Smash Balls = New Play Style, Second Tourney Ruling?

[GhostAnime]

i've started posting less on less on the brawl boards because no matter what you say there are 27 people ready to jump down my throat just because i like playing in tournaments.

tell me about it. we're being taken over by n00bs. that's like, the only drawback to having Brawl hype.

 

[Libomasus]

You might not have been here, but this site went down too. It was on and off until it finnally crashed. Got fixed pretty quickly though.

Yeah I remember that. Way back when the site refused to load I kept trying, but when the message saying "The server is down, try the IRC Channel" went up I gave up on the site for a while thinking it would be down for a long time. It's surprising how well its maintained.

 

[SiegKnight]

You're all just confused and in a knot because Smash Balls are a ****ing awesome concept, remarkably diverse and are often the corner stone of a characters personality, often embodying years of history they've had as a videogame character and not to mention it had potential to be a great psychological bait game had things been balanced a little better.

Personally as it is though I believe its a broken, often unblockable piece of ****, full of defensive exploits and has no real use perhaps even in an all item tourney with the exploding objects off as its just as random and hazardous as any of them.

Its a great piece of wasted potential. Had they changed the structure of it a little I could likely start up an items league with the randomizing things off and encourage people to deal with the spawn luck, but things like Marths FS virtually break the game in two.

Good show, Nintendo.

 

[Dark Sonic]

You know what I really would've liked. If you could somehow charge a smash meter to activate your FS, instead of it being an item (and if it was balanced better). Then you'd have to work for your FS and it would be more legit.

 

[TheRooster]

This will probably be the last time I post in this thread, but I just cannot understand how people ignore the fact that this thread was originally about having a second tournament...

I think that its kind of dumb that newcomers come in here and expect the world of smash to change because of what they think is right.

And at the same time I hate that elitist tournament pros want to flame the little guy for talking about anything new .

And on top of that 90% of the people arguing (noob or not) HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED THE GAME

 

[peachori]

as great as it would be to have the 2 tournaments, one will undoubtedly play second fiddle. we already have a hard enough time organizing and finishing tournaments that have singles, doubles, and crews. adding a side tournament with smash balls would be no different than the side pokemon or ssb64 tournaments you see at major events today. it would merely be an after thought, with little or no money on the line and thus little or no fierce competition

 

[SiegKnight]

I've played the game and I can say there is no vertical limit to how dangerous you can make your final smash; things you don't have to plan out for - smash balls are stupid in this way as they don't even calculate a neutral position between two players - and things that you can put as much effort as you want into without any payoff are just demonic in this sort of play setting.

Its like Sakurai even hates competetives having fun in their spare time because theres no way you can actually fight against the immense priority and power most of them things have. A metre would be nice, but making the entire idea of a final smash a little more punishing of messups and also proper to land would've been far better. As it is even a race of aliens who love their games to be random in luck factor but also love intensive skill and mind play won't lap this **** up; it doesn't appear it at first but the FS are unstrategic to use and very easy to kill with, or at least chip off a ridicolous ammount.

Sakurai obviously didn't pay much attention to them as opposed to the rest of the game, and its sad as they had the oppurtunity to have as much skill as everything else. Its an awesome idea, using toki o tomare with Luigi to destroy everything in your path or having your teammate as Ike great aether a very top tier Marth and an annoying Meta who was just bugging you, as the crowd roars and your pathway through the final match of a tournament to getting the cash prize is clear.

But as it is none of that is going to be possible. No one, unless they're ridicolously boring and blank minded can argue that they would want the fs feature to be competetively unviable. If you have the gal to play a game like Brawl which has reset everything Melee built itself up around instead of a game established to be deep and competetive, you must have some inner child in you, and a love of videogame history. No one could deny how cool it is to Kamehameha half the screen as Rukario or how fuzzy it feels to crush a pikachu with a landmaster.

But as it is they're unstrategic trash and they're basically an instant win button once you get the hang of it, and can see the game in any serious light; whats worse about this is that its like Sakurai is kicking us in the balls. They're instant win buttons for us, but to anyone - even high reactive people who would otherwise like to mindgame if they knew the concept - who doesn't view the game serious won't be looking for guarantied options. It'll be slightly more random and dodgable for them, so why can't there be a factor of control for us too?

**** is hot garbage.

If anyone here had brawl and played it long enough to see how defenseless you can render an opponent with a Smash Ball, no one would even think of starting this argument. It should've been a static macro of a movie that just instant ko's them or adds 80% damage, because thats basically what it is when you're using your brain.

Does Sakurai hate us?

 

[Raikage]

Interesting post SiegKnight. I intend to do my own testing to see how they are when I get the game. It would be a real shame if Smash Balls are banned univesally I think, as they are the biggest game change from Melee to Brawl, without them it would pretty much be like Melee with new characters.

 

[Libomasus]

I don't see how you can say that when scrambling to get items has always been a part of Melee, and there are much more noticeable changes. Like the physics system, the new techniques, the removed techniques, and a lot of other nuances.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, just in case anyone is still lurking around the thread, I need to ask a question. On average, what are the stakes when in a usual Smash tournament? I know it probably differs from tournament to tournament, and probably based on how many people enter, but an educated guess.

 

[FalconPunch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENcwcjbAgpU&feature=user

 

[pirkid]

Perfect example of Cheap FS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ddxxM1BsbxU&feature=related

It's the matter of the issue.

 

[evilflame101]

Smash Balls are more "skillful" than regular items. But they're also much more powerful - a smash ball going to one player due to a random advantage is much, much more likely to turn the tide of a match than one item. And I'm more concerned about the balance repercussions. It's painfully obvious that certain FSes are better for 1v1 than others, and there doesn't seem to be any correlation with character effectiveness. I also think it's just going to get old after a while, they won't be nearly as interesting after the hundredth time you set one off.

But when you are someone who plays samus, you want to be able to change back, maybe you decide to start the match as samus, then in the middle you change to zss, then near then end you wanna change back, smashball is the only way! I mean come on, we need tourneys with both. I can see having both, and i can see myself going to both types, but i personally think if we give them a chance for awhile it might increase the meta-game. Maybe even spice up the game a bit.

 

[TheRooster]

Perfect example of what SKILLED players would play like with Smash balls on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgfsFY6y70E&NR=1

hint: Marth vs Marth

 

[Libomasus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENcwcjbAgpU&feature=user

Proves Yuna's theory completely. Both characters used Marth. The first time Marth got the smashball he had to ledgecamp, managed to get one hit because the other taunted, and still got hurt by it. The second time it looks like he suicided just to get away, knowing how easy it would be for the other Marth to ledgeguard with a FS.

Ok, just in case anyone is still lurking around the thread, I need to ask a question. On average, what are the stakes when in a usual Smash tournament? I know it probably differs from tournament to tournament, and probably based on how many people enter, but an educated guess.

Don't know about tournament stakes, but admission isn't usually that high for local tournies. Around 15 bucks. I know prize pools for MLG tournies can get pretty big though. Over 1500 maybe for 1st place?

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'll go ahead and post again since it got BotP last time, and I don't think anyone saw it:

On average, what are the stakes in a competitive Smash tournament? Not the extremes (high or low), just what the average 1st place player will earn. Also, again on average, how are winnings most divvied up? Winner take all? Tiered?

I swear it will be relevant, but first I need to know the aforementioned information.

EDIT ^: Is the 1500$ you were talking about for MLG tournaments, or for the average SWF-sponsored/organized tournament?

 

[shiva39]

It ranges. A good local/regional one can pull in anywhere from a couple hundred to 1000+. Official circuit stuff like what MLG used to be gets to multiple thousands.

As far as the split, 70:30:10 is common I think, usually there's maintenance fees for the venue that get cut out. So maybe 60:30:10.

 

[SiegKnight]

Jack. Learn the game and help me shape a 2 v 2 league plan I had in mind where alot of items are usable, if you really want to. I still am not keeping FS on unless any of my crew find some silly way of ****ing them over and even then I'm weary of them.

First. I wanna know if you even have brawl? The way it plays is very questionable to things like ATs and FSs. Your opinion means squat until you've faced a relentless Smash Ball'ed marth.

Really.

Its INSTANT WIN.

 

[PXG]

If ya'll want to establish a community that allows items/ smashballs go ahead. What the others and I are saying is, we are not going to change our rules. Our community is based off pure and raw skill and not random factors. We believe that items take away from the skill necessary to beat an opponent. By banning items, stages and certain moves, we make competitive play and tournaments as fair and balanced as possible.

Sure items are fun, but not when a lot of money and pride is on the line. Its just too much of a risk. We get more of a thrill watching two contenders fight with their own skill and wit, rather than mindlessly chucking items at each other. That's just how it is, and how its going to be.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jack. Learn the game and help me shape a 2 v 2 league plan I had in mind where alot of items are usable, if you really want to. I still am not keeping FS on unless any of my crew find some silly way of ****ing them over and even then I'm weary of them.

First. I wanna know if you even have brawl? The way it plays is very questionable to things like ATs and FSs. Your opinion means squat until you've faced a relentless Smash Ball'ed marth.

Really.

Its INSTANT WIN.

I don't know how far back you've read or anything, so I'll go ahead and, for the sake of brevity, state it again: I haven't played Brawl, and I refuse to make any concrete judgments about the game until I have the final American retail version in my hands. I respect that there are people who have already played the game, but I simply, on principle of observable truth, refuse to make any judgments myself until I have the ability to test and experience the game personally; I'm not going to base anything off a video that I can misinterpret.

As for the item league, thanks to some of the people in this thread, I'm entertaining the idea of experimenting with hosting various playstyle tournaments in order to ascertain what item combinations will be most viable for a tournament setting, which for now includes Final Smash experimentation. I'm not thinking about 2v2 just yet, but when I get there, I can certainly let you know. (And I don't know whether you mean learn Brawl, or learn Smash in general; I can assure you, I know Smash in general very well. )

Speaking of item/Final Smash tournaments, I actually have been thinking, and I've come up with an idea that I'd like to get an opinion on, if that's alright. I'm going to keep thinking, so this certainly won't be my only one or anything, but it's a start and it's a step in the right direction. I want to take my time explaining this so that I don't mess it up.

As I understand it now, these are the facets of the tournament scene that, regardless of any experimentation, must be maintained if anyone wants to even hope for the tournament community to tolerate serious item tournaments:

1) The match must be decided, mainly, by the skills of the competing players. Items, by their very nature, have random elements, but these elements must be controlled to a manageable level so that the majority of the match determination is based on skill.

2) Many, if not most, tournament savvy Smashers will not want to wager serious money on a match that can be determined by luck as a main factor.

3) An acceptable level of balance must be maintained so that the greatest number of characters have the most level playing field possible.


There are also facets to any prospective new items/Final Smash playstyle that must be maintained for the enjoyment of those who are, ultimately, asking for an alternate playstyle:

A ) Competitiveness must, under no circumstances, be undermined. If a prospective item/Final Smash playstyle is viewed by the tournament community to be inferior, something that is simply a sideshow and unable to take center stage of some kind, then the entire purpose of holding a competitive tournament has been defeated, and the tournament may as well have not been held.

B ) A majority of items must not be deemed as impermissible in battle, as if only a minority of items are allowed, again, the main aspect that differentiates the new style from the old is undermined.


Items 3 and B will not be able to be determined until extensive testing has occurred with various item configurations having been explored; however, I feel there is a way to accommodate the other three conditions in a fairly neat and simple way.

Poker has been used as an example for both sides of the items on/off arguments, so I shall draw an example from that game for clarity. Poker is a game that, though is played one way at its core, has many variations; there is Hold-Em, the various draw-styles, the various stud-styles, and many more, I'm sure, that I am not familiar with. In the case of Poker, differing styles of play are used in different stakes of matches, usually with Texas Hold-Em style play constituting the majority of high-stakes Poker.

This could possibly be applied to a potential item/Final Smash tournament. In hypothetical 'Smash Fest Alpha', two separate, yet competitively equal, tournaments could be held with different stakes: the usual, previously approved 'medium-stakes' tournament-style play, and a second 'low-stakes' items/Final Smash tournament (for now, I would consider MLG-style play 'high-stakes', which makes high-stakes playstyles irrelevant for this hypothetical because MLG has its own rules and procedures for play).

According to the information given to me by the posters in this thread, the 'average' stakes for a SWF-hosted/organized tournament is roughly 1,000$-1,500$ (so, for the sake of this hypothetical, I will use the median of 1,250$). This, at the provided average 60:30:10 split for winnings makes player earnings by place 750$:375$:125$. These stakes, I can understand, are too large for someone to be willing to lose on a match that could be decided by an item spawn.

However, (and this can be balanced later, after more deliberation), winning stakes of 120$:60$:20$ are drastically lower stakes, and thus maybe current tournament players would be more willing to play with a total pot of a mere 200$. This would also drastically reduce entry fees into the tournament.

As I have been told, many current 'medium-stakes' tournaments are executed using a single- or double-elimination style system, which is exceptional when variations in match results are few and far between; however, the introduction of items brings a heightened probability of variations from pure skill outcomes, thus single- and double-elimination style play is insufficient. After preliminary analysis of commonly used tournament types, I have deduced that item/Final Smash play could be legitimized greatly as a competitive style if tournaments employ the single- or double-round robin style or the Swiss system style of tournament play, as these styles allow, indeed correct, for variance in matches between individuals.

These factors are important for all of the above stated reasons: the two aforementioned styles of play ensure that, unlike items/Final Smashes in single- or double-elimination play, single acts of luck do not overshadow player skill in a dominant way, the lowered stakes allow for current tournament players to wager money on a tournament without feeling a significant loss, and, because money is still on the line (though in a drastically reduced sense), a sense of strong competition is still present in the game.

What's more, the two styles of play (medium-stakes and low-stakes) are in no way mutually exclusive to one another; in fact, they can actually be complimentary insofar as the reduced entry fee for low-stakes play leaves a player with enough funds to also enter medium-stakes play, if he or she has the time to compete in both. This also allows for the terms 'high-level play' and 'low-level play' to be phased out and the more accurate (and less demeaning terms) 'medium-stakes play' and 'low-stakes play' to be used in their place.

(NOTE: That last statement might seem trivial to many people here, but there are a good number of casual players that take offense to the term 'low-level play'; I've heard both sides of the argument, and my personal opinion is that there is less of a stigma between the words 'medium' and 'low' than there is between 'high' and 'low'. Also, this change in terminology has the added bonus of elevating Major League play above traditional tournament play.)

I feel that this hypothetical scenario could very well lay the ground-work for future competitive item-based tournaments, and would be able to include a vast number of players, rather than exclude any one group from play.

 

[pirkid]

In short, use 'em if you want.

 

[thesage]

Even if items were allowed in tournament play the would not add much anyways because a lot of the items would be banned.

Home-run bat - I think this was banned in melee, if it was/wasn't the same will probably apply to brawl.

Beam-sword - Not banned in melee, but in brawl it has super long range now. I'm iffy on this one.

Sparky - Similar to red shell, which was banned, but much easier to avoid (I think)

Fan - not banned, same will be for brawl.

Bo-omb - banned, will be in brawl. I don't think I need to explain this.

Clock thingy - probably banned, it puts either you or your opponent at a huge disadvantage, plus it could possibly screw w/ Ness/Lucas' recovery.

Goey Bomb - I think this wouldn't be banned as it works similarly to the mines, which also weren't banned.

Mines - See above

Lip's stick - if it still spieks then it should be banned.

Smash ball - see this thread

Crates and capsules - banned

Exploding Crates - banned (duh)

Screw Attack - this was banned in melee, but I'm not sure why. I think it should be banned cuz it combos into rest.... unless they smash DI really well.

Franklin Badge = IDK. Probably not banned

AT's and Poke balls - banned. Always were. They are just too broken.

Ray gun - while this wasn't banned in melee (I think), in brawl it can now infinite combo somebody off the stage regardless where they are (think Falco's laser lock with more knockback and no need to set up).

Hammer/Golden Hammer - do I need to say this?

Bumper - allowed. No reason to ban it really.

Cracker Launcher - I don't know, but it looks pretty powerful too me. Like a bo-omb that's a projectile. Probably banned.

Super Scope - not banned. No reason to ban it.

Green Shell - melee item tourneys allowed it. No need to ban it.

Smoke bomb or w/e - Kinda useless. I guess it could be allowed. It doesn't look usefull at all though.

so like 10 or 11 items, and most of them aren't even that interesting.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not even worrying about which particular item configurations will work yet, not until I can test all this stuff out with many people playing under many different circumstances.

For now, I'm just curious on what people think about my borderline-essay.

(I really didn't think it would be that long...)

 

[homie_rot]

I am sorry for saying this, but you guys are idiots if you think Smash Balls do not add luck.

The smash ball comes at random times/places, and adds an element of luck to the match. Competitive smash is about eliminating luck, not adding to it.

 

[Yuna]

he says nothing important. He keeps saying "No, theyre bad, this is why i think their bad" with no proof. Its his opionion vs mine. Even the things im saying were never absolute (unlike what yuna is trying to dish out). It was merely speculation and food for thought.

No proof? You mean the game itself? Play it.

has anybody mentioned about how you can break the smash ball with projectiles?

let's not give speedy projectile characters an even bigger advantage than they already have now.

Yes we have.

fr0st2k - The smash ball can appear at any time, including when you aren't there to get it (i.e. when you're sent flying). There won't always be something you can do to prevent your opponent from getting the smash ball.

Edit- Nevermind, ShortAssasin said it first. XP

It's been "proven" since the last thread about this. It's just that some people refuse to think logically.

Yes .. but the time it takes to break is more than it takes to get back on the edge. Not only that .. but if the other playing is getting the smash ball, then he isnt edge guarding.

No it doesn't. Let's see... Marth could jump off the stage, risk eating an aerial/spike/meteor smash/whatever or go after the Smash Ball.

You make it back, he can still throw you off (again) and edgeguard you or simply activate the Smash Ball once you're forced to go onto the stage from the ledge because staying on it is a very bad idea against Marth.

Secondly, once it gets hit, it flies away. Giving the opponent who was further from it, a fairer chance of obtaining it.

It flies in a random direction. Even if you obviously hit it in one, it might fly in another. Also, smart people don't pass it to their one opponent. They hit it in the other direction.

Thirdly, i never once said that playing with smash balls on would be the same strategy as playing with all items off. PArt of the appeal of this type of gameplay could be something like : Playing the avoidance game until the ball appears. Going on the offensive could be a risky move in this ruleset.

Did you just say that the "right" way to play with Smash Balls on would be camping like crazy until it appears and then rushing it, hoping to get it and winning the match using it?! What kind of competitive scene do you think that would create?!

The smash ball HAS different properties than other items. To flat out say that it would never work is just a blantant display of your ignorance..

Yeah, your last argument (see "Camping" above disqualified all of your future posts on this topic).

and of course yuna proved it. she has the game.

"By the way, I am a man." - Haku of the Snow

 

[Yuna]

Smash Balls should never be banned. Besides, if one does high damage and you get K.O'ed, then why should you worry? There's two ways that FS's are good. One is that if you doge and someone else gets hit (in this case using them like a substitution) the enemy still gets the point, but you don't suffer from embarrasment! 2. Is that when FS's are done, there done! No more Smash Ball grabbing for them, now is there?

1) You can't dodge certain FS:es because their hitboxes stay out too long.
2) You can't dodge while getting comboed.
3) We're not going to host 4-Man Free-For-All tournies... ever. So unless you're talking about teams, yeah, no.
4) When the FS is done, you just have to wait 'til the next one appears, which will happen in about 30 seconds on the lowest setting.

Ok, my mouse broke on me at the worst possible time. Technology is fun.

How come you haven't replied to my last reply to your posts? You haven't said anything that remotely resembles a reply to my refutes to your arguments.

Oh yeah. Smash Balls and tournament play. What I find interesting is that not many people (actually, close to no one) that I have seen are even considering that it might take a combination of items and Smash Balls to create a 'more balanced atmosphere' (honestly, I don't even know what that means anymore; from what I'm told and what I've observed watching many Melee tournaments, it seems like the most balanced thing possible is basically a mix between a reflex test and a staring contest, but hey... what do I know?). This is ultimately what I mean by experimentation. If we start (and therefore continue, because if history has proven anything, it's that humans are the most stubborn species alive) having a tournament setting that only condones the 'traditional' conservative style of play, then we'll never find out what combination of items and/or Smash Balls and/or stages make a fun and evenly matched setting. And I know: items are random spawns. Whee. We get it.

What makes you think we haven't considered it? What makes you think that I personally haven't theoretically tested it out and then tested it out against people? Do you really think I know all that I know about Final Smashes simply through watching videos and hearing others talk about it?

I've played the **** game. How many times must I say this? I play it a lot with Final Smashes on because I play it mostly against casuals and they want it on. They often also want items on and 4-Man FFA so I have to play that as well. It's not my preferred way of playing but then I don't camp the Wii either, I play other games if they're available.

And you know what my conclusion is after testing it? Final Smashes are broken and need to be banned. They're also random, which items also are, so items have to be banned as well.

Now go away and reply to my replies to your posts.

And correct me if I'm wrong (I believe I posted this in another thread, but I didn't see anyone answer me, so I still don't know), but wasn't a large portion of the reason items were banned because of exploding things (boxes, barrels, capsules), which can now be turned off?

And also randomness. The randomness factor is still there. There's no changing that unless we forcefully hack the game.

The point I'm laboriously trying to get to is that the original poster had only mentioned the possibility of an alternate, i.e., not replacement, style of tournament, to which the majority of posters have stated, quite clearly, that it is, as far as they're concerned, a dumb idea, and no one in their right mind would ever, ever want to go to a tournament like that. Meanwhile, those in support have only argued that we should have an open mind.

Because, you know, it is a dumb idea. That "alternative style" ("The New Low Tiers") would literally devolve (if not immediately then in time) into everyone playing only the characters with Top Tier FS:es. In time, it might actually devolve into "The Marth With FS Tournament".

And why would anyone want a tournament style centered largely around luck?! And for what?! To make the gameplay flashier? To b able to use large p0wning moves with special effects? I mean, really, you haven't actually argued why we should have them on, just why we shouldn't ban them. I mean, what do we have to gain from FS:es in tournament play?

Sure. We see, as I said earlier, that some stages, items, and Final Smashes are overpowered NOW... but if we stop looking (and I don't believe for a second that any competitive tournament-goer in his right mind would stop training in the traditional style so he can do good-hearted research for the rest of the smash community by playing in an alternate style. No one that I've ever met has ever showed a compulsion of any kind towards that kind of action, and why should they? It's not like item A, stage B, or playstyle C will ever be played competitively anyways?), and that's essentially what we're doing by not promoting, holding, and competing in alternate tournament styles, then we'll never find what combination of elements works in a tournament.

Nothing's stopping you or any of your fellow "FS:es are great! They should be on!"-friends from looking once the game comes out.

FS:es will be banned and remain banned until such time that you, one of your fellow FSAGTSBO:ers or someone else finds a workaround around, say, Marth's fair to death combo... and also the randomness factor or where and when they spawn and where they fly off to after getting hit.

Fix those four things and we'll unban them. Until such time, they'll remain broken because, you know, no workarounds exist that we know of, and have to be banned.

Why leave obviously broken stuff unbanned until such time we've had it on in tournaments for 1-2 years and conclusively come to the conclusion that no workaround exists? It's much more logical to ban it until such time (if ever) a workaround is found! Refute this argument and maybe I'll reconsider my position.

And, Yuna, as much as I'd love to believe you when you say that if anything is banned now it can still be unbanned in the future... that's simply not what observing the competitive community as a whole says could ever happen.

Yes, because your random speculation without any basis on the real world whatsoever is obviously worth much more than what I and MookieRah (a moderator and therefore a very reliable source of Smash information) are saying.

If causal player Dave experiments and finds out that playstyle B is actually very, very tournament viable, the majority of competitive Smashers simply would not trust/believe him, especially if that playstyle involves items or, now, Final Smashes (I can hear the argument now... "Oh, Dave is a casual! He's just trying to make us play with items! What does he know?"). A very small (comparatively) subset of competitive Smashers would listen and would try it out once or twice... but the simple fact remains that, as it stands now, there is little to no chance of anyone changing their minds.

What is this imagined disdain for the casual players the casual players believe we competitive players have for them?

We hold no grudge against them. In fact, a large portion of my friends are casual gamers of all kinds of games I play competitively. We hate idiocy, like casual gamers who've never attended tournaments or ever intend to arguing what should and shouldn't be in tournaments. Like gamers (casual or pro) who've never played Brawl or even studied videos of it closely arguing against people who obviously have (sometimes both). Like casual gamers who think the gap will now be considerably smaller between them and the competitive gamers just because the game is now much more restricted and with less options despite the fact that they will probably still not spend the time to learn how to play the game "properly".

If Dave the Casual Gamer finds a workaround around something, he can post it here on Smashboards. Someone like RyokoYaksha (who's almost perversely interested in all things technical about Smash) or SuperDoodleMan (if he's still activate, I haven't seen him in a while but then again, we don't hang out in the same forum sections) or one of many other competitive Smashers who actually read interesting new threads about new discoveries and test them out before replying to them will snap it up, test it out and if the workarounds are worth anything, we'll test it out further and possibly find a workaround (if such a workaround exists).

I enjoy anything, as long as its playing Smash, but I don't enjoy exclusiveness, and a lot of it has been bred from the Melee tournament scene, which was why I never wanted to participate in Melee tournaments. I'm simply in favor of progress, and every single sign I've seen in the largest community of Smashers in the known world says that progress just isn't going to happen. That is disconcerting, to say the least.
What exclusively? Name ten (or even one) casual player who hasn't made an *** of himself on the boards already going to a tournament and being treated badly by the community at large (individual competitive *******s not counting).

How many times must we say this: We're in favour of progress as well. We've explored this venue. It's not progress, it's devolution. And I'll say it again: You haven't played the game. I have. I've made elaborate arguments for why some things are too broken. You simply say "We might find workarounds against them in the future".

How does this equate to me being against progress and too blind and exlusively to ever even consider a change in the ruleset? I've explored the game and this aspect. You have not. You're probably just sitting around making a lot of assumptions on how FS:es work while I've been finding broken ways to abuse them and no way to work around them.

And, I'm sure more casuals, or just people in general, would like to attend tournaments... that is, if there wasn't such animosity between casuals and competitives as there is now. Again, look at the response this thread received, and I'm sure you can see why.

Read above.

No one's actually flamed any casual players for being merely casual players. I do not dislike groups of people, I dislike attitudes and acts. I dislike a portion of the casual gamer pool, but then again, I dislike certain portions of the Swedish population as well and I'm a Swede. It's called "Not stereotyping".

True, I've never been the target of the technique myself, but as I said in the very post you quoted, I read that information here on Smashboards (although it was a little while ago, admittedly). It is very possible that I either misread, or that the post was faulty. It's also possible that I mistakenly confused wobbling with de-syncing. In either case, if you simply can't get out, then I'll never use the argument again. Simple as that; no need to get hateful. I'm trying to have a civil discussion, not demean anyone or downplay their opinions.

See, this is the difference between you and me:
I actually test stuff out before arguing about them on forums, claiming I'm right and that anyone who's arguing against me is wrong.

In your post about "DI:ing out of Wobbling" (and also, there's no "DI:ing out of de-synching" because de-synching doesn't necessarily mean you even hit your opponent), you also acted very smug and condescending, as if you'd finally found a fatal flaw in my knowledge of Smash... despite not having even double-checked the information (anyone can post anything. I can claim that there's a cutscene where Marth makes out with Toon Link in Brawl. Wouldn't mean it's true) or even testing it out yourself.

And how hard is it to say "I was wrong for blindly believing in unverified information and using it to flame you, Yuna-sensei" instead of trying to defend yourself with "The poster was wrong"?

Like I (also) said in that post: I'm ascribed to the scientific method; if something can be proved to me, then I'll gladly change my position. I'm not against it or anything.

Watch videos, play the game. Listen to us who've played it. We've scientifically proven it to you more than that random post where you might have read that Wobbling can be DI:ed out of at 50% and that it's been universally unbanned.

And you instantly jumped on it believing it to be 100% fact despite it being merely one person saying it. Then why not instantly jump on this when a great number of people are saying it, competitive and casual? Oh right, we're not saying what you want to hear.

EDIT: Serious question - is there a way to ignore posts or parts of posts? Because the above gif is really distracting when you're trying to read...

You can ignore people. But not specific posts. Or parts of them.

Neither myself, nor anyone else in this thread, is telling or forcing anyone else to play a different way all the time, or even a portion of the time. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, all I've been advocating is open-mindedness and a willingness to change, which is rare in fighting games once a competitive scene is established, as history has told us.

O RLY? "It hasn't happened, so it will never happen"? Is that the logic you're using? Maybe no one could find workarounds against those bans because, you know, no such things exist. Show me 10 examples (or even 5) of casuals finding obvious workarounds that work very well against banned tactics only to be flamed and ignored by the community at large and the ban staying.

Also, you're not telling us or forcing us to do anything. You're just flaming us and calling us close-minded, elitists, exclusive and other not-so-nice-names if we disagree with you.

I don't see what's so terrible about keeping an open mind. About trying something different. As it has been said many times, no one is making you go to an alternate tournament... so what's wrong with the concept of holding them?

As I've said many times, what makes you think we haven't tried something different? We don't need to have tournaments in everything to realize it will never work. We can check it out just fine in friendlies.

No one will stop you from holding FS tournaments. I sure as Hell won't ever do it nor will I ever attend one as they'll be Marth With FS tournaments. The Top5 will most probably consist of Marth players. I can see and tolerate FS tournaments being held as a side-tournament with a smaller pot (like Low Tiers) at "normal" tournaments. I still wouldn't enter, though.

And also:

The idea of smashballs on in a tournament has already been tried in oregon with people like silent wolf, eggz, ka-master and other good players. After the tournament, they all unanimously agreed that it is a terrible idea. It makes battles too random.

Tada! Surprise, surprise! But I guess they're just close-minded and didn't give it enough testing!

No matter how you slice it, there's always a tiny amount of luck isnt there? For example, on corneria you might die from being shot by a plane. Another example is that the damage percents that any attack deals are slightly random (like, it might do 8% one time, but 9% the next). What if you just happen to do the higher percent every time during one match? Can your opponent say it was luck, because the high percentage hits always hit them? No, they can't. Part of being a skilled player is coming out of situation on top even though the other player got lucky.

Corneria is banned in some tournaments because of this. But at least on Corneria, you can see the planes coming if you keep your eyes glued to the background. I still ban it in all tournaments I host.

Also, the Arwings do not appear once every 30 seconds, their shots aren't unblockable and they do not KO you at 0%. It's also equal for almost all players. Each time the Arwings shoot, both players run the risk of getting hit by the same attack, not separate attacks based on who they are with a majority of them being gimped, some even unable to hit whilst others KO you at 0%.

So really the question really lies in: how lucky are we allowed to be? Should it just be in the tiniest ways, such as how much damage a given attack does, or all the way to other extreme with full on lukiness with bob-ombs, items, etc. Personally, I think that too muck luck is dumb, but I think that some is ok (obviously with the percent stuff and tripping, there's going to be a bit). So how much luck/randomness do any of you think should be allowed?

It's called "Restricting the element of luck as much as possible". All competitive gaming scenes do this.

My question is even if we did find a balanced and fair why to work items in, why even bother?
What’s the point of trying to work items into competitive play?
Why would one want to have items turned on when trying to measure skill?

Because it's "fun".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENcwcjbAgpU&feature=user

Perfect example of what SKILLED players would play like with Smash balls on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgfsFY6y70E&NR=1

hint: Marth vs Marth

Surprise, surprise. Pretty much everything I've ever said about FS:es being proven in a competitive match! ZOMG!

And these players weren't even used to FS:es yet. Imagine what they wouldn't done had they been used to them.

But when you are someone who plays samus, you want to be able to change back, maybe you decide to start the match as samus, then in the middle you change to zss, then near then end you wanna change back, smashball is the only way! I mean come on, we need tourneys with both. I can see having both, and i can see myself going to both types, but i personally think if we give them a chance for awhile it might increase the meta-game. Maybe even spice up the game a bit.

Tough luck, Sakurai designed a badly designed Dual Character. Treat them as separate characters. What about those players who do not wish to change into the other version of Samus? Why should they have to suffer the risk of eating Marth's FS while never getting to use theirs because they simply do not wish to change from Samus to Zamus (there's a taunt-trick to change from Samus to Zamus but not the other way 'round)?

You know what's in certain characters' meta-games? Wobbling, Infinite Shining, Infinite Pounding, Infinite Peach Bombing, Luigi Laddering and more. We ban all of those. Why not this? This isn't even part of their meta-game. This is an item-assisted technique for which balance suffers greatly.

If ya'll want to establish a community that allows items/ smashballs go ahead. What the others and I are saying is, we are not going to change our rules. Our community is based off pure and raw skill and not random factors.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Yuna]

I don't know how far back you've read or anything, so I'll go ahead and, for the sake of brevity, state it again: I haven't played Brawl, and I refuse to make any concrete judgments about the game until I have the final American retail version in my hands. I respect that there are people who have already played the game, but I simply, on principle of observable truth, refuse to make any judgments myself until I have the ability to test and experience the game personally; I'm not going to base anything off a video that I can misinterpret.

Yet you vehemently argue we should allow FS:es on in tournaments (at least initially). Good hypocrisy going there.

As for the item league, thanks to some of the people in this thread, I'm entertaining the idea of experimenting with hosting various playstyle tournaments in order to ascertain what item combinations will be most viable for a tournament setting, which for now includes Final Smash experimentation. I'm not thinking about 2v2 just yet, but when I get there, I can certainly let you know. (And I don't know whether you mean learn Brawl, or learn Smash in general; I can assure you, I know Smash in general very well. )

Yet you seem completely oblivious to well-known facts to anyone who's ever attended a single tournament, were quite misinformed about Wobbling and what is and isn't banned and make claims of precedence for competitive fighting which do not exist.

As I understand it now, these are the facets of the tournament scene that, regardless of any experimentation, must be maintained if anyone wants to even hope for the tournament community to tolerate serious item tournaments:

We'll tolerate them once they become competitively viable and the luck factor has been at least largely eliminated.

1) The match must be decided, mainly, by the skills of the competing players. Items, by their very nature, have random elements, but these elements must be controlled to a manageable level so that the majority of the match determination is based on skill.

Your argument failed already on its first paragraph. There is no way to control these levels unless we malicious hack the game and rewrite it. Good luck with that. And you were knowledgable about Melee, you say?

So, let's reiterate. Your pro-argument for Item Tournaments has already failed.

2) Many, if not most, tournament savvy Smashers will not want to wager serious money on a match that can be determined by luck as a main factor.

Gee, I can't see why.

3) An acceptable level of balance must be maintained so that the greatest number of characters have the most level playing field possible.

Impossible. Certain items favour others more because of the differences in how bludgeoning items work. Fast characters can also grab items much easily than slow ones.

A ) Competitiveness must, under no circumstances, be undermined. If a prospective item/Final Smash playstyle is viewed by the tournament community to be inferior, something that is simply a sideshow and unable to take center stage of some kind, then the entire purpose of holding a competitive tournament has been defeated, and the tournament may as well have not been held.

Your argument fails yet again because of the very nature of the FS:es. They promote stalling both before and during the timeframe during which the Smash Ball appears. Then, once someone gets it, the other side has to camp to avoid it.

B ) A majority of items must not be deemed as impermissible in battle, as if only a minority of items are allowed, again, the main aspect that differentiates the new style from the old is undermined.

At least you got that right.

Poker has been used as an example for both sides of the items on/off arguments, so I shall draw an example from that game for clarity. Poker is a game that, though is played one way at its core, has many variations; there is Hold-Em, the various draw-styles, the various stud-styles, and many more, I'm sure, that I am not familiar with. In the case of Poker, differing styles of play are used in different stakes of matches, usually with Texas Hold-Em style play constituting the majority of high-stakes Poker.

Competitive fighting is not competitive poker. It will never be. Competitive Smash is, for instance, not comparable with competitive baking. Now stop using this fallacious argument!

This could possibly be applied to a potential item/Final Smash tournament. In hypothetical 'Smash Fest Alpha', two separate, yet competitively equal, tournaments could be held with different stakes: the usual, previously approved 'medium-stakes' tournament-style play, and a second 'low-stakes' items/Final Smash tournament (for now, I would consider MLG-style play 'high-stakes', which makes high-stakes playstyles irrelevant for this hypothetical because MLG has its own rules and procedures for play).

Yeah, I can tolerate that. Don't expect many serious tournaments to hold them and many players to attend them. I mean, it will devolve into Marth vs. Marth.

However, (and this can be balanced later, after more deliberation), winning stakes of 120$:60$:20$ are drastically lower stakes, and thus maybe current tournament players would be more willing to play with a total pot of a mere 200$. This would also drastically reduce entry fees into the tournament.

You're quite knowledgable on Melee (supposedly). Would it interest you to know we already have these kinds of tournaments with lower turn-out and entrance fees? They're called "Low Tiers".

As I have been told, many current 'medium-stakes' tournaments are executed using a single- or double-elimination style system, which is exceptional when variations in match results are few and far between; however, the introduction of items brings a heightened probability of variations from pure skill outcomes, thus single- and double-elimination style play is insufficient. After preliminary analysis of commonly used tournament types, I have deduced that item/Final Smash play could be legitimized greatly as a competitive style if tournaments employ the single- or double-round robin style or the Swiss system style of tournament play, as these styles allow, indeed correct, for variance in matches between individuals.

Did you jsut claim that Round Robin and Swiss would somehow change fact that FS:es are random and unbalanced? Where's the logic in that? Why spend 3-4-5-6 times as long on "lesser worthy tournaments" with a smaller pot?! Why waste valuable tournament time on that when Brawl tournaments will already take forever because of the way the game is programmed?

These factors are important for all of the above stated reasons: the two aforementioned styles of play ensure that, unlike items/Final Smashes in single- or double-elimination play, single acts of luck do not overshadow player skill in a dominant way, the lowered stakes allow for current tournament players to wager money on a tournament without feeling a significant loss, and, because money is still on the line (though in a drastically reduced sense), a sense of strong competition is still present in the game.

Yeah, you see, FS:es aren't about single acts of luck. If single acts of luck could win tournaments, everyone would be maining G&W, Peach and Luigi.

FS:es are about acts of luck every 30 or so seconds (pretty much guaranteed).

What's more, the two styles of play (medium-stakes and low-stakes) are in no way mutually exclusive to one another; in fact, they can actually be complimentary insofar as the reduced entry fee for low-stakes play leaves a player with enough funds to also enter medium-stakes play, if he or she has the time to compete in both. This also allows for the terms 'high-level play' and 'low-level play' to be phased out and the more accurate (and less demeaning terms) 'medium-stakes play' and 'low-stakes play' to be used in their place.

Only one is still worth less (can you guess which?) and fewer will enter them. Low Tiers had only a fraction of the entrants of "normal" tournaments.

I feel that this hypothetical scenario could very well lay the ground-work for future competitive item-based tournaments, and would be able to include a vast number of players, rather than exclude any one group from play.

Yeah, no.

 

[roguebanshee]

No proof? You mean the game itself? Play it.

You mean you're going to come to my place with your Wii and Brawl?

No, I will not play a pirated version and my economy can not support both importing Brawl and mod my Wii/buying a Japanese Wii. I will, however, grab it on release day in Europe.

So, if you want to support your stance that Smash Balls can not be used in a truly competitive tournament, go play several competitive 1v1 games with them on and record that. Or you'll have to wait until people get a chance to play it before everyone will accept that Smash Balls won't work competitively.

Besides, the OP of this thread was contemplating on how to do a second alternate tournament structure that would allow for Smash Balls to be in play. Not a replacement of the current Melee influenced structure. And while Marth may be an obvious character, he won't be the only one capable of grabbing a Smash Ball and using it for a kill in a 1v1.

 

[masterspeaks]

You mean you're going to come to my place with your Wii and Brawl?

No, I will not play a pirated version and my economy can not support both importing Brawl and mod my Wii/buying a Japanese Wii. I will, however, grab it on release day in Europe.

So, if you want to support your stance that Smash Balls can not be used in a truly competitive tournament, go play several competitive 1v1 games with them on and record that. Or you'll have to wait until people get a chance to play it before everyone will accept that Smash Balls won't work competitively.

Besides, the OP of this thread was contemplating on how to do a second alternate tournament structure that would allow for Smash Balls to be in play. Not a replacement of the current Melee influenced structure. And while Marth may be an obvious character, he won't be the only one capable of grabbing a Smash Ball and using it for a kill in a 1v1.

Just give it up guy, you can go on being stubborn since no one is going to bring brawl over to your house.

Yuna wins this thread dude, he has already played 1v1 with smash balls on and has figured out that half the FS are instant kills and the other half are crap. In addition to years of competitive melee experience, he simply has a more valid argument than you. We already had alternate tournament structures in Melee they had smaller prize pools and lower attendance, we understand what the OP was contemplating and it was clear he didn't do any research into the subject.

Marth is just the platonic example of a broken FS character, the space animals with their landmasters, and giga bowser spread **** equally well.

 

[meko]

imo, not only are smash balls too luck based, they're also extremely unbalanced.
even if there was no luck involved in getting a smash ball, there are characters that obviously have superior fses and others with obviously inferior ones. there are also characters that are better than others at breaking smash balls. this takes away from the fairness that's needed in tournaments and totally unbalances gameplay

playing without smash balls on allows for people to play with the characters that they like, without having to worry about whether or not their character's fs is good or not. brawl is an immense improvement over melee in terms of balance between characters. it's just that they screwed up in that department with fses

there's nothing wrong with hosting smash ball tournaments, and i'm sure nobody would actually look down on it. it's just that people would end up choosing characters based on their fses, and ultimately only a few characters would ever be used in these tournaments. turning smash balls on would create a whole new tier list in which only a few characters would be in.

there wouldn't be this much of a problem if all fses were equally strong, but as it is now, i don't believe that smash balls will be appearing in any standard tournaments any time soon.

 

[SAMaine]

Let's just face it... Marth should be banned from tournaments. He's too godly compared to the others, even without his Final Smash. All matches will degenerate into Marth v. Marth.

In actually, Yuna forgot to mention how the Final Smash gives Jigglypuff an advantage. See, Jigglypuff can be damaged out of the Final Smash, and if she is, she stays that size for at least the rest of her stock or if she gets another Smash Ball. That seems more of a reason to ban Final Smashes over Marth's FS working like it should.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

^_^ DK for insta-bottom-of-bottom-tier.

Seriously, if you raise the stock or put it on time, FS's that grant 2x KO (Landmasters...) or 0x KO (DK's whatever it's called) will ultimately determine the placing of that character on whatever tier list forms eventually. Since so much stock can be lost from FS's alone.

 

[Yuna]

Let's just face it... Marth should be banned from tournaments. He's too godly compared to the others, even without his Final Smash. All matches will degenerate into Marth v. Marth.

At least without his FS, he's not in God Tier way above the rest.

In actually, Yuna is an idiot because he forgot to mention how the Final Smash gives Jigglypuff an advantage. See, Jigglypuff can be damaged out of the Final Smash, and if she is, she stays that size for at least the rest of her stock or if she gets another Smash Ball. That seems more of a reason to ban Final Smashes over Marth's FS working like it should.

Do you know what happens when Jigglypuff is that big? Huge target. It's never happened to me so I can't tell, but will she do increased knockback and damage + weigh more and/or fall faster (meaning it's harder to kill her)? If she's just a big version of herself, it'll go both ways. She'll be a huge target easy to combo.

Also, that is obviously a glitch and another reason for why it should be banned. Marth is just a generic example of a really broken FS especially since he's already so good without it. The Jigglypuff glitch is just more fodder for banning FS:es.

 

[Yuna]

Let's just face it... Marth should be banned from tournaments. He's too godly compared to the others, even without his Final Smash. All matches will degenerate into Marth v. Marth.

At least without his FS, he's not in God Tier way above the rest.

In actually, Yuna is an idiot because he forgot to mention how the Final Smash gives Jigglypuff an advantage. See, Jigglypuff can be damaged out of the Final Smash, and if she is, she stays that size for at least the rest of her stock or if she gets another Smash Ball. That seems more of a reason to ban Final Smashes over Marth's FS working like it should.

Do you know what happens when Jigglypuff is that big? Huge target. It's never happened to me so I can't tell, but will she do increased knockback and damage + weigh more and/or fall faster (meaning it's harder to kill her)? If she's just a big version of herself, it'll go both ways. She'll be a huge target easy to combo.

Also, that is obviously a glitch and another reason for why it should be banned. Marth is just a generic example of a really broken FS especially since he's already so good without it. The Jigglypuff glitch is just more fodder for banning FS:es.

 

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

Just give it up guy, you can go on being stubborn since no one is going to bring brawl over to your house.

Yuna wins this thread dude, he has already played 1v1 with smash balls on and has figured out that half the FS are instant kills and the other half are crap. In addition to years of competitive melee experience, he simply has a more valid argument than you. We already had alternate tournament structures in Melee they had smaller prize pools and lower attendance, we understand what the OP was contemplating and it was clear he didn't do any research into the subject.

Marth is just the platonic example of a broken FS character, the space animals with their landmasters, and giga bowser spread **** equally well.

Then maybe you should start admitting that Smash Bros has always been a game that hasn't been balanced towards tournament play and the only way anyone has ever been able to get it anywhere near 'tournament worthy' has been to negate 90% of the games variables. Now that Brawl is coming, it looks like you all want to do even more, either making the whole game 'Marth vs Marth' or just a selection of a few set characters like Meta Knight/Peach/etc with your same bland no items + 3 stock + final destination.

Is their no hope to Smash Bros? Is Smash Bros just suppose to be doomed to be played by the pros as a game gimped where you can only select 3 characters with 90-95% of the rest of the game removed? If that's the case, count me out. I'll be playing 'scrubs' on Wi-Fi and my friends having some actual fun enjoying the rest of the characters and features of one of the most massive games ever made. Enjoy your next 7 years of X/X/X + no items + final destination + stock which half of you are already stating is how matches should be set up, despite how this game has obviously been made from the ground up to try to fix.

And if I hear one more person cry about 'luck' being the problem with why everything was made the way it was in Melee and subsaquently will ruin Brawl the same way...the ENTIRE point of Smash Bros from day one was characters bashing each other senseless and throwing items at each other. This game isn't Street fighter, Soul Calibur or Guilty Gear where you fight 1 on 1 with Skill vs Mind Games and one person keeps hitting another until the others life total goes down to 0. Its a game where anything goes, rough and tumble beat-em-up where you have to think instantly and destroy your opponent in any way possible before he destroys you. Be that way with items, your own skills, using the level to your advantage, or even throwing your opponents into each other, etc. You guys all want to turn it into a fricken game of Street Fighter. Sakurai has tried to make that clear, even moreso on his Dojo updates, and Brawl with all of its new items and techniques has just been even more that point.

 

[ShortAssassin]

Then maybe you should start admitting that Smash Bros has always been a game that hasn't been balanced towards tournament play and the only way anyone has ever been able to get it anywhere near 'tournament worthy' has been to negate 90% of the games variables. Now that Brawl is coming, it looks like you all want to do even more, either making the whole game 'Marth vs Marth' or just a selection of a few set characters like Meta Knight/Peach/etc with your same bland no items + 3 stock + final destination.

Is their no hope to Smash Bros? Is Smash Bros just suppose to be doomed to be played by the pros as a game gimped where you can only select 3 characters with 90-95% of the rest of the game removed? If that's the case, count me out. I'll be playing 'scrubs' on Wi-Fi and my friends having some actual fun enjoying the rest of the characters and features of one of the most massive games ever made. Enjoy your next 7 years of X/X/X + no items + final destination + stock which half of you are already stating is how matches should be set up, despite how this game has obviously been made from the ground up to try to fix.

And if I hear one more person cry about 'luck' being the problem with why everything was made the way it was in Melee and subsaquently will ruin Brawl the same way...the ENTIRE point of Smash Bros from day one was characters bashing each other senseless and throwing items at each other. This game isn't Street fighter, Soul Calibur or Guilty Gear where you fight 1 on 1 with Skill vs Mind Games and one person keeps hitting another until the others life total goes down to 0. Its a game where anything goes, rough and tumble beat-em-up where you have to think instantly and destroy your opponent in any way possible before he destroys you. Be that way with items, your own skills, using the level to your advantage, or even throwing your opponents into each other, etc. You guys all want to turn it into a fricken game of Street Fighter. Sakurai has tried to make that clear, even moreso on his Dojo updates, and Brawl with all of its new items and techniques has just been even more that point.

Thank you for demonstrating the behavior of a typical casual. Can you see why sometimes we get angry Jack ?

 

[roguebanshee]

Yuna wins this thread dude, he has already played 1v1 with smash balls on and has figured out that half the FS are instant kills and the other half are crap. In addition to years of competitive melee experience, he simply has a more valid argument than you.

But he still hasn't posted proof of how it works out, only made claims that he knows, due to his experience with Melee and ~3 weeks of Brawl play, that Smash Ball tournaments will fail.

Besides, how is having some characters as top tiers due to their Final Smashes and ability to grab the Smash Ball different from having characters as top tiers due to their other attacks? To me, Marth vs Marth isn't any different from (Melee) Fox vs Fox.

Brawl will probably end up with two different tier lists, one with and one without Final Smash.

And once again: If we're discussing how to do an ALTERNATE tournament structure, why do the Melee veterans keep saying that we shouldn't alter their existing structure? I'm just asking the people who have Brawl already that they test and provide documentation of how Final Smashes affect highly competitive 1v1 play (or at least as competitive as it can be at the moment). NOT that it be the only thing they play during their tournaments, or even that it should happen during their tournaments.

 

[ShortAssassin]

But he still hasn't posted proof of how it works out, only made claims that he knows, due to his experience with Melee and ~3 weeks of Brawl play, that Smash Ball tournaments will fail.

Besides, how is having some characters as top tiers due to their Final Smashes and ability to grab the Smash Ball different from having characters as top tiers due to their other attacks? To me, Marth vs Marth isn't any different from (Melee) Fox vs Fox.

Brawl will probably end up with two different tier lists, one with and one without Final Smash.

And once again: If we're discussing how to do an ALTERNATE tournament structure, why do the Melee veterans keep saying that we shouldn't alter their existing structure? I'm just asking the people who have Brawl already that they test and provide documentation of how Final Smashes affect highly competitive 1v1 play (or at least as competitive as it can be at the moment). NOT that it be the only thing they play during their tournaments, or even that it should happen during their tournaments.

Contradict much?

 

[Yuna]

But he still hasn't posted proof of how it works out, only made claims that he knows, due to his experience with Melee and ~3 weeks of Brawl play, that Smash Ball tournaments will fail.

Simple observation and experimentation with how overpowered certain FS:es are and the competitive fighting mindset coupled with logical thinking gives us enough proof.

When something can be abused to win big sums of money, it will be abused.

Besides, how is having some characters as top tiers due to their Final Smashes and ability to grab the Smash Ball different from having characters as top tiers due to their other attacks? To me, Marth vs Marth isn't any different from (Melee) Fox vs Fox.

Because in Melee, the gaps between the tiers weren't that huge. There were still characters that could win against, say, Sheik among the lower tiers. And the gaps between each tier wasn't that large (though the gap between Top and Bottom was, obviously).

With FS:es on, there will be a God Tier superior to everything below it. Marth will belong to it and he'll probably be the only one in it because he's just that good with the FS. Below him will be Top Tier made up of a select few who aren't Marth-level but still far above the rest. Below all of them will be Mid Tier because with FS:es on, everyone who's not Top is mediocre. And then there's the Bottom Tier reserved for those with sucky FS:es and sucky metagames.

The gap between Mid and Bottom Tier won't be that huge. But the gaps between God/Top and the rest will be so vast that it'll be deemed almost impossible to win unless the God/Top fumble the game repeatedly.

It will no longer be about playing as a God/Top character to have a chance at winning the tournament. It will be about playing as a God/Top character to have a chance to win at all.

And once again: If we're discussing how to do an ALTERNATE tournament structure, why do the Melee veterans keep saying that we shouldn't alter their existing structure? I'm just asking the people who have Brawl already that they test and provide documentation of how Final Smashes affect highly competitive 1v1 play (or at least as competitive as it can be at the moment). NOT that it be the only thing they play during their tournaments, or even that it should happen during their tournaments.

Because so many are discussing not having an alternate tournament structure but advocating having them on in general.

Also, this alternate tournament structure still won't work out! Because it will still devolve into a Marth Tournament. Who would want to put money, time and effort on that (especially since it'd also detract from available TVs for more important things like friendlies and MMs (yes, friendlies are worth more than Marth FS tournies).

 

[SAMaine]

Thank you for demonstrating the behavior of a typical casual. Can you see why sometimes we get angry Jack ?

Seems like everyone is angry all around actually. Yuna over here isn't going to win over anyone with his attitude, and all you Melee Players seem to consider even the thought of an alternate tournament with Smash stupid and dumb, despite the fact you can play in your own little "No Items" world. I actually agree with Kenryoku_Maxis in that you guys take 99% of the fun out of Smash... I mean I don't particularly mind tournament rules, but you don't have to be jerks and say their can't be two tournament rules.

Also, this alternate tournament structure still won't work out! Because it will still devolve into a Marth Tournament. Who would want to put money, time and effort on that (especially since it'd also detract from available TVs for more important things like friendlies and MMs (yes, friendlies are worth more than Marth FS tournies).

And I'm saying that Marth is god tier even without his Final Smash, and should be banned if we want to avoid Marth v. Marth in general. Remember, Gimpy's Bowser is the exception, not the rule.