Why is everyone so opposed to having Smash Balls in competitive play?

[PsychoIncarnate]

All I'm going to say is:
PsychoIncarnate
Smash Master



Join Date: Jul 2007
Brawl FC: 1203-9314-6835
Location: Hell
Posts: 8,878

What, did you get your *** kicked with Smash Balls on or something?

What I said SHOULD be obvious

 

[Tsuteto]

If the opponent was better, they would be able to get the smash ball first anyway, wouldn't you think?

Unless they aren't as good as they think

Marth vs Zelda. Marth is completely owning Zelda. Zelda is on the defensive. Smash ball appears behind her, and thus further away from Marth. One sweetspotted kick, one din's fire, she has it. Marth has NO chance. Succeeds. Rinse and repeat two or three times.

And you totally missed Yuna's point when they talked about your join date and post count.

 

[Yuna]

What, did you get your *** kicked with Smash Balls on or something?

What I said SHOULD be obvious

What you've said has already been refuted 29+ times over. We've destroyed your argument. We've gone through it from every single angle and decided that what you said is stupid.

You have absolutely no insight into Competitive Smash, how Smash Balls (getting them, using them, etc.) work and even this thread as you've ignored several pages of vital discussion (a lot of it pertaining to what you just said).

In other words:
You lost the battle even before you stepped into the fight

Someone else had already fought it and lost. If you wanna know why you lost, go read back a few pages. We're not going to repeat ourselves yet again because you're too lazy to get any kind of background on how far a thread has progressed before replying to it.

200 dollar moneymatch. Final Smashes on Very High. I challenge you.

 

[Tsuteto]

Very High? ****, that's some ub3r h4x there, breaking the Low Med High categories for Very High.

I honestly don't think Smash Balls alter on the frequency setting though.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Marth vs Zelda. Marth is completely owning Zelda. Zelda is on the defensive. Smash ball appears behind her, and thus further away from Marth. One sweetspotted kick, one din's fire, she has it. Marth has NO chance. Succeeds. Rinse and repeat two or three times.

And you totally missed Yuna's point when they talked about your join date and post count.

If Yuna was mocking me in a way than I did not...


If you read more of my posts I wouldn't participate in such kind of tournament, but the better player still should be able to be victorious anyway, even with added randomness...

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

What you've said has already been refuted 29+ times over. We've destroyed your argument. We've gone through it from every single angle and decided that what you said is stupid.

You have absolutely no insight into Competitive Smash, how Smash Balls (getting them, using them, etc.) work and even this thread as you've ignored several pages of vital discussion (a lot of it pertaining to what you just said).

In other words:
You lost the battle even before you stepped into the fight

Someone else had already fought it and lost. If you wanna know why you lost, go read back a few pages. We're not going to repeat ourselves yet again because you're too lazy to get any kind of background on how far a thread has progressed before replying to it.

200 dollar moneymatch. Final Smashes on Very High. I challenge you.

I didn't have a ****in' arguement because I don't support the stupid idea...read more posts before you open your mouth

You think YOU would be able to with 5,000 posts

 

[Tsuteto]

If Yuna was mocking me in a way than I did not...


If you read more of my posts I wouldn't participate in such kind of tournament, but the better player still should be able to be victorious anyway, even with added randomness...

Not exactly. Luck only factors so much in skill, but when it's purely luck based, then it does not factor skill at all. Having SBs would unbalance the game, which as been tried to be FIXED for a general basis, side note being tournament basis, and the game would end up being even MORE limited than what is available without them.

BTW, Yuna, in their time of being here, has made about 1 post per day. You have made nearly 900 posts per day. Yuna has something to say. You just say something.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Not exactly.

Than they need to train more, they aren't that good...

...and I really don't care either way

 

[Yuna]

If Yuna was mocking me in a way than I did not...


If you read more of my posts I wouldn't participate in such kind of tournament, but the better player still should be able to be victorious anyway, even with added randomness...

For the love of *****es!

It's not about whether or not a "pro" can be beaten by a "n00b". Let's assume both players are almost equal in skill. Player A is good, but Player B is great. Player A can beat B one out of 10 times. In other words, Player B should win this set.

Only, Player A gets lucky with Final Smashes 5 times and wins the set. Fair? Let's assume both players are of equal skill. The battle would literally come down to whoever can hit with the most Final Smashes.

This, on top of the already campy game, the added camping the FS:es require at high-level play, the brokenness of Final Smashes, the imbalances of Final Smashes... just go away.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

For the love of *****es!

It's not about whether or not a "pro" can be beaten by a "n00b". Let's assume both players are almost equal in skill. Player A is good, but Player B is great. Player A can beat B one out of 10 times. In other words, Player B should win this set.

Only, Player A gets lucky with Final Smashes 5 times and wins the set. Fair? Let's assume both players are of equal skill. The battle would literally come down to whoever can hit with the most Final Smashes.

This, on top of the already campy game, the added camping the FS:es require at high-level play, the brokenness of Final Smashes, the imbalances of Final Smashes... just go away.

DUH,

I said that earlier...You didn't read ANY post BUT that one, did you?

You have VERY selective reading

 

[Tsuteto]

DUH,

I said that earlier...You didn't read ANY post BUT that one, did you?

You have VERY selective reading

I'm honestly starting to think that you don't pick a side at all because of inability. You don't think for yourself, merely just go with what's going on and try to cover it up as "I don't really care though."

Debating anything with you is pointless until you grow a ****ing mind. I'm going to sleep.

 

[Yuna]

DUH,

I said that earlier...You didn't read ANY post BUT that one, did you?

You have VERY selective reading

What? You said all that, like, a few days ago?

And then you randomly stumble in and say "The better player should still win." and nothing else and I'm supposed to remember that you and no one else said a bunch of other things a few days or so ago? Who am I, Rainman?

I can't be expected to keep track of exactly who's saying what when it's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And then when we've moved way, way past that, you suddenly throw in "The better player should still get it first" (which isn't even true).

I'm sorry if I didn't memorize every single one of your posts. But at least I don't post random spam.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I'm honestly starting to think that you don't pick a side at all because of inability. You don't think for yourself, merely just go with what's going on and try to cover it up as "I don't really care though."

Debating anything with you is pointless until you grow a ****ing mind. I'm going to sleep.

My arguement was that if people WANT to set up that kind of tournament, do whatever the hell you want and don't give a crap about random "respected" individuals say on the matter...

I don't do it myself and wouldn't but whatever...

What? You said all that, like, a few days ago?

And then you randomly stumble in and say "The better player should still win." and nothing else and I'm supposed to remember that you and no one else said a bunch of other things a few days or so ago? Who am I, Rainman?

I can't be expected to keep track of exactly who's saying what when it's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And then when we've moved way, way past that, you suddenly throw in "The better player should still get it first" (which isn't even true).

I'm sorry if I didn't memorize every single one of your posts. But at least I don't post random spam.

Neither do I...

I was just involved with the stupid character wars before Brawl's release...

I haven't even been on this site for a month...

And it wasn't a few days ago, it was a matter of minuters/ hour maybe ago

 

[Yuna]

My arguement was that if people WANT to set up that kind of tournament, do whatever the hell you want and don't give a crap about random "respected" individuals say on the matter...

I don't do it myself and wouldn't but whatever...

This is what you said:
"If the opponent was better, they would be able to get the smash ball first anyway, wouldn't you think?"

That was what I argued against (at which point you chose to try to completely change the subject).

Neither do I...

I was just involved with the stupid character wars before Brawl's release...

I haven't even been on this site for a month...

And it wasn't a few days ago, it was a matter of minuters/ hour maybe ago

I scrolled back through your posts by going into your user info. Not once did you (in this thread) talk about what I brought up just a few minutes ago.

And then all of a sudden you said "If you're the better player, yo ushould be able to get the Smash Ball first anyway".

Maybe you dreamed you said it.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

This is what you said:
"If the opponent was better, they would be able to get the smash ball first anyway, wouldn't you think?"




I scrolled back through your posts by going into your user info. Not once did you (in this thread) talk about what I brought up just a few minutes ago.

And then all of a sudden you said "If you're the better player, yo ushould be able to get the Smash Ball first anyway".

Maybe you dreamed you said it.

What I said was that using smash balls would require a completely different gameplay type thing with different tiers and everything like that...and that it would turn into a "Who can get the smash ball" competition. What you said was pretty much what I was meaning

...and yes, I still beleive a player can get good enough to still win with randomness added

 

[Yuna]

What I said was that using smash balls would require a completely different gameplay type thing with different tiers and everything like that...and that it would turn into a "Who can get the smash ball" competition. What you said was pretty much what I was meaning

Then you also said "The better player should always be able to get the Smash Ball" (which isn't true) for whatever reason. Ok, fine, so you had already used the arguments I used to refute your claim.

Doesn't mean you weren't wrong and I weren't right. The best player doesn't always get the Smash Ball. It's random, it depends on what character you play as, when and where it spawns and when and where it flies off to once hit.

...and yes, I still beleive a player can get good enough to still win with randomness added

Yes, and? I'm sure Martha Stewart would still beat me in cooking even if she only had Grade F ingredients in limited quantities to work with and I had unlimited Grade A ingredients and cookbooks at my disposal. Doesn't mean that it would be fair if we were competing for serious cash.

Competitive play measures whoever is the best player. Not whoever has the Luck of the Irish.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Then you also said "The better player should always be able to get the Smash Ball" (which isn't true) for whatever reason.


Yes, and? I'm sure Martha Stewart would still beat me in cooking even if she only had Grade F ingredients in limited quantities to work with and I had unlimited Grade A ingredients and cookbooks at my disposal. Doesn't mean that it would be fair if we were competing for serious cash.

Competitive play measures whoever is the best player. Not whoever has the Luck of the Irish.

...and your completely missing my point.

I get the whole **** competitive thing, which is why I wouldn't participate in that kind of tournament

I was saying that one person I replied to was just making excuses...It wasn't suppose to get some random other person to argue about irrelevant crap for many posts

 

[Yuna]

I was saying that one person I replied to was just making excuses...It wasn't suppose to get some random other person to argue about irrelevant crap for many posts

You said something which is cataclysmically wrong. Of course we're gonna refute you.

 

[Spellman]

It's not about whether or not a "pro" can be beaten by a "n00b". Let's assume both players are almost equal in skill. Player A is good, but Player B is great. Player A can beat B one out of 10 times. In other words, Player B should win this set.

Only, Player A gets lucky with Final Smashes 5 times and wins the set. Fair? Let's assume both players are of equal skill. The battle would literally come down to whoever can hit with the most Final Smashes.

Besides the fact that agreeing to play a Final Smash game where Smash Balls can appear anywhere at any random place makes anything that can happen in said match fair...

In regards to the 5-wins-because-he-got-lucky... this seems to hold up well in theory, but in real life when you're actually playing the game, it never really turns out that way. None of us have ever challenged this situation enough to see if it would ever happen, because finding two players of mathematically equal skill (I don't even know if this is possible) is hard. And it's hard to define when it's a lucky situation or a situation that could have been countered which even complicates matters further.

The whole idea of the Smash Ball floating around is to know when to attack it and when to hold back. It's not always smart to hit the Smash Ball if your only opportunity is with a weak shot that won't break the Smash Ball because it may knock it to your opponent if you're not careful. The odds of the Smash Ball falling into one of the characters one-shot blow range dozens of times are low enough to call it a miracle.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

You said something which is cataclysmically wrong. Of course we're gonna refute you.

You people are way too serious

Also flame first

 

[Yuna]

Besides the fact that agreeing to play a Final Smash game where Smash Balls can appear anywhere at any random place makes anything that can happen in said match fair...

But... we're... not... agreeing... to... it.

It's a bunch of people trying to convince us that "their" way is better in Competitive play (despite them having no plans of joining the Competitive community). We're saying "No way in Hell!". They ***** about it.

No one's agreeing to playing with FS:es on. And it's not fair just because both players agreed to it if 5 FS:es spawn so that Player A can easily grab them in one single match. It's called getting lucky.

In regards to the 5-wins-because-he-got-lucky... this seems to hold up well in theory, but in real life when you're actually playing the game, it never really turns out that way. None of us have ever challenged this situation enough to see if it would ever happen, because finding two players of mathematically equal skill (I don't even know if this is possible) is hard. And it's hard to define when it's a lucky situation or a situation that could have been countered on top of that which even complicates matters further.

It won't happen every single time. It won't even happen often. But it can and will happen. And we don't want that.

Stuff

No, you're wrong.

 

[uremog]

the counter argument to the randomness isn't helpful. why add more randomness to the game just because a little already exists? tripping doesn't validate the randomness of any item. furthermore, you cannot balance random with more random at a scalable level.

and about the 5 wins in a row. it doesn't even take 5, it only takes one. *cough*mattdeezie*cough*

i mean, really. say you're in a match and you take the first stock. i comes back and take your first stock, then get a smash ball while you're dying. you get killed by it and are down a stock when you should be up by some percent. that could easily happen and you can't rely on random smash balls to balance it either. from here on out, everything is still random. just because i got the first smash ball does not put you at a better chance to get the second. so basically at this point, i got a free kill. that doesn't sound anything like fair.

if you are in fact better, then you deserve to win (and get the money).

 

[Spellman]

No one's agreeing to playing with FS:es on. And it's not fair just because both players agreed to it if 5 FS:es spawn so that Player A can easily grab them in one single match. It's called getting lucky.

If you agree to to play a game that involves randomness, you agree that randomness is fair, and that lucky is fair. It's basically what the entire items-on debate boils down to, there's definitely skill involved, sometimes there's no items and you're dependent on your characters no-item meta-game, but it's true that advantages could be thrown out to either side, so you are forced to play the odds which is another skill that occasionally isn't decided by one match, but for the most part can be played by.

I'm not saying you have to like it or should have to like it though, but I thought I'd get the items-on mindset out there.

No, you're wrong.

But, I can see that you're fed up.

 

[Bocom]

In regards to the 5-wins-because-he-got-lucky... this seems to hold up well in theory, but in real life when you're actually playing the game, it never really turns out that way.

Happened to me two days ago. I ***** my friends with Ganondorf and his FS. So yeah, it does happen, like Yuna said.

I get the whole **** competitive thing, which is why I wouldn't participate in that kind of tournament

Then get out of this thread, your arguments are from now on considered moot.

 

[Spellman]

Happened to me two days ago. I ***** my friends with Ganondorf and his FS. So yeah, it does happen, like Yuna said.

I know it happens sometimes.

But if you really played a big set of individual matches with only Smash Balls like the scenario and won most of the matches due to the luck of Final Smashes appearing within your range, then I guess it does happen.

I still gotta prove it to myself though.

 

[Bocom]

I know it happens sometimes.

But if you really played a big set of individual matches with only Smash Balls like the scenario and won most of the matches due to the luck of Final Smashes appearing within your range, then I guess it does happen.

I still gotta prove it to myself though.

It wasn't in my range, I blocked my friends from getting it, by stealing the last hit on it. And I was f*cking GANONDORF! That fact alone should prove that it's not balanced enough to be allowed

 

[Twin Dreams]

If you agree to to play a game that involves randomness, you agree that randomness is fair, and that lucky is fair. It's basically what the entire items-on debate boils down to, there's definitely skill involved, sometimes there's no items and you're dependent on your characters no-item meta-game, but it's true that advantages could be thrown out to either side, so you are forced to play the odds which is another skill that occasionally isn't decided by one match, but for the most part can be played by.

I'm not saying you have to like it or should have to like it though, but I thought I'd get the items-on mindset out there.

But, I can see that you're fed up.

Actually, if I agreed to play a game that involved randomness, then....


Would I be accepting the inherent randomness involved in the game?

Yes.


Does playing a game with random factors involve skill?

Not necessarily, but, in this situation, Yes.




However, "Super Smash Brothers Brawl" has varying levels of randomness. I play in tournaments with items off. With a lower amount of random factors, the win/ratio of players will be closer defined by skill, and less by randomly generated Boolean Variables.

You play a varied SSBB game with items on. This has a more even distribution of win/loss ratios, and skill is slightly less important.




Example:

Poker.
Poker takes skill and strategy! However, someone who has never played before can be dealt Royal Flushes every single hand! How does the professional player handle it? No matter his strategy or skill, the player that happened to sit in the seat he's in happened to get the specific cards for an instant win based on how the dealer shuffled!

Dealer = Wii
Deck = Items
Hand = Items you get


The whole point of competitive anything is to determine who is better. We want the most accurate description of who is better. Therefore, we eliminate as many variables as possible.

 

[Lone Shadow]

My opinion:

Your playing in a tournament and you know you are going to win (playing against a not-so-good player) and you accidentally miss the smash ball and the other guy gets it...OWNED

 

[6footninja]

But... we're... not... agreeing... to... it.

It's a bunch of people trying to convince us that "their" way is better in Competitive play (despite them having no plans of joining the Competitive community). We're saying "No way in Hell!". They ***** about it.

No one's agreeing to playing with FS:es on. And it's not fair just because both players agreed to it if 5 FS:es spawn so that Player A can easily grab them in one single match. It's called getting lucky.

.

On that last bit, you are putting your opinion against real circumstances. There are competitive players that accept the idea of Smash balls in "pro" tournaments ya know .If they are excluded, then great. If they are kept in, watever, fine.

Is it inconvenient that you're not full of flawless logic? You're not the law.

 

[L ryusaki]

They dont like to have smash balls in competitive play because of many things but the big on is that some peoples final smash is better than others but in my opinion if you dont like the unfairness than you should pick the character that has the better final smash but thats my opinion also 6footninja is right it goes both ways in pro touneys some people them and others dont but its not a big deal if they arent there unless you are really so bad you need the smash ball to win

 

[6footninja]

They dont like to have smash balls in competitive play because of many things but the big on is that some peoples final smash is better than others but in my opinion if you dont like the unfairness than you should pick the character that has the better final smash but thats my opinion also 6footninja is right it goes both ways in pro touneys some people them and others dont but its not a big deal if they arent there unless you are really so bad you need the smash ball to win

Its not a need, just coincidence that its available to smash. Then use it to win.

 

[Anarkex]

Said it before, and I'll say it again.

Smash balls are too unbalanced for a competitive 1-on-1, but would probably work well in a 4-man team battle, seeing as you need strategy to coordinate to keep from killing your own man while maximizing your damage to the other team. Has anyone tried this?

 

[Sandwich]

Said it before, and I'll say it again.

Smash balls are too unbalanced for a competitive 1-on-1, but would probably work well in a 4-man team battle, seeing as you need strategy to coordinate to keep from killing your own man while maximizing your damage to the other team. Has anyone tried this?

Yes I have. The answer is: complete cluster****.

 

[Bocom]

They dont like to have smash balls in competitive play because of many things but the big on is that some peoples final smash is better than others but in my opinion if you dont like the unfairness than you should pick the character that has the better final smash but thats my opinion also 6footninja is right it goes both ways in pro touneys some people them and others dont but its not a big deal if they arent there unless you are really so bad you need the smash ball to win

Uhm, yeah, so when you go to a tournament, everyone will ***** Marth, Link, Ike, Space Animals and so on, and don't care about the characters with bad FSs.

Wow... It's one of the stupidest arguments ever; To choose a character based on their Final Smash!

No wait, I've changed my mind!
Let's enable FSs. Why?

Well, that will end all the *****ing about the tier lists. How come? Well, if "everyone whores the high tiers characters", then the new FS tier list, which can't be moot because one FS's metagame can't change, and the tier list as it is now (non-existant?) will be declared invalid, because, as I've said, everyone will ***** the FS tier list instead!

 

[Jack Kieser]

Christ, people get way too emotional about sh*t like this. It's a really simple concept, people. Two ideologies. Neither is inherently better than the other. They cater to different people with different opinions.

Since Yuna is so insistent on using these assumptions as factual evidence, here's your counter. I did a 1v1 test for the 'ISP' project with Smash Balls on. Toon Link v. Ike. Human test. I was the more skilled player according to the control set (10 matches with no items), with 8 out of 10 wins, the only losses in Sudden Death. We got the exact same results from the item set (low rate, not enough room to list all the disabled items). Ike rarely got the Smash Ball because he wasn't smart at all in trying to break it. He'd get one, maybe to aerials off, and I'd let him just so I could go in, throw an u-air/up-b/bomb to snipe the Smash Ball, then commence with the ****.

So, I have a specific scientific test that supports my theory that, even though there is some randomness in Smash Balls, the more skilled player can manipulate the situation to get the Smash Ball even if it doesn't spawn near him. All I've seen anyone (not just Yuna) give on the subject are vague assumptions and 'Nostradamus'-style predictions on the future. Again, I'm not saying that entirely disagree with you (I see both sides for what they are and how they are right), but I'm basing my actions on observable truth in a controlled setting. Science: it wins.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Christ, people get way too emotional about sh*t like this. It's a really simple concept, people. Two ideologies. Neither is inherently better than the other. They cater to different people with different opinions.

Since Yuna is so insistent on using these assumptions as factual evidence, here's your counter. I did a 1v1 test for the 'ISP' project with Smash Balls on. Toon Link v. Ike. Human test. I was the more skilled player according to the control set (10 matches with no items), with 8 out of 10 wins, the only losses in Sudden Death. We got the exact same results from the item set (low rate, not enough room to list all the disabled items). Ike rarely got the Smash Ball because he wasn't smart at all in trying to break it. He'd get one, maybe to aerials off, and I'd let him just so I could go in, throw an u-air/up-b/bomb to snipe the Smash Ball, then commence with the ****.

So, I have a specific scientific test that supports my theory that, even though there is some randomness in Smash Balls, the more skilled player can manipulate the situation to get the Smash Ball even if it doesn't spawn near him. All I've seen anyone (not just Yuna) give on the subject are vague assumptions and 'Nostradamus'-style predictions on the future. Again, I'm not saying that entirely disagree with you (I see both sides for what they are and how they are right), but I'm basing my actions on observable truth in a controlled setting. Science: it wins.

Science: It's all about more than one experiment, Jack. You posited one controlled situation; give us about two hundred experiments of the same caliber over the span of a year and we'll see if the result of the first test is applicable.

EDIT: COME TO THE MELEE TOURNEY IN GA, JAAAAAACK.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jack Kieser]

Science: It's all about more than one experiment, Jack. You posited one controlled situation; give us about two hundred experiments of the same caliber over the span of a year and we'll see if the result of the first test is applicable.

Smooth Criminal

You have no idea how willing I'd be to give you 200 of those experiments... but that's the problem I find with the community nowadays: at least I'm trying to test this stuff out in such a detailed and extensive manner. Who else is? The 'ISP' project has had so many votes of support from people all over SWF... and only two people who did any real testing. I'm willing to do more testing, so very willing... but it'd be nice if other people would be responsible and test, too. I'm doing my part, and I'd like to know that other people are willing to do theirs.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Read my edit, Jack.

DEFINITELY pertains to the topic at hand.

^_____________^

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, I'll be there; I wouldn't miss this for the world (I'm moving to live in Greece in July, which means I'll get significantly less chances to Smash). I'm gonna make this into a road trip, because I'd like to visit Florida and OMG S0UTH CAR0L1NA RIBZ. Oh man, oh man. I can't wait. ^_^

 

[cobaltblue]

I just want to see a skill player go to a fs tournament and lose a $200+ prize because their opponent got lucky with a smash ball.