my whole point in this items situation. Your dislikes does not equal ban worthy. Everyone in the end wants balance, it's at least one of the bigger complaints of this game tourney wise. Items might bring stability and enjoyment back in to this game. I don't know unless someone goes out there and runs a series of item tournaments in a controlled environment either with All-Brawl rules or ISP rules. We're in agreement here Jack.

To everyone else:

All this hate isn't helping anyone or the game, it just makes us look like idiots to people looking on the outside. We all want the best for Brawl, have any one of you thought that we're going about this the wrong way. We slapped Melee rules on Brawl from day 1 Melee is not Brawl. There's a reason why Final Smashes are in the game, some characters need them. Heck their moveset was built and balanced around that, they were balanced from this. No more doom prophecies, you don't know how items and Final Smashes really work and you never will due to your attitudes towards them. For now on, your bans are just YOUR preferences and it will not be because they're so called "broken" you don't have the proof stop saying you do (Don't you dare point at EVO 08, CPU deserved the win... You heard me, I said it). I'll end it with this, anybody with the will to test items and stages properly. Make another Smash scene and gather new venues and people. Outside of this site and AiB, there are item lovers out there, start gathering them and use them. The only way to get the smash community to listen is a item/stage revolt because honestly nobody is listening to one another so screw it.

 

[Oracle]

No stage is completely neutral. That's the whole reason we have the stage striking system with multiple stages: to make it as fair as possible with what we're given

Items are banned because they add randomness which is uncompetitive by nature.

Many stages are banned because (typically) they either distract from the fighting itself, are random, or promote game breaking or over centralizing tactics (circle camping, for example). Granted, a lot of the brawl bans were not decided on fairly (The only one that comes to mind right now is bramble blast) just because it's different.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

For instance, if the SF guys heckle us for banning Norfair, I'd totally be on their side. If they heckled us for banning Temple, I'd tell them to go unban Akuma in SF2T and see how that works out for them.

Fix'd.

No stage is completely neutral. That's the whole reason we have the stage striking system with multiple stages: to make it as fair as possible with what we're given

So you agree that a starter stagelist that is as wide as possible is ideal? As in, putting anything that isn't banned in the starter list?

Items are banned because they add randomness which is uncompetitive by nature.

I wish people would stop mentioning this. We've (me and Kieser) have refuted it how many times? The short version is something like "it's intended within the game for us to have to react to random events" and "look at poker, MTG, and other competitive games where randomness plays a critical role". If someone else cares to do the honors, feel free.

Many stages are banned because (typically) they either distract from the fighting itself,

Define "fighting itself". Why is a stage distracting you a ban criteria? If we cut off the bottom of spear pillar and just had that top platform, it'd still be a fair stage, massive laser beams and inversions and what have you not. There would be no reason to ban it!

The game is clearly not geared to pure PvP-there is not a SINGLE stage that allows pure PvP! Not even Final Destination (the furthest on the PvP vs. PvS axis towards PvP). Go towards the other end and you find stages like Norfair, PTAD, and Spear Pillar. But is this a ban criteria? When every stage in the game contains an element of PvS, and knowing the stage is critical (if I don't know how to deal with the ledge on FD and get my *** gimped, I'm in big ****in' trouble! Shall I go complain about how intrusive that ledge is to my recovery?) in every situation.

Fighting the stage is a critical part of brawl. Don't be fooled; they don't distract from the fighting. They are part of the fighting. That car on PTAD that hit you? Should've been more careful. Lava wall on norfair took your camping spot on the top left? What the hell were you doing in the worst part of the stage? Don't know how to control your character when the screen is flipped? Entirely your own fault, why haven't you learned how to deal with one of the only hazards in the game that loses its quality of "hazard" once you learn how to deal with it?

are random,

See above...

or promote game breaking or over centralizing tactics (circle camping, for example).

This is the only (okay, two exceptions to this rule, which I'll say later) viable criteria for banning a stage ANYTHING. An overcentralizing tactic that mitigates player skill to an extreme degree. Fin camping on Corneria, Circle camping on any stage with a hard circle, walkoff camping/cg 0-deathing on some stages, et cetera.

The only exceptions to this rule in brawl are Wario Ware and Mario Bros.

Wario Ware is the only stage in brawl that you can reasonably make a case for banning due to randomness. The randomness on that stage is so ridiculous that it itself counts as a severely skill-mitigating factor. If the rewards on the minigames were constant, then it would be fine-you'd have to make a case based on other qualities of the stage, and good luck with that. However, what do all other random effects in brawl share as two critical qualities?
Fair warning and/or a safe zone. When that lava plume shoots from the background in norfair, I have 2 seconds to get out of the way. Plenty of time to react. When that rocket gets drawn on pictochat, not only do I have over a second to react while it's being drawn, but I also know that there's a safe zone. When DDD chucks a gordo, there's the massive startup of the move, and I know that when he performs that move, I ALWAYS have to watch out for a gordo (similar for G&W's judgement and peach's bob-omb pull). When the claw on halberd zooms in on an opponent, you can tell which one.
This kind of randomness is exactly what the game demands of you all the time. It gives you plenty of warning, allowing you to react to it sufficiently to get out of the way unless you are already in a very poor position (high % grab release into the lava plume, for example). And you can always get out of the way.
Warioware... Well, what reward you get is completely arbitrary. There's no warning, no star flashing over your head before you go invincible or anything like that. It's also one of the most brutal random effects in the game-it's like getting handed a free final smash at times. If you go giant and your opponent gets nothing, or if you get a star and your opponent goes giant, your opponent can kiss his stock goodbye. It's a ridiculously brutal effect.

Mario Bros... Actually, you could really make a case for this stage as a counterpick. I'm not kidding! What's the broken tactic, chucking obstacles at each other? Everyone can do that.
The issue with Mario Bros is something that, AFAIK, has absolutely no precedence in the history of any competitive game ever, and will probably never again be that justified in its oddity. We ban Mario Bros not because it's too strong a counterpick (we aren't sure) or because there's a broken tactic (everyone can throw shells; it changes gameplay but doesn't destroy it), or because it's glitchy. We ban it because, well, yeah, it's too intrusive to gameplay. This is not because of hazards. This is because when you play Brawl on that stage, it is completely and utterly different to brawl on any other stage in the game. Anywhere else, the basic principles of normal gameplay will still apply (unless you have a ridiculously overcentralized tactic) (you still have to space and zone on PTAD. You still have to approach and gimp your opponent on Rumble Falls. You still have to aircamp as some chars on FD). But on Mario Bros? It's so far removed from anything else in the entire game that it simply hardly counts as the same game any more. It's not exactly a perfect ban-it's borderline scrubby in its usage. However, I doubt any educated person would look at this stage and say, "yep, this belongs in competitive brawl". It just is a totally different gaming environment.

Granted, a lot of the brawl bans were not decided on fairly (The only one that comes to mind right now is bramble blast) just because it's different.

Rumble Falls is definitely a borderline stage, but this is exactly the point-we PROVE that borderline stages are ban-worthy.

 

[Oracle]

Even if the game was meant for us to have to dodge random obstacles, that doesn't mean that we should have to. Poker, mtg and the like are not competitive because no matter how much skill, how good of a poker face, how good at bluffing you are, how well you put your deck together etc. the game will always rely on luck. Where's your skill when I get a royal flush on the first hand of five card draw? It doesn't matter at that point. Same with items. When someone randomly gets, say, a beam sword, his character becomes much more powerful with a fast and ridiculously ranged f tilt and a potent and quick projectile (even if it does mean giving the sword up)


How is FD not pvp? The only thing to fight is the other character! no moving parts, no hazards to avoid, not even platforms! I'm not saying I'm against those things in stages, just pointing that out. If it's a simple, small hazard that just sits there and gives fair warning, by nature its fair because both players have to deal with it equally. A claw that hones in on one player? I don't think so. When there is crazy stuff like controls being inverted, the stage being flipped, etc. then the contest ceases to be who is better at smash and becomes who is better at dealing with gimmicks. Most players have enough trouble commiting fast inputs to instinct; they shouldn't be forced to learn to fight when the stage is upside down. Were that legal people would only use that as a surprise tactic to catch people off guard who aren't prepared; as an unfair crutch against players better than they

 

[Jack Kieser]

Even if the game was meant for us to have to dodge random obstacles, that doesn't mean that we should have to.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. That is, if we're not scrubby. If we're actual competitive athletes, we play the game we're given, and, mechanically, interference by forces with random or semi-random tendencies is part of the game.

Poker, mtg and the like are not competitive because no matter how much skill, how good of a poker face, how good at bluffing you are, how well you put your deck together etc. the game will always rely on luck.

I'm not going to respond to the rest, since this single section shows how little you know about the concept of "competition". Read up on some game theory, and come back to us when your opinions are a little (read: a lot) more educated.

 

[Oracle]

I apologize. I phrased that badly. I meant to say something along the lines of "not competitively fair". Obviously you can have a lot of skill regarding reading your opponent, faking your opponent out, etc. The problem is that a game can still be decided on luck. If you constantly are dealt bad hands, then you have to work a lot harder than your opponents to pull through a victory. The only trading card game I have experience with is yugioh. What happens if your opponent draws all five exodia cards on the first turn? A ridiculous ritual monster and all the neccesary tributes? Polymerization and the needed base monsters? What if all you draw is spell cards or spell cards and a monster you can't summon yet? Many of those possibilities.

An aspect of the skill of that particular game is that you can influence your chances of getting those ****ty hands by putting the right number of card types in your deck. Even so, the element of luck is still there and those circumstances can happen. What if they happen when money is on the line? in that case, your opponent simply got luckier than you and somehow deserves a reward for that.

The same applies to items. We can limit the spawn times and which items fall, but that's it. if it were a random item at a fixed spawn point at a fixed time interval then it would be more fair because rather than randomly being rewarded with an item, players work to control that point of the stage until the item comes. Hell, even the stage control argument from way back when on SRK's side works if it's fixed time periods.

*summons yuna*

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Even if the game was meant for us to have to dodge random obstacles, that doesn't mean that we should have to. Poker, mtg and the like are not competitive because no matter how much skill, how good of a poker face, how good at bluffing you are, how well you put your deck together etc. the game will always rely on luck. Where's your skill when I get a royal flush on the first hand of five card draw? It doesn't matter at that point. Same with items. When someone randomly gets, say, a beam sword, his character becomes much more powerful with a fast and ridiculously ranged f tilt and a potent and quick projectile (even if it does mean giving the sword up)

All right. Now let's look at the list of things you have to remove in order to remove randomness from brawl.
-almost every stage in the game
-four characters
-actual gameplay (hack it)

Randomness is an integral part of the game. You have to hack the game to remove everything that is random. To remove everything that is random that you can remove without it, you have to literally gut the game. No more SV. No more Pokemon Stadiums. No more Lylat. No more halberd. No more peach, no more DDD, no more G&W. Let's imagine tripping didn't exist-even then, if you have to get rid of more than half of the available elements in the game just in order to make it non-random, you're probably doing something wrong. I mean, after all, you could make MTG non-random. You could play a variant of magic where you're able to stack your deck as you choose, and ban cards accordingly so that it isn't broken and isn't random. I'm sure it would still be an interesting competitive game. Would it be Magic: The Gathering? No. Would it have a ban list the size of mars? You can ****ing bet (not to mention tutors and anything that shuffles your deck start to suck). And that is essentially what you do when you try to make the claim of "randomness is anticompetitive" in brawl. You have to get rid of EVERY random element. And that's just not possible.

How is FD not pvp? The only thing to fight is the other character! no moving parts, no hazards to avoid, not even platforms! I'm not saying I'm against those things in stages, just pointing that out. If it's a simple, small hazard that just sits there and gives fair warning, by nature its fair because both players have to deal with it equally. A claw that hones in on one player? I don't think so.

The PvS aspect is tiny, and has to do with the fact that it has:
-Blastzones
-Ledges (in this case also particularly annoying ledges)

It's the smallest PvS factor in the game. It's still there though!
When you say that the claw hones in one one character, you say it like it's a bad thing. When that claw starts swinging around like crazy, what do you do? Do you camp your shield? Do you go crazy pressure on your opponent, hoping to shove it off onto him (you can do this)? What does your opponent do? Does he try to pressure you into making a mistake? Wait inside dashgrab range for you to block it and then punish you during shieldstun? It's a wealth of opportunities, with a more than sufficient time to deal with it. I suppose it's just as fair as when that balloon on smashville gets in the way of your high-hitlag move that should've beaten the opponent's and you eat an fsmash/fair because of it. Remember, it isn't like suddenly the claw comes out of nowhere and in a 6-frame window, whacks you with the force of a thousand typhoons.

When there is crazy stuff like controls being inverted, the stage being flipped, etc. then the contest ceases to be who is better at smash and becomes who is better at dealing with gimmicks. Most players have enough trouble commiting fast inputs to instinct; they shouldn't be forced to learn to fight when the stage is upside down. Were that legal people would only use that as a surprise tactic to catch people off guard who aren't prepared; as an unfair crutch against players better than they

Huh. You're assuming for some reason that only bad players can master their characters while keeping track of the flipped/upside down state of the stage. That's an odd assumption, mostly because if that is a skill that is required, it suddenly becomes a part of being a good player. If my opponent is better than me, but I can severely outplay them upside-down to the extent that I can almost guarantee that they will lose that stock during the flip, whose fault is it when he loses the stock while the stage is flipped? Probably not the stage's.

You wouldn't say "being able to traverse Rainbow Cruise well is an unfair crutch against better players", would you? Of course, because everyone assumes that you will need to know the stage. If you don't know that, for example, that ledge disappears for a moment when the boat crashes, or if your opponent knows that there's a place to tech off the ceiling above, is it unfair to provide the player with the advantage who knows this? And who are you to say which stages reduce gameplay to "gimmicks" anyways? EVERY stage has gimmicks. The stages with overcentralizing gimmicks are banned. I could just as easily argue that a falco abusing SHDL on FD "just a gimmick" and ask for FD to get banned because of that.

The better player is the better player depending on the rules, I guess. Everyone knows ADHD is one of the best in the country on the ridiculously restrictive EC ruleset. Put him in other rulesets and... well, let me just say that watching him play on Norfair is like watching me play on Spear Pillar when it's upside down and backwards (sue me, I never bothered to learn the stage because it will never, EVER be legal).

 

[Life]

Poker, mtg and the like are not competitive because no matter how much skill, how good of a poker face, how good at bluffing you are, how well you put your deck together etc. the game will always rely on luck. Where's your skill when I get a royal flush on the first hand of five card draw?

In poker, unless you're ridiculously good (read: more skilled than everyone else, ie. you should be winning anyway) the royal flush will be both powerful and rare enough that you'll most likely give off an obvious "What the--" tell. So we'd fold, because at high-level play we could read stuff like that, and your win is worth no more than 2pair>1pair. (Besides that, I was under the impression that hold 'em was considered the most competitive form. But I'm far from a poker expert.)

Meanwhile, with TCGs like Magic you're able to control the contents of your own deck (at least, to the degree which you're able to acquire cards) and thus you can build your deck in a way that takes into an account you may be facing a deck that wins on turn 1. For example, this (it's a YGO example because that's the TCG I'm most familiar with). Or for anyone who's not familiar with the concept, say you include four or so Jokers in an otherwise-normal deck of cards and say "If you have a Joker, this hand doesn't count unless you win, but Jokers don't count towards improving your hand". That's basically the idea, except generally there's more than one card in a TCG that can do stuff like that, and then there's getting rid of all the field presence your opponent probably put out in the process of OTKing you...