• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

WARNING CHALLENGER APPROACHING! 2 at RIT

Slashy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,402
Location
Palm Beach


When: September 29, 12 PM-12 AM
Where: Rochester Institute of Technology (Address: One Lomb Memorial Drive, 14623) in the Sol Activity Room (Building-Room 47-1016)
Contact: AIM: mustaphafan , YIM: slashx234 , phone number: (561) 702-3908 , steam: Slashx234



The area circled in red is the building where the event is held.

Events:

[COLLAPSE="Melee"]

Rules:


General Rules


* Items are set to off.
* 4 Stocks
* 8 minute time limit
* All sets with the exception of winner's finals, loser's finals, and the championship are best of 3 matches (best of 5 and above should be played out for any "finals" matches)
* In the event of any dispute, controller ports will be selected by Rock-Paper-Scissors
* The Tournament Host is the arbiter of all disputes.
* Blind Picks: If requested, players can request that both players pick their characters blind, meaning that both will not have prior knowledge of the other's character.
* Modified Dave's Stupid Rule: No player can counter pick a stage he or she has previously won on unless agreed upon by both players.
* Gentleman's clause: any stage may be played on so long as both players and the Tournament Host agree to it, including banned stages. This can be used in tandem with the Modified Dave's Stupid Rule (MDSR).
*TO's clause, any rule change may be agreed upon as long as both players and the TO agree upon it, rule changes only apply to that specific set
* Timed out matches will be determined by the remaining number of lives, then percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, replay that match. Any Sudden Death match is strictly not to be played.
*Friendly Fire is ON
*Do not disrupt matches, this includes screaming, walking in front of the television during a match, or any sort of physical contact


Stage List:

Starter
Fountain of Dreams*
Dream Land
Final Destination
Battlefield
Yoshi's Story

Counter
Pokemon Stadium
Brinstar
Rainbow Cruise
Past Stages: Kongo Jungle

*singles only
[/COLLAPSE]

[COLLAPSE="Project:M"]Set Procedure
1. Both players select their character for ROUND 1. Either player may call for a Double Blind* at this time.
2. The stage for ROUND 1 will be selected through STAGE STRIKING*, unless a stage/random is agreed upon by both players.
3. ROUND 1 is played.*
4. The winner of the previous round announces which group of stages he is banning. Out of the other 4 groups the loser decides a counter pick stage. Bans can’t be changed during the set.
5. The winner of the previous round chooses their character for the next round.
6. The loser of the previous round chooses their character for the next round.*
7. After Round 2 Dave’s Stupid Rule* applies
8. If both players agree, any rule may be altered/changed, excluding the 8 minute time limit, rounds per set, and bracket rules.*
* Double Blind: All participating players must tell an official the character they will use for that game. Each player is required to use that character in the first game.
* The order of stage striking will be 1-2-2-1. (Player 1 strikes one stage, followed by Player 2 striking two stages, followed by Player 1 striking two stages, ending with Player 2 striking one of the two remaining stages). The round is played on the remaining stage.
* Dave's Stupid Rule: The loser/counterpicking player may NOT choose to counterpick the stage they last won on in the set.
*In order to prevent cheating, I may choose SD cards/USB keys at random to check and replace files, if you are providing a P:M setup to be used in the tournament you must agree to these checks
*Custom character textures/music tracks ARE allowed, but if they are shown to be too distracting or are edited in a way that noticeably hides or moves hitboxes or hurtboxes, then I may take the setup out of the tournament. I may hold the offender accountable to cheating in extreme cases.
*Should the game crash both players must restart the match on the same stage using the same characters

Stage List
For the 1st match, stage strike the starter list. After the 1st match, each player bans a stage group for the remainder of the set (Players may counterpick a stage from the group they banned, and both players may ban the same group). The player who lost the previous match chooses a stage, then the player who won chooses their character, then the player who lost chooses their character.

(Modified version of JCaesar's list)

Starters:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland (64)
Fountain of Dreams
Yoshi's Story (Melee) (singles only)
SSE: Jungle (doubles only)

Counterpicks:
Group 1: (Small Stages)
Wario Ware
Yoshi's Story
Green Hill Zone (singles only)
Fountain of dreams
Metal Cavern

Group 2: (Medium sized with platforms)
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Dreamland
Smashville

Group 3: (Large flat stages)
Final Destination
Dracula's Castle

Group 4: (Wack Stages)
Kongo Jungle
Skyworld
Rumble Falls
SSE:Jungle (teams only)

Group 5: (Stage hazards)
Pokemon Stadium 1
Halberd
Brinstar [/COLLAPSE]

[COLLAPSE="Brawl-"]Still pending[/COLLAPSE]

Prices

No Venue Fee

Melee Singles: 5$
Melee Doubles: 10$ (per team)
Brawl- 2$
Project:M 5$

Pot Division

(I'll probably throw in some extra goodies for the Brawl- winners)

1st: 60%
2nd: 20%
3rd: 15%
4th: 5%



Schedule of Events
12PM-1PM Melee Singles/Doubles Signups/Friendlies
1PM-3PM Melee Doubles, Melee Singles Signups
3PM-6PM Melee Singles, Brawl- Singles Signups
6PM-7PM Break time, Brawl- Singles signups, Project:M Singles signups
7PM-9PM Brawl- Singles, Project:M Singles signups
9PM-12AM Project:M Singles

The venue only has one TV so please bring TVs, consoles, and SD cards/USB keys
 

Slashy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,402
Location
Palm Beach
why are there P:M doubles but not P:M singles? :/
I can have both, but would you mind the tournament running longer? I just thought doubles would be more interesting and there would be an actual turnout for doubles.
 

Evilagram

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
420
Why would we want to competitively play a Brawl mod that's intended ENTIRELY for casual fun play? This is an honest question, and I don't mean to be an *** about it. Especially since I've never played it.
Uh, it's not entirely intended for casual play dude. Simple as that. That and well, the principles that make a game good or bad tend to be good for everyone, not just casuals or competitive players.
 

Slashy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,402
Location
Palm Beach
Why would we want to competitively play a Brawl mod that's intended ENTIRELY for casual fun play? This is an honest question, and I don't mean to be an *** about it. Especially since I've never played it.
It's not intended entirely for casual play, it is intended for both competitive and casual play. The game was tested inside a competitive environment so all the balance and mechanics were meant to work within a competitive environment. It has more competitive depth than both Brawl and Smash 64, and besides I would like to try and get some support from the casual community that goes to EGS every night.
 

Slashy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,402
Location
Palm Beach
false.

also, despite my not wanting to attend this based on principle, I might still show up for free money.
How is a game that wasn't designed for competitive play better for competitive play than a game that WAS designed for competitive play?
 

da K.I.D.

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
19,658
Location
Rochester, NY
Because the people who made the bad game are good at making games and the people that made the good game are bad at making games.
 

darkoblivion12

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,102
Location
Buffalo
Slashy, for as much as people bash on brawl, it does have competitive depth.
Brawl- is built on the idea of "make things broken as ****." This is not good design in the slightest.
Goggles: Your argument is bad. Try again.

Tournament in general: You had better make it P:M singles instead of doubles. Singles will almost always have a better turnout than doubles.
 

da K.I.D.

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
19,658
Location
Rochester, NY
so if an artist ****'s on a piece of paper, it's better than a hobo who painted the next mona lisa.

I get it now.
As goofy as the art world is, this probably isnt all that off base.

Reminds me of some video rob posted a long time ago of some chick shoving spagettti-Os up her va J.
 

Evilagram

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
420
Brawl- is built on the idea of "make things broken as ****." This is not good design in the slightest.
They don't mean literally broken, like 0-deaths and other bull****. It's a marketing slogan. They mean give everyone silly "overpowered" **** that isn't actually overpowered, and balance the whole cast.

The big deal is that B- created new strategies and eliminated legitimately broken ones, and that's what depth is, more variety in the possible viable strategies you can execute.

This isn't a thread where we argue about brawl mods and their legitimacy or illegitimacy. Modifications of official games have been the competitive standard in many communities for over a decade, prime example being CPMA.

I'm sorry for the derail, can we please get back to discussing P:M Singles versus Doubles? I don't honestly know which will get a higher turnout, just I generally prefer singles.
 

Foy

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
2,042
Location
Modesto at <3
As goofy as the art world is, this probably isnt all that off base.

Reminds me of some video rob posted a long time ago of some chick shoving spagettti-Os up her va J.

Reminds me of some video rob posted a long time ago of some chick shoving spagettti-Os up her va J.

ago of some chick shoving spagettti-Os up her va J.
shoving spagettti-Os up her va J.
I want that
 

darkoblivion12

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,102
Location
Buffalo
I'm going to argue the point because it's worth knowing good and bad design practices for games.

First, I just want to clarify that competitive depth is not having tons of options. Competitive depth comes from game balance, not game options. If one option is clearly better than another, it throws balance off kilter and reduces depth(with one exception which i'll discuss in a moment). They didn't remove broken strategies and add in balanced strategies. They added strategies which throw game balance out and are just amazing.

Second, a game is not well balanced if all characters are equally broken. Consider the case where everyone starts with a final smash. This is not good balance because everyone just dies instantly. If everyone dies as soon as they spawn, there's no real reason to be playing now is there? It just becomes a game of who can mash B first.

Third point that you may not have though of. Brawl- is a mess of bad design and insane hitboxes. This is horrendously counter intuitive to anyone trying to play it (especially for the first time). I've grown to enjoy P:M particularly because most of it is fairly intuitive. Brawl- is nowhere near intuitive, nor balanced, nor does it have competitive depth.
 

RTF

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,037
Location
No Longer Bumping With Content, Smörgåsbords

Evilagram

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
420
I'm going to argue the point because it's worth knowing good and bad design practices for games.

First, I just want to clarify that competitive depth is not having tons of options. Competitive depth comes from game balance, not game options. If one option is clearly better than another, it throws balance off kilter and reduces depth(with one exception which i'll discuss in a moment). They didn't remove broken strategies and add in balanced strategies. They added strategies which throw game balance out and are just amazing.

Second, a game is not well balanced if all characters are equally broken. Consider the case where everyone starts with a final smash. This is not good balance because everyone just dies instantly. If everyone dies as soon as they spawn, there's no real reason to be playing now is there? It just becomes a game of who can mash B first.

Third point that you may not have though of. Brawl- is a mess of bad design and insane hitboxes. This is horrendously counter intuitive to anyone trying to play it (especially for the first time). I've grown to enjoy P:M particularly because most of it is fairly intuitive. Brawl- is nowhere near intuitive, nor balanced, nor does it have competitive depth.
Rock paper scissors is the best balanced game of all time. Therefore by your argument it has the most competitive depth. Yeah, this example is ridiculous, but the big point is that balance alone isn't everything.

You are correct in pointing out that having some options be better than others ruins game depth, but what you didn't realize is that the real problem there is that lots of unbalanced options mean that there are ultimately less options instead of more. You sort of implicitly realized that in your final smash example.

A better phrasing on my part would be that game depth comes from having lots of viable options. Merely having a lot of options means nothing if a few overshadow all the others, and having balanced options means nothing if the game is simple as a result. Competitive depth comes from having a lot of viable strategies and options that are overall balanced.

I am also more in favor of P:M than brawl minus, but that does not mean that brawl minus is necessarily a mess of game design, because after all, the stated goal is to "break" every character by giving them attacks that are (compared to the base brawl attacks), very powerful. It's like a comparison between super turbo and guilty gear. By super turbo standards, guilty gear characters are crazy overpowered with all sorts of completely unfair abilities that should never be allowed. However, guilty gear has all the characters at that same baseline and is in fact one of the most balanced fighting games ever made.

The reason brawl minus is good game design is because it generates a large number of new viable strategies relative to the few which brawl originally had. I personally prefer the feel of melee and P:M, but brawl minus is still totally acceptable in terms of design.

I do not play brawl minus much, but I have never found it counter intuitive or hard to understand. I do not have enough experience with it to really say if it holds up overall. In my limited experience I'd say it does, however my real point here is that from a game design perspective there is nothing implicitly wrong with brawl minus's philosophy.

:phone:
 

da K.I.D.

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
19,658
Location
Rochester, NY
Theres nothing wrong with the philosophy of the game, as long as you dont intend to run serious tournaments for it.

:phone:
 

RTF

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,037
Location
No Longer Bumping With Content, Smörgåsbords

Evilagram

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
420
There's nothing wrong with the philosophy of the game, as long as you dont intend to run serious tournaments for it.
Why not? A game that is suited for tournament play is one that is:

1. Balanced
2. Has a wide range of viable strategies (ie. no centralization of the metagame around a single strategy, such as camping)
3. Is interesting to watch for spectators

Brawl-'s philosophy encompasses all three. Unless you can give me some form of statistical evidence or expert opinion from someone with an in depth knowledge of brawl- tournament play proving that they did not live up to creating a balanced game with a wide variety of strategies. Otherwise, I believe you're really just trolling to push an agenda, and should probably leave the topic if you do not plan to contribute in a helpful or meaningful way.

No, I do not consider your opinion on the subject an "expert opinion". Sorry.

The fact of the matter is, everything that goes into making a good game also goes into making a good competitive game. With a few limited exceptions like Mario Party or Warioware, which are blatantly trying to avoid any hint of competition, the traits that make a good game overlap with those that make a good competitive game. If Brawl-'s philosophy is fine, then that means that it is perfectly suited for serious tournaments as much as any other game living up to the same standards.

http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/
All about game design/balance with extra emphasis on fighting. Seeing you people argue is hysterical.
I can't believe you're seriously linking David Sirlin to disprove that having a lot of viable strategies is what creates competitive depth. I mean, I got that entire idea from him.

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/8/12/scg4-update.html

Did you read this post at all?

The fact of the matter is, nothing in Brawl- is actually broken (meaning a superior move that eliminates interesting choices, as defined by Sid Meier, from the game). If you disagree, prove it, then you may have a case. As of right now we are all arguing based on anecdotes, rhetoric, and conjecture and attacking or defending the philosophy of the mod rather than the mod itself. There is nothing in the philosophy of the mod that makes it unsuitable for competitive play. I would say exactly the opposite. It was tailor-made for competitive play in those regards.
 

da K.I.D.

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
19,658
Location
Rochester, NY
Why not? A game that is suited for tournament play is one that is:

1. Balanced
2. Has a wide range of viable strategies (ie. no centralization of the metagame around a single strategy, such as camping)
3. Is interesting to watch for spectators

Brawl-'s philosophy encompasses all three. Unless you can give me some form of statistical evidence or expert opinion from someone with an in depth knowledge of brawl- tournament play proving that they did not live up to creating a balanced game with a wide variety of strategies. Otherwise, I believe you're really just trolling to push an agenda, and should probably leave the topic if you do not plan to contribute in a helpful or meaningful way.

No, I do not consider your opinion on the subject an "expert opinion". Sorry.

The fact of the matter is, everything that goes into making a good game also goes into making a good competitive game. With a few limited exceptions like Mario Party or Warioware, which are blatantly trying to avoid any hint of competition, the traits that make a good game overlap with those that make a good competitive game. If Brawl-'s philosophy is fine, then that means that it is perfectly suited for serious tournaments as much as any other game living up to the same standards.



I can't believe you're seriously linking David Sirlin to disprove that having a lot of viable strategies is what creates competitive depth. I mean, I got that entire idea from him.

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/8/12/scg4-update.html

Did you read this post at all?

The fact of the matter is, nothing in Brawl- is actually broken (meaning a superior move that eliminates interesting choices, as defined by Sid Meier, from the game). If you disagree, prove it, then you may have a case. As of right now we are all arguing based on anecdotes, rhetoric, and conjecture and attacking or defending the philosophy of the mod rather than the mod itself. There is nothing in the philosophy of the mod that makes it unsuitable for competitive play. I would say exactly the opposite. It was tailor-made for competitive play in those regards.
Im going to dissect the rest of this tomorrow. But i just want you to realize, you accuse me of being dismissive, and then completely disregard my opinion on the game despite the fact that i have made money at every brawl minus tournament ive ever entered AND im better than you at the game. And if you dont believe that i got 50 bucks saying that you arent even on my level. So i take major offense when you say that what i think as a player doesnt matter when you arent even as good as me. And if you suck ****, what even gives you the right to have an opinion on the game either way?

:phone:
 

Evilagram

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
420
Im going to dissect the rest of this tomorrow. But i just want you to realize, you accuse me of being dismissive, and then completely disregard my opinion on the game despite the fact that i have made money at every brawl minus tournament ive ever entered AND im better than you at the game. And if you dont believe that i got 50 bucks saying that you arent even on my level. So i take major offense when you say that what i think as a player doesnt matter when you arent even as good as me. And if you suck ****, what even gives you the right to have an opinion on the game either way?
I think that it doesn't matter, because you're the one saying it, and naturally you are going to stick to your guns regardless of what can be objectively analyzed. I don't trust you to answer the question fairly, and I don't trust you to answer specifically enough about any supposed metagame centralization, seeing as how you have been vague as hell already. Also I never said the word dismissive.

I already said that I do not have much experience with Brawl-. I'm a melee/P:M player. I also already stated that none of us have commented on the specifics of the game in the slightest. As of right now I am defending their philosophy rather than specifics, except for my small sidenote about how I never found anything unintuitive. On a surface level their ideology is not good or bad game design inherently in any way, and you have not made any comments proving otherwise. The big question I suppose is if they live up to their ideology, which you have also made no sort of dissertation on. If you want to attack my points, you will need a very convincing anecdotal case regarding the nature of the attacks in the game, or a statistical case showing examples of centralization, such as an analysis of match footage, matchup charts, standard deviations, or other such things. Your word about how you won $50 a few times and therefore the game is bad is far from convincing. You need specifics.


Oh, and another word on balance and how balance alone doesn't create competitive depth, from the legendary Seth Killian. http://shoryuken.com/forum/index.ph...iss-some-preliminary-remarks-on-balance.1811/
 
Top Bottom