No one thinks that tripping is a good thing to have in the game, even though the possible intentions of it’s inclusion are recognized.
Thus, everyone is in agreement that if there were a switch to turn it off, we would.
There is no switch in the game, but we can hack the game to turn it off. Everyone agrees that you can do whatever you want with your game/system, and can run tournaments however you want. But suggesting that a hacked game become the tournament standard should only happen in extreme circumstances, and this is far from one of them.
Um, i didnt even read your post beyond this line. Show me where I’ve said the above even ONCE. Please.
The argument has always been that tripping belongs in the game without question from either group of players (items/stages on or off) because there is NO toggle to turn it off. The entire basis of the items-off argument always starts with “well if the developers wanted us to play with items, why did they give us the ability to turn them off?”
You guys need to have some of your more intelligent members write some articles about why you people do what you do and think what you think, so that at the very least you can all be on the same page. This is getting absurd.
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]
You fail to address any points I make. You pick one aspect of my posts out and decide you’ll argue that, because you think you might have a viable point.
Honestly, Keits, can you at least try and argue like an adult?
Try addressing my entire posts. Have you once made a reasonable argument for why tripping should stay in the game? All you’ve said is “it can’t be removed without a hack.”
You’re telling us it goes against the developers wishes, or something along that line, correct? Well so does the entire idea of competitive Smash! Sakurai specifically made Brawl with competition in mind - he sought to eliminate it. So arguing that we should play how the “designers” want is stupid. They don’t give a shit about the competitive community.
Arguing that it’s a bad idea because it’s silly to ask several people to install HBC on their Wiis just to remove tripping is fine. I’d say I agree.
But so far, all you’ve argued is “it’s bad because it’s a hack” or “tripping is in there by design.”
But that’s not a real argument. Simply having an arbitrary convention with no justification is hardly reasonable. The convention must be lead to by reason. And I can see no reason for why a hacked game, with something as easy to standardize as the no-tripping code, should be banned. At least, not by any reason other than “it’s impractical.”
Obviously, it’s an effect on both people, but the negative effect is only on one person. I should have included the word “negatively” in the post you just quoted, but I feel the post retains its meaning regardless.
When one person trips, he is put in a losing position, and his opponent is put in a winning position. The opponent still has attacking options, while the person who tripped must first stand up. Because of this, he is effected negatively.
This is what I was implying earlier it often messes up your opponent as much as it messes you up, I don’t know how many times I have said damn it you tripped.
plus tripping happens randomly and its rare to see it change the game that much, I really wouldn’t worry about it sure it can be a little annoying but it normally doesn’t do much at all.
First they take out tripping… then maybe hit stun… then maybe knock back … or damage… or whatever. When will the hex hacking end?
Besides, there is no way to tell if a version of the game has been modified for hidden “benefits” for the tournament director/his friends/etc, since at that point everyone could basically be using custom versions of the game.
Having to void warantee on your wii to run custom software for tournament standards is just out of the question.
Hold 'em IS pretty much solved. You can get books that explain the statistical odds in any situation, and what the “correct” play is at any given moment. This is pretty much why it’s considered a form of gambling and not just a game of skill because a dominating position often means you have like a 70 percent chance to win.
But that’s kind of the appeal of the game. It’s super simple, it’s possible to win in spite of the odds, even if you don’t really know what you’re doing you have a chance, and there’s lots of money involved.
Wha? If you were playing Stud or Razz, then I’d MAYBE let it slide A LITTLE BIT, but the fact that all your opponents hole cards are facedown make Holdem impossible to be solved. The game is about reading your opponent, logically determining their hole cards, and analyzing the current situation of the hand (which can constantly change) as much, perhaps even more about luck. These are situations where not even a computer can solve. To say Hold’em is solved when there is a large yomi part of the game is ridiculous.
Okay I think we simply have a different definition of the word “solved” here.
I said that it’s solved meaning no matter what the situation, the best play can be determined. This does not factor in the hidden elements of the game because luck is a probability.
You’re saying that because there is fluxuation and hidden information, the game can never truly be solved.
I think we’re both right, it just depends on how you look at it. But I don’t think you can factor in hidden or unknown variables to determine whether or not a game is solved. Is rock/paper/scissors a solved game? I’d say yes. You’d say no because you never exactly know what you’re opponent is going to do.
Maybe not the best example but it is pretty simple.
And why the hell would you let it slide for Stud and/or Razz? Those games are more complex than Hold 'em and your opponent’s hole cards are face down in those games too.
With Stud or Razz, you have a more visible information about the strength of your opponent as well as your relative position of winning the pot compared to your opponent. However, like you said, there are three facedown cards as well, which is why I said **MAYBE **let it slide A LITTLE BIT. But with Razz or Stud, with face up cards, the game isn’t as incomplete as Holdem or Omaha.
I do agree with have different definitions of “solved”, but can you elaborate more on why you think RPS is a “solved game”. I think any game with imperfect information is, by nature, impossible to be solved.
Right. This is where I think we vary by definition.
I consider a game solved if everything that can be figured out has been figured out. Monopoly, for another example, has been pretty much solved. They actually have statistics on how often properties will be landed on and how much money each of the monopolies/properties are expected to pay off over the course of the rest of the game. Now, I have no idea if the stats are actually accurate, and I hate playing that game, but the stats are still there. Now, there is no way to accurately predict what the dice are going to do to the game (which is an example of when randomness is good for a game) but I’d still consider the game to be solved.
Scrabble is also apparently solved. I was watching the Scrabble championships on ESPN one day and they had computer analysis on how likely a player is to win if he puts down a specific word based on how many points he’d score, what words his opponent might be able to play after that, and what words the person playing the word could potentially do after drawing random tiles from the bag. Scrabble is too much for me.
So for RPS the game to me is solved because you know the optimal option anytime you are required to do something. Just so happens that every option has the exact same advantages and disadvantages (a perfectly balanced game!) so the game truly is about reading your opponent more than anything.
But I can fully agree with the opinion that RPS, Hold-em, and Monopoly can never be solved. It just depends on what you mean by “solved”.