And my point is that I and everyone else here who is doing so have every right to call them retards for wanting to take hacks and make them tourney standards if we so choose to.
You wanna keep doing this little wordplay dance, or just stop now?
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Just referencing ONE GAME that has no randomness and is very simple doesn’t imply that all games with no randomness are like that (see: Chess).
And any game can be “solved,” including random ones. Heads-up Texas Hold 'Em was solved several years ago. So your argument is bologna. You’re confusing a game which has fixed factors (something good) with a game which has too few factors (usually something bad). Both Chess and Tic-Tac-Toe have fixed factors, but Chess has many, while Tic-Tac-Toe has few, which is why Tic-Tac-Toe is a competitively inferior game to Chess.
I’m bored. Why enter this argument? I’m not sure I’m going to add anything but hate. Here we go!
I’m a little tired of people saying the better player will win 99 percent of the time. (Carbunkle Flux, I’m not trying to target you. You’re just the last person to say it but I’ve heard it several times. Also there is no random damage AFAIK in Starcraft. Some factors may affect your attacks, like stupid scarabs, but I wouldn’t call that random.) Even in chess, which has no randomness at all except maybe deciding who gets to go first, one person doesn’t beat another 99 percent of the time unless there is a MASSIVE skill difference.
Let’s get into randomness. There is a difference between randomness being good for competition and there being competition with randomness involved. As Flux said earlier, it’s all about a balance with the two. I can’t stand chess because of how static it is, but I also can’t take poker seriously because of how random it is. (I can take the money involved seriously, however.)
So, just because a game has random elements doesn’t mean they should be taken out. But it also doesn’t mean that it should just be accepted as well. Faust throwing random items is an acceptable form of randomness in my opinion. The items can all be reacted to no matter what the situation is when he throws them. The character was clearly designed with this feature in mind. On the other hand, throws doing randomly less damage in Super Turbo is something that shouldn’t happen. Just because it’s something that people have learned to deal with doesn’t mean it really belongs.
Case in point, all GG games have Faust throwing random items, but the random throw damage in Super Turbo was fixed and removed…forever!
Anyway my point is that randomness is only good for competition if the elements of the randomness can be dealt with reasonably. You cannot avoid a bad beat in poker or a bad string of cards, no matter what Phil Hellmuth might say about it. They get around it by hyping up how “everyone has a chance.” (Which I guess is Sakurai’s motto for Brawl.) The randomness in Magic is there simply because there isn’t a different way to play the game. In these cases I suggest that there is competition in spite of the randomness. (Note that competition is implied as top-level tournaments, not getting your friends into the game.)
However, with Magic and other games that involve a random starting setup, you can argue that there is a reasonable amout of adapting a player can do no matter what the random result is. I do not think this is the case with Magic (assuming two evenly powerful decks) but I can see where others may disagree. My example with Faust’s items certainly falls into this category, as do many stages in Brawl with random elements on them. However, I do not feel that the random damage on throws in ST and tripping in Brawl falls into this category. You can’t really not throw in ST, you can just see that you didn’t kill the guy and keep playing. Likewise you can’t really change your strategy to not run on the ground in Brawl. You can adjust after you trip, I suppose, but I don’t think you can alter your play/strategy at a high level just to avoid tripping.
So with this in mind, I think we can all agree that the game would be better competition-wise if tripping were taken out. I expect some disagreement, but that’s okay.
I think we can also agree that it happens so infrequently that whatever problems are caused are so minimal, even in the case of just one stock, that it’s not really a big deal at all. It’s nowhere close to poker (where even in the worst possible scenerio pre-flop you’ll still have about a 10 percent chance to win) or Magic (which needs mulligan and sidebar rules for a standard tourney).
Note that with all this talk of randomness I have not mentioned hacking once. I think it is a separate issue to the randomness, personally. And I am against it as well.
That’s not what I was implying. I was implying what would happen if a game had too little variation. Tic-Tac-Toe has almost none, so it’s trivially solvable and virtually unplayable competitively. Chess actually has a lot, because there are so many pieces on the board and only one can be moved at a time. So the board configuration is constantly changing, which affects what your next move will be. It’s really only solvable by a computer and the solutions it generates are useless for actual playing.
Please go read what I said again. Also, Texas Hold 'Em, like chess, can only be solved by a computer. That doesn’t count.
No, I’m not confusing anything. I mean what I said. See my first blurb. Put it in the context that randomness is one form of variation. The battlefield is constantly changing. Items and tripping test your skills of adaptation. It is not necessarily better for competitive play that the random elements and variation be removed. Just as it’s not better for competitive play that the game boils down to too much randomness.
Well, yes, if you’re literal- of course one player doesn’t beat the other 99% of the time. I guess what I was trying to say was that despite all this randomness, the better player is still most likely the one that comes out on top.
I see what you’re getting at, but I do think tripping can be feasibly adapted to. You can’t eliminate your chances of tripping entirely since as you said, you can’t 100% of the time be in the air, but by focusing on the air game, which Sakurai has made much easier to do with Brawl, you bring your chances of tripping down very significantly.
I think tripping was a stupid way to make ground games risky and yes, I do think Brawl would be better off without it entirely. At the same time, though, it does seem like it is there for a reason, to encourage a specific style of play, and can be worked around. To remove it would feel like it’s all missing the point.
I also agree with you on hacking.
[quote=“Carbunkle_Flux, post:104, topic:46038”]
That’s not what I was implying. I was implying what would happen if a game had too little variation. Tic-Tac-Toe has almost none, so it’s trivially solvable and virtually unplayable competitively. Chess actually has a lot, because there are so many pieces on the board and only one can be moved at a time. So the board configuration is constantly changing, which affects what your next move will be. It’s really only solvable by a computer and the solutions it generates are useless for actual playing.
Please go read what I said again. Also, Texas Hold 'Em, like chess, can only be solved by a computer. That doesn’t count.
[/Quote]
The thing to gather from it, though, is that there exist games with no random elements which are still good for competition. You said the opposite; that games without randomness are not good. But that’s not the case. What you should be saying is that a game without depth is no good. Non-random does not mean shallow at all.
[quote=“Carbunkle_Flux, post:104, topic:46038”]
No, I’m not confusing anything. I mean what I said. See my first blurb. Put it in the context that randomness is one form of variation. The battlefield is constantly changing. Items and tripping test your skills of adaptation. It is not necessarily better for competitive play that the random elements and variation be removed. Just as it’s not better for competitive play that the game boils down to too much randomness.
[/Quote]
If the randomness effected both players equally, then it would not be at all bad for competition. You’re using the term “random” too loosely, which is turning this debate into one on semantics. Stage hazards, like Brinstar’s lava, which are “random” but effect both players equally, are not at all going to hinder competitiveness. But something like tripping, which effects one player negatively and another player positively, is not something that can benefit competition.
Yes, there do exist games with no randomness at all that are still good. However, I said nothing about depth or shallowness. I used Tic-Tac-Toe because it has no variation and therefore could be solved.
No, I think you just read too deeply into something I said when I wasn’t trying to say anything between the lines. I told you up front- I mean what I said. No variation makes for a bad competitive game.
Brinstar’s Lava doesn’t affect people equally. If they do not minimize their risk of hitting the lava, one player will hit it more often than the other because it randomly rises and falls. Tripping is a similar concept (Let’s be absolutely clear- I am not equating them. I am saying they are similar.). You know the circumstances it happens under. You know how to minimize your chances of it affecting you. If one doesn’t minimize their risk, they will trip more often than the person that does.
However, let’s digress. Tripping isn’t the issue I am at odds with you over, as I have distinctly stated my view on that. My point of detention here is that I don’t think random elements are bad for competition unless they are at an extreme. You are unwilling to agree to disagree, even though it is clear neither of us will move from our viewpoints. If you are still unwilling to, then that’s too bad. I am not going to waste time arguing with you further.
I, in fact, do not enjoy it. But it’s still a feature of the game. I don’t like it when a random gust of wind affects the trajectory of my shot in golf, I wish every time i played there was no wind at all. But i accept it, becuase it is part of the game.
And so should others, too.
I draw the line with hacks in competitive games. Deal with what’s intentionally there, or play something else.
Oh, and this is not Melee.
somebody lock dis thread the argument is over, unless someone has something else to say.
My official position:
Eat a toasted dick.
Discuss.
[quote=“Carbunkle_Flux, post:106, topic:46038”]
Brinstar’s Lava doesn’t affect people equally. If they do not minimize their risk of hitting the lava, one player will hit it more often than the other because it randomly rises and falls. Tripping is a similar concept (Let’s be absolutely clear- I am not equating them. I am saying they are similar.). You know the circumstances it happens under. You know how to minimize your chances of it affecting you. If one doesn’t minimize their risk, they will trip more often than the person that does.
[/Quote]
You’re missing the point; the lava effects both players equally. Neither player is negatively effected by lava more than the other play in spite of its randomness. Tripping, on the other hand, negatively effects one and positively (or at least non-negatively) effects another player. They’re not similar random effects, because one can be considered fair, while another can’t.
Games that are actually made for skilled competition that don’t have randomness as a large aspect of their play (in other words, not Poker or Backgammon) should have as little randomness as possible. How is tripping any different than ST’s random throw damage or unpredictable dizziness length? Yet I fail to see ANY players complimenting it or saying it is beneficial.
You still haven’t explained why randomness is a good thing for competition. You’ve said it forces adaptation, but so does having a variety of options. Now, would you rather adapt to yourself tripping and your opponent gaining the upper hand for no reason, or adapt to your opponent varying his approach game because he has options on how he approaches? As I’ve said before, something that happens randomly but effects both players equally isn’t necessarily bad, as they both have to adapt to it. But in the case of tripping, one player is effected negatively and one is effected positively, so they have to adapt quite differently.
Token witty response.
Sarcastic retort.
Biting argument.
Whoa there. So now you are saying that Poker and Backgammon were not actually made for skilled competition? You need to step back and consider how you sound right now. “When money is involved”… people put more money on the line playing Poker in 1 day than the entire fighting game community does in an entire year, easy.
Games with large amounts of randomness still have consistent results. It is only YOUR (twisted) ideal that all competitive outings should only qualify as ‘worthy’ if randomness is not around. Competitive games are competitive because people want to compete. Each type of game can test a different set of skills. Luck manipulation, ie ‘playing the odds’ is definitely a skill. Just because you do not see it as a skill does not change the fact that it is.
It is not the player’s responsibility to fix a game. You either play to win at what is in front of you, or you find a better game to play. This has always been my stance on ‘changing the rules’. Remember all those house rules you used as a kid to play Monopoly? Think on those for a while.
Read the sentence correctly.
[quote=“Kal, post:110, topic:46038”]
Games that are actually made for skilled competition that don’t have randomness as a large aspect of their play…
[/Quote]
I’ve said before that Poker is an extremely deep game. But Poker has randomness as a large element of its play; there’s not really any way to remove that randomness, because you can’t play the game correctly without those elements.
Super Smash Brothers does not have randomness as a crucial, necessary element of its play. In most fighting games, randomness does not belong. At least not randomness like tripping, which effects one player positively and one negatively.
The whole concept of tripping being bad because it only affects one person is a twisted logic.
I’d fully agree… if only one person could trip.
Randomness (like tripping, game and watch moves, dedede and peach projectiles) belongs because its there and there is no switch to turn it off. Its by design, son.
Alot of games aren’t made for the sake of skilled competition to exist.
The games exist first, then competition is made.
Again. Alot of games exist first, and competition is made around them.
Randomness exists in alot of games, sometimes things are made to lessen it, sometimes the game is accepted in its whole.
To say competitions were first formed, then games like poker/dice/anything that has a random factor was made to fit into these tournaments first is just stupid.
Likewise, there are things that are sometimes taken into account to try to reduce the variance (not necessarily eliminate it).
That being said, a hack by nature as an expected tournament standard is just silly. If you want to play it casually, then by all means go ahead. However, to expect it to be a mass-wide adopted standard is plain unreasonable.
It may seem like a good idea to some to remove some random aspects, but you cannot possible expect to have large scale events based on a hack of this sort, simply because there is no way of enforcing or limiting the tampering of the game that goes on. Aka, it is not REGULATED.
Sure you may be able to turn off tripping, who’s to say the hacker/modder didn’t change other aspects of the game to unfairly benefit himself/friends ,etc. Adding slightly larger knockback power to certain characters moves, or increasing damage taken from hits, or anything?
A main reason alot of games/competitions (in all forms/sports/areas) exist is because these competitions can be REGULATED and MONITORED (relatively) consistantly.
I’m closing this thread, because it’s gotten way off topic into another one of random good/bad debates.
edit:
on request, i’ll leave this thread open a bit longer as there is some sort of exchange going on, but don’t degenerate into some flame war
It’s up to tournament hosts in the end. I can’t see many people being averse to going to a tournament, if the host puts the no tripping hack on all the set ups. I beleive the hack has a good chance of becoming the standard, because no one likes tripping.
So being competitive is about removing elements that displease you now?
I dislike losing. Can we hack that out of competitive play? Yeesh.
Keits, you fail to understand that he’s not saying it should be removed because he doesn’t like it. First of all, notice that he said no one likes it. If most of SWF liked tripping, and one person came out and complained, that would not warrant removing it.
Now, he’s not arguing “I dislike tripping, so it should be removed” or “we dislike tripping, so it should be removed.” He’s arguing “tripping worsens competition, which is why I don’t like it, so it should be removed.”
[quote=“Keits, post:114, topic:46038”]
The whole concept of tripping being bad because it only affects one person is a twisted logic.
I’d fully agree… if only one person could trip.
[/Quote]
When tripping does happen, it only effects one person negatively, and the other person positively. In that sense, it only effects one person.
The fact that it’s designed one way does not mean that’s how we HAVE to play it. It may be how the designers wanted us to play it, but that’s hardly a good reason for why it has to be played that way. Try and give a real reason, based on logic and evidence, for which tripping should not be removed from Brawl.
Evidence is only evidence to you if you agree with it. Thats the problem arguing with you. Watch Evo top 8 when the DVD comes out, and count the number of times someone was hit for tripping, and killed for tripping. It is statistically insignificant.
YOU dont like it and “WE” dont like it are the same statement. You are either Smash Bros Brawl competitors or you are not. The moment you hack something out of the game, you are not.
We’re not discussing the statistical significance of tripping. I agree that it doesn’t have a large negative effect on Brawl’s tournament scene. But you’re arguing that tripping should not be removed because it is beneficial in some way.
This entire time all you’ve done is resort to fallacious logic, usually an appeal to ridicule. So please don’t tell me I can’t interpret evidence correctly, when it’s you who can’t even reason correctly. You’ve interpreted several of my posts incorrectly (and I don’t mean a figurative interpretation; I mean you’ve quite literally misunderstood the explicit meaning of my writings), and yet you act as though you’ve won the argument.
It’s unlikely that you’ll ever make a valid point, because you always take the argument on tangents. When you brought up that tripping happens to both players, and I explained how that does not imply its usefulness as a competitive mechanic, you shift the debate to whether or not I am able to interpret evidence.
It’s bad enough that you resort to appeals to ridicule and non-sequiturs when you debate, but the way you make it seem as though you’re correct, without fault, because its an intrinsic value of your character, is just ridiculous. This is no longer a debate about tripping, or whether or not it’s ok to remove it, but now a question of whether or not I’m able to objectively interpret evidence and conclude how adverse tripping’s effect is on competitive smash. I won’t debate anything but the initial point any longer; your tangents don’t even belong here.
As SRK would say, “can we get a lock?”