Super Smash Brothers Brawl

[korny]

I think it was a serious question and you're now trying to cover yourself up. I'm good at detecting sarcasm and there was none in your post.

[zidart]

Originally Posted by korny

I think it was a serious question and you're now trying to cover yourself up. I'm good at detecting sarcasm and there was none in your post.

well your sarcasm detector doesn't work with foreigners then (sarcastic) i hope this helps.

[Squeek]

Wow OK.

Your argument has become completely nonsensical now.

In every professional sport, the ability for a complete novice to beat a professional is always existent. Not often will it happen, but it will happen. There's even a television show for this exact situation called Pros vs. Joes. And there are times where the Joes will beat the Pros at their own sport.

I know I reference it a lot in this regard, but we also have Poker. Professionals don't always win. In fact, since there are so few professionals and so many novices, the odds are in favor of the novices. Why? Because you can have all the skill you want, but luck is still there.

Basically, by removing items from the game, you've turned it into a fake competition. Congratulations, I'm glad you finally admitted it.

You just said that a novice will never beat a professional in Super Smash Brothers if you remove items. That means in 100 matches against 100 different people, the one professional will always win. That means the way you play the game is broken.

GG.

[korny]

Haha what the **** ever dude. It's not broken. It just means i can prove myself time and time again.

[ckj846]

lawl oh noes tourney whore no all out battlez onli 1 v 1 fd no itemz.

O_o

[ckj846]

Squeek is correct that there are major fallacies in your argument korny. Name any sport or competition that 100% limits all outside forces of chance and luck. There isn't one. You might slip when you dive in to the water for swimming, trip on a rock during cross country, maybe the grip on your ping pong paddle was loose, blah blah blah. By eliminating all of these factors in a game, it has become broken and exclusive.

I'm really leaning towards Squeek's argument now.

O_o

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by ckj846

Squeek is correct that there are major fallacies in your argument korny. Name any sport or competition that 100% limits all outside forces of chance and luck. There isn't one. You might slip when you dive in to the water for swimming, trip on a rock during cross country, maybe the grip on your ping pong paddle was loose, blah blah blah. By eliminating all of these factors in a game, it has become broken and exclusive.

I'm really leaning towards Squeek's argument now.

O_o

To be fair, this is probably because of the difficulty (or impossibility) of doing so. I would imagine that if it were possible to remove random factors, that highly competitive sports would do so.

Keep in mind that randomness, chance, and luck aren't the only things that can allow a less-skilled person to beat a more-skilled person. The difference in skill affects the disparity in win probability, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any competition where it's a true 100/0 spread.

Higher skill gives you a higher probability to win, but even without random factors, it's pretty much impossible to have a 100% chance of victory. Unless, of course, you're playing something like Ghost, where victory is dependent on turn order if you know the winning words.

[Squeek]

Ok, if professional sports could remove randomness, they would, right?

Right.

Let's remove everyone in the stands, enclose the arena in a vacuum in space, and force all the players to play naked.

Hey, people in the arena make noise and wind! That's adding randomness. The field also lets wind in. GASP. RANDOMNESS! And their clothes! DEAR GOD THEIR CLOTHES.

Golf would be a better measure of skill if it were played in the vacuums of space, right? Wind makes your shot go wonky! You would hole-in-one every hole if it weren't for wind.

Bowling. Had the lane been perfectly hand-waxed using the sweat of thirty children the ball would hit a strike every time.

Basketball courts must be super-heated to instantly vaporize the sweat of the players as it drops onto the court. That tiny droplet of water might cause you to miss your shot!

Say goodbye to that pesky field in football! That stuff makes some players slip and it gets all over their clothes!

By the way, I'm well aware of how stupid the idea that a professional will beat a novice 100% of the time is. That's why I mocked it. If you don't mean to say something, don't say it like you mean it. That's the lesson I try to teach with my "grammar nazi" ways.

[l2awr]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Explain how a Beam Sword, Mr. Saturn, Star Rod, Lip's Stick, Fan, Scope, Ray Gun, Fire Flower, Freezie, Smoke Bomb, Pitfall, Hothead, Soccer Ball, Unira (Spiny thing), Shell, or Banana make a match unfair. Hell I could throw like a dozen more things in there but you'd go bat**** insane on me.

l2: There's a lot of skill that goes into throwing items. You have to know how an item will work in gravity. Some go slow, some bounce, some speed across. You have to throw up, down, across, into walls, over other people, etc. You have to throw in a way they won't know to catch it, yet still get them hit so you can run in and start wailing on them.

If I ever get a really nice item demonstration saved on Replay, I'll be sure to send it your way.

Know why Diddy is one of the highest tiers in Brawl? His bananas give him an AMAZING advantage. Know why Mike G's Snake won 300 bucks last weekend? Because of his projectiles and smart play. Projectiles give so much advantage in Brawl it's not even funny. Item's would make the game even worse. It would be an item camping game.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by l2awr

Know why Diddy is one of the highest tiers in Brawl? His bananas give him an AMAZING advantage. Know why Mike G's Snake won 300 bucks last weekend? Because of his projectiles and smart play. Projectiles give so much advantage in Brawl it's not even funny. Item's would make the game even worse. It would be an item camping game.

...

Characters with items have an advantage

Items for everyone would make the game worse, and not at all fix an imbalance that I see in that I believe characters with items are inherently better

yeah ok

By the way, Diddy is recognized as a good character because he is good overall. His banana peels aren't even that good. Like, you wouldn't go "man that person playing as Peach only won because she had turnips to throw", and I would say that Peach's turnips are MUCH more useful than Diddy's peels. And as far as Snake is concerned, he's balanced in that he's hard to not **** up with; he's slow, has low hops, difficult to master aerials, and difficult to master specials (if powerful ones).

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Ok, if professional sports could remove randomness, they would, right?

Well, the thing is that Smash Bros. is a videogame, therefore it's actually easy and practical to remove as much randomness as possible on the part of the game. That way, it depends on the player more. There's still randomness in that maybe someone's thumb slips on the stick and he plummets to death, but explosive capsules won't fall on top of your attack and make you lose the game.

[dancepuppet]

personally i think this sucked because all the players just seem too slow it sort of feels like youre getting held back and you cant do that many combos at all as well. its fun and all but this is just a no for me...i think the previous game was better.

[MalReynolds]

You make it seem like the "PROS" aren't allowed to use items when items are on. Sure, you may think it gives an unfair advantage, but what's stopping you from using the items?

[korny]

I still don't understand what is wrong with Pros winning 100% of the time. To say it's broken makes no sense. The same applies to Halo, COD4, and other competitive games.
1 on 1, a noob will never beat a pro. But you're not calling those games broken are you?
You're not really proving any point to me. You're just proving my point even more by saying that taking items off eliminates anything from getting in my way of showing why i'm the better player. Super smash brothers in relation to sports is hardly an analogy. With super smash brothers you have the ability to take away all the elements that can make a match not 100% equal. In sports you can never do that. So to use sports vs SSBB is just stupid. You're basically saying that taking items off is cheap. That's what you're making it sound like to me.

What's stopping me from using the items? I'm a competitive super smash bros. player. Competitive meaning a tourney player. There's no point for me to learn how to use items if i'm never going to have to. None of my friends even think to use items and neither do I. We prefer a match that relies purely on our combat skills, without the use of random objects that deter from us having what we believe is a fair fight. If i played with items on, got the cracker cannon, took a life from my opponent, then on his next life got the smash ball,(Mr. G&W's, final smash is going to always take your life if I get it) killed him again and win the match. I MYSELF am going to say that the match was bullsh1t. Because it was! Mr game and watch's final smash is the cheapest final smash in the game. You can't avoid it and i'd like to see anyone prove me wrong. The cracker barrel is unbelievably easy to aim and can kill easily. It's cheap as hell. I wouldn't feel accomplished at all for winning. So i turn items off.

[iRockZelda]

i beg to differ on squeeks opinion about ssbb.

What Korny is saying, your comparing a "fantasy" game to "real" life sports or sports games.
*Example, if your playing football and your running across the field and some random football player throws a bucket at you and you fall, wouldnt that be unfair? In essance, its the same for ssbb. That is why most players turn items off.

For example Korny vs some "noob"

i'd put my money on Korny.

But once you add items in the mix, the outcome changes. The items put a disadvantage on both players, or you can say advantage to whomever gets the items. Thats why in tournys the items are turned off to make the game a bit more fair on both parties of the game.

This goes to the pro. vs novice argument. I believe in a game like ssbb an "inexperienced" or "novice" player would lose most of the time or everytime if put up against a experienced player. This game is based off experience and skill just like anyother game out there.

[MalReynolds]

Oh, so you guys don't like playing the game as it was designed. I mean, let's just take field goals out of football for half the games, or remove the goalee from a soccer match. After all, they hinder skill and add unpredictability. Let's take out the third baseman, or the ability to bunt, because you know, it's a pain to have to learn to play with those factors. Sure, the game was designed with those in mind, but it taints the sweet, sweet purity of the sport.

Sweet, sweet purity.

Purity of the highest order.

All others must be purged.

ROCK 'N ROLL HOLOCAUST!

[iRockZelda]

what your not understanding is,

The game was designed to be able to play WITH or WITHOUT items.

was sports designed to be played without field goals, goalees etc etc.??
i dont think so. Your statement does not suit this argument.

edit: yes, we have to learn to play with those factors, but the argument is about how a novice player can own a "pro" with items or beat a pro with items. That is why items are turned off and experience and skill is used instead to win a brawl match.

[MalReynolds]

Yes it does. All you have to say is, "Get off the field, goalee!" Or, "No field goals, guys," and the game would be adjusted to play that way. Just because something can happen doesn't mean it's meant to happen that way.

I have no problem playing with items or without items, but people who not only tout superiority for playing one way, but insist that it's the only real legit measure of skill get on my nerves.

[iRockZelda]

im not implying that its the legit way of playing the game, im just saying; playing without items is the way to show the better player because it is the skill and the experience that shows the outcome of the match.

I too like playing with items or without, its just a game and it was created that way.

anyways, you have a FC? add me, lets play some ssbb! =]

[Squeek]

My entire argument is that IT ISN'T. That's Mal's argument too!

You remove the goalie and you can score a lot more! You remove wind and you don't have to worry about which direction the ball is pushed!

It makes it EASIER, but it doesn't prove SKILL.

You know what requires more skill? LEARNING HOW TO ADJUST WITH RANDOMNESS. Why are NFL field goal kickers so good? Because they can kick a football? No! Because they can kick a football regardless of distance and wind! Two random factors that they cannot fix, yet they still manage to make a majority of their field goals. Imagine that. They've learned to deal with randomness.

You're all just too lazy to care, basing your entire argument on the notion that every box is going to explode with hammers and starmen.