Why "splitting" in tournaments should not be allowed

[DippnDots]

I either wouldn't enter and go home for having a total scrub for a TO, or I'd play it out, get the money, and then split (whether I planned to or not) with the person in 2nd after the fact. All just to spite the TO. Depends on my mood.

Defiance is a b*tch for people with pointless rules.

Wish I could wield the triforce of power well enough to do shiz like that >_> chaddd+1

 

[Jam Stunna]

I see what you mean, Narukari, and you're right. It is a prudent business decision to split between family and friends. And I readily admit that "competitive spirit" is not a sufficient reason to ask someone to drive an hour or more to a tournament.

I think that's the purpose that money serves in these kind of events, to attract the best and the brightest from far and wide. It's an incentive to bring in the best competitors to produce the best competition. I know that when I've hosted tournaments, I always try to have a prize because I know it's asking alot to have people congregate in one place essentially for nothing.

I don't have a problem with money or prizes in tournaments, and I think it's necessary and even good. It encourages people to get better so that they can win money. There's room for both the entrepreneurial and competitive spirits in gaming. But when money becomes a disincentive to play, as in, "Let's split because if I lose I'll get less money", that's when we start getting into murky territory.

 

[-Ran]

I submit to you, the best idea in the world.

Double Blind Splitting.
Both individuals tell the tournament host if they want to split. They write it down on a sheet of paper, and sign it. A third party signs it as well, validating it as a witness. The TO then puts the paper into an envelope. The two then play their matches, not knowing if they are actually splitting or not and so they are both forced to play as hard as they can. Though they may have originally agreed to split in secret, the other player may have decided not to split when he signed the paper.

After the match is done, the TO opens the envelope, and announces if it was split or not, etc.

Just a random idea that probably wouldn't work. =p

 

[Narukari]

The only problem I see with that Ran:

If there are two "big dogs" that took the same ride to the tournament, they probably allready decided to split before they even got to the tournament. If one decides to screw the other over at the last minute, you can expect one of them to remain at your house/establishment when the tournament is over. ^_^

Generally the problem isn't with strangers splitting the pot, they generally still want to figure out whos better.

 

[pockyD]

they can just agree to "not split", each take their respective prizes, and split it later, outside the context of the tournament

 

[Hax]

i would chaddd but this guy jesus never wants to team with me anymore lol

 

[LunInSpectra]

I wrote this on November 2, 2008:

I'd like to say that from now on, I will not be splitting anymore. If you say I'm selfish, it's probably because you placed lower than me. There's good thought in why I'm not splitting anymore, though.

In the past, when NorCal tournies were unpredictable and there was no clear-cut winner besides Isai, splitting was uncommon. After some time, the top placers were common top placers and splitting the earnings among each other was done as being good buddies.

When you win among your buddies, you share the earnings. This prevents friendships from converting into rivalries. This, however, turned into what I call a "biweekly payment". I actually felt bad for my friends that weren't in the common top 3. Not only that, but sometimes when we split, we didn't split equally over the places. Sometimes it'd be a split from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and ONE 5th placer. The other 5th placer usually wasn't a "Baysian" or Good Friend.

I realized this when I talked to Lucky about splitting. He related to economics and told me that, when you split between the top 3 and among friends only, you're monopolizing.

Not only that, but what value does 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place have? If, for example, I trained for a week to raise money for my cat's neutering, shouldn't I try my best to get to the top? When you split and you know that you and your buddies will get the top placings, all you really need is to be in the group at the top. This Kills Competition. When 1st place earns the same as 5th, something is wrong.

I want to bring back the Real competitive spirit. If you get 1st, you win 1st and you're rewarded with 1st. If you get 7th, you're rewarded with 7th.

If the next time I go to a tourny Falcomist, Jeff, & TANG place -- I won't split. I won't split even if I'm 4th place, right below them.

 

[nublet06]

to me...splitting is completely disrespectful to the community.

i play this game for the fun, the rivalries, and the competition.

and considering im pretty much never in the top 5 at a tournament.....but i REALLY love to watch the best players play their matches. it really makes me mad when they decide to split. its like ordering a pay per view boxing event. you watch all the crappy little fights....and then the prize fighters dont even box the main event. they shake hands and split the prize.

if smash is really all about money for anyone. than that person is a friggen idiot. get a job. in order to actually make more money playing smash than you would working minimum wage at a grocery store, you would have to be REALLY DANG GOOD. or have a lot of rich people who suck at the game to play with.

PLAY SMASH FOR THE FUN AND COMPETITIVE SPIRIT! not for money. and if you play for those reasons, splitting will make absolutely no sense.

i was once at a Nexus tournament.....with KEN AND ISAI. i was waiting all night to watch 2 of the best players in the world duke it out, and it never happened. as a player who is pretty well known/respected around the socal smash community, i felt completely disrespected. like the people who wanted to see it were not worth their time.

 

[tsetse]

Let them split its their choice their money.

 

[rhan]

What that guy said^^

It's a smart move for the 2 players in the finals. Like if the players aren't sure of themeselves they can just split the cash and be on thier way. Who cares if it's desrepectful. When money gets involves it's fair game. I really don't care if they split the money or not. As long as I play/watch some epic matches.

 

[RyokoYaksa]

From a splitter's POV, I do so because

1. I can't bring myself to take Brawl seriously
2. It's always the same people in the top 2/3 over and over to the point they're BFF
3. By the end of the tournament event, everyone is jaded and wants to go home because too much time is wasted somehow. The excitement died long before anyone decided to split.

 

[DoH]

splitting sux ..and i wish no one did it anymore..its hard to enforce..no its impossible,but please don't do it..i understand where alot of people are coming from..if billy dash dancer comes from detriot to go to cali to see mango play m2k and they split the money in grand finals ..it won't be as epic for him and others to watch if they don't split.. most people play the game because they have fun ,but don't get mad at them because they want to see a real grand finals coming from detriot or even 2 miles away , when the only reason alot of people go to tournies is for them to see john play mike or chris play josh...splitting is gay..impossible to put a rule on it end of story

Cort, M2K, and your hero DaShizWiz all split in the grand finals of FAST, and we still got one of the best sets I've ever seen.

 

[metaXzero]

If splitting could be done without either having crappy or no Grand finals, I wouldn't mind. But these days, once splitting occurs, GF never happen :/

 

[Narukari]

Why do people still assume that everyone is playing Brawl like they are Ash from Pokemon and only want to be the best for the sake of it. This is real life, not an anime.

Sure between me and my friends, we always are competing to be the best at Melee, but the point of a tournament isn't to have "epik dulez". It is gambling that you are the best person that shows up. Stop having a monetary reward for the tournament if you want the "Ash Ketchums" to be playing in the tournament. Have a tournament with no enterence fee and something like a Captain Falcon plushie be the grand prize. I would so go win a tourney with that as the prize.

 

[Ruuku]

Splitting doesn't have much to do with anything. I always split when I get to the finals rounds with my friends and teammates but we usually still play the matches seriously. We may not play the matches if it's late and we don't want to sit there for another hour.

 

[LumpyCPU...]

i support anything pocky or lunin says in this thread.
lol
that is all.

 

[Bailey]

Wow that was a completely pointless post.

SPLITTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS LONG AS:

The players actually play out their match, so the audience is not disappointed. = ]

 

[Tianxiazhai]

man...ERCE was lame..i wanted GRAND finals.

 

[Doctor X]

The very serious impact on professional leagues and publicity aside, splitting also hinders the exploration of the game. Much of what we know about a competitive game is learned by putting the best players against each other with major consequences, and seeing how they deal with it. Remove the consequences and they're far less likely to show us something new and useful, and far more likely to just **** around.

And even if they do try to take it seriously-- i.e. for pride and whatnot-- people still say nay to any information gained from these matches. Anybody ever beats M2K's MK with any other character, and people on the pro MK-ban side will say "Doesn't prove anything because it was split." If you top level players want to prove anything about this game you need to stop giving the naysayers reasons not to believe the results.

Splitting is putting the money before the community. Maybe it can't be prohibited outright, but it should certainly be frowned upon.

 

[aJerk]

my money > your feelings

 

[Tomkraven]

my money > your feelings

the community> your money.

 

[Mogwai]

the community> your money.

cause lord knows that splitting is killing the community...

 

[DippnDots]

I think, while spitting doesn't "kill" the community, it definitely stops it from growing in some respects. Namely any sort of professionalism that could be achieved, but really (not sarcastically), professionalism doesn't mean **** to anyone but kids.

 

[Mogwai]

I think, while spitting doesn't "kill" the community, it definitely stops it from growing in some respects. Namely any sort of professionalism that could be achieved, but really (not sarcastically), professionalism doesn't mean **** to anyone but kids.

well, sure it does, but in order for people to be professionals and treat the game as such, it really does have to be their source of income. video gaming in the US is probably never going to reach the level of say, starcraft in Korea, where it's literally what some people do for a living. In order for the guaranteed money of splitting to not be worth as much as the glory and sense of accomplishment that comes with winning, their needs to be someone signing your paycheck (at least IMO).

The real issue is that people don't want to watch smash. Sponsors wouldn't sponsor a smash player or team or crew or whatever, cause no one (outside of smashboards) is watching/giving a ****. People want to talk about professionalism like there is a future for smash (or any video game for that matter) in the realm of professions. Well, guess what? We live in a country full of people who couldn't care less who's the best at any given video games. Video games are something to be ashamed of or taken at a purely recreational level in our country. If someone devotes their life to being the best d@mn (basket/base/foot)ball player they can be, they are someone who should be admired for their persistence and drive. If someone does the same for a video game, they are wasting their life and a huge nerd. There's a huge cultural stigma against video games that needs to be conquered before we can talk about "professionalism" when it comes to video games.

In sports (which were drawing a lot of comparisons earlier in this thread) if you throw a game, split money, or doing anything of the sort that takes away from the competitive spirit of the league, they can fine you, suspend you and ban you, because "they" (the league) are essentially the one's signing your paycheck. There is nothing of this nature in the realm of video gaming because players aren't paid regardless of their performance, they are paid based solely on winning, and as such, if the top players decide to spread the wealth more evenly, more power to them.[/rant]

essentially, to all of you who want to see more professionalism and competitiveness in the game, find someone to sponsor a team of smashers and we'll start talking about it.

 

[Doctor X]

essentially, to all of you who want to see more professionalism and competitiveness in the game, find someone to sponsor a team of smashers and we'll start talking about it.

Which would be a lot easier to do if people weren't splitting prizes and thereby removing the edge that makes the game exiting. Professionalism aside, though, once again... it hurts the community and their quest to understand the game.

Additionally, of the splitting players not all of them actually make more money than they would have. Some-- the winner(s)-- lose money. There's no net profit between them, aside from sparing themselves the stressful experience of being part of tournament finals with actual consequences. So it's not even putting money before the community, it's putting your own cowardice and laziness before the community.

Obviously the community should come first, because without the community there would be no tournament in the first place to be getting money from, so maybe next time someone's offered a split they should try growing a pair instead, or possibly find a different hobby like stamp collecting or something since they can't handle pressure.

 

[DippnDots]

Eh, really, I have no problem with splitting. I was just unaware of the MLG situation with it, but after thinking it over for as long as this thread has been about, I still don't have a problem with splitting. I think those who say it takes away from the game aren't looking at it from the right perspective.

If you guys don't want money to be a factor in people's actions, then hold free tournaments, but as long as you put money on the line people are going to take it into account. End of story.

 

[Espy Rose]

cause lord knows that splitting is killing the community...

The community is the cause of your money.
No community = No money.

 

[Mogwai]

Which would be a lot easier to do if people weren't splitting prizes and thereby removing the edge that makes the game exiting. Professionalism aside, though, once again... it hurts the community and their quest to understand the game.

how so? how is that going to make joe six pack give any more of a **** about video games? I know it's been said before, but for the sake of reiterating, people split in poker and it's (inexplicably) one of the most viewed "sports" on TV.

Additionally, of the splitting players not all of them actually make more money than they would have. Some-- the winner(s)-- lose money. There's no net profit between them, aside from sparing themselves the stressful experience of being part of tournament finals with actual consequences. So it's not even putting money before the community, it's putting your own cowardice and laziness before the community.

I'm not saying it's more money, splitting obviously doesn't create money out of thin air, they (the winners) are still getting paid the same total as if they hadn't split. What I am saying is that when people see splitting as an option, playing the finals is like forcing them to play a (frequently ludicrously) high stakes money match, which not terribly many people prefer to just taking the money. I know I posted about this earlier in the thread, but essentially, with more balanced prize splits for the top placers, the incentive to split becomes less because it's all about risk management. You take away some of the risk that comes with playing the finals out and people will be more willing to play it out rather than splitting.

Obviously the community should come first, because without the community there would be no tournament in the first place to be getting money from, so maybe next time someone's offered a split they should try growing a pair instead, or possibly find a different hobby like stamp collecting or something since they can't handle pressure.

I know of exactly ZERO people who have left the smash community because of splitting. I'm really failing to see how splitting has hurt the smash scene.

EDIT:

The community is the cause of your money.
No community = No money.

Well, first off, it's not my money, cause lord knows I haven't won any tournaments in a few years. And again, how exactly is splitting killing the community? Can someone please provide me with an extensive list of valued members of the community that have left due to their disgust at the rampant splitting that occurs at smash tournaments?

 

[Doctor X]

how so? how is that going to make joe six pack give any more of a **** about video games? I know it's been said before, but for the sake of reiterating, people split in poker and it's (inexplicably) one of the most viewed "sports" on TV.

I didn't say it'd make him give a **** about video games, it's just that you're much less likely to find a professional organization to sponsor your sport when players split the prizes. That's what your request was, and it certainly is within the realm of possibility. This whole cultural upheaval thing is for another generation to deal with, but not unless the foundation is laid for them.

Also I'll kindly ask you never to use the phrase "joe six pack." It makes my eyes bleed.

I'm not saying it's more money, splitting obviously doesn't create money out of thin air, they (the winners) are still getting paid the same total as if they hadn't split. What I am saying is that when people see splitting as an option, playing the finals is like forcing them to play a (frequently ludicrously) high stakes money match, which not terribly many people prefer to just taking the money.

Competition is about performing under pressure, by definition. You learn from the experience, as does the community. These brilliant insights into game mechanics and strategy that we have for games like Melee and Starcraft? They come from top players looking to get an edge on each other, but if they all split the prizes there would be no reason to bother, and the metagame would suffer for it.

Again, if they can't deal with the pressure, they're involved in the wrong hobby. Without the pressure there's no competition, and without competition there's no competitive gaming.

I know of exactly ZERO people who have left the smash community because of splitting.

People quit when the scene stagnates. The scene will stagnate when there's no competition, and when the top-level players are splitting the prizes they are forgoing competition-- hurting the commmunity because they're too scared to compete.

I'm really failing to see how splitting has hurt the smash scene.

Again: players split, competition declines, development halts, players get bored and quit, then there's no more tournaments. I don't think I could put it any more clearly.

 

[pockyD]

Competition is about performing under pressure, by definition. You learn from the experience, as does the community. These brilliant insights into game mechanics and strategy that we have for games like Melee and Starcraft? They come from top players looking to get an edge on each other, but if they all split the prizes there would be no reason to bother, and the metagame would suffer for it.

Again, if they can't deal with the pressure, they're involved in the wrong hobby. Without the pressure there's no competition, and without competition there's no competitive gaming.

Who defines this standard? Are you just making up idealistic rules? I have NEVER seen "play to win" in the rule-set of any tournament.

People quit when the scene stagnates. The scene will stagnate when there's no competition, and when the top-level players are splitting the prizes they are forgoing competition-- hurting the commmunity because they're too scared to compete.

Honestly, whether M2K can or can't defeat Azen consistently or whether it's left ambiguous because they never play out their sets has ZERO BEARING on whether I choose to attend tournaments or not.

Remember, no one is being FORCED to split; if you somehow make it to the top in a money position, then it's perfectly within your rights not to split, and you preserve your "competitive integrity" or whatever you want to call it. If instead, the people at the top value the money more than the prestige, then so be it. Tournament hosts certainly don't have to sanction it, but there is zero way to prevent it from actually happening other than winning the tournament yourself

Again: players split, competition declines, development halts, players get bored and quit, then there's no more tournaments. I don't think I could put it any more clearly.

It's not that people don't understand your viewpoint; it's that your viewpoint is wrong. Repeating it doesn't clarify anything

 

[Mogwai]

I didn't say it'd make him give a **** about video games, it's just that you're much less likely to find a professional organization to sponsor your sport when players split the prizes. That's what your request was, and it certainly is within the realm of possibility. This whole cultural upheaval thing is for another generation to deal with, but not unless the foundation is laid for them.

Also I'll kindly ask you never to use the phrase "joe six pack." It makes my eyes bleed.

Since election day has past (and I don't have to look forward to ever using the phrase "Vice President Palin" *cringes*), I can officially just laugh at the phrase "joe six pack", so I'm going to continue to use it for humor purposes.

Competition is about performing under pressure, by definition. You learn from the experience, as does the community. These brilliant insights into game mechanics and strategy that we have for games like Melee and Starcraft? They come from top players looking to get an edge on each other, but if they all split the prizes there would be no reason to bother, and the metagame would suffer for it.

The game develops from a healthy mix of competition and cooperation. Forums like these where people share their insights on the game have been absolutely huge to the development of it's "metagame," probably moreso than competition.

People quit when the scene stagnates. The scene will stagnate when there's no competition, and there is no competition when the top-level players are splitting the prizes and thereby forgoing competition.

Again: players split, competition declines, development halts, players get bored and quit, then there's no more tournaments. I don't think I could put it any more clearly.

Again: to my knowledge, scenes are not evaporating due to splitting.

NJ, PA, NY is among the most healthy and competitive Melee scenes on the planet right now and the top players frequently split. The scene has been stagnating much much more from the lack of new faces due to Brawl's release than anything else.

When top players are splitting, frankly, it does nothing to the competition of other players. If you're not the one splitting, how does it affect your competition? If you get to the top and are bored of splitting because it's killing your competition, don't split. Problem solved.

If you're not in the top players and they are getting lazy and complacent from splitting amongst each other, then it just makes it easier for you to break into that group and stir things up again. Like, I just don't see how the people who are not splitting are really being affected by splitting, how does it kill their competition?

 

[DippnDots]

Again: players split, competition declines, development halts, players get bored and quit, then there's no more tournaments. I don't think I could put it any more clearly.

Smashers have been splitting for at most 7 years, tournaments are still around.

 

[Doctor X]

Who defines this standard? Are you just making up idealistic rules? I have NEVER seen "play to win" in the rule-set of any tournament.

It's the point of the tournament. That's why it's called a tournament and not a smashfest. It is idealistic, yes, but that's the point. Playing to win is an ideal that forms the backdrop of any successful competitive scene.

Honestly, whether M2K can or can't defeat Azen consistently or whether it's left ambiguous because they never play out their sets has ZERO BEARING on whether I choose to attend tournaments or not.

Maybe not directly, but let's say, for arguments sake, that M2K was playing a character that a significant minority of people in the community believe to be unbeatable, broken, and needs to be banned (yeah, just for argument's sake). But if M2K can't consistently beat Azen with this character, that'd kind of prove them wrong, right?

Well, if Azen and M2K never play out their set, then we'd never know, and you'd leave people who aren't good enough at the game to learn how to fight this character on their own out in the dark. They'd get frustrated and either quit or start banning the character at tournaments so a bunch of other people get annoyed and quit.

I consider this a very realistic (and relevant) scenario. Everyone looks to the top EC players for guidance. Refusing to play under pressure does not help their credibility or their own understanding of the game.

Tournament hosts certainly don't have to sanction it, but there is zero way to prevent it from actually happening other than winning the tournament yourself.

There is a preventative measure, and that's having it frowned upon by the community. Less people are going to do it if they have any sense of showmanship. Some people don't, and that's fine, but really... Lots of people here are trying to excuse it and justify the people who split, which of course is the opposite of what should be going on.

Smashers have been splitting for at most 7 years, tournaments are still around.

That doesn't make it right, and in a world as tenuous as an underground tournament scene it certainly doesn't help to give people reasons to be bored of it.

 

[pockyD]

It's the point of the tournament. That's why it's called a tournament and not a smashfest. It is idealistic, yes, but that's the point. Playing to win is an ideal that forms the backdrop of any successful competitive scene.

The thing, is "winning" is defined different player to player

For someone to whom money is not an issue, "winning" may be getting first place, period.

For others, leaving with more money than they came with is "winning".

For even others, making enough money to, say, pay to get your cat neutered is what it would take to be considered a "win"

Your understood definition of 'winning' simply isn't universal in the context to which you are applying it. Not everyone seeks to be the best.

Maybe not directly, but let's say, for arguments sake, that M2K was playing a character that a significant minority of people in the community believe to be unbeatable, broken, and needs to be banned (yeah, just for argument's sake). But if M2K can't consistently beat Azen with this character, that'd kind of prove them wrong, right?

...so then ask M2K

Well, if Azen and M2K never play out their set, then we'd never know, and you'd leave people who aren't good enough at the game to learn how to fight this character on their own out in the dark. They'd get frustrated and maybe start banning the character at tournaments, and a bunch of other people get annoyed and quit the game.

People are better off learning for themselves anyways. Honestly, to people who are dumb enough to randomly ban characters / techniques without properly justified as being 'broken', I say good riddance. A "large" community isn't necessarily a "good" community

I consider this a very realistic (and relevant) scenario. Everyone looks to the top EC players for guidance. Refusing to play under pressure does not help their credibility or their own understanding of the game.

I think M2K understands the game fine, and is plenty credible... but do you really think that someone who got 2nd at a tournament is suddenly more "credible" or "understanding" than if they had just split with the person that got 1st?

There is a preventative measure, and that's having it frowned upon by the community. Less people are going to do it if they have any sense of showmanship. Some people don't, and that's fine, but really... Lots of people here are trying to excuse it and justify the people who split, which of course is the opposite of what should be going on.

People who frown on it already frown on it... what's the argument here? Are you trying to 'ban' splitting, or are you just trying to incite people to be unhappy yet take no explicit action?

If your tournament doesn't have the prestige and/or incentives that drive a player to WANT to get first place, then I consider it a failure of the tournament, not of the top players. Instead of telling players not to split because it makes YOU unhappy, give them a reason not to split that affects them.

That doesn't make it right, and in a world as tenuous as an underground tournament scene it certainly doesn't help to give people reasons to be bored of it.

If people are bored of it, they're bored of it. It's not like one day, I'm happily watching baseball, someone points out there's only 10 minutes of action in the 3 hour game, then suddenly I'm bored.

 

[Doctor X]

Your understood definition of 'winning' simply isn't universal in the context to which you are applying it. Not everyone seeks to be the best.

In this case, "winning" is pretty universal. Ideally (yes, ideally) everyone should be trying to get first place. That is the competitive spirit-- seeking to be the best, the very definition of the word "compete." If you're not seeking to be the best, you're not competing, and if the top players aren't competing, how the hell can you call it a competitive scene?

...so then ask M2K

Not everyone believes M2K. In fact, I'd wager most people wouldn't believe M2K by default. Not because he's more likely to be wrong, they'd just rather be right themselves. Pride complicates learning, and it's really easy to ignore theory. Results are necessary to satisfy the "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality.

People are better off learning for themselves anyways. Honestly, to people who are dumb enough to randomly ban characters / techniques without properly justified as being 'broken', I say good riddance. A "large" community isn't necessarily a "good" community

What a silly idea. Of course it is. The more people you have, the better. Always. This increases the prize pool and the following of the top players-- thereby increasing the reward for being good, furthermore increasing the drive to succeed and so on. It's circular.

And people are not better off learning on their own. Ever. Hardly anybody has the capacity to do it. That's what we call genius. Everything we're taught in school has been thought up by a brilliant few, not just a bunch of random jerks banging their heads together.

I think M2K understands the game fine, and is plenty credible... but do you really think that someone who got 2nd at a tournament is suddenly more "credible" or "understanding" than if they had just split with the person that got 1st?

If they split, that means they weren't confident enough to play for keeps. If they weren't confident enough to play for keeps then they're far less likely to know what they're talking about, and even more unlikely to be believed if they did know.

People who frown on it already frown on it... what's the argument here? Are you trying to 'ban' splitting, or are you just trying to incite people to be unhappy yet take no explicit action?

And the people who don't frown on it should-- there should be outcries against it, exactly like this one. That's the argument. I'm trying to persuade people, joining the OP and others.

Honestly. -.-

If your tournament doesn't have the prestige and/or incentives that drive a player to WANT to get first place, then I consider it a failure of the tournament, not of the top players. Instead of telling players not to split because it makes YOU unhappy, give them a reason not to split that affects them.

These things are not built overnight. MLB didn't come from a couple million people deciding one day-- "Hey, we should give people lots of money and fame for hitting a ball with a stick." Somebody had to start taking it seriously before there'd be any fame or money, and if the players won't, who will?

If people are bored of it, they're bored of it. It's not like one day, I'm happily watching baseball, someone points out there's only 10 minutes of action in the 3 hour game, then suddenly I'm bored.

So nobody ever changes their minds about anything then? Nobody will ever find smash entertaining enough to consider it a spectator sport if they don't already?

That's a little pessimistic, isn't it?

 

[Blistering Speed]

The real issue is that people don't want to watch smash. Sponsors wouldn't sponsor a smash player or team or crew or whatever, cause no one (outside of smashboards) is watching/giving a ****. People want to talk about professionalism like there is a future for smash (or any video game for that matter) in the realm of professions. Well, guess what? We live in a country full of people who couldn't care less who's the best at any given video games. Video games are something to be ashamed of or taken at a purely recreational level in our country. If someone devotes their life to being the best d@mn (basket/base/foot)ball player they can be, they are someone who should be admired for their persistence and drive. If someone does the same for a video game, they are wasting their life and a huge nerd. There's a huge cultural stigma against video games that needs to be conquered before we can talk about "professionalism" when it comes to video games.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Ryan-K]

In this case, "winning" is pretty universal. Ideally (yes, ideally) everyone should be trying to get first place. That is the competitive spirit-- seeking to be the best, the very definition of the word "compete." If you're not seeking to be the best, you're not competing, and if the top players aren't competing, how the hell can you call it a competitive scene?

Just because people have different goals doesn't mean they're competitive. When you go to your first tournament, not expecting to win just means you are smart enough to be realistic, it doesn't mean you're any less competitive.

And people are not better off learning on their own. Ever. Hardly anybody has the capacity to do it. That's what we call genius. Everything we're taught in school has been thought up by a brilliant few, not just a bunch of random jerks banging their heads together.

How do the first people learn then? They learn on their own. What works for one person won't work for another. People learning on their own is how different people and regions play in different ways.

If they split, that means they weren't confident enough to play for keeps. If they weren't confident enough to play for keeps then they're far less likely to know what they're talking about, and even more unlikely to be believed if they did know.

So getting to the top 3 means they don't know what they're talking about? How does that make sense?

 

[Doctor X]

Just because people have different goals doesn't mean they're competitive. When you go to your first tournament, not expecting to win just means you are smart enough to be realistic, it doesn't mean you're any less competitive.

You don't split if you know you're not going to win. Usually if you know you're not going to win, the other guy knows he is going to win, so why would he split?

Just because people have different goals doesn't mean they're competitive. When you go to your first tournament, not expecting to win just means you are smart enough to be realistic, it doesn't mean you're any less competitive.

We're not talking about those people. We're talking about the people who split the prizes. If it's "realistic" to not expect that you'll win, then again, you're probably not in any position to be splitting anything.

How do the first people learn then? They learn on their own. What works for one person won't work for another. People learning on their own is how different people and regions play in different ways.

They don't "learn" so much as "invent," but I didn't say it was impossible to learn on your own. It is, however, very difficult, and again, most people do not have the capacity. It's up to those who DO have the capacity to figure it out and everyone else learns from them.

So getting to the top 3 means they don't know what they're talking about? How does that make sense?

Making sense doesn't enter into it. People want results. They basically have to be hit in the face with something before they even acknowledge it. These days, if you try to tell someone that Diddy can do well against MK, they will want proof. A split game is not proof. No matter how badly the top 2 or 3 beat everyone underneath them, they still didn't really fight each other.

...

Oh, and I'll add... If there's a better way to break a cultural stigma than to create a large following that exists outside of that stigma, I'd like to hear one. If there are any other ways, period.

 

[pockyD]

In this case, "winning" is pretty universal. Ideally (yes, ideally) everyone should be trying to get first place. That is the competitive spirit-- seeking to be the best, the very definition of the word "compete." If you're not seeking to be the best, you're not competing, and if the top players aren't competing, how the hell can you call it a competitive scene?

Are you trying to mince words, or what? If "competitive" smash existed under some other name, would you suddenly drop your argument?

Not everyone believes M2K. In fact, I'd wager most people wouldn't believe M2K by default. Not because he's more likely to be wrong, they'd just rather be right themselves. Pride complicates learning, and it's really easy to ignore theory. Results are necessary to satisfy the "I'll believe it when I see it" mentality.

This seemed like a random jumble of thoughts, so sorry if I don't address the point you were trying to make here... but the point of a tournament is NOT to attempt to learn by watching other people play, though that may or may not be a nice side effect. The tournament exists simply for you to gauge where YOU stand. If the people on top are comfortable in their own standings, then there's no reason to expect them to waste their time and effort just to appease you with something you aren't inherently entitled to.

What a silly idea. Of course it is. The more people you have, the better. Always. This increases the prize pool and the following of the top players-- thereby increasing the reward for being good, furthermore increasing the drive to succeed and so on. It's circular.

Well, this is just a fundamental disagreement then. I think that a tournament of 20 mature, reasonably aged people is immeasurably more fun than a tournament with 50 screaming 4th graders. If you don't think the same way, I don't have the capacity to "convince" you that my way is right.

And people are not better off learning on their own. Ever. Hardly anybody has the capacity to do it. That's what we call genius. Everything we're taught in school has been thought up by a brilliant few, not just a bunch of random jerks banging their heads together.

How many things are ever "learned" simply because player X took first and player Y took second instead of the other way around? Mew2king won, therefore I discovered wavedashing!

If they split, that means they weren't confident enough to play for keeps. If they weren't confident enough to play for keeps then they're far less likely to know what they're talking about, and even more unlikely to be believed if they did know.

First off, that's a incredibly ignorant generalization for the reasons for splitting. Secondly, the rest of your statement doesn't make any sense. They were good enough to beat everyone else in the tournament, and yet the fact that they choose not to play each other suddenly makes them less relevant.

And the people who don't frown on it should-- there should be outcries against it, exactly like this one. That's the argument. I'm trying to persuade people, joining the OP and others.

Honestly. -.-

So clarify, are you supporting a "rule" against splitting, or are you just asking people to be unhappy but take no action?

These things are not built overnight. MLB didn't come from a couple million people deciding one day-- "Hey, we should give people lots of money and fame for hitting a ball with a stick." Somebody had to start taking it seriously before there'd be any fame or money, and if the players won't, who will?

Once again, if winning 1st were the primary value for the relevant players, then they would already be doing so. You can't just change what someone's reason for playing the game is. Plenty of people play baseball or whatever with no intention of going all-out and turning pro.

If you want "top players" not to split, become a top player, and don't split with people. Crying that people are spending their money how they choose to is a pretty ridiculous approach

So nobody ever changes their minds about anything then? Nobody will ever find smash entertaining enough to consider it a spectator sport if they don't already?

That's a little pessimistic, isn't it?

Sure it is

 

[MaNg0]

get em pocky