Brawl Competition: Re-examination

[Therapist-]

I'll preface this by saying that I was not a high level Melee player and I will never be a high level Brawl player. I also have not tested the stuff I'm about to say, I'm just providing a theoretical view. Feel free to rip me and my post apart as you see fit. Anyway...

We can all see that there is less to Brawl 1v1 than Melee 1v1. This much is clear. Thus far, comboing is non-existant and advanced techniques are not to be found. However, I think we might be looking at Brawl in the wrong context.

Hit stun in Brawl may not be long enough for you to combo, but it might be long enough for a teammate to perhaps continue a combo. What I'm suggesting is that Brawl tournaments consider a 2v2 model as opposed to a 1v1 model. Brawl team strategy might actually prove to be very deep, and involve lots of advanced setups and team work to be played effectively. Team positioning would be very important and the coordination of attacks to work together would add some much needed danger to a game that otherwise lacks real punishments for mistakes.

I don't know if anyone's already explored this, but I think (after playing a significant amount of Brawl) that a team format would make way more sense in this game than a singles format. Of course, this style of play would require a lot more effort on the part of the players, but I believe it would ultimately be far more rewarding than singles tournaments and allow for a much greater consistancy of the most skilled team winning.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I actually know exactly what you're talking about. I'm part of a project right now that is working on a balanced item listing for tournament play (despite all of the flak we've received), and we pretty much know that Final Smashes are simply too unreasonable for 1v1 play... but 2v2 play, on the other hand, especially with Team Attack on, gives us some interesting scenarios that we are happy to experiment with.

2v2, from what I have heard, wasn't a really big part of tournament play in Melee, but regardless of the format the switch from Melee to Brawl is proving that 2v2 just might play a bigger part in tournament play than we first thought it would.

 

[Jon64]

Team combo-ing would be extremely uber ****ing crazy rediculously hard. If even possible at all.

 

[darthjiggles]

Really I never thought about it, that might be due that I don't know enough players to do 2v2 constantly, but you just might be onto something.

 

[Maikeru17]

Doubles were pretty popular in Melee, since they were around in MOST big tournys and smaller ones.
I know a lot of people that prefer to do doubles than singles in Melee.

However, I personally see where you're coming from with this - since I share the same view.
Brawl really does seem to be more fit for doubles matches than singles.
But, even with the way Brawl is now, you still get tense and excited in a really close 1v1 where both players are actually trying. One wrong approach, and the game's finished. One missed punish, and it's over.
I'm quite a fan of doubles, especially when my partner can work with me, rather than make it seem like a free-for-all match. :[

Doubles for Brawl.

-Nox`

 

[WastingPenguins]

Smash tournaments already have doubles and have for a long, long time. If they are more popular than ever, well, terrific. But this mode of play is already a part of any noteworthy tournament.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I just thought of this... but I think Team Combos were something that were SUPPOSED to be promoted in Brawl. After all, that's ALL that Co-op Home-Run Contest is: a Team Combo exercise.

 

[Yuna]

How would hitstun allow for teammates to combo better unless your teammate just happens to be standing right next to you and the opponent and be completely free because the other member of the opposing team is being stupid/dead?

Teams will not magically become much deeper or better than Singles. Nothing was put into Brawl to enhanced Teams in comparison to Singles more than Teams vs. Singles in Melee.

 

[yoshi_fan]

Team strategy seems like... great for me.

Yuna, isn't too hard to think in a situation. The problem with the low hit stun is that you can't combo because your oponent can jump/air dodge/counterattack you... but he can't do that to both of you. That's why team competition will become deep as 1 v 1 in brawl.

Also final smash in team competition seems fair for me: ness and lucas final smashes are great for teams, and marth final smash is nerfed in teams.

 

[Therapist-]

How would hitstun allow for teammates to combo better unless your teammate just happens to be standing right next to you and the opponent and be completely free because the other member of the opposing team is being stupid/dead?

Teams will not magically become much deeper or better than Singles. Nothing was put into Brawl to enhanced Teams in comparison to Singles more than Teams vs. Singles in Melee.

I'm not saying team brawl will be deeper than singles melee. I'm just saying team brawl might be deeper than singles brawl. This isn't about melee vs. brawl at all.

 

[ThaDirtyG]

I agree that doubles could be very interesting in Brawl and I hope it provides more depth to the game. I'd be surprised to see much more in the way of team combos than what already existed in Melee doubles, but it's still a nice thought

 

[Manu]

Well doubles always has more strategy. Think about it, in singles all you have to do is tell yourself what to do. In doubles you have to have all these premade plans and scenarios. the thing is that in singles, comebacks and character matchups are much more fair. A Ganon/DonkyK team would be torn apart by Lucas and Pit for example.

 

[Boogers_]

A Ganon/DonkyK team would be torn apart by Lucas and Pit for example.

this is not a problem. People who attend tournaments and are confident enough to choose characters outside of the high tiers tend to be competent and know enough to understand how to play against certain characters accordingly.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, isn't too hard to think in a situation. The problem with the low hit stun is that you can't combo because your oponent can jump/air dodge/counterattack you... but he can't do that to both of you. That's why team competition will become deep as 1 v 1 in brawl.

Why would the opponent's teammate allow this? There are at all times 4 people on the stage, unless one just died or was just knocked off it.

Even if I launch one of the opponents, my teammate won't be able to combo them if he isn't next to the opponent and the other opponent isn't otherwise busy.

Team comboing existed in Melee. In fact, Team Comboing has great depth to it because of the hitstun in Melee. With next to no hitstun, team comboing has become much harder. The only situations where you'd be able to get off easy team combos in Brawl would be if Player Red-A launched player Blue-A with an attack with low knockback and low stun, making it impossible for Red-A to follow it up.

Red-B would just happen to be standing right next to Blue-A and Blue-B wouldn't be close enough to stop Red-B from team comboing Blue-A.

You see, the claim here isn't that Team Comboing exists, it's that it's much easier to Team Combo than Singles Combo people, which is ridiculous. It's extremely situational and also requires the 2nd opponent to not be anywhere near you.

Team comboing does exist in Brawl. But it's not magically easier than Singles Comboing (in Brawl) because of the new system (few set knockback moves, little hitstun, enhanced DI).

Also final smash in team competition seems fair for me: ness and lucas final smashes are great for teams, and marth final smash is nerfed in teams.

How is Marth's FS nerfed in teams? "He can hit his teammate"? Yeah, so can everyone else. Good players won't consistently hit their teammates. When we talk balance, we have to assume the players involved play on a high level.

I'm not saying team brawl will be deeper than singles melee. I'm just saying team brawl might be deeper than singles brawl. This isn't about melee vs. brawl at all.

Neither did I. Read above.

I actually know exactly what you're talking about. I'm part of a project right now that is working on a balanced item listing for tournament play (despite all of the flak we've received), and we pretty much know that Final Smashes are simply too unreasonable for 1v1 play... but 2v2 play, on the other hand, especially with Team Attack on, gives us some interesting scenarios that we are happy to experiment with.

There's a reason why you've been given smack. But you ignored all of the very valid arguments with "Well, I think it's more fun."

2v2, from what I have heard, wasn't a really big part of tournament play in Melee, but regardless of the format the switch from Melee to Brawl is proving that 2v2 just might play a bigger part in tournament play than we first thought it would.

Hold on while I go get a competent Marth player and face off against you and any given friend on Wi-Fi in Teams (I'll be Marth or Toon Link). Teams does not magically flip the tierlist of Final Smashes.

A few hard-to-control FS:es might be weakened since at any given time, you might hit your teammate (like, say, Chaos Sonic or Pikachu's Volt Whatever), but the One-Hit KO's will still rule.

Because good players won't randomly hit their teammates without at least taking one opponent with them. Good players will still know when to thow an FS out instead of spam it out the minute they grab the Smash Ball. Good players will still be able to combo into their FS.

Heck, landing FS:es will be even easier in Teams because much like Resting, your teammate can just grab someone and Fthrow them at you.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Umm, Yuna... what? Where in my post did I say ANYTHING about 'fun'? I said that there are interesting possibilities that we will test (scientifically) in a FS 2v2 format. Interesting /=/ fun.

As a matter of fact, I didn't even mention tierlists at ALL! YOU brought that up. All I said, again, was that the general consensus at Brawl's release was that 1v1 was what needed to be focused on, and that now that people are playing the game, many people (obviously) have a little more interest in the potential of 2v2.

From the looks of things, you need to lurk moar before you spout off like that, because nothing I've said had ANYTHING to do with your 'response'. And, by the way... all that flak I was talking about? Yeah, that's people coming into OUR threads and spouting off that, in more words than this, we're idiots for considering what we're considering. I never ONCE in ANY of our threads said ANY MODE OF PLAY WAS BETTER THAN ANOTHER... but people still seem to read that, for some reason. Get your facts straight.

And to the OP... I'm sorry that there were flames in your thread, but I'm getting pretty sick of all this 'one way is better than another' BS. People need to cut that **** out.

 

[Mama]

Yuna's got serious issues that arise when people bring up anything Brawl related or Brawl hopeful. Its like the discussion puts him on his period and he just runs around pissing and screaming.

Seriously though, topics like this wont and can't go far right now. Simply because its too early for some people (especially poor Yuna) to stop thinking of Brawl i a Melee context. This time around time is going to be needed, not for people to learn new things or advance the meta game, but for people like Yuna to get over it and move on and learn how to play Brawl. After that we can talk about the future of team matches in a civil manner.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna's got serious issues that arise when people bring up anything Brawl related or Brawl hopeful. Its like the discussion puts him on his period and he just runs around pissing and screaming.

Seriously though, topics like this wont and can't go far right now. Simply because its too early for some people (especially poor Yuna) to stop thinking of Brawl i a Melee context. This time around time is going to be needed, not for people to learn new things or advance the meta game, but for people like Yuna to get over it and move on and learn how to play Brawl. After that we can talk about the future of team matches in a civil manner.

Do you even play Smash (or any fighting game competitively)? Do you know how comboing works, how competitive play works and how team strategizing works?

Brawl does not have a magically much deeper team game than singles game. At least not from what we know. You can argue all you want that we might find out new things in the future which will make teams much deeper, but really, at the moment, things aren't looking very good on that front.

No matter how much you flame me while ignoring my very valid arguments because you can't find counters to them, it won't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.

 

[Taymond]

OP, it's a pleasant enough idea, but you're neglecting the fact that your opponent also has a teammate.

You're basically saying now, in brawl, we can use two people to do the work that 1 person could do in melee. With two people, we can make up for low hitstun. Two coordinated people can alternate moves fast enough that they can attack before what little hitstun there is disappears. This is completely true, but what the hell is the fourth player doing that they're allowing two opponents enough unopposed time to combo your teammate?

 

[fkacyan]

Do you even play Smash (or any fighting game competitively)? Do you know how comboing works, how competitive play works and how team strategizing works?

Brawl does not have a magically much deeper team game than singles game. At least not from what we know. You can argue all you want that we might find out new things in the future which will make teams much deeper, but really, at the moment, things aren't looking very good on that front.

No matter how much you flame me while ignoring my very valid arguments because you can't find counters to them, it won't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.

If you want a technical game, come play GGXX AC with me. I'll own your *** five ways from Friday, or something like that.

Not every fighting game is based around combos that works the same **** way. You need to figure out that Brawl is nothing like Melee except that it uses the same basic "I knock you out of the stage to win" philosophy.

No matter how much you think you're right, you're just stuck in a mindset that's resisting change. Don't worry, this is nothing new - Idiots like you whine at every MMO patch that has any major changes too.

 

[Yuna]

If you want a technical game, come play GGXX AC with me. I'll own your *** five ways from Friday, or something like that.

Not every fighting game is based around combos that works the same **** way. You need to figure out that Brawl is nothing like Melee except that it uses the same basic "I knock you out of the stage to win" philosophy.

No matter how much you think you're right, you're just stuck in a mindset that's resisting change. Don't worry, this is nothing new - Idiots like you whine at every MMO patch that has any major changes too.

When did I say that Teams in Brawl works the same as Singles/Teams in Melee? Or that Brawl has to be technical or that Brawl is technical? Or any of the stuff you just claimed I said? It's the OP (and various other people) who are saying that and what I'm doing is arguing against it.

I could care less about a technical game as long as we have many options. Brawl Teams really doesn't have that many options Brawl Singles doesn't have. Magical Team Combos will be extremely situational. The low hitstun works both ways, both in Singles and in Teams.

 

[Mama]

Do you even play Smash (or any fighting game competitively)? Do you know how comboing works, how competitive play works and how team strategizing works?

Brawl does not have a magically much deeper team game than singles game. At least not from what we know. You can argue all you want that we might find out new things in the future which will make teams much deeper, but really, at the moment, things aren't looking very good on that front.

No matter how much you flame me while ignoring my very valid arguments because you can't find counters to them, it won't change the fact that I'm right and you're wrong.

I never said anything about teams being deeper or Brawl turning out to be magically deep and magnificent. I'm simply saying that while we may or may not find anything new, being so negative and off putting about every hopeful topic. Right now, I can safely say that we haven't advanced the metagame anywhere. Thats all.

I'll cut down on the anti Yuna flames though since I feel like I understand you better now than before. But before today every time I saw you posting something it had been rather mean and seemingly close minded.

 

[Yuna]

I never said anything about teams being deeper or Brawl turning out to be magically deep and magnificent. I'm simply saying that while we may or may not find anything new, being so negative and off putting about every hopeful topic. Right now, I can safely say that we haven't advanced the metagame anywhere. Thats all.

Someone else did. He was the person I was replying to when you jumped in and insulted me.

If you agree with what I'm saying, why did you unnecessarily flame me and tell me to shut up (possibly not in this thread)?

What I said is true, isn't it? In fact, what I say is almost always true. Sometimes I'm wrong but then I admit I was wrong.

I'll cut down on the anti Yuna flames though since I feel like I understand you better now than before. But before today every time I saw you posting something it had been rather mean and seemingly close minded.

Biting sarcasm =/= Being mean
Not being overly nice =/= Being mean
When the same guy's repeating inane arguments and refusing to see reason or even reply to anything that works against his argument = Is when I stop being nice.

When I flame, I always flame with moderation and have good reasons for flaming. I also do not simply flame, I tell people why they are getting flamed by presenting valid arguments for why they're wrong. I also don't flame people just for being wrong. I only flame when they're being idiots, like ignoring valid arguments because it works against their arguments, for using stupid arguments again and again, etc.

I'm not close-minded. I just have conviction and most the time, I only argue something ardently if I'm convinced I'm right (and have the facts and valid arguments to back it up).

Because when I flame, I have good reason to.

And BTW, too little, too late. Your 3 most inflammatory posts have already been reported.

 

[Ares.]

The game itself has changed, a lot of things that made melee competitive will absent in brawl. But every game can be competitive, and brawl is no exception. Combos may be lost, but the loss of combos does not make for a worse game. It only improves the point of the game in the first place, "Don't get it". For melee it should have been "dont get hit by fox's down air or your *** will be in an infinite shine". Brawl has increased the need for mind games, there will always be pressure going on the match, and one slightest move could mean an auto kill. On one side, the game has gotten a hell of a lot balanced, which means that it wont be fox, falco, marth and sheik winning every tournament. On the other hand, because of this balance, everything has gotten slower, which I was furious about from the start. But all in all, I think brawl will be huge, like a good game of chess, every move has to be thought out, or else you will lose you moneh.

 

[Mama]

Someone else did. He was the person I was replying to when you jumped in and insulted me.

If you agree with what I'm saying, why did you unnecessarily flame me and tell me to shut up (possibly not in this thread)?

What I said is true, isn't it? In fact, what I say is almost always true. Sometimes I'm wrong but then I admit I was wrong.


Biting sarcasm =/= Being mean
Not being overly nice =/= Being mean
When the same guy's repeating inane arguments and refusing to see reason or even reply to anything that works against his argument = Is when I stop being nice.

When I flame, I always flame with moderation and have good reasons for flaming. I also do not simply flame, I tell people why they are getting flamed by presenting valid arguments for why they're wrong. I also don't flame people just for being wrong. I only flame when they're being idiots, like ignoring valid arguments because it works against their arguments, for using stupid arguments again and again, etc.

I'm not close-minded. I just have conviction and most the time, I only argue something ardently if I'm convinced I'm right (and have the facts and valid arguments to back it up).

Because when I flame, I have good reason to.

And BTW, too little, too late. Your 3 most inflammatory posts have already been reported.

Well when I flame its in response to bad behavior. And not just in a thread. I take notice of posts from people who particularly stand out and respond to their posts in other threads with previous posts in mind. When I'm being an a$$hole I'll tell you when I am and I'll even agree with you lol. Nobody argues unless they're convinced they're right. Of course you think you're right all the time. Most people do when they argue. Nobody argues a point unless they're convinced they're right. The problem is you think you're right no matter what and thats what close minded is all about. Not accepting that you just may be wrong about something. For the record all the posts I'm referring to have been things that are heavily opinionated (like the future of Brawl) and in topics/posts like that you argue with that same vigor as if you were absolutely wrong and had the facts to back it up. Thats a problem with me. Its simply something I wont accept as okay and I respond with very unkindly.

Just the way I be sweetheart. When I flame, I do it because I want to. I don't need a reason. I just flame with a smile. But this is not the place to discuss our domestic problems lol.

And reporting posts is fine. A lot of people report me (I assume). Not saying I'm immune to punishment. But I simply know where to draw the line in offensiveness >.>

 

[Yuna]

Well when I flame its in response to bad behavior. And not just in a thread. I take notice of posts from people who particularly stand out and respond to their posts in other threads with previous posts in mind.

And you felt the need to post in three separate threads doing nothing but flaming me even when what I said in those 3 threads were perfectly valid things why?

When I'm being an a$$hole I'll tell you when I am and I'll even agree with you lol.

What made you feel the need to flame me in a thread where you agree with what I'm saying?

Nobody argues unless they're convinced they're right. Of course you think you're right all the time.

I post a lot. And I only post things I'm convinced is true (hence, me being right). Not surprisingly, I also happen to be right the majority of the time because of the aforementioned penchant for always having facts to back my arguments up.

I never argue things ardently if I only think I'm right. I argue thing ardently if I'm convinced I'm right through various means (established fact, empirical evidence, personal experience, etc.).

Most people do when they argue. Nobody argues a point unless they're convinced they're right.

A lot of people (particularly on these boards and lately) do it without facts to back themselves up. Most people argue only opinions that cannot be substantiated even in the fact of evidence that proves the opposite of what they argue.

I don't see you flaming any of them.

The problem is you think you're right no matter what and thats what close minded is all about.

No I don't. I have actually admitted to being wrong on a few occasions in the past couple of weeks. Of course I think I'm right when I argue things ardently. Especially when for the majority of the times, no one will be able to refute my arguements.

Not accepting that you just may be wrong about something.

I have. If you'd bothered to read everything, you'd see that.

For the record all the posts I'm referring to have been things that are heavily opinionated (like the future of Brawl) and in topics/posts like that you argue with that same vigor as if you were absolutely wrong and had the facts to back it up. Thats a problem with me. Its simply something I wont accept as okay and I respond with very unkindly.

Quote me from 5 separate threads where I'm ardently arguing pure opinion (or at least "heavily opinionated stuff") with an attitude that makes it clear that I believe myself to be right and that everyone else is wrong and stupid. Really, quote 5 and I'll give you 50 bucks.

What threads have you been reading, anyway? I haven't actually argued the future of Brawl for weeks. If you're talking about threads in which I point out facts about Brawl's current metagame and where I point out that the game is a dumbed down and highly intuitive version of Melee and as such, not much hidden depth that hasn't already been found will be found in the future unless they're glitches, then I usually don't argue that as if I'm right and everyone's wrong.

Because it's just an opinion based on fact. Reading comphrehension is very important. And reading what you want to into people's posts because it suits you is very, very bad.

Still, 50 bucks. Offer stands.

Just the way I be sweetheart. When I flame, I do it because I want to. I don't need a reason. I just flame with a smile. But this is not the place to discuss our domestic problems lol.

Stop calling me "sweetheart" and "honey". I'm not a woman and if I were, I'd be even more offended.

Or are you doing it because you know I'm a man and gay and therefore think it's OK? Even if I were a straight man, it'd be offensive. Stop... now.

Yeah, that's the difference between us two. I flame (and I rarely do it) only when I feel the user I'm flaming has gone past the point of even a smidgeon of intelligence and that he's offended me repeatedly. And I also accompany my flames with meaningful discussion (I never post just to flame). And surprise, surprise, not a single infraction insofar (I have one infraction, but it wasn't for flaming or my attitude or posting history, it was because I quasi-spammed in a thread by quoting a Facepalm-collage and telling others to do it as well in response to a really stupid thread).

You'd think that if my attitude was so bad and my posting history so unsavoury, the Mods would've hit me with at least a few infractions for it. I guess they just love me too much or something.

And reporting posts is fine. A lot of people report me (I assume). Not saying I'm immune to punishment. But I simply know where to draw the line in offensiveness >.>

Really? Because that's not the impression I got from your highly inflammatory posts which consisted of 95% flaming and 5% chatter (in other words, posts that were written specifically and pretty much only for the purpose of flaming).

 

[Mama]

And you felt the need to post in three separate threads doing nothing but flaming me even when what I said in those 3 threads were perfectly valid things why?


What made you feel the need to flame me in a thread where you agree with what I'm saying?


I post a lot. And I only post things I'm convinced is true (hence, me being right). Not surprisingly, I also happen to be right the majority of the time because of the aforementioned penchant for always having facts to back my arguments up.

I never argue things ardently if I only think I'm right. I argue thing ardently if I'm convinced I'm right through various means (established fact, empirical evidence, personal experience, etc.).


A lot of people (particularly on these boards and lately) do it without facts to back themselves up. Most people argue only opinions that cannot be substantiated even in the fact of evidence that proves the opposite of what they argue.

I don't see you flaming any of them.


No I don't. I have actually admitted to being wrong on a few occasions in the past couple of weeks. Of course I think I'm right when I argue things ardently. Especially when for the majority of the times, no one will be able to refute my arguements.


I have. If you'd bothered to read everything, you'd see that.


Quote me from 5 separate threads where I'm ardently arguing pure opinion (or at least "heavily opinionated stuff") with an attitude that makes it clear that I believe myself to be right and that everyone else is wrong and stupid. Really, quote 5 and I'll give you 50 bucks.

What threads have you been reading, anyway? I haven't actually argued the future of Brawl for weeks. If you're talking about threads in which I point out facts about Brawl's current metagame and where I point out that the game is a dumbed down and highly intuitive version of Melee and as such, not much hidden depth that hasn't already been found will be found in the future unless they're glitches, then I usually don't argue that as if I'm right and everyone's wrong.

Because it's just an opinion based on fact. Reading comphrehension is very important. And reading what you want to into people's posts because it suits you is very, very bad.

Still, 50 bucks. Offer stands.


Stop calling me "sweetheart" and "honey". I'm not a woman and if I were, I'd be even more offended.

Or are you doing it because you know I'm a man and gay and therefore think it's OK? Even if I were a straight man, it'd be offensive. Stop... now.

Yeah, that's the difference between us two. I flame (and I rarely do it) only when I feel the user I'm flaming has gone past the point of even a smidgeon of intelligence and that he's offended me repeatedly. And I also accompany my flames with meaningful discussion (I never post just to flame). And surprise, surprise, not a single infraction insofar (I have one infraction, but it wasn't for flaming or my attitude or posting history, it was because I quasi-spammed in a thread by quoting a Facepalm-collage and telling others to do it as well in response to a really stupid thread).

You'd think that if my attitude was so bad and my posting history so unsavoury, the Mods would've hit me with at least a few infractions for it. I guess they just love me too much or something.


Really? Because that's not the impression I got from your highly inflammatory posts which consisted of 95% flaming and 5% chatter (in other words, posts that were written specifically and pretty much only for the purpose of flaming).

If you say so dearie. As I said before, when a person is so set in their beliefs its pretty hard to refute anything. They dodge countering evidence with their own logic and are convinced its right. People like that just can't be dealt with as easy as other stupider people. Its the smart people that can be the stupidest.

My philosophy is you attract more flies with honey (than a fly swatter) so when I'm arguing with someone, I'll say things like that because it gets under their skin. It really pisses a lot of people off. Because I realize that this is the internet though, I'm not affected by the words of others which is what enables me to behave in such a detached manner. I'm not going to argue with you anymore about the future of Brawl because you're convinced you're right no matter what. I am going to just let you do what you do. Also when theres a thread started by one person who is wrong and simply ignorant, I don't flame him for being so. I try to understand his view. I flame the stupid people and the smart stupid people. Often times when I do its the end of a debate because I take all the arguments and address them in one post. When I agree with your view but still criticize you thats because I disapprove of the manner in which you went about it. I do that to everyone, but lately I've only been in the tactical discussion and nothing else and I've been bumping into you a lot.

Lastly, I knew you were a dude. Didn't know you were a gay dude though. I'm a guy also. (Straight) I just understand people pretty well and therefore know what gets under people's skin. I may one of the only people here that flames with a clear head too.

But anyhoo I'ma do me, you do you. Just think about the way you post before you post if my responses upset you so much xD.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Funny, still no sign of any kind of apology.

Or a real quote of me doing anything inherently bad by your definition.

 

[cultofrubik]

You can combo in Brawl. It just requires a lot of forcing your opponent into doing....[this].

 

[Mama]

poop

So sorry I offended you Yuna, no joke.

I assumed you simply didn't want one what with the whole "too little too late" part at the bottom of your post. I'd also go around and quote all the things I deem unfit but theres really no use in doing that now is there? Its all opinionated. No need to fill this thread further with longer posts of our little back and forths.

Just know that I offend, flame, and insult everyone who posts in a disagreeable manner regardless of their stance on a particular argument whether they agree with me or against me. Just the way I handle things here.

 

[Yuna]

So do I.

Apparently that makes me deserving of your scorn and flaming. So what does that say about you, really? I have never flamed someone unnecessarily or randomly. I do it only when they've proven themselves complete idiots.

While I use biting sarcasm and a somewhat harsh-ish tone generally, that's hardly something I should get flamed 5 times in one day for.

No, really, Sir. Stop defending your actions and trying to make it look like I was in the wrong here.

 

[Deleted member]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

 

[rushehidaka]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

that about sums up this thread.

anyways, personally I think friendly fire should be OFF. this way you can get some sick combos in. certain people keep QQing about how there is a 4th player, but the purpose of combos is NOT to have both players wail on a poor lone enemy, but to set up attacks and to combine both characters strengths.

for instance, your team is zamus and ike vs 2 marths. zamus starts dashing towards them and ike prepares his grand viper... ike lands his up-smash and sends someone flying (the other is dodging it), then zamus jumps and hits them with a bair, nair, or uair. Both ike and samus attack the other guy on the ground while the first one is recovering, and obliterate him. it's not an amazing combo, but it was enough teamwork to mess someone up! and this JUST happened today on wifi with some random! =]

2v1's exist and a good team will create opportunities to 2v1 in a match, PERIOD. "QQ there is a 4th player QQ"

the BIG question is... if we allow FS's, do we turn on team healer as well?

 

[Mama]

So do I.

Apparently that makes me deserving of your scorn and flaming. So what does that say about you, really? I have never flamed someone unnecessarily or randomly. I do it only when they've proven themselves complete idiots.

While I use biting sarcasm and a somewhat harsh-ish tone generally, that's hardly something I should get flamed 5 times in one day for.

No, really, Sir. Stop defending your actions and trying to make it look like I was in the wrong here.

I do it because I can. Don't need a reason to because I am me. Take that as you will. *end of discussion*

that about sums up this thread.

anyways, personally I think friendly fire should be OFF. this way you can get some sick combos in. certain people keep QQing about how there is a 4th player, but the purpose of combos is NOT to have both players wail on a poor lone enemy, but to set up attacks and to combine both characters strengths.

for instance, your team is zamus and ike vs 2 marths. zamus starts dashing towards them and ike prepares his grand viper... ike lands his up-smash and sends someone flying (the other is dodging it), then zamus jumps and hits them with a bair, nair, or uair. Both ike and samus attack the other guy on the ground while the first one is recovering, and obliterate him. it's not an amazing combo, but it was enough teamwork to mess someone up! and this JUST happened today on wifi with some random! =]

2v1's exist and a good team will create opportunities to 2v1 in a match, PERIOD. "QQ there is a 4th player QQ"

the BIG question is... if we allow FS's, do we turn on team healer as well?

I don't think friendly fire should be turned off for a number of reasons. The main reason being that characters like Ike should learn control and timing of their attacks other wise you'll get things like Ike and Ike teams wreaking havoc with reckless abandon, not having to worry about where they swing their swords. It takes more skill not to hit someone than to hit someone in a team fight. Another reason being, you can have a match where your team mate is trying to recover and loses his up. You jump out and hit him and he gets his up B back and can make it back. Or you could shoot him with an arrow or throw something at him etc etc.

I agree that you can do some pretty awesome combos in a team match though. I've done it/seen it numerous times. I've played loads of team matches since the game came out. However I don't think that it will eclipse 1 on 1 fights in Brawl or Melee but I do think that Brawl team matches may be a lot better than Melee team matches. And regardless of where the 4th person is, these combos are still possible and waiting to happen. In most cases it just takes communication. "Get rid of X" or "double team X". And one team member gets someone out of the other team member sets up the other enemy for a beat down.

 

[Taymond]

I do it because I can. Don't need a reason to because I am me. Take that as you will. *end of discussion*

Need a hand off your high horse?

I honestly can't think of a more conceited, inherently flawed philosophy than this. Do you really not think there's a problem with someone doing something just because they can? What kind of world would you prefer? Do you believe in a system of morals?

I don't normally have many problems with your posts in general. Sometimes you chime in when it's not particularly necessary, but other than possibly disagreeing on point of view, i rarely have problems with you or your posts. But I'd be hard pressed to find a more arrogant quote on these forums, frankly. For a regular defender of the downtrodden here, that's disappointing.

 

[Mama]

Need a hand off your high horse?

I honestly can't think of a more conceited, inherently flawed philosophy than this. Do you really not think there's a problem with someone doing something just because they can? What kind of world would you prefer? Do you believe in a system of morals?

I don't normally have many problems with your posts in general. Sometimes you chime in when it's not particularly necessary, but other than possibly disagreeing on point of view, i rarely have problems with you or your posts. But I'd be hard pressed to find a more arrogant quote on these forums, frankly. For a regular defender of the downtrodden here, that's disappointing.

Well my friend this is not real life. Its an internet forum. Anonymity + social interactions = a sense of freedom from such moral ties we are normally bound to. By adopting this manner of thinking I've simply enabled myself to detach from arguments, flames, personal attacks, debates, stupid people etc.

As I said, take it as you will. Words are only as powerful as what you put into them. If I were in your position I simply would have saw my arrogance as ignored it as the comment of some jack *** with a superiority complex. People do things because they have the ability to do so. Is what I was saying. Some people do things for a reason. I can do things for no reason and simply follow my first instinct. Is also what I was saying "because I am me".

But don't let this post disappoint you Taymond. Aside from my obvious dark side of detachment, I'm still the same old me. I simply reduce myself to a, cold, analytical poster when arguments get out of hand. If I had done so earlier it probably would have saved Yuna a lot of trouble >.>

 

[Taymond]

You don't reduce yourself to anything resembling analytical, you reduce yourself to some moron whose opinion isn't worth anyone's time. That's not, in any way, something to be proud of. Just because we can't see each other's faces doesn't mean the rules of social interactions shouldn't apply.

You condescend just for the hell of it. My bad, I guess. Nevermind the suggestions of respect I mentioned before.

 

[Mama]

You don't reduce yourself to anything resembling analytical, you reduce yourself to some moron whose opinion isn't worth anyone's time. That's not, in any way, something to be proud of. Just because we can't see each other's faces doesn't mean the rules of social interactions shouldn't apply.

You condescend just for the hell of it. My bad, I guess. Nevermind the suggestions of respect I mentioned before.

If you say so. Everyone has a right to their own opinions.

 

[Yuna]

that about sums up this thread.

anyways, personally I think friendly fire should be OFF. this way you can get some sick combos in. certain people keep QQing about how there is a 4th player, but the purpose of combos is NOT to have both players wail on a poor lone enemy, but to set up attacks and to combine both characters strengths.

Say hello to projectile spamming teams which will be almost imposible to approach.