Why is everyone so opposed to having Smash Balls in competitive play?

[Jack Kieser]

I know I said I was done with this thread. I just wanted to make it publicly known that Jack Keiser is awesome for saying what I was trying to say, with an eloquence I could not muster.

Please don't say things like that; it's flattering, but unwarranted. Those are my views, and I typed them with more frustration than eloquence. I do appreciate your words, but I'm just putting my opinion out there; I really do believe that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by being so argumentative all the time instead of just... doing what needs to be done, but I'm sure that the post you quoted will be torn to shreds by people who just can't get past the fact that there are some random things that people enjoy playing with and that people are actively asking be included in competitive Brawl.

EDIT: See the above post. Oh, and on the topic of who's qualified to predict things... dude, that's like having to choose to listen to Nostradamus or Miss Cleo; at the end of the day, it's still just a prediction.

 

[Twin Dreams]

Please don't say things like that; it's flattering, but unwarranted. Those are my views, and I typed them with more frustration than eloquence. I do appreciate your words, but I'm just putting my opinion out there; I really do believe that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by being so argumentative all the time instead of just... doing what needs to be done, but I'm sure that the post you quoted will be torn to shreds by people who just can't get past the fact that there are some random things that people enjoy playing with and that people are actively asking be included in competitive Brawl.

EDIT: See the above post. Oh, and on the topic of who's qualified to predict things... dude, that's like having to choose to listen to Nostradamus or Miss Cleo; at the end of the day, it's still just a prediction.

Ok. Who would I listen to if I wanted to go to the amusement park?


The qualified meteorologist. (Yuna)

The meteorologist knows the facts. Knows the variables. Has experienced how the variables react in specific situations.


Joe Schmo on the street (Jack)

Doesn't want it to rain. Wishes that it doesn't rain. Claims that because rain clouds are present, doesn't necessarily MEAN that it's going to rain.



Yuna is predicting what will happen through experience and knowledge. His claims are highly accurate because they are based on factual evidence and precedence.

Jack is incorrect because it is based on opinion and ignorance.

 

[Yuna]

Please don't say things like that; it's flattering, but unwarranted. Those are my views, and I typed them with more frustration than eloquence.

You truly have learned nothing, have you, young Padawan?

I do appreciate your words, but I'm just putting my opinion out there; I really do believe that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by being so argumentative all the time instead of just... doing what needs to be done

What exactly needs to be done? Do we need to turn items on? The competitive community doesn't want to.

So why should we?

but I'm sure that the post you quoted will be torn to shreds by people who just can't get past the fact that there are some random things that people enjoy playing with and that people are actively asking be included in competitive Brawl.

Why should we change?! If you like items so much, why aren't you hosting your own tournaments?! No one is stopping you. In fact, at least 5 of "us" have asked you, Jack Keiser, personally to go and host your own Item Tournaments (how is that going for you, by the way?)!

We're not stopping you, we're not standing in your way, we're not demanding that you change the way you want to play Brawl (and, really, how conceited isn't that?!). You're free to play it however you want. Just not at a tournament where we, the competitive community, set the rules!

You don't the rules? Stay out of the scene and start your own! The scene wrote the rules. The scene likes the rules. The scene sees absolutely no reason why we should change the rules.

Tell me, why does it need to be done? So that a few people who have no desire to join the scene lest we allow items and/or Final Smashes suddenly join? Because it'd be more fun for certain Casual gamers who don't attend tournament but watch videos from tournaments?

No, really, why? What needs to be done is that you and your fellow Itemnites go host your own friggin' tournaments!

You say some people enjoy more randomness and less skill-gauging in tournament play. Well, some of us don't. That's why we wrote the rules the way they are.

Again, if you don't like the way it is, the first thing you should do is not to change what ain't broken, it's to host your own tournaments where you get to dictate the rules. Go, do, now. And, really, try to learn a little something from my posts, will you? I've been quite civil to you these past few pages because of your supposed growth from our past clashes.

But I might not give you that benefit in the future.

 

[Twin Dreams]

lol...Itemnites...



Perhaps if your tournament are huge successes. The non-item-players will perhaps view the results of your tournaments. Maybe, through your leadership and tournament-hosting prowess, you can usher in a new era of competitive smash.

I doubt it. Put, anything is possible.

 

[Yuna]

Maybe I'll even attend one of them if I'm ever in America.

 

[Jack Kieser]

*sigh* This is the weakness of message boards: you don't get the benefit of a live interaction with someone, and you have to try to condense a large thought into a couple of sentences.

Yuna, my belief on life in general is that everything is hinged on change. That's what the theory of evolution and natural design is built off of: the assumption that things are always changing. I apply that philosophy to every aspect of my life to try to make sure that nothing I experience is ever stagnant. When I say 'what needs to be done', it's within that context, and I apologize for not explaining that beforehand (again... message boards *shakes fist*). We've had ~7 years of (basically) more of the same. There might be small changes to the metagame every now and then, but by and by Melee hasn't changed much since we got it back in 2001 (look past the ATs). The competitive scene that we've had in the past works just fine, and in the sense that you're thinking, there's indeed no reason to change it...

...which is exactly why I think it should be changed. We've become complacent, set in our ways. It's time for a change of pace simply on principle; it's not like we can never go back. Of course I don't expect you to agree with (much less understand) such a socialist perspective; it's not for everyone. But, I like change and I feel that we've been presented a great opportunity for it with Brawl.

Oh, and I just got done with hosting a tournament on Saturday. Incredibly balanced item set (we had to disable Dragoon and the fan, but other than that... no reason why they can't be in 1v1, and I'm going to be moving onto 2v2 here soon). So, yeah, I have been trying to do my part instead of just whining.

Oh, and I'm so sorry I upset the Master Debater, the Almighty Yuna! I pray that I should kneel at your golden alter of debate and discussion and ask for your forgiveness! To be honest, I've had enough of the haughtiness. I'd respect you more if you weren't trying to constantly remind me (and others) that we should aspire to reach your level of greatness, oh learned Teacher.

 

[HaXer]

I Hate Smash ball, Because of the randomness but i kind of agree with the general bad got general good fs we seen that in ice climbers for example

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok. Who would I listen to if I wanted to go to the amusement park?


The qualified meteorologist. (Yuna)

The meteorologist knows the facts. Knows the variables. Has experienced how the variables react in specific situations.


Joe Schmo on the street (Jack)

Doesn't want it to rain. Wishes that it doesn't rain. Claims that because rain clouds are present, doesn't necessarily MEAN that it's going to rain.



Yuna is predicting what will happen through experience and knowledge. His claims are highly accurate because they are based on factual evidence and precedence.

Jack is incorrect because it is based on opinion and ignorance.

False analogy logical fallacy...

Jack is not arguing something is not going to happen... he is arguing that he prefers to do something in a particular way, and he and everyone else has a right to do so if they desire. It's NOT saying that something won't happen because he doesn't want it to.

Going back to your weather analogy, you're checking with Yuna because you want to see if you're going to the amusement park. So is Jack (or at least trying to do the equivilent), only you like to go to the amusement park when it's sunny, whereas Jack prefers to go to the amusement park when it's raining.

Sure, there are obvious disadvantages, but if he wants to go to the amusement park when it's raining, why stop him? It's his choice, and if other people want to do it, it's their call as well.



The fact is, he agreed items are unbalancing, including final smashes, mitigating this as much as possible was the goal of his ISP project. But, he likes variation, is there anything wrong with that?

Different strokes for different folks, some people prefer to gamble, personally when money is on the line, believe me I'll never play anything but item-less, but there are any number of alternative formats possible with unique metagames and it would be interesting to see what comes of them.

 

[Yuna]

*sigh* This is the weakness of message boards: you don't get the benefit of a live interaction with someone, and you have to try to condense a large thought into a couple of sentences.

Then stop trying to condense it, speak your mind (like I do).

Yuna, my belief on life in general is that everything is hinged on change. That's what the theory of evolution and natural design is built off of: the assumption that things are always changing.

It's also the assumption that things change for a reason. Nobody randomly changes, especially not when they it's for the worse. We do not want to change. Stop trying to change us! Especially not by using the same old stale arguments refuted at least ten times over already! Especially not when you can't defeat any of the arguments I present to show you why we do not want it to change!

I apply that philosophy to every aspect of my life to try to make sure that nothing I experience is ever stagnant. When I say 'what needs to be done', it's within that context, and I apologize for not explaining that beforehand (again... message boards *shakes fist*). We've had ~7 years of (basically) more of the same. There might be small changes to the metagame every now and then, but by and by Melee hasn't changed much since we got it back in 2001 (look past the ATs). The competitive scene that we've had in the past works just fine, and in the sense that you're thinking, there's indeed no reason to change it...

It doesn't need to change. It works perfectly well as it is. In fact, the competitive Smash community (99% of it, at least) would view your changes are detrimental (in major ways).

...which is exactly why I think it should be changed. We've become complacent, set in our ways. It's time for a change of pace simply on principle; it's not like we can never go back. Of course I don't expect you to agree with (much less understand) such a socialist perspective; it's not for everyone. But, I like change and I feel that we've been presented a great opportunity for it with Brawl.

1) It works.
2) Your way doesn't (not for us)
3) Just because it's old doesn't mean it has to go. The Mona Lisa is old. I guess the Louvre should trade her in for one of your drawings.
4) Change of pace simply on principle?! What kind of bovine manure is that?!
5) I'm a quasi-Socialist. I still think you're stupid (at least at the moment).
6) We don't change just because. Especially not if said change is for the worse!

How many times must I say this:
The competitive community has weighed the facts. We still think items are a no-no. We do not change "for fun", "on principle" or "just because". We change when it's advantageous to competitive play. This change is not.

Oh, and I just got done with hosting a tournament on Saturday. Incredibly balanced item set (we had to disable Dragoon and the fan, but other than that... no reason why they can't be in 1v1, and I'm going to be moving onto 2v2 here soon). So, yeah, I have been trying to do my part instead of just whining.

You only disabled the Dragoon and the fan?! And you call that balanced?! Please give me some of what you're smoking because it must be some potent stuff!

Oh, and I'm so sorry I upset the Master Debater, the Almighty Yuna! I pray that I should kneel at your golden alter of debate and discussion and ask for your forgiveness! To be honest, I've had enough of the haughtiness. I'd respect you more if you weren't trying to constantly remind me (and others) that we should aspire to reach your level of greatness, oh learned Teacher.

I don't remind people to reach my level. I've only ever reminded you of your own lies. You claimed, in a PM, to have learned something from our past altercations. Yet, you've proven time and again that you've learned exactly squat. You're still using the same faulty logic (now, even faultier!), same stale arguments (despite me having already refuting them twice over at least) and you bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

My favorite part is that all these people who whine and complain about Smash Balls being disabled don't have the courage to go out and host a successful tournament with Smash Balls enabled. Also, we have people who are non-competitive (and do not plan to be) attempting to shape a community they are not a part of.

All of Yuna's points are valid, correct, and backed by facts. Everyone else is attacking with maybes, hypotheticals, and what-ifs. How about you actually go out and prove something?

Look, this is the point I was ORIGINALLY trying to make, before I got interrupted for making a JOKE (Which is TECHNICALLY still theoretically possible)...

I said they should just start their own competitions, but they complained about how they were scared of "respected" players opinions.

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, we didn't just disable the Dragoon and Fan! Jeez, how would that be balanced?! No, no, I meant we disabled the Dragoon and Fan because of the results of the tournament; those were the only two items we had on that were unbalanced/led to unfair kills. I could get you the list if you want, it's still up in the thread in Online Tourney Listings. And, it's late here and I have job interviews tomorrow, so I'm leaving it at that for now; I'd rather not get myself needlessly worked up over an argument on the internet, especially with someone who would rather call someone's personal philosophies on life 'stupid'.

 

[Yuna]

Jack is not arguing something is not going to happen... he is arguing that he prefers to do something in a particular way, and he and everyone else has a right to do so if they desire. It's NOT saying that something won't happen because he doesn't want it to.

Actually, he is. Read through his posting history. He claims what I say probably won't happen. He claims allowing Smash Balls won't break down competitive play based on nothing but his own opinions and predictions (despite he himself not actually being a competitive Smasher or videogamer at all from what he's told us so far).

He's also trying to change "our" way to comply with "his". Meanwhile, we're telling him he's entitled to "gis way" and that we won't stand in his way or even mind if he hosts his own tournaments.

Going back to your weather analogy, you're checking with Yuna because you want to see if you're going to the amusement park. So is Jack (or at least trying to do the equivilent), only you like to go to the amusement park when it's sunny, whereas Jack prefers to go to the amusement park when it's raining.

That makes no sense. No, this is not a valid analogy.

Sure, there are obvious disadvantages, but if he wants to go to the amusement park when it's raining, why stop him? It's his choice, and if other people want to do it, it's their call as well.

Yes, and no one is denying them that right. We're saying:
We like to go to the amusement park when it's sunny. We've done it for years. It like it that way for very good reasons. No one has yet been able to refute our reasons.

We do it our way, we like it. We're not disallowing anyone to do it differently as long as they don't try to force us to change. Meanwhile, Jack and his friends are trying to force us to change. This is the case of one side wanting to change something they're not even a part of and the opposing side villified for defending their ways!

The fact is, he agreed items are unbalancing, including final smashes, mitigating this as much as possible was the goal of his ISP project. But, he likes variation, is there anything wrong with that?

No, and he can keep his ISP project. But why is he so insistent on changing Competitive Smashing when we do not want it to change?! Using nothing but his opinions?!

"It's more varief/fun/exciting." - Not good enough!

Different strokes for different folks, some people prefer to gamble, personally when money is on the line, believe me I'll never play anything but item-less, but there are any number of alternative formats possible with unique metagames and it would be interesting to see what comes of them.

Again, no one's stopping him from hosting his own tournaments. We're trying to stop him from whining at us for the way we're hosting ours despite the fact that we're Competitive smashers who host Competitive tournaments for Competitive players.

We're going to do it the way that best allows us to play Competitively. Meanwhile, he wants to change the Competitive fighting scene by adding more random elements because it'd be "more fun/exciting/varied":

That is not a good argument! And he's been trying to do it using the same stale arguments for over three months now. Seriously, he's a broken record!

 

[Yuna]

No, we didn't just disable the Dragoon and Fan! Jeez, how would that be balanced?! No, no, I meant we disabled the Dragoon and Fan because of the results of the tournament; those were the only two items we had on that were unbalanced/led to unfair kills. I could get you the list if you want, it's still up in the thread in Online Tourney Listings. And, it's late here and I have job interviews tomorrow, so I'm leaving it at that for now; I'd rather not get myself needlessly worked up over an argument on the internet, especially with someone who would rather call someone's personal philosophies on life 'stupid'.

You needed to test the Dragoon out first to realize it's unbalanced?!

And again, stop trying to change us. We don't want to change, we won't change. The only way for us to change is for you to up with valid arguments for why it'd be even acceptable from a Competitive Smash viewpoint to allow items and/or Final Smashes.

Do that and we'll consider it. Continue to fail to do it and present nothing but bovine manure and we'll just start ignoring you for failing at life.

 

[Dastrn]

boohoo tourney***s think they are SOO smart....

i'm so tired of hearing that from socials that think they could "fix" the smash scene.

items are ********.
smash balls are ********.
the game does NOT need balanced to make socials feel less scrubby.

the system right now is setup to reward skill at what the entire scene has collectively decided was "the game." this was honed starting in SSB, and pretty much perfected in SSBM. Brawl is an extension of those games, and it is clear to everyone who truly understands smashing in general and competitive gaming that we are right, and you are all wrong.

just let it go, kids. yuna is smart. and yuna is speaking for the rest of us.
you are wrong.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

boohoo tourney***s think they are SOO smart....

i'm so tired of hearing that from socials that think they could "fix" the smash scene.

items are ********.
smash balls are ********.
the game does NOT need balanced to make socials feel less scrubby.

the system right now is setup to reward skill at what the entire scene has collectively decided was "the game." this was honed starting in SSB, and pretty much perfected in SSBM. Brawl is an extension of those games, and it is clear to everyone who truly understands smashing in general and competitive gaming that we are right, and you are all wrong.

just let it go, kids. yuna is smart. and yuna is speaking for the rest of us.
you are wrong.

I don't agree with that...

I do like playing with items when I play at parties...

Half the time we're too drunk to see who is better with skill anyway with that...That, and I usually invite like girls or something that aren't that good at the game, but it's a lot funner with them anyway

 

[Twin Dreams]

@adumbrodeus:


You are correct. However, Jack is one of few who likes raining amusement parks. Almost nobody else goes, and some rides are shut down for safety purposes.



Jack wants to introduce something into competitive play. Does he still even want Smash Balls?

What is Jack's Item list now? According to his last post, it was everything except dragoons and fans. There are remaining items that can tip the scales, randomly. The only items that should be left are items that have a proportional risk/reward for using them. They, also, cannot give an opponent an advantage based on where it spawns.



Jack: Who was there? How many people? Vids? What's your up-to-date item list?

I'll go with the usual "pics or it didn't happen" approach here. Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to have some video evidence in the argument.

 

[Yuna]

I don't agree with that...

I do like playing with items when I play at parties...

Half the time we're too drunk to see who is better with skill anyway with that...That, and I usually invite like girls or something that aren't that good at the game, but it's a lot funner with them anyway

What the hell does any of this have with tournament Smashing?!

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

What the hell does any of this have with tournament Smashing?!

Well, his comment didn't specify...

He was talking in a more general sense

 

[Twin Dreams]

Well, his comment didn't specify...

He was talking in a more general sense

...



....

 

[SiegKnight]

I play with items competetively and even I understand that they can detract from the idea of a simple yet complicated one on one fight. When an item appears the focus drifts ever so slightly away from the hand to hand and more on grabbing the item.

I agree with Yuna here albiet - as usual - wish he'd stop acting trollish and looking down on others, saying they fail at life and overall making me laugh at Smasher's in general. But if Jack wants to make item tournaments; Yeah, he has to balance them out for his own purposes. I didn't read this conversation much as it has immense aids, but if he's trying to change the way everyone prefers to play, thats silly.

Items can offer depth and skill, but its certainly a different game entirely than the one hand to hand advocates. 1 v 1 no items flat stages are really the way to go for most tournaments. My only gripe is that side tournaments aren't held with them turned on a little more often.

Theres always room for side communities, the only reason it seems like such a hated idea is that humans naturally ignore and frown upon what they dislike. Even when they technically accept something, they'll never often feel they have to open their mouths about it unless its to disagree with the idea.

Competitive Smash as a history has always been played without items. Competetive Smash as a term is defined as Smash Bros being played in any competetive sense. That can include items. If he wants to make his own history that way, its up to him. Plenty of technical players are interested in the idea at least, or else there'd not be so many uphill battles going on about it. I've played some incredibly sick chaingrabbing, z cancelling, wavedashing psychopaths in Smash Bros in my life times who read my patterns and intercepted me often, and we sometimes left items on and didn't really speak about them being there on the screen. They seemed ok with it, even utilizing reflections and item catching along with their other techy ****.

I think it has potential as a type of gameplay, not to interfere with 1 v 1 no item smash though, which is so far the only competetive standard.

 

[Yuna]

Well, his comment didn't specify...

He was talking in a more general sense

No he wasn't. It was clear the post you quoted was talking about tournament Smash. What else would "the system" he's referring to be? He even mentions the words "competitive gaming".

Reading closer will save you a lot of grief.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

No he wasn't. It was clear the post you quoted was talking about tournament Smash. What else would "the system" he's referring to be? He even mentions the words "competitive gaming".

Reading closer will save you a lot of grief.

Nah, this is more fun!

 

[adumbrodeus]

Actually, he is. Read through his posting history. He claims what I say probably won't happen. He claims allowing Smash Balls won't break down competitive play based on nothing but his own opinions and predictions (despite he himself not actually being a competitive Smasher or videogamer at all from what he's told us so far).

He's also trying to change "our" way to comply with "his". Meanwhile, we're telling him he's entitled to "gis way" and that we won't stand in his way or even mind if he hosts his own tournaments.

You don't understand his current argument, I'll explain why in a bit.

That makes no sense. No, this is not a valid analogy.

Why not?

Whatever his past arguments were, no he's talking about alternative formats, not you

Yes, and no one is denying them that right. We're saying:
We like to go to the amusement park when it's sunny. We've done it for years. It like it that way for very good reasons. No one has yet been able to refute our reasons.

We do it our way, we like it. We're not disallowing anyone to do it differently as long as they don't try to force us to change. Meanwhile, Jack and his friends are trying to force us to change. This is the case of one side wanting to change something they're not even a part of and the opposing side villified for defending their ways!

If you're not denying him this right why are you debating him?

He's been rather explicit about what he wants...

Does it upset me that no one is trying to experiment with Final Smashes? Of course. It also upsets me that no one is holding a high-gravity tournament. It upsets me that only a handful of people are even trying to see if there are any viable items. But honestly, why should anyone? With 75% or more of the community saying, 'What? No. That's stupid.', why should anyone have the drive to try something new? You know how many people have come up to me and told me I was an idiot for working on the 'ISP' project? Plenty. Most of them had all sorts of great logic and facts to back them up, too. I'm still doing my job, my responsibility to the community, though, because I couldn't care less what others think as long as I feel I'm doing the right thing. Not many people are like that, though, and when you repeatedly push them into the ground, they don't get up.

He's not asking that everyone jump on his items bandwagon, he's just annoyed that nobody seems willing to experiment with alternative formats at all.

He's not asking that you change competitive, just that you do not discourage alternative formats.

No, and he can keep his ISP project. But why is he so insistent on changing Competitive Smashing when we do not want it to change?! Using nothing but his opinions?!

But he's NOT.

At this point you two are arguing two completely separate things, you're arguing that competitive standard should remain the same. He's arguing that there should be alternative formats that people actually use.

Again, no one's stopping him from hosting his own tournaments. We're trying to stop him from whining at us for the way we're hosting ours despite the fact that we're Competitive smashers who host Competitive tournaments for Competitive players.

But he's not trying to change competitive.

He may have been in the past, but not now.

We're going to do it the way that best allows us to play Competitively. Meanwhile, he wants to change the Competitive fighting scene by adding more random elements because it'd be "more fun/exciting/varied":

And I don't disagree with you, I use competitive standard format for almost every game of smash I play.

And he doesn't disagree with you either, he just doesn't want you discouraging other formats that aren't quite as competitive.

That is not a good argument! And he's been trying to do it using the same stale arguments for over three months now. Seriously, he's a broken record!

Why is it not a good argument, he has as much right to host an ISP tournament as we do to host a Competitive standard tournament.

 

[Twin Dreams]

Right. He can do whatever he wants. There isn't a problem there. I even mentioned that if his tournaments were very successful, then perhaps it will impact the community.


I entered melee tournaments that had items on. I played Fox. Fast character, fastest pick-up-item-lag, reflector. Shine to knock them away from items. etc. etc...


New mind-games. Slightly different game mechanics. However, I only entered because I was significantly better than most other people. I'm not going to lose money because a randomly generated boolean variable decided a match. I'm going to lose it because I made a mistake, or I wasn't good enough. Not if I can help it. (unless it was cheap entrance fee)

 

[Twin Dreams]

adumbrodeus, Yuna and I already conceded the fact that if a tournament were in our area with items, we'd probably still show up. (Though, I would only enter if the entrance cost was cheap and I agreed with the item list.)


Maybe there's a big misunderstanding here.

If jack is only asking. "Why aren't we more open-minded?" Then, the answer is... We were. Item discussions already came up. They were, once again, decided to be turned off. This is the general acceptance of the community.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumbrodeus:


You are correct. However, Jack is one of few who likes raining amusement parks. Almost nobody else goes, and some rides are shut down for safety purposes.

Pretty much, I'm not going, but there's no reason to oppose him if he wants to encourage people to go when it's raining.

Who knows, maybe more people then you realize like the rain...

Jack wants to introduce something into competitive play. Does he still even want Smash Balls?

Don't think that he still wants to change Competitive Standard, period.

Just to make it so new formats are encouraged in the community.

Right. He can do whatever he wants. There isn't a problem there. I even mentioned that if his tournaments were very successful, then perhaps it will impact the community.

Exactly, so no point in arguing.

That's why I'm not taking potshots at him in this debate.

I entered melee tournaments that had items on. I played Fox. Fast character, fastest pick-up-item-lag, reflector. Shine to knock them away from items. etc. etc...

New mind-games. Slightly different game mechanics. However, I only entered because I was significantly better than most other people. I'm not going to lose money because a randomly generated boolean variable decided a match. I'm going to lose it because I made a mistake, or I wasn't good enough. Not if I can help it. (unless it was cheap entrance fee)

And you pretty much described my feelings on the matter. But we aren't the only people in the community.

adumbrodeus, Yuna and I already conceded the fact that if a tournament were in our area with items, we'd probably still show up. (Though, I would only enter if the entrance cost was cheap and I agreed with the item list.)

Well, then you're a step up from me, because I'd never enter an item tournament with an entrance fee. I don't gamble.

But I see no reason for discouraging others from doing it if they desire.



PS.I make exceptions for charity tournaments however (ex. a recent poker tournament)

Maybe there's a big misunderstanding here.

If jack is only asking. "Why aren't we more open-minded?" Then, the answer is... We were. Item discussions already came up. They were, once again, decided to be turned off. This is the general acceptance of the community.

He's sort of asking that, it's more like "why must you guys be so derisive towards people developing alternative formats"?

Subtle difference, but he's really asking you to not discourage other people from doing these things if they enjoy it.

 

[Yuna]

You don't understand his current argument, I'll explain why in a bit.

You're the one not understanding it.

Why not?

Whatever his past arguments were, no he's talking about alternative formats, not you

We are and we have.

If you're not denying him this right why are you debating him?

He's been rather explicit about what he wants...

We're not denying him the right to play the game the way he wants to. As long as it's not at one of "our" tournaments where we already have set rules which work just great.

He's not asking that everyone jump on his items bandwagon, he's just annoyed that nobody seems willing to experiment with alternative formats at all.

Both he and you seem to not realize that not everything has to tested in tournaments before it's deemed not tournament-legal.

Honestly, do you need to see Sonic abuse New Pork City before you ban it? He gets a lead in stock/percentage and start running across the stage. Anyone who's behind a stock is screwed. Anyone without a really good projectile if he's just slightly ahead in percentage is also screwed.

Spears Pillar, enough said. No, we can determine already now that they're too broken to be allowed in tournaments. By testing them out simply by looking at how they work! I've presented perfectly valid reasons for why Final Smashes cannot possibly ever be allowed in tournament play.

His counters are what exactly? "You haven't tested it out in tournaments yet"? You call this a valid argument for the pile of arguments I have against Final Smashes?

He's not asking that you change competitive, just that you do not discourage alternative formats.

We're discouraging it how? Show us where we've discouraged "his" way. We're openly encouraging him to host his own tournaments.

But he's NOT.

Yes he is.

At this point you two are arguing two completely separate things, you're arguing that competitive standard should remain the same. He's arguing that there should be alternative formats that people actually use.

No, he's arguing that we change it. He's not arguing that there are simply alternative formats. If so, he could just host them himself. He has on many occasions (the last few posts being some of them) clearly said that he wants to change the current competitive ruleset.

But he's not trying to change competitive.

Yes he is.

He may have been in the past, but not now.

Either he is or his grasp of the English language needs some touch-up.

And I don't disagree with you, I use competitive standard format for almost every game of smash I play.

And he doesn't disagree with you either, he just doesn't want you discouraging other formats that aren't quite as competitive.

You're misinterpreting his words.

Why is it not a good argument, he has as much right to host an ISP tournament as we do to host a Competitive standard tournament.

Did you miss the 29 posts where I openly encouraged him to do so? For the past three months, he's been whining about the current competitive ruleset and how it has to change. Maybe he's changed his mind and is now just arguing that there should be alternatives, but then why is he even in this thread?

This thread is not about whether or not there can be alternatives. Especially not when I, Twin Dreams and many others are openly encouraging Jack and his ilk to host their own tournaments! How the hell could you interpret this as us denying him to play the game the way he wants?!

Pretty much, I'm not going, but there's no reason to oppose him if he wants to encourage people to go when it's raining.

Stop misinterpreting. He's actively trying to "convert" people who clearly hate going when it's raining despite them repeatedly telling him to piss off.

Who knows, maybe more people then you realize like the rain...

Then why do we see so few of them going to the amusement park? It's not about whether or not they like the rain. It's about whether or not they like the rain at amusement parks.

Don't think that he still wants to change Competitive Standard, period.

Why? His words convey that he does.

Just to make it so new formats are encouraged in the community.

Then why whine at those who do not wish to play the way he does?

Exactly, so no point in arguing.

You're reading his posts wrong.

That's why I'm not taking potshots at him in this debate.

Potshots? By pointing out how he's wrong?

And you pretty much described my feelings on the matter. But we aren't the only people in the community.

I've put up with him for 3 months. I'm actually being nice to him ATM.

But I see no reason for discouraging others from doing it if they desire.

How the hell can you misinterpret things this gravely?! When have we ever done that?!

He's sort of asking that, it's more like "why must you guys be so derisive towards people developing alternative formats"?

No he's not and no we're not. Now go re-read the posts.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...before I go to sleep, just wanted to say that adumbrodeus and Twin Dreams are totally right; goes back to the whole 'weakness with internet discussions' thing. I have a feeling that the majority of the issues going on are just misunderstandings, but that's kind of to be expected, so I try not to take things too seriously at the end of the day (which is now, ****it; stupid sleep).

 

[Johnknight1]

Wait, WHY SHOULD THE SMASH BALL BE LEGAL=???

If you're playing as a space animal, a giant ape, a hedgehog, a dude with a fat a** *(both of them), a koopa, a super armored chick, a 2D stick figure, or a robot, you're guarenteed a kill unless you miss, or suck balls at performing the move properly. O, and Marth's Final Smash is overrated. Out of the over a dozen times it's been aimed at me, it only landed once. That was the first time, needless to say. And the last time, too. WAYYY Too easy to dodge, lol! ROB's is f***ing insane, and is broken as hell. All a smash ball is is a random moving kill item that appears randomly to basically a random player, and appears every 15 seconds.

We're trying to have matches based on SKILL. Not matches based on complete randomness that kills everyone. Smash balls appear every 15 seconds. I'm not joking. It's ridiculous. Smash balls are more of luck. In fact, I refer to them as luck balls. Luck balls involve minimal skill, and are the broken equivilance of 5 hammers. 5 random hammers that you have to randomly break open, and will never break.

Basically, the faster, the better. Smash Balls break the gentle balance Brawl has. And a moving breakable kill button appearing every 15 seconds is never good, and dimishes the need for true fighting "skill". If we let the smash ball be tournament legal basically, matches would be more about breaking, using, and escaping smash balls and final smashes then actually FIGHTING!

I was one of the people who said "give items and the smash ball a chance", ,meant it, and preached it. I thought Sakurai would have items be balanced competiitvely. Instead, every item is broken as hell, or appears TOO OFTEN! Within two days of owning Brawl, I was saying "ban items", and turned off my item switch, basically permantely for "real" matches. I still occassionally like to mess around with items in smash 64 and Melee. I doubt I'll do that with Brawl, they're THAT BAD! Seriously, items are horrible for balancing competitive things. One of the worst of these is the ever random luck blal. They won't and don't deserve to be tournament legal. Period.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Both he and you seem to not realize that not everything has to tested in tournaments before it's deemed not tournament-legal.

*sigh* of course I know that.

I am not defending his style of play, I am pointing out your misconception of his arguments.

Honestly, do you need to see Sonic abuse New Pork City before you ban it? He gets a lead in stock/percentage and start running across the stage. Anyone who's behind a stock is screwed. Anyone without a really good projectile if he's just slightly ahead in percentage is also screwed.

Which is why I never play on the stage...

I don't disagree with you, you two are just arguing totally separate things.

Spears Pillar, enough said. No, we can determine already now that they're too broken to be allowed in tournaments. By testing them out simply by looking at how they work! I've presented perfectly valid reasons for why Final Smashes cannot possibly ever be allowed in tournament play.

See above.

His counters are what exactly? "You haven't tested it out in tournaments yet"? You call this a valid argument for the pile of arguments I have against Final Smashes?

But he's not arguing that. At least not anymore.

We're discouraging it how? Show us where we've discouraged "his" way. We're openly encouraging him to host his own tournaments.

I didn't say you are discouraging him...

I don't think you quite understand.

You two aren't debating each other.

You're debating both debating against theoretical arguments that oppose yours that bear a passing resemblance to what the other person is saying but is actually quite different.


He's looking to create other competitive formats. You're defending the format "Competitive standard".

It's the use of "competitive" that is confusing the issue, because when he says "competitive" he is referring to any format used in tournaments. When you say "competitive" you are referring to the current standard format for competitive play.

If you substitute "Competitive standard", for "competitive" this disagreement will disapeare, I can almost guarantee it.

No, he's arguing that we change it. He's not arguing that there are simply alternative formats. If so, he could just host them himself. He has on many occasions (the last few posts being some of them) clearly said that he wants to change the current competitive ruleset.

Sometime in the past 3 months he did perhaps.

Based on what he's saying now...

Yes he is, he's arguing for alternative formats.

Formats other then "Competitive Standard" (what you referred to as "the current competitive ruleset"), but are considered "competitive", or are considered as able to achieve "competitive" status.

Either he is or his grasp of the English language needs some touch-up.

It's a case of defining your terms. The term here is "competitive", and you two are using it to mean totally different things.

Did you miss the 29 posts where I openly encouraged him to do so? For the past three months, he's been whining about the current competitive] ruleset and how it has to change. Maybe he's changed his mind and is now just arguing that there should be alternatives, but then why is he even in this thread?

I didn't miss it.

But there are two different meanings of "competitive" floating around in this discussion. The way you used it, he understood you as discouraging the formats, saying they could not be "competitive", being derisive.

Which is why he's still arguing.

On the other hand, his use of competitive are interpreted by you as referring to the current tournament rules, which is not what he means.


Really this is another example of "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound"? Once you define what you mean by nobody and sound, and then there is no debate, but obviously people spend hours debating those two things before coming to a conclusion. Which is what this is, defining term.

This thread is not about whether or not there can be alternatives. Especially not when I, Twin Dreams and many others are openly encouraging Jack and his ilk to host their own tournaments! How the hell could you interpret this as us denying him to play the game the way he wants?!

I'm not, I understand exactly what you are saying, but does Jack? Do you understand what Jack is saying?

Neither of you are wrong, you just disagree over the meaning of one crucial word, "competitive", and you both don't realize it.

Potshots? By pointing out how he's wrong?

Yeah, taking potshots at somebody who is mistaken by breaking their argument is justified, otherwise why would I say that I'd do it?

How the hell can you misinterpret things this gravely?! When have we ever done that?!

People do it all the time when they disagree over words' meanings and don't realize it.

I love debating and I've seen it happen many MANY times.

 

[karadoc]

Yes.

The answer to this would be obvious if you played any games competitively.

Your [opinion] is bad, and you should feel bad!

Excuse me while I shred your arguments for why they should be turned on.


How does [playing more matches] help [to reduce the randomness of outcomes]? So now we'll have to play through more games where the chances of items deciding the match (which is very high if any but, say, 2 specific items, are turned on).

blah blah blah

They're not unarmed, they have their movesets.

Yes, because we're obviously magicians.

"Ouh! A bob-omb spawned right where I didn't want it to spawn. Abrakabra, now it's gone!"
"Ouh, a Smash Ball appeared right above my opponent as I was recovering. They manage to nab it before I can even make it back to the stage. But watch this! Smash Ball begone!"
"Ouh! You're obviously not a competitive Smasher. As such, your opinion has no bearing or relevance to competitive Smashing."


Agree with me, or I'll starting insulting your mother.


King DeDeDe scares me when there are items turned on. (imbal. omg!)


They were. We didn't like it. We removed them. Come up with good reasons for why they should be allowed. No what-ifs, maybes, "my opinions", cold hard cash, I mean facts.


Why in all that is good and cookielike would you try to change it?! Are you so selfish you'd only join a scene after shaping it to your liking?! Join us first, then try to play a part in shaping our community!

You don't like it? Start your own series of tournaments (or even just one) where you decide the rules.

Let's see, I have facts, anecdotal evidence + more facts, even more facts, Smash history, competitive fighting gaming history, knowledge of competitive fighting games (even into many games which I don't even play), knowlege of the competitive fighting gaming mindset, powerful connections among the top ranking players of a lot of competitive fighting games, the game's programming itself (I often refer to how the game works, test my claims if you don't believe me), pretty much 99% of the Competitive Smashing Community behind me. And I'm willing to badmouth anyone who even considers disagreeing with me.

Ok. So I have paraphrased a couple of sentences in there... Yuna, I feel like you are overreacting a little bit here. Calm down. Lighten up. Is it too much for you that some people disagree with what you are saying? You keep going on about having "facts" on your side, like you are some SSB holyman or something. Let me remind you that this is a game. Different people find different things fun/entertaining/challenging/exciting.

Now I'll try to address some of the points in your post.

You don't have to be a "magician" to deal with the randomness of items. Although it is true that items can result in some unavoidable accidents (like a bomb appearing on top of you during an attack), but these are just a small subset of what can happen. Most of the time these fluke events are not enough to ruin a game. As I was saying before, a good player is able to deal with many situations, including those that involve quick witted use of an item that just appeared, and including those where the opponent has an item based advantage. I thought it was obvious that when I referred to "unarmed" opponents I was talking about "item-less"opponents. It was pretty silly of you to say "They're not unarmed, they have their movesets." You deliberately misinterpreted what I said. It suggests that you aren't even willing to think about my point of view.

Besides, since the randomness effects all players, on a larger set of games the net effect is even for all players. Is it so atrocious for you to think that the best smash player can't be chosen from a single game? Is it so bad that there could be a fluke win by a unskilled player against a skilled player from time to time?

Finally there seems to be a misunderstand as to why I am saying all this. I'm not trying to demand anything from you or your elite club that you claim to be a part of. I'm just suggesting and reasoning that items may not be as bad as you claim. I'm putting forward my opinion. If you are set in your ways, so certain that items are not for you, I don't care. I really don't. But I do think you should try not to shove your opinion down other people's throats. Even with your fantastic evidence based reasoning you can't use your "facts" to that "prove" that no-items is the best way to play, because different people like different things. For example, I prefer to play with items on, and there isn't really any reasoning you can use to change my mind on that. So when I play in a competition, I'd prefer to have items on. That is my opinion, and I've tried to explain why. To say that I am "wrong" makes about as much sense as to say I'm wrong for preferring vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream.


Look, I can see that your holy crusade against items isn't going to stop just because of what I've said. I realise that you're going to flame me and my post until the ashes blow away. It is clear that winning this 'argument' means more to you than it does to me. So you can have it. I'm out. Flame away. Flame on until the only people left in this thread are those who agree with you. Then the world will know peace.

 

[Twin Dreams]

stuff

Edit: I changed this to "stuff" from the quote from the post above it. I hate big, unnecessary quotes.

Player A is beating Player B.

Player B has high damage on last stock. Player A comes in for the kill. After he does his attack, an explosive spawns in front of him, it kills him. Why is this fair? Why should people who are playing money expect to lose because of randomly generated numbers? Edit: I have personally seen this happen to decide matches in tournaments. (My friend's Captain Falcon knee'd a randomly spawned bomb-omb in the middle of a combo.)


Yuna never said playing with items doesn't take skill.


He's saying that it's adding unnecessary randomness to the game. Is it possible for a worse player to win because of a fluke, even without items? Yes. Why would we knowingly increase the amount of "flukes" that can happen?


Also, no ones trying to change your mind on what you do when YOU play. We are defending the way WE play.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

pretty much EVERY single competitive player knows what its like to be a casual gamer. while absolutely NO causal gamer has been a competitive player(unless he magically reverted back)

in other words, most if not all people who think items should be allowed in the competitive scene don't know what they are talking about, since most of them of course are not part of that scene.

 

[uremog]

ok. no one is saying there is a "best" way to play in general. the argument against items is strictly for competitive play. in order to see who's better, we try to reduce as much randomness as possible to get more accurate results.

this is not a matter of who likes items and who doesn't, it's a matter of what is important to competitive play and what is conducive to that and what is not.

if you want to have a items competition, go ahead

 

[Mikau et al]

pretty much EVERY single competitive player knows what its like to be a casual gamer. while absolutely NO causal gamer has been a competitive player(unless he magically reverted back)

in other words, most if not all people who think items should be allowed in the competitive scene don't know what they are talking about, since most of them of course are not part of that scene.

Never been a competitive player, yet that doesn't stop me from agreeing with you. Just because some casual players don't have the motivation to play competitively doesn't mean we can't appreciate nor understand your opinions. I like to play with items--because I like to play for fun. I can easily see how you (the competitive gamers collectively) would rather play with items off. If I were playing for money or reputation, I wouldn't want to lose it to flukes, either. Keep items out of competitive smash until you can actually customize them to have a less randomizing effect on competition, though I doubt if that will ever happen because smash has been consistently shown to be geared toward casual gamers. And when you think about it, the whole point of items is to quickly turn the tides in favor of the losers (or the less capable gamers). But as I don't play competitively, I enjoy that aspect of items, and will continue to play with them to my leisure. Though that Dragoon thread should be closed because even casual gamers hate the crap out of that thing. **** near ruined the point of SSB.

 

[AkuManiMani]

* And last but not least: If I tell you to please go away, will you actually stay away this time?

Erm...So the requisite of participating in this forum is that posters have to agree with you? Its not like them spouting their personal opinions on a thread they started will ruin your gaming experience. You've made your own points quite well. If theirs annoys you so much why don't you stop wasting your time?

 

[karadoc]

ok. no one is saying there is a "best" way to play in general. the argument against items is strictly for competitive play. in order to see who's better, we try to reduce as much randomness as possible to get more accurate results.

this is not a matter of who likes items and who doesn't, it's a matter of what is important to competitive play and what is conducive to that and what is not.

if you want to have a items competition, go ahead

That reminds me. I forgot to emphasise that a game with items involves certain skills that are not required in a game with no items. The game is slightly different with items. The best player when items are turned off may not be the best player when items are turned on. So it is difficult to say which form of play is best for competitive play from the point of view of finding the "best player".


Also, a few people are asking why anyone would want to choose add more randomness to the outcome of matches. My response to that is that the randomness is not what we are choosing to add. The randomness is a side-effect. The reason I'd prefer to play with items is to add variety in what can happen in a game; not to obscure who is the better player - that's just a side effect.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

That reminds me. I forgot to emphasise that a game with items involves certain skills that are not required in a game with no items. The game is slightly different with items. The best player when items are turned off may not be the best player when items are turned on. So it is difficult to say which form of play is best for competitive play from the point of view of finding the "best player".


Also, a few people are asking why anyone would want to choose add more randomness to the outcome of matches. My response to that is that the randomness is not what we are choosing to add. The randomness is a side-effect. The reason I'd prefer to play with items is to add variety in what can happen in a game; not to obscure who is the better player - that's just a side effect.

read my sig.

People don't like that kind of "side effect" when money is on the line. how is that so hard to understand.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That reminds me. I forgot to emphasise that a game with items involves certain skills that are not required in a game with no items. The game is slightly different with items. The best player when items are turned off may not be the best player when items are turned on. So it is difficult to say which form of play is best for competitive play from the point of view of finding the "best player".

Yeah, the game is different, but the problem is the randomness detracts from skill because it requires more skill to win consistently with items then without. Randomness pushes both players' win ratios towards 50%. This obscures better players.

Also, a few people are asking why anyone would want to choose add more randomness to the outcome of matches. My response to that is that the randomness is not what we are choosing to add. The randomness is a side-effect. The reason I'd prefer to play with items is to add variety in what can happen in a game; not to obscure who is the better player - that's just a side effect.

Sure, it's a side effect, but given what we are trying to find (the best player), is it worth it to have those side effects in order to have the extra elements? Not in my opinion, and not in just about everyone from the competitive scene's opinion. But, if you want it, you have your own tournament, create your own competitive format. That's what Jack is trying to do.

 

[shadenexus18]

I'm pretty sure everyone has already said this, but nobody wants to see someone win by a meer fluke. Some of those Smash Ball attacks are 1 hit K.O's. It's not fair.