Play with Honor , Make Brawl Fun - With Some Thoughts from Mew2King

[K 2]

It doesn't need nearly as much time as Melee did, or almost any other game for that matter. Brawl has a developed community that has committed since day ONE (and even before then) to finding ATs, strategies, etc.
The chance of Brawl seeing a dramatic change in the meta game at this point is extremely low.

I'm not saying there's going to be a DRAMTIC change.

Tell me, how many AT's (including character specifc ones) are there in brawl?

How many are in melee?

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm not saying there's going to be a DRAMTIC change.

Tell me, how many AT's (including character specifc ones) are there in brawl?

How many are in melee?

Depends on what you think constitutes an AT. Some people think dashing an usmash is an AT. I don't.
Melee has more most-know, important ATs than Brawl does, if you ask me.

But that's not the point, the point is that Brawl will not see much more, if any at all, change in the meta game (or discoveries of good ATs).

 

[Woozle]

Yes, this was the argument, that "Brawl will never be as Competitive as Melee". Woozle claim this was the argument of the "Elitists", I refuted this. Not once was it mentioned that Brawl can't eve be Competitive.

I suggest you not jump into the middle of a conversation and make stuff up in your head.


I'm slightly confused as to whether Elitists is an actual person or your lumping together of anyone who argues Brawl isn't/can never be as Competitive as Melee.

Just because you might not be able to these things does not change the fact that some of us can.

I am lumping together those Melee players who seem to constantly enjoy reminding the community how much "better" Melee is. They exist. Don't act as if they don't. And I've seen quite a few of the arguments put forth as to why Melee is more competitive, and they all get boiled down to: That is what made Melee competitive.

And I have to LAUGH at the idea that you are accusing me of being unable to reason. I have yet to make any assertions other than "THESE ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK FOR THESE REASONS". You assume too much.

 

[Yuna]

I am lumping together those Melee players who seem to constantly enjoy reminding the community how much "better" Melee is. They exist. Don't act as if they don't. And I've seen quite a few of the arguments put forth as to why Melee is more competitive, and they all get boiled down to: That is what made Melee competitive.

And I have to LAUGH at the idea that you are accusing me of being unable to reason. I have yet to make any assertions other than "THESE ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK FOR THESE REASONS". You assume too much.

BS arguments brought up by stupid people are inconsequential. You even brought these reasons up in response to a single person stating "Brawl will never be as competitive as Melee", projecting that he automatically meant it for the reasons you stated (I went back and checked).

Yeesh, man, there's no need to be hostile. I was just adding to that quote. Is that alright with you, or do I need permission for that?

Only you stated it as if anyone had argued otherwise. "X does not mean Y isn't true" implies someone argued Y isn't true to begin with.

 

[K 2]

Depends on what you think constitutes an AT. Some people think dashing an usmash is an AT. I don't.
Melee has more most-know, important ATs than Brawl does, if you ask me.

But that's not the point, the point is that Brawl will not see much more, if any at all, change in the meta game (or discoveries of good ATs).

We're getting off subject. I was arguing how brawl was still technical and competitive(although to a slightly lesser degree) as Melee.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Only you stated it as if anyone had argued otherwise. "X does not mean Y isn't true" implies someone argued Y isn't true to begin with.

I wasn't trying to argue anything, really. I was literally just adding my thoughts to that specific quote. There's seriously no need for being so hostile at that.

We're getting off subject. I was arguing how brawl was still technical and competitive(although to a slightly lesser degree) as Melee.

Yes, we are
And I agree with you completely.

 

[XienZo]

Only you stated it as if anyone had argued otherwise. "X does not mean Y isn't true" implies someone argued Y isn't true to begin with.

Doesn't arguing off stuff that might be accidentally implied lead to useless flame wars?

And you can't tell if something is competitive as another or something if we don't agree on a definition. I personally believe that the # of high skilled people playing the game also is a factor for a competitive metagame, and under my plausable definition, Brawl's metagame would be more competitive if everyone in the US suddenly gave up sports to play Brawl competitively.

Which obviously would not be true under other definitions.

 

[Woozle]

Brawl will never be as competitive as Melee.

Banning infinites and camping wouldn't solve that problem.

There were combos in Melee as soon as the game came out.

Both of these, within the last three pages, imply that the reason Brawl is not 'competitive' is because it lacks proper mechanics.

 

[Woozle]

Doesn't arguing off stuff that might be accidentally implied lead to useless flame wars?

And you can't tell if something is competitive as another or something if we don't agree on a definition. I personally believe that the # of high skilled people playing the game also is a factor for a competitive metagame, and under my plausable definition, Brawl's metagame would be more competitive if everyone in the US suddenly gave up sports to play Brawl competitively.

Which obviously would not be true under other definitions.

Cool definition. :D

Does skilled people imply anyone skilled at all, though? IT experts? Painters? Electricians?

:3

Edit: Eh, sorry for the double-post.

 

[St. Viers]

K2: there are MANY more character specific glitches/ AT in brawl, whereas melee had fewer specific glitches, instead having broader exploits of the physics engine that anyone could use (l-canceling, edge-canceling, etc).

EDIT: I wanna make ta thread titled: Play With Brains, Make Brawl Fun. It would be exactly like this, but opposite XD

 

[Calixto]

It's how the game is. We have to deal.

Then why don't we play with items, or with all stages? I'll tell you why, because they give random and unfair edges to one player or the other.


The infinite CGs, or 0 death CGs give an unfair advantage to the player who is able to do them on the first double blind play of the set. It only discourages the use of DK/Bowser/Mario Bros/Samus rather than encourage the use of DDD.

It is unfair. It is being a d.ick.



Addendum: Watching a CG take place, without the other player able to in anyway to break out of it is about as thrilling as watching a mechanical hand screw tops onto soda bottles. And takes the same amount of skill (barring perhaps the IC CG).


Further Addendum: CGS TAKE LESS SKILL THAN BOILING WATER.

 

[Woozle]

Then why don't we play with items, or with all stages? I'll tell you why, because they give random and unfair edges to one player or the other.

Ah, but you see, it's not a random unfair advantage.

Only one adjective. :<

Edit: And I saw "double-blind". I was talking more along the lines of it will always be the same characters that can be CG'd.

 

[Aiur]

Items= Random and not skillful
CGs=Character specific and sometimes skillful. Problem solved, Calix, now I'm going to go watch Lucky Star.

 

[Barge]

Seriously, don't bring items into this. Items should not even be thought about bringing up into competitive play.

 

[Frogsterking]

Seriously, don't bring items into this. Items should not even be thought about bringing up into competitive play.

I think items could be put into competitive play if there are specific spawn points on each map. Sakurai would never do that though, even if you could turn them on/off.

In Brawl, no, definately no items. Except with friends.

 

[Yuna]

Doesn't arguing off stuff that might be accidentally implied lead to useless flame wars?

And you can't tell if something is competitive as another or something if we don't agree on a definition. I personally believe that the # of high skilled people playing the game also is a factor for a competitive metagame, and under my plausable definition, Brawl's metagame would be more competitive if everyone in the US suddenly gave up sports to play Brawl competitively.

Which obviously would not be true under other definitions.

Your definition is bad and you should feel bad! Just because a game is played Competitively by many people does not make it Competitively viable or more Competitively viable than something else.

It's more widely played (Competitively). Or are you seriously arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most Competitively viable sports in the world?

I think items could be put into competitive play if there are specific spawn points on each map. Sakurai would never do that though, even if you could turn them on/off.

In Brawl, no, definately no items. Except with friends.

There are specific spawning points on each map. They're just numerous and points chosen for item spawns are chosen at random (through algorithms).

 

[Frogsterking]

There are specific spawning points on each map. They're just numerous and points chosen for item spawns are chosen at random (through algorithms).

Well I meant a couple very specific spawn points in centralized locations that players could fight for.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It's more widely played (Competitively). Or are you seriously arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most Competitively viable sports in the world?

Don't knock Rock paper scissors!

There are specific spawning points on each map. They're just numerous and points chosen for item spawns are chosen at random (through algorithms).

Random seeding I think.

 

[Woozle]

WOW.

Wrong tab.

Uh.

Play with integrity. O:

 

[Crystanium]

I guess M2K doesn't play to win. No, instead, we have to be subject to someone else's rules, because if we don't, the other person won't have any "fun." M2K, DSF or whoever—I don't care who it is that's saying this. There isn't "honor" in Brawl. There's only winning and losing. If you don't like it, don't play.

 

[SothE700k]

Or are you seriously arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most Competitively viable sports in the world?

I hate to say this, but it IS a competitive sport. Sad little f***ers hold tournaments for it with their own rulesets and everything. And I have been told its been on NATIONAL television...

I'm just saying

 

[NeoCrono]

It's more widely played (Competitively). Or are you seriously arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most Competitively viable sports in the world?

I think the most widely competitive sport is soccer
But I could be wrong *shrugs*

 

[$TYL]

Here's a tip guys:

NOTHING IS BANNED IN JAPAN!

 

[XxBlackxX]

I guess M2K doesn't play to win. No, instead, we have to be subject to someone else's rules, because if we don't, the other person won't have any "fun." M2K, DSF or whoever—I don't care who it is that's saying this. There isn't "honor" in Brawl. There's only winning and losing. If you don't like it, don't play.

This.
I mean, friendlies can be fun and all, hell, you can go all items on and play falcon dittos all day if you find that fun, however, in tournies, the reason you compete is to win. otherwise, what's the point of competing? i agree that brawl is supposed to be a fun game, but in tournies, it IS about winning, not having fun (though it is entirely possible to do both).

 

[aeghrur]

So throughout this thread, we've concluded that:
M2K is a scrub at times
Scrubs>Douches
Playing with Honor doesn't work and is a laughable idea.
Right?

 

[XienZo]

Your definition is bad and you should feel bad! Just because a game is played Competitively by many people does not make it Competitively viable or more Competitively viable than something else.

It's more widely played (Competitively). Or are you seriously arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is one of the most Competitively viable sports in the world?

Oh, no, not "just because". Its a factor, as in it allows the metagame to progress faster, but its not the only factor. RPS is held back by tons of other factors. I never said competitiveness IS how many people plays it. Competitiveness is (partially) BASED on how many people plays it. Its not a main factor, nor is it a leading one, but nontheless, in two otherwise identical metagames, the one with more people would progress with more depth sooner, and would be better competitively.

Toldya assuming things that MIGHT be implied doesn't do anything.

 

[ssbbFICTION]

Planking can only really be used effectively with pit and meta anyway, so just make sure you choose a char that can either catch them on the ledge...or gain a lead...forcing the staller to approach you.

 

[Dr. Hyde]

I like the flat out non campy play style. It's what I do in friendlies, why because I know it would piss me and my roommate off if either of us were camping. Olimar is fun to play when you are just going flat out attacking and so is Ganon, is that harder to do and win? Yes. But it is worth every moment when you get a win.

 

[Royale]

I disagree, this was an epic match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPaJvNJsqDY (Lain vs Anther)

Samus camping on the edge is broken though (especially at places like Delfino and Halberd during the 'floating' platforms. Samus can drop down, fire missiles, fire a charge shot, zair..... >.> so broken

Man, i've been at the recieving end of this **** and it is not fun at all. All that Samus did[in the match I was in] was just spam missiles, approach with Z-air and combo missiles/charge shot. Its just not fun at all.

 

[Espy Rose]

I mean, friendlies can be fun and all, hell, you can go all items on and play falcon dittos all day if you find that fun, however, in tournies, the reason you compete is to win. otherwise, what's the point of competing? i agree that brawl is supposed to be a fun game, but in tournies, it IS about winning, not having fun (though it is entirely possible to do both).

This.

I have fun competing. Win or lose, it's a fun experience that I like to have at every tournament.
Mmhmm.

 

[Anther]

Tourney matches are fun to me no matter how ghey. You should be playing with a whole different mindset. There's always a solution, and it's ridiculous things you rarely have to deal with in friendlies. You catch glimpses in friendlies, but in tourney, fighting that real deal stuff should be you thinking about how to constantly beat it, not getting bent out of shape and wallowing on how hard someone's making winning for you.

 

[pockyD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

 

[D_T]

So, I just thought of this and think it would be an amusing way to stop camping.

If the time runs out and no winner has been decided, both players are eliminated from the tournament completely. The bracket gets bye's for any spots where the winner/loser should have gone to.

Can anyone find a problem with this? I'm sure they can, but it's still an amusing idea.

 

[Dolente]

So throughout this thread, we've concluded that:
M2K is a scrub at times
Scrubs>Douches
Playing with Honor doesn't work and is a laughable idea.
Right?

Call me a newb, scrub, moron, low-post-count-shouldn't-speak-unless-spoken-to-person, or what have you, I think that, as someone who is experienced in competitive gaming in general and at least familiar with smash in particular, I might be able to help shed some light on this somewhat meandering debate.

First, let us establish the questions: Is Smash fun if competitions are played without honor? Should competitive smash be fun at all?

These questions are somewhat awkward, as everyone has fun differently, and many argue that the spirit of competition is fun enough unto itself. I have discovered that true competitions are most enjoyable by two classes of people:

1) Those who truly seek to be the best and, if they are not, to discover who is.
2) People who don't actually care who is the best, and come to tournaments simply to find other people who play the game.

One can easily see how class (2) might be displeased if they were quickly ousted from a tournament by a series of players who chaingrabbed and spiked them three times. A representative of class (1), however, would say that they did not belong at the tournament to begin with. Swiss draw tournament formats, in my opinion, have largely solved this problem by more or less equivocating matchups. Whether the technique is honourable, however, is another question altogether.

Second, let us identify the foci of the argument:

Honour (in the context of competitive gaming) - honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions.
Honour (in the context of SSBB) - Fairness within the game's intended rules.
Competition (in the context of SSBB) - A way to discover which players are the best at playing this game.
Fun (as applies to SSBB in general) - Enjoyment and happiness provided by playing this game.
Fun (in the context of competitive SSBB) - Discovery, and the process of discovering, who can beat a large number of other players.

As each of these concepts are highly subjective, each person is likely to have a distinct viewpoint, so argue with me as you will, but most will probably divide into a few camps:

a) Honour (in terms of being absolutely fair within the game's intended rules) is unnecessary in competition (a gathering of Smash players whose principal focus is on finding the best amongst themselves) because the person most able to effectively utilize all aspects of the game should be deemed the best. Fun is also unnecessary, though not always absent, to competition, and can be found by playing Smash outside of tournaments.

b) Honour applies to competition only when certain moves, glitches, etc. can be exploited to give a certain character/player an insurmountable (or perceptively insurmountable) advantage that does not allow anyone else to win, regardless of skill. This exploitation renders the competition uncompetitive (and unfun) by essentially transforming the game into a lackluster demonstration of who can execute the move/glitch first.

c) Honour is not present unless the playing field is absolutely equal in all respects but skill (at using characters as intended by the programmers). Dishonourable play is not fun, and competitions should be fun.

d) You don't have to play with honour, ever.


Because competitive Smash does not have a unified rulemaking body, players are left to define honour and its role in tournaments for themselves. As a result, tournaments will become more oriented toward ATs and methods of exploiting the games still-imperfect operation until either the players whose personal definition of "fun" excludes "dishonourable" moves begin establishing independant tournaments for like-minded individuals, or a governing body is formed.

 

[Enlong]

You know, there are other options.

 

[Royale]

Tourney matches are fun to me no matter how ghey. You should be playing with a whole different mindset. There's always a solution, and it's ridiculous things you rarely have to deal with in friendlies. You catch glimpses in friendlies, but in tourney, fighting that real deal stuff should be you thinking about how to constantly beat it, not getting bent out of shape and wallowing on how hard someone's making winning for you.

Isn't that fundamentally what a tournie is about? adaptation, since some people you might only meet for the first time. When you think about it you only get 8 minutes compared to friendlies where you might face your friends for a few hours.

 

[ftl]

So, I just thought of this and think it would be an amusing way to stop camping.

If the time runs out and no winner has been decided, both players are eliminated from the tournament completely. The bracket gets bye's for any spots where the winner/loser should have gone to.

Can anyone find a problem with this? I'm sure they can, but it's still an amusing idea.

One problem is that lots of people want to knock out top players.

And it's a lot easier to waste time and go almost-even with someone than it is to beat them. So that would encourage people, when playing guys who are better than them, to waste time and go for a run-time-out mutual-loss rather than fighting and probably just losing anyway.

Also, it would lead to some really sucky tournaments. Do you *really* want to win a final by default, because in the semifinals one of the players played a lovely keepaway game against the other for 8 minutes, leading to both of them being knocked out?

 

[RyanPF]

One problem is that lots of people want to knock out top players.

And it's a lot easier to waste time and go almost-even with someone than it is to beat them. So that would encourage people, when playing guys who are better than them, to waste time and go for a run-time-out mutual-loss rather than fighting and probably just losing anyway.

Also, it would lead to some really sucky tournaments. Do you *really* want to win a final by default, because in the semifinals one of the players played a lovely keepaway game against the other for 8 minutes, leading to both of them being knocked out?

If you don't try it, you can't know what will happen.

 

[Cha0tic NiGhTmArE]

I love how this thread turned into i giant melee over whos right..no one is..its an opinion not facts your arguing about.also why does it seem like everyone joined forces again Yuna..what he says is just as valid as what is being by everyone els and hes saying it in a more intellegent way.. just things to think about..talk about the topic, dont fight over it

 

[KO M]

Get back on the issue, not who is or isnt right people.