AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It's not because the game is imbalanced that people can't still have fun with it competitively.

Madican wrote:I don't consider the players as a random element in a fighting game because, given they are all of the same skill, they tend to know what their opponents' character will do and they know how to deal with it.

But the interesting part to watch is how these two players interact in that way. Who manages to outsmart the other? Who has the better execution? Did any of them come up with a cool new technique?

Syobon wrote:It's not because the game is imbalanced that people can't still have fun with it competitively.

Of course they can, yeah. But it undermines the general purpose of tournaments, which is to determine and rank people by skill. If one person of hypothetical skill level 20 chooses a weaker character, they could be beaten by a person of hypothetical skill level 19 who chooses a stronger character. It can still be fun, but I can't see it having a place with other fighting game communities, which are usually for games built specifically for tournament play.

The bigger issue, which is connected to this, is that competitive players are trying to sway the development of the next games to better suit their play styles. This is fine, because everyone can have an opinion, but I'd prefer if they just moved to a game that was made for tournament play, rather than 'taking away' one of the only casual fighting games out there.

The items can change the tide of a match, or even a single engagement, in an instant. That's why I like them so much. You can be beating on someone, they get thrown away, and as you close in for the kill they pick up a Pokeball and hurl it straight down. Now you have to choose between trying to get them quickly or evading whatever has just emerged.

It's still an organic series of decisions, but they've been greatly expanded upon. Without the items, you only need to know what moves your opponent's character can perform. With items, you need to know that and also be prepared for what the game itself can throw.

Even at a competitive level, it'd still be part of the game.

But that still totally defeats the point of competitive play - it's to determine who's better at the game. If one player gets a pokeball that has, say, Groudon in it, then that player has an advantage over the other player, even if it wasn't their own skill that got them in that position. Even if the other player gets the next pokemon, it could have Goldeen and they'd be SOL.

Sure, it could make matches more interesting to watch, but it would also makes the matches frustrating and frequently unfair for the players.

I don't see how it defeats competitive play when it's part of the game. Hell, I look at Magic the Gathering world tournaments, which are much bigger than fighting tourneys, and entire matches have been lost by superior players just because they couldn't get enough mana to start their engines. Mana screwed is a part of that game and they take it relatively in stride.

Dick waving doesn't get us any where, chess is probably the most succesful competitive game of all time and it has no random elements.

YCobb wrote:

Syobon wrote:It's not because the game is imbalanced that people can't still have fun with it competitively.

Of course they can, yeah. But it undermines the general purpose of tournaments, which is to determine and rank people by skill. If one person of hypothetical skill level 20 chooses a weaker character, they could be beaten by a person of hypothetical skill level 19 who chooses a stronger character. It can still be fun, but I can't see it having a place with other fighting game communities, which are usually for games built specifically for tournament play.

The bigger issue, which is connected to this, is that competitive players are trying to sway the development of the next games to better suit their play styles. This is fine, because everyone can have an opinion, but I'd prefer if they just moved to a game that was made for tournament play, rather than 'taking away' one of the only casual fighting games out there.

You raise a valid point, the thing is though that a lot of fighting games are horribly unbalanced (I'm looking at you MarvelvsCapcom). And again, competitive players don't affect you if you don't play with them.

Madican wrote:The items can change the tide of a match, or even a single engagement, in an instant. That's why I like them so much. You can be beating on someone, they get thrown away, and as you close in for the kill they pick up a Pokeball and hurl it straight down. Now you have to choose between trying to get them quickly or evading whatever has just emerged.

It's still an organic series of decisions, but they've been greatly expanded upon. Without the items, you only need to know what moves your opponent's character can perform. With items, you need to know that and also be prepared for what the game itself can throw.

Even at a competitive level, it'd still be part of the game.

It's true that items add a number of different scenarios to the game which does add versatility beyond plain randomness, unfortunately most people feel that doesn't weigh up against the downsides I mentioned before. I feel like I should mention again that people have tried Items On tournaments, but most people still didn't like them as much as Items Off.

YCobb wrote:But that still totally defeats the point of competitive play - it's to determine who's better at the game. If one player gets a pokeball that has, say, Groudon in it, then that player has an advantage over the other player, even if it wasn't their own skill that got them in that position. Even if the other player gets the next pokemon, it could have Goldeen and they'd be SOL.

Sure, it could make matches more interesting to watch, but it would also makes the matches frustrating and frequently unfair for the players.

That's why I say it's a circular argument - while the roster itself is built with items in mind and turning the items off skews the roster massively, at the same time the incalculable random level of unfairness/fairness generated by Pokeballs alone makes items unworkable in a competitive environment.

I'm with Madican on the 'shut up and deal with it' aspect that items generate, but I also understand (to a degree) why competitive gaming wants to remove that aspect.*

It's an unresolvable circular argument that can never be settled to everyone's satisfaction - which in a way only proves that SSB/Brawl is not an ideal game for competitive play - as YCobb said a few posts back.


*I still don't like that the competitive community chooses to take the path that it does though.

YCobb wrote:Personally, I think the competitive Smash Bros community is dumb because the game is never balanced. With items, it can be unfair in situations like princess brothel described. Without items, the character balances change because the nature of the fights is so heavily altered.

I'm not saying people shouldn't play it competitively, but they could do much better.

What kind of judgement is that? How is people enjoying the game competitively "not as good" as them doing something else? What a silly thing to say. There a no inferior ways of enjoying a game.

YCobb wrote:Of course they can, yeah. But it undermines the general purpose of tournaments, which is to determine and rank people by skill. If one person of hypothetical skill level 20 chooses a weaker character, they could be beaten by a person of hypothetical skill level 19 who chooses a stronger character. It can still be fun, but I can't see it having a place with other fighting game communities, which are usually for games built specifically for tournament play.

The bigger issue, which is connected to this, is that competitive players are trying to sway the development of the next games to better suit their play styles. This is fine, because everyone can have an opinion, but I'd prefer if they just moved to a game that was made for tournament play, rather than 'taking away' one of the only casual fighting games out there.

You seem to be under the delusion that other, more "serious" fighting games are more balanced, which is not the case. A lot of fighting games that never involved random elements such as items are poorly balanced in the first place. However, a more proper roster "balance" can be achieved by developers, even for Smash Bros.. It wouldn't "take away" from the game, because items could still be turned on and there would still be silly stages.


Madican, Magic is designed around having to use mana and having to draw random cards, which isn't something that can be "turned off". Items are a part of the game that can be turned off.
Furthermore, that you would think that "you only need to know what moves your opponent's character can perform" shows that you have a very shallow understanding of competitive games. "Your opponent's character" has such a depth of options that it is not possible to react to or predict everything he will do, hence why these games remain interesting and exciting after many years, without "random" elements.


DND, the way to resolve that is to let people play the way they want, which is exactly what players do by playing with items off or items on depending on what they like better.

DND wrote:That's why I say it's a circular argument - while the roster itself is built with items in mind and turning the items off skews the roster massively

While the game has been designed with items on in mind, that doesn't mean it was any where near balanced in the first place.

I'm not getting this "The game is balanced with items in mind" argument.

Balanced in what way? Besides speed there's nothing I can think of that could be altered to balance with items, besides reflection moves I guess, but everyone has a shield and a dodge so thrown items aren't such a big deal.

By that logic Gannondorf should be stronger to make up for his lack of ability to get items first or he should have extra defence against them which clearly isn't the case.

You raise a valid point, the thing is though that a lot of fighting games are horribly unbalanced (I'm looking at you MarvelvsCapcom). And again, competitive players don't affect you if you don't play with them.

But that's the thing - it would affect casual players if the hardcore tourniers had their way with the developers. That's why I'd rather see them move on to a different game than to change Smash Bros for their purposes.

It doesn't matter that there are other unbalanced games out there, Smash Bros still isn't terribly suited for competitive play. One difference, though, is that MvC was built for the same people who play other games competitively. MvC's imbalance is a failing, while Smash Bros' is at most an unimportant accident.

What kind of judgement is that? How is people enjoying the game competitively "not as good" as them doing something else? What a silly thing to say. There a no inferior ways of enjoying a game.

I have to disagree - I think the competitive Smash Bros community is playing the 'wrong' game, in that what they want to see out of the game is better provided by other games. Of course they can keep playing it, and I'm not saying they shouldn't, but looking from the outside it seems that the general preferences would be better satisfied by other games that already exist so I find myself wondering why players haven't chosen to move to those games.

Even if some other games aren't balanced, there are plenty that are at least better balanced than Smash Bros is.

But that's the thing - it would affect casual players if the hardcore tourniers had their way with the developers. That's why I'd rather see them move on to a different game than to change Smash Bros for their purposes.

But the developers have said they don't care about competitive, so there's zero reason to fear for that. The competitive players know this as well, it's not like they're petitioning the devs to change their minds. And what changes do you fear exactly that the competitive players want?

I have to disagree - I think the competitive Smash Bros community is playing the 'wrong' game, in that what they want to see out of the game is better provided by other games.

That's where you're wrong though, no other fighting game plays like smash or is even comparable to it. There simply aren't any better alternatives (except PS Allstars I guess, but nobody seems to want to play that).

No, people that play Smash Bros. competitively do so because they love Smash Bros. and its unique gameplay. They don't want to play a competitive game, they want to play Smash Bros. competitively. Their "general preferences" is "playing Smash Bros. competitively", not just "playing competitively". They are not wrong in that. This is not something that is "better provided by other games", because no other game is Smash Bros., and it is the game they like to play.

The competitive players have a feedback that is as valid as any other: "we would like the next Smash Bros. to be better balanced". There is bodaciously no reason why the next Smash Bros. game being more balanced would ruin casual play, as it's obvious they will not remove "overpowered" "random" items or fancy scrolling stage with hazards, as they are an important part of the game too.

PS All-Star Battle Royale's competitive scene was rapidly deserted, yeah. From what I've heard and seen, it's not very well designed at all, and not very fun competitively.

I didn't realize the devs publicly ignore them, whoops. For argument's sake, though: if the hardcore players did have their way, I'd imagine the game would be built to work best with items disabled, so the game would be less balanced with them enabled. It's not critical for the game to be totally fair in a casual situation, but most casual players would eventually get frustrated if the game was imbalanced the way they choose to play.
Also, I'd hate to see the return of wavedashing, which I recall many competitive players clamoring for.

Yeah, fair enough. Though I had been figuring that the hardcore crowd, usually characterized as ultra-focused on tournaments, would be more concerned with the nature of play than on the mechanics itself? Like if I wanted to play in racing game tournaments, I'd personally have to branch out beyond Mario Kart because it's another game which is pretty poorly balanced. Doesn't mean I'd stop playing Mario Kart, but at tournaments I'd choose to play something else.

((Great Handsome Oppressor's post came in after I finished this, but I think this addresses what he said pretty well too))

YCobb wrote:so the game would be less balanced with them enabled.)

so you mean the way it is now aha aha ahaha