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

[dj_pwn1423]

Christ, people get way too emotional about sh*t like this. It's a really simple concept, people. Two ideologies. Neither is inherently better than the other. They cater to different people with different opinions.

Since Yuna is so insistent on using these assumptions as factual evidence, here's your counter. I did a 1v1 test for the 'ISP' project with Smash Balls on. Toon Link v. Ike. Human test. I was the more skilled player according to the control set (10 matches with no items), with 8 out of 10 wins, the only losses in Sudden Death. We got the exact same results from the item set (low rate, not enough room to list all the disabled items). Ike rarely got the Smash Ball because he wasn't smart at all in trying to break it. He'd get one, maybe to aerials off, and I'd let him just so I could go in, throw an u-air/up-b/bomb to snipe the Smash Ball, then commence with the ****.

So, I have a specific scientific test that supports my theory that, even though there is some randomness in Smash Balls, the more skilled player can manipulate the situation to get the Smash Ball even if it doesn't spawn near him.

you are assuming that there is a huge gap on skill between the players in tournaments, wich is not the case. and no the more skilled player cant "manipulate" the situation if the smash ball is close enugh to the opponent and he is competent enugh(wich he most likely is).

You are missing the point though, even if you think smashballs are not that random, the matches WILL revolve about getting the smashball first, wich frankly makes the game shallow. I dont see why people would want to do that, just to see some "cool" animations while fighting.

btw tests are always made more then once to confirm the results are right.

 

[6footninja]

Christ, people get way too emotional about sh*t like this. It's a really simple concept, people. Two ideologies. Neither is inherently better than the other. They cater to different people with different opinions.

Since Yuna is so insistent on using these assumptions as factual evidence, here's your counter. I did a 1v1 test for the 'ISP' project with Smash Balls on. Toon Link v. Ike. Human test. I was the more skilled player according to the control set (10 matches with no items), with 8 out of 10 wins, the only losses in Sudden Death. We got the exact same results from the item set (low rate, not enough room to list all the disabled items). Ike rarely got the Smash Ball because he wasn't smart at all in trying to break it. He'd get one, maybe to aerials off, and I'd let him just so I could go in, throw an u-air/up-b/bomb to snipe the Smash Ball, then commence with the ****.

So, I have a specific scientific test that supports my theory that, even though there is some randomness in Smash Balls, the more skilled player can manipulate the situation to get the Smash Ball even if it doesn't spawn near him. All I've seen anyone (not just Yuna) give on the subject are vague assumptions and 'Nostradamus'-style predictions on the future. Again, I'm not saying that entirely disagree with you (I see both sides for what they are and how they are right), but I'm basing my actions on observable truth in a controlled setting. Science: it wins.

QFT.

10char

 

[Mann]

Why should someone who worked hard to get their opponent past 150% and still at 0%, to find that they knocked their opponent close to a smash ball? Reasoning.

 

[Bocom]

Why should someone who worked hard to get their opponent past 150% and still at 0%, to find that they knocked their opponent close to a smash ball? Reasoning.

They can't reason, they say the same things over and over and over and over...

 

[S2]

People tend to be against smashballs for 2 reasons

1.) They mess with the game's balance. I'm not simply talking about how the focus goes onto getting the smashball instead of the fighting.

What I mean is that the actual smash attack are not balanced at all. Many of the characters who are already contenders for high tier placement happen to have massively good smashes.

Take Fox, who is normally a very good character. Add the fact that he can laser accross the screen to "steal" the smashball. And the fact that his FS will almost always get a kill because its easy to use and lasts a long time... plus its easy to time a second kill by lifting the character up on the landmaster as they come back from a death.

Now compare it to Falcon, who isn't being considered that great right now on his own merits (isn't placing high in tournaments). Who doesn't have any projectiles for smashball stealing. And has a FS that's easy to miss.

There are balance problems.

2.) The counterpicking of stages would be based soley on smash attacks for certain characters. Characters like DDD are going to have to pick small stages in order for their FS to be effective, as its usefulness goes down on certain maps.



People don't want competitive play where charcter choices and stage selections is all based around the smashball. That's what happens wtih that item. The game either plays like before with an occasional FS ruining what would have otherwise been a good fight. Or the game shifts to soley be based around getting FS's.

Neither work very well for tournament style play when money is on the line.

 

[handsockpuppet]

it's an item. the person who gets it has an advantage. and even if you both get one, some FS's are better then others. that's really all there is to it. it's fine for friendlies, but tourneys are strict.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Now if anybody remembers this discussion from back when the game was not yet out, I was not opposed to the possibility of final smashes being competitive.

The thing is we didn't know what restrictions were on the final smashes, and I was HOPING that Final Smashes were once per character per match, that would've made them reasonable for tournaments.

At that point, both players will get a final smash at some point and when you use it is where strategy is involved. Furthermore the differences in effectiveness of final smashes would be incorporated into the tiers.

Heck, I would've gone for a stronger smash ball, if it was strong enough to last longer it would've been fair, because it would've been impossible to get it without fending off your opponent, at least for Item Standard Play.



As it stands, it shouldn't be legal in any format, it's too easy to obtain and therefore it's risk/reward is way to off for it to not overwhelm far too many skill considerations to be reasonable.

It looked like they wanted it tournie legal with the whole "break open the smash ball thing"... but it just wasn't sufficient.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Happened to me two days ago. I ***** my friends with Ganondorf and his FS. So yeah, it does happen, like Yuna said.



Then get out of this thread, your arguments are from now on considered moot.

**** the N00bs on this site are stupid...


YOU GTFO unless you actually realize what YOU are talking about...

 

[Bocom]

**** the N00bs on this site are stupid...


YOU GTFO unless you actually realize what YOU are talking about...

If you aren't going to play competitively, then stop trying to make decisions for it. If I am a n00b by your definition, then you are one in my definition.

Why should non-competitive players inflict how competitive players play?

Or are you going after my post count? If that's your definition of a n00b, then wow... just wow...

 

[thirteen37]

are you kidding???

well first off, items have never been aloud in competitive play, so why change that?

and since most competitive games use limited stock, how much crap would it be to play against a snake? if you get lucky shots you can get 3 knockouts with one smash attack (i've seen it happen). whereas with characters like pit and dedede you're not even guaranteed one knockout.

 

[Bocom]

They don't think like that... They think that it's fair that way, as far as I've understood by their arguments.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

If you aren't going to play competitively, then stop trying to make decisions for it. If I am a n00b by your definition, then you are one in my definition.

Why should non-competitive players inflict how competitive players play?

Or are you going after my post count? If that's your definition of a n00b, then wow... just wow...

1) The arguement ended

2) It was a misunderstanding

3) It had NOTHING to do with you...

Now shut the hell up

 

[Mr_Hippie101]

I wouldnt like smash balls in tournaments. . .I don't like playing with items period (unless you're just messing around) it's too cheap of a way to win. Being able to crush your opponant without the use of items just shows how well youve mastered your character.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

When and where the Smash Ball appears is random.

What the players do when it gets there is not.

Actually, the same kind of mentality could be applied to items general. It takes quite a bit of skill and finesse to deal with random items effectively. Should items be allowed?

This might be exaggerating the point just a bit, and I think that trying to debate one side over won't really yield many results. (maybe)

Do they have a separate tournament league where you can use items and/or Smash Balls? If not, I strongly recommend this for future tournaments. (Although you may be able to get just as much satisfaction online)

 

[Jack Kieser]

are you kidding???

well first off, items have never been aloud in competitive play, so why change that?

and since most competitive games use limited stock, how much crap would it be to play against a snake? if you get lucky shots you can get 3 knockouts with one smash attack (i've seen it happen). whereas with characters like pit and dedede you're not even guaranteed one knockout.

Actually, items were in play competitively until about 2005, if I remember correctly The point is that they were used competitively for a long time, so... maybe we should reopen the case and take a look at it again. Just saying.

 

[the_Capt_Falcon_Master]

using items well also takes a certain amount of skill, and yes the appearence of items is lucky and sometimes random. But you could allow items, set the frequency to very low, and only leave on certain items that you deem usable in tournement play.

 

[6footninja]

If you aren't going to play competitively, then stop trying to make decisions for it. If I am a n00b by your definition, then you are one in my definition.

Why should non-competitive players inflict how competitive players play?

Or are you going after my post count? If that's your definition of a n00b, then wow... just wow...

Maybe a competitive oriented site should be made? That would be nice, but I could see it being too "1337" real fast. You wouldn't be able to restrict non-competitive players from joining or participating. A little off subject, but it swings to my next point.


listening to the casuals opinions will have to do.

 

[someguy12]

Actually, items were in play competitively until about 2005, if I remember correctly The point is that they were used competitively for a long time, so... maybe we should reopen the case and take a look at it again. Just saying.

yes, yes, and yes. i actually remember that, i might not have been able to participate in the competitive tourneys back then, but when items WERE allowed, those were the best! those players were WAY better than most of today's new competitive smashers. they were able to adapt to ANY situation, any stage, with any items. and smash balls are no exception. there are great FS's in comparison to others, but that doesn't matter! i can dodge lucas' FS, pit's, ness', and all of the LANDMASTAS!! you just have to work on it.

the definition of "competitive" smashing has changed since items were removed, now, it's just, play the most basic forms, if you don't want items or stages with any changes, go play street fighter or one of those other 2-d fighters, where button smashers thrive, leave the people with the SKILL to deal with ANYTHING to smash, where the game is at it's best!

using items well also takes a certain amount of skill, and yes the appearence of items is lucky and sometimes random. But you could allow items, set the frequency to very low, and only leave on certain items that you deem usable in tournement play.

also a good idea, maybe the IGNORENT, ANNOYING, THINK-SCULLED, ARROGENT, COCKY, STATUS-IS-EVERYTHING KNOW-IT-ALLS, (here's looking at you Yuma!!!!) will finally be somewhat satisfied, since the interesting, games that require more than just the ability to do 6 different combos, in a SET situation, matches once thrived.

hey, i may only be a journeyman, but i've been in the smash community since 1999, even though i recently joined SWF, status isn't everything. THAT'S RIGHT YUMA!! I'M calling you out!!!!!!! im not backing out, or down!

how about this, we have 3 matches, 1 with no items, 1 with all items, and 1 (if needed) with 1 item of each players choice (you have to choose a item, or i'll pick it for you!)

so, are you willing to take me on, or are you so chicken, and so concerned about you reputation, that you'll avade my match saying something like "it's obserd" or something like that, after all, i have 9 years of smashing under my belt. and, you seem so great, with the arrogent tone in your posts, the "my-word-is-law" tone. so, it eems like an even match, so let's settle it, does items really make a difference? i challenge you!!! bring it on!!

oh, and btw, how the hell can you camp for a smash ball? after all, you YOURSELF said that the SB's spawn RANDOMLY, how can you camp for something you don't know where or when it will appear?

 

[Dakoshie Yukazami]

I don't like the smash ball in games because I like to have matches all about skill......if you are beating someone and they get a smash ball because they have homing missiles *cough snake cough* they can KO you all because of that.Then they think they are better then you and it will result with you throwing them out of your house window.

 

[infernovia]

In reply to the first topic:

Kirby's pot vs. Landmaster. Landmaster can get 2 kills easily while kirby can barely kill once. Unbalanced, limits character selection needlessly. I don't think kirby can even get items if they are turned off. It's a serious problem in my opinion.

I hate losing like one and half (sometimes 2) of my stocks to some characters while mine can barely deal 26%.

 

[karadoc]

In reply to the first topic:

Kirby's pot vs. Landmaster. Landmaster can get 2 kills easily while kirby can barely kill once. Unbalanced, limits character selection needlessly. I don't think kirby can even get items if they are turned off. It's a serious problem in my opinion.

I hate losing like one and half (sometimes 2) of my stocks to some characters while mine can barely deal 26%.

Earlier in this same thread someone else was saying that Kirby would have the advantage because of the brick move invulnerability during final smashes.



Look, the truth of it is that some characters may perform better when items are turned on. Maybe they are better at collecting the items, or evading items or whatever. Some characters are better when items are turned off! In this sense, items do not unbalance the game, they only change the balance.

Items may be random, and that means that sometimes someone will get a luck based kill rather than a skill based kill. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Playing the odds would become part of the skill of the game. There are many competitive games that have a large degree of luck in them. Randomness does not equalise skilled players with unskilled players. It just changes the way the game should be played.

I think that items (not just the smash ball, but several other items) should be turned on in general. It makes for more interesting games where more things can happen. I always have items on when I play with my friends at home because it makes it more fun. If players are given enough lives, then any luck based kills will balance out and the better player will always win anyway.

 

[ConnorTheKid]

*facepalm*

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

*facepalm*

*Agreed* V_V

 

[someguy12]

i still find it crazy about no items, when 2-3 year ago, items were encrouraged.

i mean, that is insane. end. no logic, if you got rid of them, then we can bring them back. win=me

edit: i apologize for my previous post, the one where i go crazy, i apologize.
but, my challenge to Yuma stays, i never back down, i still intend to show my point.

 

[-Zangetsu-]

stupid noobs...smash balls in competitive play, pfffttt

I read through almost this entire thread and so far this is my favorite answer : p

 

[Mini Mic]

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

Immaturity/Because you touch yourself at night./ immaturity

Because they're still an item like any other and tourney people are set in their way.

I'll show myself out.

 

[Yuna]

On that last bit, you are putting your opinion against real circumstances. There are competitive players that accept the idea of Smash balls in "pro" tournaments ya know .If they are excluded, then great. If they are kept in, watever, fine.

Is it inconvenient that you're not full of flawless logic? You're not the law.

Name them. Now. And I'll have at least 15 people for every single person you name who I know is against it.

The opinions of 5-10 are meaningless in the face of 900+. And who are these people, anyway? Have they ever even made it out of pools? Do they have a long history of competitive fighting games? Do they even know how to play the game properly or have they just slapped the label "competitive" on themselves?

Stuff

When did I say the most fatal part of Final Smashes is that it allows lesser skilled opponents to win. When did I ever even use it as an argument, except quite possibly when rounding up every single argument against FS:es?!

The most fatal blow to FS:es in tournaments lies in how they work. It's not just that they're random and there's luck involved. It's that they're broken and imbalanced. Bad balance aside, they give you full invincibility for a long period of time, for some, it lasts even longer than the hitbox is out so a whiffed FS is unpunishable (yet one will quite possibly KO you on hit).

It gives you more camping abilities and will give you new pressuring abilities, all the while putting your opponent at a severe disadvantage. Even being anywhere near the opponent might result in you taking a hit because Sonic's FS has a huge hitbox (and a pretty **** strong one) on activation. If you at any time don't spotdodge/airdodge it while he's near you, he can just activate you and you'll fly off (and then he'll be Chaos Sonic).

The brokenness lies 75% in how FS:es are programmed. You have yet to find a single way to refute my arguments in how they're broken other than "I don't think so". Seriously, you claim to have learned something off of our previous "battles" of the mind. Show it.

Also, it's not just about that it won't happen in every single game. It can happen. And it'll mean a lot if lucky spawns somehow lets a lesser player win. What if they're really close in skill? The lesser one gets a lucky FS and gains a lead, the better player isn't good enough to win it. Or what if both players are of equal skill? The deciding factor of the set would literally be how many FS:es each player can get.

And there's FS-whoring. Tournament play will devolve into whoring them. Competitive fighting gaming history shows that, you cannot deny it.

Now please try to refute the arguments I'm actually using.

Seriously, people, if you cannot refute any of the things I just spelled out for you, do not post in this thread. I am sick and tired of replying to the same stale arguments I have already soundly defeated (by the admission of their posters for the majority of the times) over and over again, most often by these very same arguments that I just posted here.

Read through some pages of arguments before entering a thread with this many pages because chances are, what you're about to say has already been said.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff)

Go away.

Actually, items were in play competitively until about 2005, if I remember correctly The point is that they were used competitively for a long time, so... maybe we should reopen the case and take a look at it again. Just saying.

Go away.

No, seriously, it is obvious you have learned nothing, young Padawan. Items were in competitive play until 2005? In what alternate universe? I started playing Smash competitively in 2003. Already back then, items were, IIRC, completely out of competitive play. Maybe there was the rare case but from what I remember, all major tournament had banned items already.

Don't try to distort recent history. Because it's easily checked, especially if the people who were around back then are still around and have barely aged (no senility here!).

Maybe a competitive oriented site should be made? That would be nice, but I could see it being too "1337" real fast. You wouldn't be able to restrict non-competitive players from joining or participating. A little off subject, but it swings to my next point.

Smashboards was a good place to be a competitive Smasher until Brawl was announced.

listening to the casuals opinions will have to do.

Why? If you have no interest in joining our community, why should we let you take a part in shaping it? If you want tournaments with Final Smashes and/or items so much, do what Jack Keiser is trying to do, host your own tournaments.

I actually join communities before I try to change them (and when I try to do it, I do it better because I actually read up on subjects I argue).

Stuff

Go away.

Earlier in this same thread someone else was saying that Kirby would have the advantage because of the brick move invulnerability during final smashes.

And stuff.

Go away.

And also, only an idiot would let Kirby use the Down B to avoid their FS.



I'm tired, I'm cranky, I'm... well, I'm not hungry. But I'm tired of uneducated people spouting even more uneducated bovine manure. Of people knowing almost nothing about what they're saying, arguing and/or trying to change spouting off lies, misinformation, skewed information and/or just uneducated guesses (or even stupider stuff).

Of people just being plain stupid. This is why some of my replies in this post are venomous. But at least I wasn't stupid and my facts check out.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Whoops, sorry Yuna. Got a little confused with my dates there, but I kind of figured I would (hence the 'if I remember correctly'; I obviously didn't, no big deal, I'll go back and fix it). The point I was trying to make (which is more important here) is that for a significant period of time, items were used in tournaments. Even taking my mistake in date into consideration, that's 2 years that went by with items on; that's a significant period of time.

I'm not exactly sure what you were quoting of me (since you snipped it), but I'm guessing it was the post about the test I did (the TL/Ike one). If that is the case, read on; if not, disregard what I'm about to say.

I never said that you ever used the argument that 'the most fatal part of Final Smashes is that it allows lesser skilled opponents to win'. But, the corollary to that argument is something that has been said before, that their randomness (among other things) makes them unfair, and this extends to all item arguments, which is what the (at the time) discussion had moved to. Yes, there are balancing issues with Final Smashes; I don't remember anyone ever seriously saying there weren't (but I've already forgotten what I had for breakfast, so I'm not infallible). And, again, I have to disagree with what you're saying about FS whoring becoming the gold standard of Smash gameplay. Sure, to some extent and in some matches it may happen. But when you say 'competitive fighting gaming history shows that, you cannot deny it', you are patently wrong; I think many people would be hard pressed to present a time in competitive fighting games in the past that is close enough to FS's to warrant such a statement. FS'es work so differently from what we're used to in competitive fighting games that we can't easily compare them to anything, really. They can't be compared to Supers because you're invincible while you use them and you gain FS'es in a completely different way. ...and that's all I can think to compare them to. Again, you're trying to make a concrete prediction that relies on us taking you at face value and just 'trusting you'... and I refuse to do that. I only trust my senses, and I refuse to believe someone because he says I should.

This is kind of an aside... but 'some of my replies in this post are venomous' doesn't even begin to describe your posting habits. Every post I've ever read of yours has been full of, to be frank, hate. I'm not really saying you don't have that right, and I've definitely come to expect that from you (so I accept and allow it)... but please don't try to seem like you're just a nice guy who loses his cool every now and then. Regardless of the reason, most, if not all, of the posts of yours I've read are... well, unnecessarily full of spite. Don't try to act like they aren't. There's no reason to treat as many people as you do in such a 'dickish' manner, especially considering the most contact you've had with most of these people has been on an internet message board. It's unnecessary, and though it's your right to do so (and I know you aren't gonna stop anytime soon), realize that you aren't the victim here.

 

[Yuna]

Whoops, sorry Yuna. Got a little confused with my dates there, but I kind of figured I would (hence the 'if I remember correctly'; I obviously didn't, no big deal, I'll go back and fix it). The point I was trying to make (which is more important here) is that for a significant period of time, items were used in tournaments. Even taking my mistake in date into consideration, that's 2 years that went by with items on; that's a significant period of time.

The scene was young and n00b. There were few players and the players who were the best weren't even that good. They were pretty new to competitive fighting games because Smash 64 was kinda small on the competitive side (as in how many players it attracted) and Smash 64 was also vastly different from SSBM. I do not know the history of SSB, I do not claim to know so.

If they used items, I cannot say why they did it and why they chose not to turn them off. Experiments were done with items early on. The bottom line is, we came to the conclusion that they should be off. No substantial evidence for why they should be turned on has been presented since, not for Melee and not for Brawl.

"It'd be more exciting" doesn't cut.

I never said that you ever used the argument that 'the most fatal part of Final Smashes is that it allows lesser skilled opponents to win'. But, the corollary to that argument is something that has been said before, that their randomness (among other things) makes them unfair, and this extends to all item arguments, which is what the (at the time) discussion had moved to.

You chose to only address that one issue which isn't even an issue I've ever stressed. I've ever only said "They're random, they spawn randomly, at random times and in random places". I have never, as far as I can remember, stressed or possibly even used the argument of "a lesser player might win over a more skilled player" other when pointing out that it could indeed happen.

I never bring it up unless someone brings it up first or if I'm rounding up all of the issues against FS:es for the whole picture. Why would you address me and choose that one aspect I've never even stressed is a mystery.

Yes, there are balancing issues with Final Smashes; I don't remember anyone ever seriously saying there weren't (but I've already forgotten what I had for breakfast, so I'm not infallible).

Then why is this the first time you're seriously acknowledged it? Why do you so often forget it? Why are you still so insistent on FS:es being turned on?

And, again, I have to disagree with what you're saying about FS whoring becoming the gold standard of Smash gameplay.

I'll try to say this tactfully:
You - Not a competitive fighting game player (by your own admission).
Me - A competitive fighting game player.

I do not only play several fighting games competitively and at least at a decent skill level, I know some of the world's best players at several fighting games. I've spoken to them, I know them, I'm part of their world, I know our mindset, how competitive fighting games work, what will happen.

If something is broken and will guarantee you (or at least tip the scales of balance) a win, people will ***** it if it isn't banned. If you leave FS:es on, tournament play will devolve into what I say it will devolve into unless the people who play in tournaments actively choose not to do so because they deem it "too cheap" (those scrubs).

This is not negotiable. It might not be like that for the first few tournaments. Heck, you might even get a few months without it. But give it a year and it will be like that, almsot 100% guaranteed. The "almost" here is not if it'll happen, it's when.

Sure, to some extent and in some matches it may happen. But when you say 'competitive fighting gaming history shows that, you cannot deny it', you are patently wrong; I think many people would be hard pressed to present a time in competitive fighting games in the past that is close enough to FS's to warrant such a statement.

Broken **** has existed in competitive games (not just fighting games) since the dawn of videogames. And people whored them in tournaments. And they were invariably banned (sometimes even before they ever saw the light of tournament play).

Tact-levels receeding...

I know what I'm talking about. You don't. Why have you not learned this yet? It's a prediction based on history and analysis of the human mind. You cannot deny what I'm saying. Ask anyone who plays videogames competitively and go to tournaments and know how they work and how the human competitive videogaming mind works.

At least 9/10 will collaborate with me.

FS'es work so differently from what we're used to in competitive fighting games that we can't easily compare them to anything, really. They can't be compared to Supers because you're invincible while you use them and you gain FS'es in a completely different way. ...and that's all I can think to compare them to. Again, you're trying to make a concrete prediction that relies on us taking you at face value and just 'trusting you'... and I refuse to do that. I only trust my senses, and I refuse to believe someone because he says I should.

You must not have played many games. Supers also render you invincible for the start of them. So they can be used to counter approach. But that's an altogether other discussion, one that does not to be gotten into here.

You trust your senses, be that way. Your senses are wrong. I and many, many, many, many, many, many, many others have told you that you are wrong. Find me one single competitive Smash or fighting game or possibly even videogame player to whom you describe exactly how Final Smashes work (show them my posts if you must) and then ask them if they think they should be allowed in tournament play.

Then ask them what they think the scene will turn into if they're allowed. They show them my prediction.

This is kind of an aside... but 'some of my replies in this post are venomous' doesn't even begin to describe your posting habits. Every post I've ever read of yours has been full of, to be frank, hate.

No they haven't. Don't make up statistics that can easily be refuted by leafing through my posting history.

For one thing, hate is a very strong word. For another, "full of" is also a very strong word. For third, I just posted 3 posts today devoid of any kind of hate, venom or resentment of any kind.

I'm not really saying you don't have that right, and I've definitely come to expect that from you (so I accept and allow it)... but please don't try to seem like you're just a nice guy who loses his cool every now and then.

I really am.

I just use witty and biting sarcasm all the time. It's a life style. And I only give those who deserve it "hate". Unless you didn't notice, the people I quoted said some very stupid things in very stupid ways (trashing competitive gamers/Smashers in the process for the most part, making up random assumptions, having deep-seated and hateful stereotypical views of competitive gaming, uneducated bovine manure spouting, etc.).

I don't go down hard on people just for being uneducated. I don't even go after the people who are uneducated and don't know they are because we've all been that person. I only go after uneducated people who think they are who think they're right no matter what and who say stupid things in stupid ways.

If all of the stars align, then they're free game.

Regardless of the reason, most, if not all, of the posts of yours I've read are... well, unnecessarily full of spite.

Unnecessarily? Hardly.

And the mods agree. Not a single infraction (read not a single infraction) for what I say or the way I say it (as in language, venom, attitude, etc). The collective Mod Squad of Smashboards has deemed my posting habits completely appropriate (though I was once told to turn the venom down but that was just an "IMO", so I guess I failed there. This thread just went straight to hell in a hand-basket over the weekend and I felt like these people needed a thourough thrashing).

This despite the fact that I often disagree with several mods and have made my disagreement apparant in posts. I'll argue against even mods if I disagree with them... but since I have yet to come across a mod posting something reaaaaally stupid, I have yet to verbally thrash them. But I'm not exactly some kind of golden child favourite of the mods' either... and still, no infractions or PM:s telling me cool it down.

I must at least not be doing something wrong.

Don't try to act like they aren't. There's no reason to treat as many people as you do in such a 'dickish' manner, especially considering the most contact you've had with most of these people has been on an internet message board. It's unnecessary, and though it's your right to do so (and I know you aren't gonna stop anytime soon), realize that you aren't the victim here.

Saying people are wrong is not hateful. Saying people should go away is not necessarily hateful either. Especially not when I in almost at least 85% of the cases tell them in great detail on why they are wrong and should go away. I'm simply telling them that they're cataclysmically wrong and going into great detail on why.

I reserve the real venom for only the stupidest cases. Because they're incurable or curing them would take months of therapy.

I'm not the victim. The world is the victim of stupidity. I'm just doing the ugly job of cleaning it up.

 

[Fuzzyness]

Yuna's posts are usually based on facts, we've been around long enough to know. And forum trolls gtfo plox

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

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?

 

[Problem2]

1. Smash Balls reward players for no reason.

Even though it helps slightly that you have to break them open, their trajectory is very random as well, so it's still hard to see who will get it amongst players of totally different skills.

2. Promotes more camping.

If there are smash balls present, why even take the offense until they show up? I'm going to play Fox, camp and laser spam on the other side of the stage, run away, repeat, etc. until the smash ball appears. Than, I'm going to get the smash ball and summon the landmaster to KO my opponent who has some damage racked up from my lasers.

 

[karadoc]

If they used items, I cannot say why they did it and why they chose not to turn them off. Experiments were done with items early on. The bottom line is, we came to the conclusion that they should be off. No substantial evidence for why they should be turned on has been presented since, not for Melee and not for Brawl.

"It'd be more exciting" doesn't cut.

I have two questions:

1) Do you believe that enough is known about Brawl to carry over the "no items" conclusion from Melee without further experimentation? Brawl is pretty new. Earlier you mentioned that items were used in competitive play because people didn't understand the game properly. Do you think that people understand Brawl well enough to decide against the use of items already?

2) You say "It'd be more exciting" doesn't cut it. Is that because you don't believe it would be more exciting, or because you don't think that the added excitement is worth the damage it could cause to the competitive play?


In my opinion, items should be allowed. The randomness the items introduce can be flattened about by just playing more matches before deciding the winner. The items themselves present new and interesting situations that the players then have to deal with. To me, a good Smash player is not only able to deal with an unarmed opponent. A good player should be able to quickly adapt and react to all kind of situations that can arise in the game. Items are part of the game; they should at least be given a chance. I'm absolutely willing to accept that it may turn out that items do not make the competitive games more fun or exciting, but I think we should give them a chance before assuming that.

 

[Twin Dreams]

I'll tag along on the "Yuna is correct" train.

 

[Problem2]

Look, if you want to play with Smash balls on, start your own group or host your own tournaments. That's why you see different parties and organizations. People don't agree on every subject, and parties almost never convince another that THEY are right.

*Edited b/c of bad analogy*

 

[Jack Kieser]

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?

Everyone is using 'maybes, hypotheticals, and what-ifs', regardless of what side he/she is on expressly because, as you have said, there haven't been any tournaments (at least that I've heard of) that have had the audacity to play with Final Smashes enabled. You know, as a community, it's not just one person's, one group's, or one side's responsibility to test these things out: it's all of ours.

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.

Are there plenty of logical reasons against Final Smashes? Sure. I'm not going to dispute that. But why not try anyway? What's the worst that could happen? Honestly. What's it hurt to encourage people to try something new/different instead of repeatedly hammering them into the ground? Nothing, that's what it hurts. But it's done anyway and it stifles change, nonetheless.

Why are people opposed to Smash Balls? Because the truth is for every one aspect we know, there is another we don't, and no one here wants to step up, put his reputation (and 15$) on the line and put his neck out to try something different.

 

[Yuna]

1) Do you believe that enough is known about Brawl to carry over the "no items" conclusion from Melee without further experimentation? Brawl is pretty new. Earlier you mentioned that items were used in competitive play because people didn't understand the game properly. Do you think that people understand Brawl well enough to decide against the use of items already?

Yes.

2) You say "It'd be more exciting" doesn't cut it. Is that because you don't believe it would be more exciting, or because you don't think that the added excitement is worth the damage it could cause to the competitive play?

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

In my opinion, items should be allowed.

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

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

The randomness the items introduce can be flattened about by just playing more matches before deciding the winner.

How does this help? 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).

I don't care if this will lessen the chances of entire sets being decided by lucky item spawns. That the chance exists at all is bad enough! So maybe only one out of ten sets will be decided by lucky items spawns now instead of two out of ten. Whoopity doo! We also don't have unlimited time. More matches = More time.

So we're just diluting the randomness, but it'll still be there like a big fat elephant and the cost of this is now everything it cost before only now it'll also take more time. Way to add upp expenses there. Accounting is just not for you, I guess.

The items themselves present new and interesting situations that the players then have to deal with.

Yes, so do Final Smashes. So does me throwing Martha Stewart into a cupboard full of almost expired ingredients while I can enjoy the best and freshest ingredients in the world for our cook-off. Doesn't make it fair or even that skill-based.

Items will be either about:
* Only useless items be allowed. These will either be ignored, become obstacles or just get in the way ("I'll just aerial you into another aerial, the 2nd a strong one which will KO you. But what's this? While I aerialed you, a smoke ball spawned above me and I was forced to catch it (by the game)! And then when I tried to aerial you the 2nd time, I could only watch helplessly as I hit you with the 1%-inducing ball which has almost no knockback!").
* Actually useful items are turned on. People will item camp, wait for them to spawn and then ***** them. Lucky items spawns can and will decide entire sets. Azen and Ken are really close. 3-3, last match of the last set, it's the finals. A Bob-Omb spawns above Ken just as he's Dance of Swording Azen. Ken gets blown to smithereens and dies, Azen wins. Yay.
* Nobody cares because we'll never turn them on!

To me, a good Smash player is not only able to deal with an unarmed opponent.

They're not unarmed, they have their movesets.

A good player should be able to quickly adapt and react to all kind of situations that can arise in the game.

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."

Items are part of the game

So is Slow Brawl, Fast Brawl, Curry Brawl, Event Mode, The Sub-Space Emissary, Spears Pillar and Wario Ware, Inc. Doesn't mean we have to play with them.

You know what else is horrible about items? Any item that's not set to OFF can be thrown by King DeDeDe. That's right. You'll be expecting a Waddle Dee or that Spiky Thingie being thrown, so you shield it, but wait! It's a Mr. Saturn! Which breaks your shield in one hit! Watch as you helplessly fly straight up and then straight down! DeDeDe is now able to charge a forward Smash and you're going to die at 75% (before taking the hit)!

It's not as bad as Peach pulling a Mr. Saturn because she has to pull it first. DeDeDe just throws it.

they should at least be given a chance.

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.

I'm absolutely willing to accept that it may turn out that items do not make the competitive games more fun or exciting, but I think we should give them a chance before assuming that.

You are? Why, how thoughtful and unselfish of you!

Of course they do not! We, the competitive community have collectively decided that, no, they do not make them more fun. Or exciting. We do not think that randomly spawning special factors that might or might not actually decide the outcome of a match are fun or exciting. We call that random bovine manure that should stay banned.

We have given them a chance. For two years, we gave them a chance. And then we banned them. If you like items so much, host your own tournaments. You're obviously not a part of the Competitive Smash Scene. From the sounds of it, you're not planning on joining it either. Or are you?

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.

What do you have (except a whole slew of Casual Smashers, why don't you guys just start your own series of tournaments if you're so desperate to play with items on?)?

I'll tag along on the "Yuna is correct" train.

You say that so often you should put it into your sig (maybe somewhere on your banner). That way, you'd be able to simply say "Read my sign".

 

[Pikachu'sBlueWizardHat]

Everyone is using 'maybes, hypotheticals, and what-ifs', regardless of what side he/she is on expressly because, as you have said, there haven't been any tournaments (at least that I've heard of) that have had the audacity to play with Final Smashes enabled. You know, as a community, it's not just one person's, one group's, or one side's responsibility to test these things out: it's all of ours.

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.

Are there plenty of logical reasons against Final Smashes? Sure. I'm not going to dispute that. But why not try anyway? What's the worst that could happen? Honestly. What's it hurt to encourage people to try something new/different instead of repeatedly hammering them into the ground? Nothing, that's what it hurts. But it's done anyway and it stifles change, nonetheless.

Why are people opposed to Smash Balls? Because the truth is for every one aspect we know, there is another we don't, and no one here wants to step up, put his reputation (and 15$) on the line and put his neck out to try something different.

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.

 

[Yuna]

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.

While Jack Keiser is eloquent, he's often also wrong. He often uses empty arguments that might sound nice to the ears but are quite shallow when inspected further.

Especially once I've soundly refuted them. He has yet to actually refute any of my most important arguments (if any at all) regarding items or Final Smashes. Him being able to spout off generalities that have to do with how some people in this thread are going at it wrong (not surprisingly, he's mostly describing the people on "your" side since almost nothing of what he said in the post you just quoted actually apply to me or others on "my" side like Twin Dreams) does make him any less wrong or any more capable of refuting my very sound arguments.

Try to actually build up a case instead of simply using arguments like:
"In my opinion"
"I think"
"I'm leaving (because I can't win)!"
"I agree with that other guy!" (who's wrong)

So far, you haven't presented a single good argument for items or Final Smashes. No one else really has. Jack Keiser managed to present some quasi-"good" arguments that sounded OK or maybe even good 'til I ran past and soundly defeated them all by pointing out one or more of the following:
* He had his facts wrong
* It's opinion-based
* The game engine works not the way he or you wants it to, it works the way it does and I know how it works and you and he do not
* Items and randomness work in certain ways
* I play Smash competitively. I am much more qualified at predicting what will happen to Competitive Smash should X/Y/Z be allowed than you (or Jack) are
* What he/you/that other guy just said was soundly defeated (most probably by me) at least 10 pages ago
* And last but not least: If I tell you to please go away, will you actually stay away this time?