hot…glad people are really starting to realize things.
I really hope this All-Brawl rules get spread on the community.
I’ve seen a lot of finals on different tournaments and the matches without items can be boring as hell.
The Evo finals were just awesome. You can say whatever you want, but a LOT of people think SSBB finals at Evo were one of the top moments, even over their favorite game. That means something pretty good was going on there.
I’m a new All-Brawl fan, and i’ll spread the rule set around here. It works great.
I think It would of been better with someone else instead of CPU his playing style just annoys me. But yeah it was a pretty interesting match.
OMG I feel so much better. Im from other smash forum sites. I posted this idea and everyone flamed me really hard to the point of where i didnt want to post anymore. Its nice to know here are people who dont want melee 2.0.
Trust me, this is SRK. We pretty much don’t ban anything.
CPU was/is really defensive, which is why Smash players with poor visual comprehension mistook his style for item camping. A lot of people don’t like watching defensive players. I play semi-defense myself, though, so I don’t really mind.
CPU knew that if he played offensively Ken would punish his errors and beat him.
And it’s not like Brawl is all that offencive either.
ohhh yeah I know, everyone good I know plays semi-defensive, but still total-defensive gets on my nerves, but after playing 2 ppl who play this way non-stop, I got very very good at mind games, and figured out how to bait and destroy them. Plus items made no difference in his defensive playing you can do that just as effectively without items.
yeah thats why I don’t post on other smash sites, because my concepts during the first few weeks of toon link is unsafe, and Ike SUX(ppl still try to tell me how good he is) = me getting flamed. Considering the fact that I play tons more FFA then 1v1, which is filled with 10x more bullshit then any item match, but so so fun.
BTW I loved melee up until brawl came out, recently I went back and tried to play melee loved the much faster game of melee, hated well basically everything else(except luigi’s wavedash, and zelda/falcon lighting toes/knee). Took me like 10 minutes to get good at wavedashing again though :(. Once another SSB comes out Ill probably dump brawl for it the same way, what we need is more SSB games not clones of old ones, wouldn’t mind game patches, though.
Dreamworld: Blizzard+Valve make a crazy fighting game, preferable 2D, cause I know they would patch the shit out of it, until every matchup is no worse than 6:4, of course at which point the tiers become more defined, and their are normally less of them.
…comes back from tangent, yeah items=fun, stages like warioware/75m/super mario bro=fun, getting flamed by fags=not fun.
Yeah. Melee’s Falcon is tons of fun. It’s too bad he got nerfed so badly, as he was arguably the most fun character to play overall.
I wouldn’t mind a revision ( la Super Turbo) for Brawl, but I doubt Nintendo would go through all the hassle for that.
I was talking about the whole finals, the last 8. It was amazing.
The final was pretty interesting too though.
ohh yes I enjoyed the most of the other matches too, I agree it was pretty interesting.
**I’m completely opposed to this rule set so much, that I had to join just to post why. Most of you don’t know me, since I’m from SWF and just chill in the Ike forum. But here is why I believe this to be a ludicrous rule set.
Now the biggest thing I’ve seen argued in this topic is “I think it is a tremendous slap in the face to think that more than half the content in the game needs to be banned to make the game competitive” (quoted from skisonic, on page 1)
Well I’m going to have to disagree there. That DOES need to happen to make the game more competitive, because Sakurai purposely made Brawl less competitive. So to get this game to a logical competitive level where luck doesn’t come into play, we needed to adjust some things. Here’s a good topic on SWF that goes into detail about that subject: Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise.
Now quickly, I want to also bring up a subject that is mentioned in that topic.
He doesn’t want competitive play, because he doesn’t want people to feel bad for sucking, basically. That’s exactly what items are going to do, and I think that’s why a lot of people here back this new rule set. player A can’t beat player B in a 1v1 with the normal rule set, because he haven’t practiced as much, or doesn’t know as much techniques. But player A can beat player B with items, because he’s faster, gets the smash ball and breaks out his Landmaster (killing one life, and doing good damage to your second, or possibly killing it), or he throws a smart bomb at the ledge as you’re recovering, or he gets a star.
Not to mention, item’s make the battle 100% luck because an item (for example, a pokeball) could just appear right in front of you, and you can grab it before your opponent. Then you throw the pokeball, and what do you know, it’s a metagross, and it pounds your opponent into the ground. Now the person who threw the pokeball (let’s say it was an Ike) charges his F-Smash, and kills you at some ridiculous percent. Then, as you respawn, your dragoon piece falls to the ground, and Ike grabs it before you can. Now he has all three parts, and he shoots you, killing your second stock. Battles over, Ike wins. Does that seem remotely fair?
inb4 “So? The item could appear in front of you just as much as it could your opponent.” EXACTLY! It’s all LUCK.
inb4 “That’s why it’s 3/5.” Why, so you can see who get’s lucky more?
inb4 “They’d only be on medium, it won’t effect the game that much.” Really? Animeko posted [media=youtube]lf-8uhaNgBs"[/media] on SWF, claiming that it shows items don’t need to be banned, the reasoning being,
“Samus obtains a starman, food (that heals 7%), and a fan. Damage done to Dede as a result? 0%. The Dedede player knew exactly what to do in this situation. Though Samus won the match in the end, it was NOT because the player got the starman, food, and a fan all at once.”
Well let’s look at what does happen. Go to 1:20. ZSS hits DDD, and both pieces come out of him. ZSS gets them, and kills him with the dragoon. Then, DDD pretty much get’s item aced, because Samus has the right items to basically stall until time runs out.
Now IMO, that DDD was more skilled in combat then the ZSS (but that’s not saying much, because both seemed to be rather poor players), but because of the ITEMS and LUCK, he got beat by an inferior opponent.
I could go on and on, but for now, I’m stopping to see what people say in response. I want to see a counterpoint to my argument that is legitimate. **
Okay, I’ll bite.
Your whole Sakurai argument completely falls apart at its seams because you’re interpreting that article to say something it’s not. That quote out of context doesn’t even say what you’re trying to twist it into saying. And IN context, it expresses the following presentiments:
A: Sakurai wants a competitive game where everyone has fun regardless of who won/lost, because he feels that in most fighting games it always seems like only the winner is the one having any fun.
B: Sakurai wants improvisation.
“just doing the same thing over and over again won’t guarantee they’ll always win over their opponents” - If you do not improvise, you die. Because the unexpected happens. Situations change. Sakurai doesn’t want static situations where the characters can spam repetitive strings or repeat the same strategies over and over and that’s all it takes to win. The unexpected also leads to interesting and sometimes hilarious situations, so everyone laughs.
So, sure, Sakurai doesn’t want a standard competitive game. He wants the kind of game that everyone can enjoy whether or not they are competitive and whether or not they win/lose.
And you forgot this quote:
That doesn’t sound like a man that doesn’t want a competitive game, since if the game wasn’t competitive there’d be no reason to put up a good fight.
http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=443 - Yoink’D from here.
I love how your theorycraft examples assume ‘you’ are just standing there doing nothing while Ike fires the Dragoon. It’s been proven time and again that the thing is 100% dodgable and 100% mindgame, so nothing is guarunteed. The only way you wouldn’t know that is if you didn’t play with items. And honestly, you don’t have much room to talk about how broken items are if you don’t.
Cambriel – As a competitive player who prefers items-off play, let me be the first of my preference in this thread to say DON’T BOTHER POSTING IN HERE AGAIN. This thread isn’t for this sort of debate.
The only thing I find offensive/wrong about the items-on mentality is almost off-topic…it’s when you hear “if you don’t play with items, you aren’t playing the whole game and therefore suck/are a scrub/can’t say you’re good/etc.”. Other than that, it’s just another way of playing (and kinda fun, though frustrating during the less-than-10% of the matches where something effed up happens). And, since this thread is ONLY about All-Brawl…can it.
As far as the Dragoon comment, I still hold that, in the long run, the “mindgame” portion of it will end up being heavily in the favor of the person with the Dragoon once people get better with it. With the exception of walk-off stages, you really are more at the mercy of the other person’s execution.
Just to be clear, that isn’t what I meant to imply by my last statement. I meant to imply that if you don’t play with items, you can’t really say much on how broken they are because, well, you don’t play with them. This has no bearing on how good you are at the game.
If that’s the case, then I’ll not pursue the argument further. Sorry.
Obviously dodging it is going to get tough if the opponent knows exactly when you’re absolutely vulnerable. Same could be said of being in the position of having to parry a Denjin when you wake-up. The best option is to not get put in that position at all, but inevitably you’re going to have to come prepared.
Carbunkle – Most of that post wasn’t meant for you. It was meant for Cambriel. The Dragoon part was meant for you (and a blanket statement about the Dragoon), but everything else was meant for HAY GUYS AM I LATE Cambriel.
The part about All-Brawlers calling Itemless-Brawlers scrubs or whatever was meant more for the guys who said that, not for you.
Pokeballs can be caught, and even if the player didn’t catch it they’d have to be at a low low percentage to have it so that the poke ball hits them, lands on the ground, opens, metagross pops out, and then begins his attack. At any higher percentage, the pokeball would’ve sent the player off the ground and therefore metagross can’t do anything.
And as mentioned before, Dragoon is able to be dodged.
inb4 “Daniel why you so awesome”
inb4 "Daniel shut up you’re not awesome
Dan - why so awesome?
Honestly, dont feed the troll guys. The kid doesnt know what he i talking about at all, and personifies the group of smashers who totally boggle my mind. Why are you people SO threated by another legitimate style of play?
I know that Id be frightened, too, living in a world of lies that was crashing down around me… but you chose to live in this world by blindly accepting everything youve been told about “randomess negating skill” (or whatever innacuracy you continue vomiting) without ever finding out for yourself.
Again, feel free not to like it. It is a much higher pressure game than what you are used to, where your mistakes can impact you much more heavily. I understand if you simply prefer not to deal with this or dont find it fun. Lord knows the lot of us posting here are not making a living playing these games.
typed on my phone. spread the all-brawl love!
Ah, sorry. I was a bit too quick to feed the troll so I felt partially responsible for that.
I also just wanted to be sure what I said was clear to avoid misunderstandings.
**I love how posting why I disagree = Trolling.
I play with Items. True, it’s dodgable, but not 100%. Nonetheless, it’s not hard to hit someone with it at all. It takes little skill to be good with it.
I’m gonna have to ignore this, sorry.
That’s a BS exaggeration. less then 10%?
Alright, I’ll rephrase:
Not to mention, item’s make the battle 100% luck because an item (for example, a pokeball) could just appear right in front of you, and you can grab it before your opponent. Then you throw the pokeball down so you’re opponent (who is right by you, because they were running for it) can’t catch it, and what do you know, it’s a metagross, and it pounds your opponent into the ground. Now the person who threw the pokeball (let’s say it was an Ike) charges his F-Smash, and kills you at some ridiculous percent. Then, as you respawn, your dragoon piece falls to the ground, and Ike grabs it before you can. Now he has all three parts, and he shoots you, killing your second stock. Battles over, Ike wins. Does that seem remotely fair?
Able to dodge =/= fair. I can dodge a bullet, but it’s not very likely. (yeah, bad example, but I’m tired, and noticing that arguing with you people is pointless.)
I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not threatened by this style of play, I just think it’s stupid to have tournaments that are based 100% around luck. Why not have a rock-paper-scissors tournament?
…
I don’t even need to say anything to this. It’s full of failure and stupidity.
Fixed.**
No, you are trolling because this thread is not to discuss the validity of items play.
Im going to get rough with you now, be warned. Are you fucking stupid? Why would anything be 100% dodgable? If something was 100% avoidable every time, why would the other player ever do it? :rolleyes:
At least you know its a terrible example. You seem to think that something that hits you = unfair. Again, this is a game where two players a competing to reach the same goal. ‘Unfair’ has a totally different meaning to each different player, but we can know one thing for certain; the game doesnt even have ONE definition of ‘unfair’. The game only knows who wins and who loses, and doing anything possible in order to achieve that win should be encouraged (even if it isnt pleasurable to watch or something you think is ‘skillful’, as your (and my) opinion is irrelevant to the game.)
The philosophy behind is this style of play is simple; if it isnt winning tournaments it doesn’t need an extra rule governing it. Less rules, more ‘playing to win’.
Well, if you knew anything about anything, you’d know that RPS is not even close to 100% luck. Beyond that, how does your math teacher feel about you making up numbers and percentages all the time? These numbers have no basis in reality, or our friend ‘fact’, and as such, farther promote you as a troll. Do you understand?
To have a discussion, one must demonstrate knowledge on the topic. You’ve come here and demonstrated assumption. You DO feel threatened by this style of play. If you did not, you would not have posted here (just as I have never once posted on or registered for SWF). I simply do not care how other people choose to enjoy themselves. I do, care, however, as an educated man, that people only discuss this in the realm of fact. Trying to pass off your lies and assumptions simply is not acceptable, and I hope one day you will see this. (weather or not you like to play the way I do).
**So, you came here for the express purpose of telling us how silly you think something that you have absolutely zero experience with is, in the wrong thread to do it, and you are not a troll how?
Take a nap, my friend. No one here means you any harm.
ALSO - Competitive Poker, Backgammon, and Magic players would like to have a word with you.**