I agree that hearts and containers should be banned as well as the hammers, but I think that Smash balls are reasonable. All smash attacks can be dodged although some seem to be harder to than others like Sonic’s and Lucario’s if you’re not using Snake, Kirby, Metaknight, or Jiggly.
I think Metal boxes are fine. They have a good balance to them allowing you to take hits without flinching and becoming heavier, but being heavier also makes it difficult for you to get up if you do get knocked out the ring.
I dont see how you could ever put hammers in the same sentence as hearts. Most of the high level players playing with items would actively avoid picking up hammers due to how easy they are to counter and badly they can backfire.
There is no standard play for items, and high level players never play with them seriously because no legitimate tournament ever runs their shit with items. In other words, this thread is for noobs who know nothing about the real tournament Brawl scene.
SRK already wised up and realized how ridiculous their rule set was last year. They hired AllisBrawl to run their Brawl tournament at EVO this year, and they’re using TRUE standard rules (no items). You guys should get with the times, because this idea of “standard play with items” is a total joke for anyone takes this game seriously.
More like SRK realized that the community is stubborn as a mule and would rather play a game that’s admittedly garbage the way they’re playing it than actually take time to learn something. Evo got AiB to do it 'cause it isn’t worth their time anymore. Damn shame that other, well designed fighters that this community enjoys, all came out and nuked all interest for this game, 'cause competent people were finally coming to the reality that the shit’s not broke, you’re just too lazy and unwilling to change games (basically moving from Melee to, well, anything else) to even realize it. Now kindly return to Smashboards.
The only items I truly think are bad are heart tomato, and curry, the star doesn’t last that long its easy to run away from for a few seconds and the fan just SDI/TDI out of it, its not very hard. Most other items may be really good but they can backfire p. hard read hammer/bumper.
Plus I have played a few no cash tournies with some people ranked in the state in smashboards, guess what they played it and had fun. Guess which people whined and complained the most, that is right the people who lost in round 1-2. Then when we went to the non-item tourney they came for, guess when they lost that is right round 1-2. I’m not saying this is a better way of playing just that its also pretty fun, and if you want to put some money on the table for it, that is fine too, but if you play these tournaments you will find out it tends to be the same people who win both the item and non-item tourneys. Though they may use different characters.
Just my personal thoughts on how brawl with items might ought to be played.
I know they’re entirely different games but I like to view brawl with items, similar to Marvel vs Capcom 2. My saying in this first of all is the character selection. Both of the games have a huge amount of character’s to choose from in order to make your team. And in your team for MVC2 you also have assists, which will play the role of items in ssbb.
An item is key in order to set up an attack against your enemy, just as an assist would. once you have the set up, it turns into you taking over the battle for the time. But once your enemy counters with his assist, it becomes his turn to attack. Once you obtain the specific item you want, your setup begins.
The way MVC2 is setup, it’s best 2 out of 3 with 99 time limit. And after seeing it played out at Evo, I can tell you that the match timed out just as often as someone k.o.'d the opponent. The point I’m trying to bring up is that I think less items should be banned, and more stock should be added.
In 1vs1 for brawl, more stock might be added and fewer items should be banned. The time limit should still be same, but make it best 2 out of 3 matches. If more stock is added, that means that K.O. items such as smash ball, pokeballs, golden hammer, might not be as vital as first thought. The reason I think this is due to the multi supers combo in MVC2. If used successfully, you can take out an entire character, in this case being a stock. So the supers combo turns into the golden hammer taking out one of your opponent’s stock. Granted that a golden hammer is almost always an instant kill where as a pokeball might have an instant kill possibility. This turns into the 2 players taking turns and looking for an advantage in the k.o. items.
If it does come down to time, the winner should be the player with the most stock obviously. But if stock is tied, it should go down to percentage. Obvious reasons should apply again.
I came to these conclusions on the base that MVC2 is a really fun game to play, possibly one of the funnest. The way regular Street fighter game tournaments are held is completely different from the way Marvel vs Capcom games are held. If you watch the games you’ll notice that SSBB w/o items most closely resembles SF4. Again not saying they’re anything close, but it’s based on attack vs attack. A Marvel Vs. Capcom game is more…free than a traditional SF game, and so should SSBB w/items be. It should be about watching the insane combos, and the super finishers.
In conclusion: (tl;dr)
1: More stock should be added
2: Less items should be banned
Reasons why:
1: It would make the game funner to play
2: it would make the game funner to watch.
This is why Smash as a community will never advance. Rather then get around it, you just complain and ban it. It’s no excuse now since Keits has posted lots of videos on how to get though stuff.
Also, seeing as EVO has done this for a long time, I think they knew what they were doing when they out items on. There had been no test for items and Brawl is different from Melee. Besides, the reason everyone gave for turning items off is you could not turn off explosive capsules, which you can turn off now. Now they say Glide tossing is broken despite I’ve never seen anyone do it at EVO or online (where items are common place). So, no, it’s that your community is too wimpy to simply try to beat something, so they just ban them.
As for this thread, I disagree that Smash balls and Home run bats should be banned. The Smash ball has to be broken before it can be used, and some characters have to set them up first. Also, it’s just like a super or ultra in other fighting games, so it will help for overall balance, and help lower characters with good FS.
As for Home Run Bats, while they are strong throwing items, they can be used just as well as battering items. Most characters have strong running attacks and forward tilts with the bat, so it may be better to just use them rather then throw them. Captain Falcon, for instance, has a really good running attack that has good killing potential. Also, if you throw it, you run the risk of your foe reflecting it or have them throw it at you. So, it really is a trade off and has it’s risk despite it’s power.
True dat. Ehh, maybe one they they’d listen. Or I’ll just listen to my self talk. Is is disheartening as Smash is the game I’m really good at, yet is bogged down by it’s community. Oh well.
Welcome to the club. Hi, I’m Cynt. Member of the “WTF Smash Community?” Club since 2004.
Homerun Bats are incredibly overrated. They’re items I’m far from afraid of. I’m more concerned of a Star Rod or Lips Stick than a bat.
Smash Balls, on the other hand, I have a feeling they’d end up too broke for their own good, but not for the reasons people are currently bitching about. Warioman is fucking scary. The landmasters? Weaksauce. Against a competent opponent, they’re probably the least frightening of the tranforms aside from Giga Bowser.
Of course, we’ll never know if even the small community of non-items items players don’t use 'em…
Homerun bats are an issue because you throw them… they’re insane edgeguarders.
Star rods are worse though, their angle is perfect.
Overall though, no items is a ruleset more conducive to competitive play, it’s not that items are broken so much as they confer random advantages/blueshell effect, removing them makes skill more rewarding.
There’s nothing wrong with an items ruleset, but it’s a side-ruleset, not the main event.
Who said I believe everything that I’m told without questioning?
I posed legitimate reasoning, I’ve supported the Items Standard Play Project on Smashboards since basically day one, including defending it.
Furthermore, prior to the release of Brawl, I supported a select few items in the competitive ruleset which SEEMED to be usable (basically the items that didn’t get the advantage to the people that they spawned nearby), but when I tested myself, their attributes turned out to be broken. I actually argued quite tenaciously for final smashes in particular because my understanding was that they were once per match.
Same name, second post in the thread onwards (when I realized that hey, maybe the designers could throw in items that deserve to be legal).
Add to that the fact that I in general tend to be extremely critical of the community in a variety of ways (the general sentiment towards banning DDD’s infinites and planking being perfect examples). I think there’s a tendancy to be immature in the community
It seems to me that you’re the people who support without questioning because you seem unwilling to respond to the fact that they DO increase randomness and they have a strong Blue Shell effect.
I fulfilled my part, I was completely intellectually honest and more then willing to consider alternatives, and if you’re willing to debate instead of throwing inane insults around and -reps then I’d be willing to do the same.
TL;DR: Yes, I did consider them and rejected them independently, if you wanna try to convince me otherwise then do, but do it maturely.
Incorrect, though understandable because it requires testing to understand why since it’s not immediately obvious, but if you pay attention it IS noticeable over a large number of games.
The location that they spawn takes into account the current players and which player is losing, they spawn with considerably greater frequency near the player that is losing.
We tested this over on smashboards, I can cite this if you want.
Any difference you could find would be within the normal allowable variance for any randomized statistical trial. I dont know how far behind in stocks the losing mario was in Wobble’s test, but All-Brawl uses only 2 stocks. You can never be more than 1 stock behind in these rules, so if any difference existed, it would be negligible. On top of this, if items did actually favor the losing player to the degree that you suggest, that should just make it easier to predict where they are coming in from.
I challenge you to prove this yourself in a similar fashion, by sticking a Mario with 1 stock on one side of final destination, and a mario with 2 stocks on the other side, and catalog at least 10 runs of 1000 item drops and which mario they were closer to. Statistically speaking, the more items you let drop, the closer you should get to 50/50.
You are grasping at straws in an age old argument in which the side that is wrong is also the majority.
The items crowd’s line was always “people should be able to play how they want”, while the anti-items people were always saying “we boycott this and that and condemn items play”. In the end, what you got was a boring game, and a community that split again trying to hack to “make better”… the only really sad part is still the insane association of the word “random” with “anti-competitive”. In the last 100+ years of gaming in all its forms, there is no evidence at all that having random elements makes a game bad for competition. Its competitive if people want to compete at it. The retarded concern with consistency of results was also put to rest in brawl+item’s case a number of times, but the haters just found reasons to ignore the results.
Remember, its not that the same players who won without items are winning with, its that the same players of any format are winning consistently.
Anyway, I’m done with you. Go talk to AlphaZealot about it if you want it from someone in your own community. He is a smart fellow who argued feverishly against All-brawl for a while, but now totally gets it.
You are totally 100% free to prefer no-items. Thats just an opinion, and a choice, and no one gives a shit if you like pepsi or coke better. But its when you come out saying that Pepsi has more fairness to your bloodstream than coke or some bullshit, that you are going to get laughed at by the people who had this discussion years ago.
No items isnt better than items in any factual way. Nor is items-play better than no-items in any factual way.
None of that data actually supports your assertion, that said that fact that it favors center stage more then the losing player is a definate touche, so fair enough.
I think you’re misreading cake’s data.
But fair enough, I have no issue doing independent testing, once I get my disk back I’ll run some tests and post the results.
You might wanna take a closer look at margin of error, you don’t need a 1000 run to be statistically valid unless your tolerance is extremely high. Statistically valid differences will show up far earlier.
Frankly, I have no issue with people playing with items, which is why you’ll find that I have a consistent record of supporting ISP on smashboards to the point where I was one of the people who convinced Keiser to start the format (the other person being Yuna, who was considerably more abrasive about it whereas I took the, “people deserve a choice” side).
But I do take issue with “random”, not so much that you’re always incorrect, but instead that some game utilize it well, whereas in other games it’s anti-competitive.
Why is hold-em a better competitive game then 5 card stud? Because, while in 5 card stud your position is totally random and you have literally only your opponent’s face to read, hold-em gives you the ability to make calculated risks based on the cards displayed and figure out the odds of getting a good hand step by step, and calculate your opponents odds as well.
This means that you won’t be reading in a vacuum (which is often useless, because without the reference to your position, your opponent doesn’t know if his hand is strong). In other words, the game itself has a mechanism for incorporating randomness in a manner which results in players being essentially in an even position if they make proper allowances.
Items just appear, and once acquired they give an advantage, in a game where everything is about controlling space, they provide a signifigant advantage. Especially when edge-guarding.
Generally yes, but the rates vary.
Items standard play is FAR superior to All-brawl, and I’m not just saying that because I helped develop the ruleset.
You realize that this is exactly what people say on smashboards, right? Once you consider a discussion “solved”, and leave no room for new insight, well, then you’re doing exactly what you accuse smashboarders of.
TL;DR: Play how you want, however non-items play is better at selecting for skill at higher rates then items play (how much depends on the format, with items standard play being the best). Still, nobody should be hating on people for preferring formats or games other then their preferred, no matter what it is.
