First, a little backstory...
(general info about the two different kinds of hacks in Brawl)
There are two kinds of hacks for Brawl, gentlemen. Those that change the way the game is played...and those that don't. Examples of the former are increased hitstun as players are forced to learn how to execute and counter combos and L-canceling, which forces players to learn what is still punishable OoS and what isn't, along with the timing for L-canceling. Examples of the latter vary from something as harmless as infinite replays and unrestricted camera to no tripping. No tripping does not change the way the game is played, ie you do not play the game differently when tripping is on and when tripping is off because tripping is a rare occurrence (or should be). The general consensus is that a game with no tripping would be superior to a game with tripping. It's a slight matter, but that's the reason that no tripping is not much of an issue. Some tournaments even activate it for grand finals sets, to ensure a tournament is not won or lost on the random slight of unnecessary chance.
In fact, you can consider hacks as extensions of the rules we accept as tournament standards, which are intended to create a better competitive game. What is the tangible difference between banning Meta Knight's Infinite Dimensional Cape technique and simply removing it from the game with hacks? The difference between banning Dedede's standing infinites and using hacks to remove it from the game? The difference is that these rules are simple to abide and are not outside of player control, so hacks are not needed. Tripping is impossible to control (unless you never ever dash, but then that is a lol idea) and thus hacks are necessary to remove and/or control it.
There is another (obvious) difference which I'll cover later.
There is a problem with hacks in competitive Brawl play (or any game in general, I'd assume), and it is that they lead to a slippery slope. Hacks are based on "making the game better". A noble and reasonable cause, but that is quite subjective, and thus the further down the slope you travel...the more problems you'll cause. Where do you draw the line? No tripping is generally agreed upon as "making the game better". Increased hitstun is much more disputed. And it is because it drastically changes the way the game is played. It's better for one player because they played Melee and/or have studied potential combos in Brawl, but not for another who never competitively played Melee. So the former would likely prefer or at least be more comfortable with the added hitstun, while the latter likely would not.
So drawing the line or "boundary" for hacks should logically be focused on whether the hack improves the game without drastically changing it.
(specific analysis of PT hacks and what the Brawl scene would be like)
Now we approach the topic of PT hacks. We must answer two questions. Do they make the game "better"? Do they drastically change the way Brawl is played at a competitive level?
First let's describe what the hacks actually do. The first is a No Forced Switch hack. It simply makes it so when a Pokemon Trainer Pokemon loses a stock, the same Pokemon comes out on spawn, instead of the next Pokemon in order. The second is a No Fatigue hack. It eliminates the stamina aspect of the PT Pokemon, so they do not tire after two minutes (minus 1 second for almost every attempted attack). These two codes, used together, make it so players can play only one Pokemon throughout an entire match without being encouraged to switch due to stamina. Now players can main one Pokemon without having to deal with the other two, although the Down Special move will still swap Pokemon if used.
Let's suppose that these hacks were allowed for tournament play (although there is a huge obstacle preventing this, which I will discuss later). How would it make the game better?
Well, players are basically presented with the possibility of three more individual characters to use in tournaments, now that using the other two is not required. Charizard and Squirtle, individually, are definitely tournament viable, although they would likely be ranked slightly above or below the middle of the roster in a tier list. Ivysaur is, in this Trainer's 9 month experience, inferior to the other two due to a lack of reliable KO moves and one of the most vulnerable recoveries in the game. But hey, if you would want to use just Ivysaur, go right ahead! But this is the simplest and greatest benefit of the hacks. Now every single one of you would have the opportunity to learn three "new" characters that you may not have bothered to learn before.
These hacks would give players the ability to use one of these characters as a main or as a counterpick to their best matchups. Solo Charizard, for example, does relatively well (ie about 40/60) against Meta Knight due to his impressive damage racking potential, solid defensive options, difficult to gimp recovery, and variety of potential KO moves. Squirtle has been mentioned as a solid answer to Olimar (about Squirtle 60/40 Olimar) because Olimar has difficulty punishing some well spaced approaches and Squirtle's very quick attacks have the priority to beat out Olimar's Pikmin attacks head on. For example, Squirtle's 1-frame jab attack will go through a Smash attack Pikmin, and Fair/Bair will outprioritize a Smash attack or aerial. Ivysaur, surprisingly, has an even matchup (or close to it) against Snake due to the range of some of her tilts and aerials, Bullet Seed's capability as a powerful punisher for a dodged tilt attack, and the fact that Razor Leaf has "laser priority" and can pass through and detonate Snake's grenades.
As you can see, these options would provide every player three more character options. These characters are already in the game and none of them are metagame changing (you would not suddenly see any of these three Pokemon placing first at tournaments). Again, the term "better" is subjective, but I speculate that many Brawlers would not feel that the tournament scene would be worse if this were to happen.
But would it drastically change the way the game is played? I don't believe so. None of these characters are good enough to become a top 10 tourney character (Charizard may be close). Tournament players should not suddenly become overwhelmed by a massive growth of Charizards, Squirtles, or Ivysaurs in any given tournament, they simply aren't that good. Regardless, brawlers should already know how to play against the three Pokemon because...well they are already in the game.
However, I do see two potential counterarguments to this point.
The first is what the fate would be of Pokemon Trainer as we know him. Some of you may be concerned that in liberating the three Pokemon, PT himself would be thrown under the bus. My opinion is that he would not change much. He's already the 6th worst character in the game, and the worst newcomer!
Seriously though, he would not drop at all (mainly cuz he's just better than at LEAST the bottom 4 characters, and probably more). I've looked at PT's matchups more than almost any other player out there. It is my opinion that Pokemon Trainer with forced switch and stamina is a better answer than any Solo Poke in the majority of matchups. The only times a Solo Poke can plausibly perform better is when Squirtle is vulnerable to some kind of grab release to KO bull, and against Meta Knight/Marth/Falco, likely PT's three absolute worst matchups. PT players are better off counterpicking the above three with another character anyway. There would still definitely be an incentive to play Pokemon Trainer as is, and perhaps more players would pick him up after experiencing one or two Solo Pokemon. Ivysaur may go even with Snake, but the ability to switch to improve KO power and tank stocks with Charizard, and pressure Snake at low percent with Squirtle combos, makes a very good PT player a better challenge to Snake than just a very good Ivysaur. You can cover up a Pokemon's weaknesses with switching, although in some matchups, one or two Pokemon are too much of a weakness for PT to work well. So because of this, I feel that PT would not suddenly become nonexistent in competitive play, nor would this be PT getting a significant "boost" to improve character balance. A third hack to make switching impossible for solo Pokemon would not be a bad idea.
The second counterargument is that although players should already know how to play against the Pokemon, some characters may become significantly less tournament viable because of the hacks. Ness players may now fear Charizard's guaranteed chain grab release without the comfort of knowing that it is forced to switch upon death. However, through my work in charge as a main Pokemon Trainer matchup dude, I am confident that these kinds of matchups are very rare or simply do not exist. I am almost certain that for every single character in this game, there is a worse matchup against a better character than any of the Pokemon. None of them have an inescapable chaingrab or death combo, or overly powerful technique/strategy (Rock Smash is **** good though). The only possible exception I can think of is Charizard's grab release against Ness. Even then, Charizard's size and mass lends itself to potent Ness combos, some stemming from PK Fire pillars. Whether the Charizard matchup is worse for Ness than something like Meta Knight, Snake, or Dedede is unclear.
Still, techniques allowed in many areas like Dedede's infinites and Pika/ZSS/Sheik **** on Fox are much more devastating than anything a PT Pokemon can do. Allowing Solo Pokemon would, almost assuredly, only slightly change the Brawl metagame, and I feel it would be for the better.
In conclusion, I think the PT hacks pass the test of both improving the game but not drastically changing the way the game is played at a tournament level.
(the biggest and simplest problem with allowing these hacks)
Now here's the big issue and reason why rules are different from hacks, which I purposely saved for last...
The fact that the PT hacks are, after all, hacks. Allowing hacks simply presents a problem at tournaments because not every Wii would be equipped with Homebrew Channel (which is why no tripping code should not be allowed, because it'd be unfair). Additionally, there is the problem of other illegal hacks activated during tournament matches.
Both of these problems have solutions. Should TO's allow the hacks in their tourney, they should request players who volunteer their Wii's for the tournament to specify whether or not they have Homebrew Channel installed and are able to activate the hacks on their Wiis. During tournament, these Wiis should be clearly specified as the Wiis with PT hacks on so that players can request them ahead of time if they plan on playing a solo Pokemon.
The issue of illegal hacks being activated can be resolved by TO/pool leaders supervising the application of the hacks...perhaps by having a laptop on hand with the code software installed to make sure the only hacks being activated are those that are allowed by the tournament.
Regardless, these issues of are the biggest obstacles, imo, with allowing the hacks in tournament play. I don't think these would be serious problems at small to mid sized tournaments, but at regional or national events with 100+ players, I think the extra work required by the TO would be enough to keep the hacks disallowed in the tourneys that would matter the most. Which is a shame, because I think that Brawl would be (slightly) better for it, and most players would enjoy the option of playing three more characters.
So anyway, please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, complain, whatever. But I do think that this is something that should seriously be considered by the SBR(-B).
PS http://www.smashboards.com/group.php?groupid=657 i've made a group if you support the hacks in tourney play
cuz for every cause
there must be an swf group
rule #52 of swf
(general info about the two different kinds of hacks in Brawl)
There are two kinds of hacks for Brawl, gentlemen. Those that change the way the game is played...and those that don't. Examples of the former are increased hitstun as players are forced to learn how to execute and counter combos and L-canceling, which forces players to learn what is still punishable OoS and what isn't, along with the timing for L-canceling. Examples of the latter vary from something as harmless as infinite replays and unrestricted camera to no tripping. No tripping does not change the way the game is played, ie you do not play the game differently when tripping is on and when tripping is off because tripping is a rare occurrence (or should be). The general consensus is that a game with no tripping would be superior to a game with tripping. It's a slight matter, but that's the reason that no tripping is not much of an issue. Some tournaments even activate it for grand finals sets, to ensure a tournament is not won or lost on the random slight of unnecessary chance.
In fact, you can consider hacks as extensions of the rules we accept as tournament standards, which are intended to create a better competitive game. What is the tangible difference between banning Meta Knight's Infinite Dimensional Cape technique and simply removing it from the game with hacks? The difference between banning Dedede's standing infinites and using hacks to remove it from the game? The difference is that these rules are simple to abide and are not outside of player control, so hacks are not needed. Tripping is impossible to control (unless you never ever dash, but then that is a lol idea) and thus hacks are necessary to remove and/or control it.
There is another (obvious) difference which I'll cover later.
There is a problem with hacks in competitive Brawl play (or any game in general, I'd assume), and it is that they lead to a slippery slope. Hacks are based on "making the game better". A noble and reasonable cause, but that is quite subjective, and thus the further down the slope you travel...the more problems you'll cause. Where do you draw the line? No tripping is generally agreed upon as "making the game better". Increased hitstun is much more disputed. And it is because it drastically changes the way the game is played. It's better for one player because they played Melee and/or have studied potential combos in Brawl, but not for another who never competitively played Melee. So the former would likely prefer or at least be more comfortable with the added hitstun, while the latter likely would not.
So drawing the line or "boundary" for hacks should logically be focused on whether the hack improves the game without drastically changing it.
(specific analysis of PT hacks and what the Brawl scene would be like)
Now we approach the topic of PT hacks. We must answer two questions. Do they make the game "better"? Do they drastically change the way Brawl is played at a competitive level?
First let's describe what the hacks actually do. The first is a No Forced Switch hack. It simply makes it so when a Pokemon Trainer Pokemon loses a stock, the same Pokemon comes out on spawn, instead of the next Pokemon in order. The second is a No Fatigue hack. It eliminates the stamina aspect of the PT Pokemon, so they do not tire after two minutes (minus 1 second for almost every attempted attack). These two codes, used together, make it so players can play only one Pokemon throughout an entire match without being encouraged to switch due to stamina. Now players can main one Pokemon without having to deal with the other two, although the Down Special move will still swap Pokemon if used.
Let's suppose that these hacks were allowed for tournament play (although there is a huge obstacle preventing this, which I will discuss later). How would it make the game better?
Well, players are basically presented with the possibility of three more individual characters to use in tournaments, now that using the other two is not required. Charizard and Squirtle, individually, are definitely tournament viable, although they would likely be ranked slightly above or below the middle of the roster in a tier list. Ivysaur is, in this Trainer's 9 month experience, inferior to the other two due to a lack of reliable KO moves and one of the most vulnerable recoveries in the game. But hey, if you would want to use just Ivysaur, go right ahead! But this is the simplest and greatest benefit of the hacks. Now every single one of you would have the opportunity to learn three "new" characters that you may not have bothered to learn before.
These hacks would give players the ability to use one of these characters as a main or as a counterpick to their best matchups. Solo Charizard, for example, does relatively well (ie about 40/60) against Meta Knight due to his impressive damage racking potential, solid defensive options, difficult to gimp recovery, and variety of potential KO moves. Squirtle has been mentioned as a solid answer to Olimar (about Squirtle 60/40 Olimar) because Olimar has difficulty punishing some well spaced approaches and Squirtle's very quick attacks have the priority to beat out Olimar's Pikmin attacks head on. For example, Squirtle's 1-frame jab attack will go through a Smash attack Pikmin, and Fair/Bair will outprioritize a Smash attack or aerial. Ivysaur, surprisingly, has an even matchup (or close to it) against Snake due to the range of some of her tilts and aerials, Bullet Seed's capability as a powerful punisher for a dodged tilt attack, and the fact that Razor Leaf has "laser priority" and can pass through and detonate Snake's grenades.
As you can see, these options would provide every player three more character options. These characters are already in the game and none of them are metagame changing (you would not suddenly see any of these three Pokemon placing first at tournaments). Again, the term "better" is subjective, but I speculate that many Brawlers would not feel that the tournament scene would be worse if this were to happen.
But would it drastically change the way the game is played? I don't believe so. None of these characters are good enough to become a top 10 tourney character (Charizard may be close). Tournament players should not suddenly become overwhelmed by a massive growth of Charizards, Squirtles, or Ivysaurs in any given tournament, they simply aren't that good. Regardless, brawlers should already know how to play against the three Pokemon because...well they are already in the game.
However, I do see two potential counterarguments to this point.
The first is what the fate would be of Pokemon Trainer as we know him. Some of you may be concerned that in liberating the three Pokemon, PT himself would be thrown under the bus. My opinion is that he would not change much. He's already the 6th worst character in the game, and the worst newcomer!
Seriously though, he would not drop at all (mainly cuz he's just better than at LEAST the bottom 4 characters, and probably more). I've looked at PT's matchups more than almost any other player out there. It is my opinion that Pokemon Trainer with forced switch and stamina is a better answer than any Solo Poke in the majority of matchups. The only times a Solo Poke can plausibly perform better is when Squirtle is vulnerable to some kind of grab release to KO bull, and against Meta Knight/Marth/Falco, likely PT's three absolute worst matchups. PT players are better off counterpicking the above three with another character anyway. There would still definitely be an incentive to play Pokemon Trainer as is, and perhaps more players would pick him up after experiencing one or two Solo Pokemon. Ivysaur may go even with Snake, but the ability to switch to improve KO power and tank stocks with Charizard, and pressure Snake at low percent with Squirtle combos, makes a very good PT player a better challenge to Snake than just a very good Ivysaur. You can cover up a Pokemon's weaknesses with switching, although in some matchups, one or two Pokemon are too much of a weakness for PT to work well. So because of this, I feel that PT would not suddenly become nonexistent in competitive play, nor would this be PT getting a significant "boost" to improve character balance. A third hack to make switching impossible for solo Pokemon would not be a bad idea.
The second counterargument is that although players should already know how to play against the Pokemon, some characters may become significantly less tournament viable because of the hacks. Ness players may now fear Charizard's guaranteed chain grab release without the comfort of knowing that it is forced to switch upon death. However, through my work in charge as a main Pokemon Trainer matchup dude, I am confident that these kinds of matchups are very rare or simply do not exist. I am almost certain that for every single character in this game, there is a worse matchup against a better character than any of the Pokemon. None of them have an inescapable chaingrab or death combo, or overly powerful technique/strategy (Rock Smash is **** good though). The only possible exception I can think of is Charizard's grab release against Ness. Even then, Charizard's size and mass lends itself to potent Ness combos, some stemming from PK Fire pillars. Whether the Charizard matchup is worse for Ness than something like Meta Knight, Snake, or Dedede is unclear.
Still, techniques allowed in many areas like Dedede's infinites and Pika/ZSS/Sheik **** on Fox are much more devastating than anything a PT Pokemon can do. Allowing Solo Pokemon would, almost assuredly, only slightly change the Brawl metagame, and I feel it would be for the better.
In conclusion, I think the PT hacks pass the test of both improving the game but not drastically changing the way the game is played at a tournament level.
(the biggest and simplest problem with allowing these hacks)
Now here's the big issue and reason why rules are different from hacks, which I purposely saved for last...
The fact that the PT hacks are, after all, hacks. Allowing hacks simply presents a problem at tournaments because not every Wii would be equipped with Homebrew Channel (which is why no tripping code should not be allowed, because it'd be unfair). Additionally, there is the problem of other illegal hacks activated during tournament matches.
Both of these problems have solutions. Should TO's allow the hacks in their tourney, they should request players who volunteer their Wii's for the tournament to specify whether or not they have Homebrew Channel installed and are able to activate the hacks on their Wiis. During tournament, these Wiis should be clearly specified as the Wiis with PT hacks on so that players can request them ahead of time if they plan on playing a solo Pokemon.
The issue of illegal hacks being activated can be resolved by TO/pool leaders supervising the application of the hacks...perhaps by having a laptop on hand with the code software installed to make sure the only hacks being activated are those that are allowed by the tournament.
Regardless, these issues of are the biggest obstacles, imo, with allowing the hacks in tournament play. I don't think these would be serious problems at small to mid sized tournaments, but at regional or national events with 100+ players, I think the extra work required by the TO would be enough to keep the hacks disallowed in the tourneys that would matter the most. Which is a shame, because I think that Brawl would be (slightly) better for it, and most players would enjoy the option of playing three more characters.
So anyway, please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, complain, whatever. But I do think that this is something that should seriously be considered by the SBR(-B).
PS http://www.smashboards.com/group.php?groupid=657 i've made a group if you support the hacks in tourney play
cuz for every cause
there must be an swf group
rule #52 of swf
