Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 Thinking of joining the Pro Tour

[Oracle]

You can't stack your deck entirely with last resort cards like that. Otherwise under normal circumstances you won't do well. And even if you have a bunch that do that, it's still possible to not draw them. even with that not considered, that still puts you in a disadvantaged position which is unfair

 

[Sinji]

So I have a question Daigo. Which character are you going to main?

 

[BlueTerrorist]

I just created a group for people who want items play. People who doesn't mind items should gather there. Just starting one small step at a time .

 

[Jack Kieser]

I apologize. I phrased that badly. I meant to say something along the lines of "not competitively fair".

That's still a flawed premise. You do realize that this is something that has to be PROVEN, right?

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.

See, your problem is that you're thinking about the result of the match as being dependent on ONE event, instead of a collection of events. If you get one lucky draw at the end of a Magic game, would that card have still won you the game if you didn't decide to attack 5 turns ago? There's no way to know. A match in ANY game is a COLLECTION of events; some events are obviously significant, but most are significant in non-obvious ways.

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.

Many of those possibilities are SO STATISTICALLY SMALL that it's better not to even figure them into the equation. Think of how many cards you draw in your starting Yu-Gi-Oh! hand. Now, think of how many Exodia cards there are. Now, think of how many cards are your deck. Try figuring out the mathematical odds of drawing all the Exodia cards in a row, especially on the first turn.

See, different games deal with their inherent random chance in different ways, and that includes statistical anomalies like your Exodia supposition. Games like Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh! deal with them by mitigation: force those anomalies to be so statistically small that they don't matter anymore. We do that, too, you know. You can, technically, trip into an Ike/Bowser/Snake F-Smash and lose a match "because of tripping". So, we play best of 3; what are the odds that will happen more than once? Lower. Low enough not to count.

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.

Who cares if money is on the line? When you decide to play that game, you implicitly AGREE to all of its aspects, including its risks. There is a risk that in your first bracket match, you get some bad draws and lose. That's a risk that, as a competitive player, you agree to take. If you lose because of it, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, as a competitive player, because you effectively signed away that right by entering the tournament. You knew the risks, you knew what could happen.

People, especially people in THIS community, love shifting blame. I didn't lose, tripping killed me. The stage killed me. The PRNG killed me (Gordo/9's/Stitchy). But I didn't lose. I shouldn't have lost. I wouldn't have lost. That's all scrub-talk. That's all bull****. The fact of the matter is that you DID lose, and because of the nature of the game, you can't POSSIBLY say that a single trip is the only thing that "made you lose", because the ENTIRE match is a collection of events that influence and affect EVERY event afterward.

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.

Yep, and as a Smash player (before we turned into GIANT scrubs), we would have agreed to that, implicitly, by playing the game. We'd have know those risks, and agreed that they were worth it, in the grand scheme of competition. EVEN AS SCRUBS, though, it can be mitigated; look at ISP. Work the ruleset the right way, and the random factor is mitigated to levels that can be dealt with.

We REALLY need to stop saying that "random chance" is inherently a bad thing. It's not, and it's never been proven that it is. It's mitigation is just another skill that most games test for. Get over it.

 

[L/A/W]

jack keiser, you're trying too hard on brawl haha

 

[Hippieslayer]

Wait is someone actually genuinely defending items?

Jesus christ stop kidding yourselves items are random. We know inductively that pro smash games are often really close. Now toss items into those and what do you get? Randomly decided matches where the players who is closest to the item that spawns gets it and wins.

Ofc you can be pro at using items but its really irrelevant considering the items spawn randomly location and time wise.

 

[ph00tbag]

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.

You can call "everyone but me prefers to start on these stages" whatever you want, but don't pretend you're saying something different from me.

But like you said, starter stages are boring. I'm just being reasonable in that I realize that that's usually why they're starter stages.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wait, now. I love starting on FD or BF (assuming I'm not fighting a Diddy or IC). I just recognize that I love starting on those stages because I don't multitask well, so fighting an opponent + managing a stage hazard is harder for me than just fighting my opponent.

Of course, that's not why hazards are bad, that's why I'm a bad Smash player.

 

[ph00tbag]

Wait, now. I love starting on FD or BF (assuming I'm not fighting a Diddy or IC). I just recognize that I love starting on those stages because I don't multitask well, so fighting an opponent + managing a stage hazard is harder for me than just fighting my opponent.

Of course, that's not why hazards are bad, that's why I'm a bad Smash player.

If you're a bad smash player, then have you maybe stopped to consider that you have no inkling of why a good smash player would rather start out on a boring stage as well? Maybe while they're trying to assess their opponent's patterns, extraneous variables make it much harder to generalize their observations.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, that's too bad, because the game isn't, mechanically, built that way. I know EXACTLY why a good player would want to start on a static stage:

BECAUSE IT'S EASIER.

Plain and simple. It's a little too bad that the game isn't set up that way; our artificial counterpick system is. Again, just because it's a system we like, doesn't mean it's positive, competitively. A truly amazing player, truly top tier, would be able to figure out their opponent's patterns on ANY stage, and so our systems of play should encourage that. Unfortunately, our current system rewards BAD PLAYERS by allowing them the ease of not having to actually THINK.

 

[Yung Mei]

how did this topic transform from Daigo joining the Smash Community to Yugioh?

D:

 

[Oracle]

That's still a flawed premise. You do realize that this is something that has to be PROVEN, right?

Luck based=unfair, no matter how small an aspect that luck plays. That's common sense. When victory can be decided by events outside of the players' control then it ceases to be 100% competition and moves toward a legitimate gamble.

See, your problem is that you're thinking about the result of the match as being dependent on ONE event, instead of a collection of events. If you get one lucky draw at the end of a Magic game, would that card have still won you the game if you didn't decide to attack 5 turns ago? There's no way to know. A match in ANY game is a COLLECTION of events; some events are obviously significant, but most are significant in non-obvious ways.

But these luck related events can screw you over at any point in the match. You can get a lucky draw at any point in the game that doesn't rely on what you did previously. You might not have gotten all the materials for a fusion monster on the first hand, but whenever you draw that last piece it is still determined by luck. One move is obviously not going to win you the match, but you can still get put in a ridiculously advantageous situation based on something completely random, say, a motion sensor bomb spawning right after you knock them off of the stage. You getting that kill doesn't make you a better player; it just means that you were lucky enough for that particular item to spawn when you needed it.

Many of those possibilities are SO STATISTICALLY SMALL that it's better not to even figure them into the equation. Think of how many cards you draw in your starting Yu-Gi-Oh! hand. Now, think of how many Exodia cards there are. Now, think of how many cards are your deck. Try figuring out the mathematical odds of drawing all the Exodia cards in a row, especially on the first turn.

Many? You only pointed out one. Granted, Exodia on the first hand is ridiculous, but drawing no monsters on the first hand, leaving yourself open for a direct attack? Not all that improbable. Players get dealt trash in poker all the time! When that happens, they have to use bluffing to attempt to win that hand or else you just fold and lose the ante. That is completely unfair for that player

See, different games deal with their inherent random chance in different ways, and that includes statistical anomalies like your Exodia supposition. Games like Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh! deal with them by mitigation: force those anomalies to be so statistically small that they don't matter anymore. We do that, too, you know. You can, technically, trip into an Ike/Bowser/Snake F-Smash and lose a match "because of tripping". So, we play best of 3; what are the odds that will happen more than once? Lower. Low enough not to count.

That's tripping. This discussion is about items. With items even on the lowest setting, they will decide matches far more often than that. A lucky item spawn right when the opponent got killed off the top? That rewards you for nothing. What if that happens every time you take a stock, yet in every situation in which your opponent has free time to grab an item, none spawn? That's hardly fair. You can attempt to mitigate the problem by playing more matches to make it fair, but matches will still be decided on luck because in Brawl, you can't control those circumstances very well

Who cares if money is on the line? When you decide to play that game, you implicitly AGREE to all of its aspects, including its risks. There is a risk that in your first bracket match, you get some bad draws and lose. That's a risk that, as a competitive player, you agree to take. If you lose because of it, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, as a competitive player, because you effectively signed away that right by entering the tournament. You knew the risks, you knew what could happen.

I'm not complaining. Even if you agreed to it, it doesn't make that any more fair. Sure, you can't complain if you actually joined the event, but it's STILL UNFAIR. Just saying that "the game is unfair, get over it" doesn't help anything nor does it make the game more competitively viable.

People, especially people in THIS community, love shifting blame. I didn't lose, tripping killed me. The stage killed me. The PRNG killed me (Gordo/9's/Stitchy). But I didn't lose. I shouldn't have lost. I wouldn't have lost. That's all scrub-talk. That's all bull****. The fact of the matter is that you DID lose, and because of the nature of the game, you can't POSSIBLY say that a single trip is the only thing that "made you lose", because the ENTIRE match is a collection of events that influence and affect EVERY event afterward.



Yep, and as a Smash player (before we turned into GIANT scrubs), we would have agreed to that, implicitly, by playing the game. We'd have know those risks, and agreed that they were worth it, in the grand scheme of competition. EVEN AS SCRUBS, though, it can be mitigated; look at ISP. Work the ruleset the right way, and the random factor is mitigated to levels that can be dealt with.

We REALLY need to stop saying that "random chance" is inherently a bad thing. It's not, and it's never been proven that it is. It's mitigation is just another skill that most games test for. Get over it.

Random chance is inherently bad when it strongly influences the winner of a competition. If you win by a random happenstance, you aren't better than the other player. Look at EVO 2k8. That kid won simply because he got lucky. Yes it was a different, new game, so ken was slightly disadvantaged. But all of the controls and spacing mechanics carry over from brawl to melee, especially considering Ken's character was not changed very much. Was he better than Ken at brawl? Hell no. Otherwise, he probably would have showed up and placed at other brawl tournaments. He did no such thing.

 

[Jack Kieser]

****it, I can't type a response to all of that foolishness on an iPod! BPC, someone, can anyone else respond?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Jack, I'm not trying to strawman you. Maybe you should explain more clearly exactly what the "null state" of the game is. By my perspective, the game as it is when shipped is the natural null state, and unlockable content isn't available then. Obviously it's a more diverse and interesting game with the unlockable content so we'd prefer to play that better game that includes it, but I don't think a straightforward application of the concept of null state would allow for the unlockable stuff. We just like to overlook this because it's a battle between "principle" and "practicality" in which practicality has an overwhelming case. Not all games have followed this logic, of course. I know some fighters to this day are played to "arcade standard" even though arcade versions might as well not exist as far as Americans are concerned, but they still ban console exclusive content, including characters (Guilty Gear bans the console exclusive boss characters Kliff and Justice, and while Justice is obviously absurdly broken, it's less obvious with Kliff).

Similarly, team attack off isn't obviously "broken"; it's just probably less balanced, less deep, and for highly skilled players (but not for less skilled players!) less fun. We definitely haven't really explored it; we just decided early on that we would rather see the implications of the game with it on because it had more promise.

I know exactly how the ripple effect works, but I don't think you're giving enough credit to the nature of the decisions that have to be made and how items weren't the only victims of what were ultimately game defining early metagame decisions.

As per the other fighting game communities, we just aren't well understood. I think a sizeable chunk of the people on SRK are willfully ignorant of competitive smash, and we aren't even the "worst". Soul Calibur has a much more rich history of questionable bans, and the fact that I saw Dissidia mentioned in this topic and not put as a community that obviously has more trouble with rules than we do makes me sad (Dissidia is such a mess that it makes our job of making rules for smash look really easy). I don't think it's "our fault" that smash and EVO didn't jive very well; I think we move forward from that mess the best if we just call it a misunderstanding (mostly true) and let it go. We should definitely not take the results seriously since Ken didn't even really play Brawl, and I don't know of any other notable players who attended (most of the smash community didn't attend out of protest).

As per randomness and competition, I think we have to look at a game with random factors, such as poker, and say that good play is maximizing your winning chances in the long run rather than always trying to win every possible moment. One poker hand is a joke. Even just one poker tournament doesn't always say who the best is though the people who do well are pretty certainly pretty good. Consistently placing high in many poker tournaments or in the long run being a profitable player in cash games is what highlights the best. Of course, all games have big random factors if you expand your horizons. Whether you're tired or not could very well be random; maybe the TO has a computer problem that makes the tournament run several hours late, and you are tired for your games by the time they come up. If you don't win a game because you are tired, you basically "lost to luck". Maybe you catch a cold the day before the tournament; that's bad luck that impacts your performance too! I haven't even had to bring up getting a really hard bracket yet. I could go really deep into this point, but the idea is that small degrees of randomness are completely unavoidable in any game played by inconsistent humans. If we desire a competition between inconsistent humans, which we obviously do here, we should strongly consider defining that competition around the principles of maximizing long term odds instead of principles of each event definitively stating who is the best. Once we make that leap, a little randomness isn't so bad.

 

[Life]

I'll take one point for now until someone more qualified comes around.

Many? You only pointed out one. Granted, Exodia on the first hand is ridiculous, but drawing no monsters on the first hand, leaving yourself open for a direct attack? Not all that improbable.

ORLY?

20 monsters
20 S/T
40 total

Chance of not drawing a monster in first card: 50:50
Chance of not drawing a monster in first two cards: 20/40 * 20/39
Chance of not drawing a monster in N cards: 20/40 * 20/40 -1 * 20/40 -2 * ... * 20/41 -n

Chance of not drawing a monster in the first six cards: (IDK how much rounding error's on my calculator) 0.0231578

Chance of tripping in SSBB: Roughly 1%, increased if you are on ice (PS2)

That's a roughly two percent chance of you drawing no monsters--one in fifty games. (And it's not like those spells and traps are useless anyway as some may search monsters (ROTA) or block attacks (DPrison, MF, all the stuff I mentioned earlier) and then you'll most likely survive the turn and get yet another draw in which you'll get something else... which could easily be something like Rescue Cat that suddenly puts you online in a big way. Or Summoner Monk to pitch your excess spells and get free Synchros. Maybe it's Infernity Archfiend. The point is, handful of spells =/= instant doom, try again. The only time you're dead for sure in YGO is a handful of tributes--a much rarer event--and even then all it takes sometimes is getting your Treeborn in the graveyard to put the whole darn thing online and start kicking rear. Or, y'know, your opponent being in the same situation.) Then consider that YGO, much like Smash, is played in best of 3 games...

...and I get AA ninja'd.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Still on an iPod, so I can't really give yu a good response yet. I will say this, though. All characters automatically unlock after a certain amount of fights, so unless we're clearing our save files after every tournament, eventually we'll get all the characters unlocked by default. And the stage switch, which is crucial for a successful tournament, requires all stages to be unlocked. I'll go into more detail later, but some food for thought; just because things require unlocking doesn't necessarily mean they aren't part of the null state.

I'll comment on everything else when I get to an actual computer.

...and I get InferiorityComplex ninja'd.

 

[BlueTerrorist]

If you control the stage, you wouldn't have to worry about gambling .

Sorry, but it's still on you if you lose with items.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm not sure the stage switch is crucial for a successful tournament. We could just not use the random stage feature, and not having it would be irrelevant. We actually currently don't use that feature and only use the stage switch as a bookkeeping tool; it seems fairly minor to worry about.

As per all characters unlocking, sure, but who says we use older Wiis for tournaments? The MLG I know bought a bunch of fresh Wiis for use at their nationals and had to grind them out to have "ready" save files. You also have to successfully beat the challengers who approach you when unlocking via number of matches. It's entirely possible to lose to them repeatedly to avoid unlocking anyone, and we know any Wii owned by incredibly bad players may not have all the characters (if they're not good enough to beat the AI to unlock characters). It also seems bizarre to consider since we can remember smash 64 in which characters did not unlock that way. Should the four unlockable characters in smash 64 be treated differently than the unlockables in melee and brawl because they can't be unlocked via multiplayer? It seems like a bizarre implication of that line of thought.

There are two sane approaches. One is treating the game as it boots as the standard and banning any element that is unlocked to enforce uniformity with uniformity being absolutely essential for tournament play. Another is requiring all tournament set-ups to have everything unlocked and allowing everything, which of course means we're playing our version of the game in which everyone has "grinded" enough to unlock all options. Any other approach like "use whatever is on the Wii" raises way too many fairness issues to consider. Intuitively, the former would seem more pure to the "null state" than the latter, but the latter is far more desirable in terms of the game being good.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Why on earth am I up 6 AM?? ...*sigh* Oh well, I might as well respond.

AA, quick question: have you looked at the unlock requirements for stages recently? I doubt it; it's been 2 years since release. I don't know if you remember, but only 3 stages require ANYTHING outside of regular multiplayer to unlock: Spear Pillar, Mario Bros., and Hanenbow. Every other stage unlocks pretty much automatically during multiplayer, either as a result of playing on other stages or as soon as its corresponding character is unlocked. There are no (as of now) region differences, there is no DLC, there is nothing console exclusive... basically, all of the PRACTICAL reasons for keeping the game in its default state don't exist with Brawl. We could do it ideologically, but the content unlocks itself; we'd have to actively sabotage ourselves and our save files to do so; it makes no PRACTICAL sense. Not to mention, by REFUSING to allow the game to unlock its characters and stages, we are ignoring large swaths of game proper.

You see, that's why throughout this ENTIRE discussion, I've refused to use the term "default", because "default" and "null" are NOT the same. The default state is the state the disc comes in, right out of the box. The null state is simply the unaltered state, the state the game "wants" to be in, so to speak. Its most complete form. Since the game naturally unlocks all of the content itself (minus 3 stages, and honestly, how much of a big deal is it to get 3 stages?), there's no reason to carve out 50% of the content in the definition of the game's null state.

If we have to choose between 2 states, default (which requires constant work to maintain) and the true null state (which, honestly, will happen after, like, one full day of friendlies at a big tournament), why would we choose the default state? If the purpose of not banning things without a competitive reason is to keep as much original game balance as possible unaltered, why choose the default state, which leaves out so much content?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

****it, I can't type a response to all of that foolishness on an iPod! BPC, someone, can anyone else respond?

Nope. Got a plane to catch, sorry. Also, remember, I don't agree with item play itself. I agree with the concept; that is: "Item standard play has the potential to be as legitimately competitive as any other form of brawl." This is what I'm arguing for the most part when we talk about ISP, that our current form of competitive brawl is not the be-all, end-all way to play the game.

 

[ph00tbag]

Nope. Got a plane to catch, sorry. Also, remember, I don't agree with item play itself. I agree with the concept; that is: "Item standard play has the potential to be as legitimately competitive as any other form of brawl." This is what I'm arguing for the most part when we talk about ISP, that our current form of competitive brawl is not the be-all, end-all way to play the game.

For the record, this is essentially my position. I just believe that there's not a lot of potential in ISP. For similar reasons that there's not much potential in Brawl. It just doesn't have a consistent enough base of support.

Ultimately, I don't see it as a question of principal or morals. It's just being realistic.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Things make a lot more sense when you consider that the Brawl community is full of people that are literally terrible at every other fighting game they ever play. Melee players actually played other ones.

Basically the Brawl community is ******** and bad at games.

oh my god please tell me someone didn't use yugioh as an analogy for fighting games holy ****

 

[CaliburChamp]

IMO items should be banned. They are way too random. As for stages. Stages should not be banned because of the lay out of the stage. The main reason why stages should be banned is because of the deadly hazards on some stages. Like that Fish on Icicle Mountain, and those hazards on G&W stage. So for me, hazardous stages like that should be banned. I think it's fair to play on Hyrule Temple since there are no stages. People get timed out on starter stages anyways, so it really doesn't make a big difference.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

IMO items should be banned. They are way too random.

No, items should not be banned. We don't have to ban items, the game lets us turn them on or off.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10827857&postcount=126 <- Read this

As for stages. Stages should not be banned because of the lay out of the stage. The main reason why stages should be banned is because of the deadly hazards on some stages. Like that Fish on Icicle Mountain, and those hazards on G&W stage. So for me, hazardous stages like that should be banned. I think it's fair to play on Hyrule Temple since there are no stages. People get timed out on starter stages anyways, so it really doesn't make a big difference.

...Why even bother with this guy...

 

[BSP]

I think ISP is a good idea, but I just don't think anyone is going to support. We've been on the NO ITEMS! mindset for too long.

 

[rathy Aro]

The whole "we shouldn't add new characters/stages because its not in the null state" argument that seems to be going on misses the point. Null state is the assumed right until proven otherwise. It doesn't take a whole lot of theorizing to realize that one more character in the game adds a crap ton of depth.

 

[napZzz]

all of you ****ing idiots check what the first post of this thread was

I was thinking of playing Brawl competitively, and I was wondering why you guys ban stages, items, and other things that you see as "game breaking"? I mean, if the developers thought it would be game breaking, then they wouldn't have put them in there, right?

why isn't this closed yet -_-

 

[Luxor]

Well, there's some legitimate discussion going on. A lot of good posts, actually.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

all of you ****ing idiots check what the first post of this thread was




why isn't this closed yet -_-

Yes, because completely legitimate discussion that sprung up from a troll post deserves to be locked.

 

[Justin Wong]

Crap, now I have to start playing this game

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Crap, now I have to start playing this game

This guy deserves a medal.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Sorry Daigo, the Smash Community is less educated then the SSFIV Community.

どのように良いあなたの翻訳ですか？

Or are you not Japanese? Sorry. not trying to sound racist in anyway.

 

[memphischains]

Why would the ban Justin Wong and not Daigo?

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!

 

[eschemat]

Ah okay I guess I'm going to add my two cents. So I'll first address the whole Yu-Gi-Oh thing; people design their decks so that it would rely very little on luck. The same applies to Smash; we learn the stages, the match-ups and our characters and even the items to minimize luck as much as possible. True, the randomness is part of the game, however truly great players win and maximize the good effects of randomness and minimize the bad effects of randomness in their own game. Next, I saw an early post regarding chess like 10 pages back, which I would just like to quickly address. That type of analogy doesn't work for smash. Sorry, but a pawn can be utilized so well in 5 moves whereas in Smash an item can only create a temporary advantage.

Lastly, about actually banning. Somethings deserve to be banned. IMO, Meta Knight deserves to be banned for 6 months, not because I think Meta Knight is cheap though, but to improve the meta game of other characters. Seriously, when Brood and Rain came, no one knew how to face their style and it's because there are less MK players in Japan so thus they know the match-ups of more players than just MK. MK =/= 50% of Smashers in North America. We should give items a try, however, it would only be if it could grow our community and allow us to go to Evo etc. and at the same time still be a competitive game. Lastly, stages. What is this I don't even know. Seriously, a lot of stages don't deserve to be banned unless they're shown to be completely game breaking. e.g. Temple and 75 m just make the game uncompetitive and break the design of the game and the objective.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

^^^ That. That and nothing more.