"Casual Style" Tournament Rules Proposal

[-Wolfy-]

It's easier to get people that are willing to play the game at its basis competitively than it is to get people to play with random levels with items on. I'm not a fan of the whole feud, although I will say that it seems like there is at least as much, if not more hate from the casual players for the competitive players. Need proff? Half of the smash vids on youtube have ridiculous comments like "You guys are playing wrong" as well as the classic "WDing is a glitch, you guys are ruining the game. Sure there are things about items that add levels of difficulty like randofu says, but they also give players a gigantic crutch. I hate to be a broken record but anyone can get lucky in a non metagame items on match once and a while, but it doesn't happen when you are actually competing at the peak of play.

We play the way we want to,

casuals play the way they want to.

The problem with the casuals is that if they try to do tournaments they'll never be able to agree on a rule set. We play with the rulesets we do because of trial and error, determining what people like and dont like, and what makes for a fair test of someones ability. We're a pretty tight knit group as far as rule goes and therefore have a pretty efficient tournament scene, but casual games will face the years of evolution that led to the "generation" of competitive players there are now. I never started playing smash to become competitive at it. It took playing, progression, and the discovery of how fun it is when played at the competitive level. I really think the whole feud is just a battled of generations. The new generation of smashers just haven't come into their own, and I bet after some time, they will, and this whole thing will die down again.

Sorry if I was incoherent at points. I've been thinking about this issue lately and I just kind of thought I'd throw in my two cents..

 

[Sandwich]

I think I'll edit by way of post.

I don't think the casual tournament is wrong. It's just not really, I don't know how to put this. Maybe this could be run, but not as the main tournament. I'm curious how this work work with doubles, because best of 10 is really a stretch for singles competition in any sort of ruleset.

 

[Binx]

If items weren't as random I am sure it would be fine, however they are very random and very imbalanced in a lot of situations, I used to play with items too, every now and again I see a beginner playing smash as I walk by a game crazy and I go ahead and play against them, I let them choose the rules because I know I will win and it doesnt matter and there is no point in comboing them accross the entire stage and having them quit after one game. However every tournament I have been to, even game crazy ones for noobs were no item tournaments, MOST casual players that want to get good and compete do so without the use of items.

I think items are for fun only and do not belong in the competetive game, I disagree that it narrows the game it just changes it.

 

[overthere]

Wolverine has a point people can play "casually" or "tournamently", whichever they prefer, and no method is "right". This is a game, people, not a question of morality!

But I still see many posts saying, "This idea is stupid." This tournament idea has every validity as the ideas that make up the tournaments as we know them now. If you don't like the idea, don't play it! Just like if you don't like Smash Bros, don't play it! I'm not going to argue with you.

 

[Sliq]

A star rod (or any other bludgeoning item) replaces your dash attack, jab, ftilt, and fsmash with four different uses of it, and your grab with just throwing/dropping it. You can still u/dtilt/smash, and use all 5 aerials. It actually gives you more options in the air, as you now have the ability to drop it with no startup/cooldown lag, or just throw it in all four directions. Or bomb jump of it with Samus ^_^

For some reason, I confused my self. I thought that when you try to do aerials you throw the item, but that only applies to "throw" items like Pokeballs and such.

@_@

My mistake. I feel so silly now.

"Don't anybody look at me, I'm a moron."

Gotta love Brian Regan...YOU TOO...

 

[ihavespaceblondes]

No worries. IMO the items like that (beam sword, star rod, fan) actually add to the depth of the game while they're being used, as it increases the game knowledge required. You now have to be familiar with each one's range/speed/combo ability on all 4 attacks for all 26 characters, as well as the various ways you can throw/drop them to combo into or from an aerial. Sadly, there's no way to get them on the stage without really hurting the gameplay. Well, except for Peach pulling a beamsword. I had an amazingly fun duel with DoH in a friendly at FC when he pulled one XFD.

 

[Sliq]

No worries. IMO the items like that (beam sword, star rod, fan) actually add to the depth of the game while they're being used, as it increases the game knowledge required. You now have to be familiar with each one's range/speed/combo ability on all 4 attacks for all 26 characters, as well as the various ways you can throw/drop them to combo into or from an aerial. Sadly, there's no way to get them on the stage without really hurting the gameplay. Well, except for Peach pulling a beamsword. I had an amazingly fun duel with DoH in a friendly at FC when he pulled one XFD.

I can see how "battle" items would be beneficial, but I would prefer if they had preset spawn points, and a preset timer for when stuff spawned ala FPS, or at least like, display a ghost image of the item before it spawns so that people could fight to own the area where the item will spawn.

The randomness of the spawns (coupled with EXPLOSIONS) sort of put that idea off somewhat.

 

[Junpappy]

Samus becomes broken with her recovery once you get a Mr. Saturn...

 

[Yoshi'stheBombers7]

Ummmmm...
If you actually did this, I wouldn't attend.
Sorry, but it's too random.

It's like this: random, dumb, spontaneous (another word for random), dumb, luck, dumb, no skill, dumb, and finally...dumb.

Play it with your friends or something, but it shows no skill, nor does it help you to smash any better than you are(unless your playing by your rules, only to become better at your own game). In a tournament, items are off for the random explosions, the great advantage (disadvantage) when you get one, and because there is no skill. It's like drawing cards off a top of a deck, hoping you get the queen of spades. It's nonsense. You can play like that, but if you ask me, it's luck. Pure luck.

 

[-Wolfy-]

Wow, I like when we make some ground on the argument and then people like Yoshi'sthebombers7 come and put us back to square one lol.

 

[AvariceX]

The only things I would change in the OP's proposal are having items at Normal frequency and not having random characters; basically just playing the default settings. I see nothing wrong with proposing a casual style tournament: If you don't like it, you don't have to play in it. Everyone can use a break from the norm every now and then though.

 

[Randofu]

This is somewhat unrelated; I just wanted to say that I probably would be considering getting into the competitive Smash scene if it weren't for the fact that Brawl was coming out so soon. It just feels like a waste to put much more effort into Melee (of course, I'll keep playing it anyway until Brawl's here). I hope that something like what I've suggested in this thread might be possible with Brawl, and I might be more willing to try starting a tournament when that comes out.

Also, I learned how to do a lot of the AT's last night. That is, I knew how to do them before, but I got the timing down. I practiced in training mode against my boyfriend, and I could tell that I was clearly playing better than he was (I was Bowser and he was Ganon, and I was still clearing him far more often than he'd clear me). Then our friend came over and we turned on items, and all of my new AT's went to hell. My boyfriend is extremely good at using items (which has made me pretty good at defending against them). When items are on, I'd say the odds are in his favor usually. When items are off, I'd say they're in mine.

Of course, this could all be meaningless since I was using Bowser. I do love an underdog though.

 

[Puffer]

Of course, this could all be meaningless since I was using Bowser. I do love an underdog though.

Nothing wrong with playing the underdog - that way you'll know you're getting a good challenge pretty much every time you play an opponent that's a different character. Plus, when you beat the "high-tiers" with a lower-tiered character, you can feel extra good, since you know that the odds were essentially stacked against you from the beginning. Depending on how you like to practice and apply yourself, you may even learn quicker with a lower-tier than with a higher-tier...usually when you're learning with lower-tiers, you'll take a ton of losses to other characters before you actually start to settle into the game and understand what it's really all about. If you're trying to learn, though, then losing is an important part of the process.

And, on the subject of items, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Most Smashers nowadays tend to write off anything that's not listed as "neutral" in the Tournament rules as being "too much luck" or "newbish." I think it's important for people to realize that Smash was NOT created to be a hardcore competitive game - it was created to be played on all the different stages, with all the different items and all the different characters. Of course, competitively, most people prefer that items be left out so they can concentrate on honing their character-to-character skills. But think about this: wouldn't including items simply provide yet another area of play to hone your skill on? People could not only become proficient at using characters and their respective techniques, but also at using items and learning how to manipulate them in certain situations. Essentially, you'd be adding more depth to the game, even if you were simultaneously adding a bit more luck...but what's a bit more luck? Even within the tournament rules, there's still a luck factor, although it's usually glossed over in most Smash discussions. Items would expand the list of things you have to focus on when playing a game, thus adding more depth and more strategy to every game. Perhaps people are just afraid of having to master the usage of all the items in the game, so they decide to conveniently label it as "luck" and ignore it. For learning a character, it's better just to focus on that character without items. However, once you've mastered the character, why not add even more to focus on?

 

[Adi]

It's not like we created the standard tourney ruleset out of the blue. Indeed the first few smash tournies did include items, and we empirically concluded that they're detrimental to competitive play, and accordingly took them out.

We don't need to expand our horizons, we've been there and done that.

 

[slacker!]

It's not like we created the standard tourney ruleset out of the blue. Indeed the first few smash tournies did include items, and we empirically concluded that they're detrimental to competitive play, and accordingly took them out.

We don't need to expand our horizons, we've been there and done that.

QFT. Seriously.

 

[Tank McCannon]

I don't like gambling, so in check, I don't like this set up at all.

But if this is what it takes to get some people to stop complaining about the competitive scene, more power to you.

I'm just happy you're actually putting a new idea out there for yourself and others like you instead of just complaining and wanting competitive smashers to change for everyone. So yeah, you rock.

 

[Puffer]

It's not like we created the standard tourney ruleset out of the blue. Indeed the first few smash tournies did include items, and we empirically concluded that they're detrimental to competitive play, and accordingly took them out.

We don't need to expand our horizons, we've been there and done that.

I realize that...I'm not saying that the existing tournament rules were created arbitrarily. I myself am in favor of leaving items out when a competitive match is in question; however, this does not mean that I'm against the concept of items themselves. I think that the Smash community would benefit a lot from "expanding their horizons", as you put it. Not just with adding items, but with adding other stages. It cannot be denied that the earlier Smash tournaments had one aspect that those today don't have - items. Whether or not you think that's good or bad is purely up to you; I'm just saying that the MORE you add into the game, the MORE there is for you to apply your "skill" to. People treat items like they're some sort of taboo drug - like they'll instantly corrupt an otherwise "fair" match into one that's hopelessly luck-ridden. Not true. This comes mainly from the precedent that's been established by the Smash community and the unwillingness to actually experiment further with them.

In other words, where do you draw the line for a "fair" match? I could argue that some of the stages allowed in tournament play are "unfair." I could say that Pokemon Stadium introduces too much luck into the match because one player may be benefited with a scene change while another is crippled by it (or at least put in an undesirable location). I could say that Yoshi's Story is an unfair stage because that little cloud can save one player while failing to save another player. Yet, they allow these stages in tournaments, so clearly, "they" are willing to allow some degree of luck. Again, where do you draw that line? You can make an argument for and against EVERY aspect of this game - items, stages, stock limit, time limit...the list goes on. Just because the community (whoever it consisted of way back when) decided that items shouldn't be used doesn't mean they're "detrimental" to competitive play. Along the same line, just because certain stages are considered "neutral" by the community doesn't mean that they are actually, truly neutral. Granted, Smash is one of those games that has lots of potential "luck" aspects in it...instead of trying to twist things into "neutral" and "lucky" categories, why not just embrace them all and apply our skill to ALL of them?

 

[Dark Sonic]

I could say that Pokemon Stadium introduces too much luck into the match because one player may be benefited with a scene change while another is crippled by it (or at least put in an undesirable location). I could say that Yoshi's Story is an unfair stage because that little cloud can save one player while failing to save another player.

Actually, both of those things run on a timer, so it's completely fair. Both players have access to the information before it happens. It's true that the actual order of transformations on pokemon stadium are random, but the screen in the back tells you what it's going to change to before it happens. That cloud on Yoshi's story also stays out on one side for 5 seconds, goes back into the stage for 5 seconds, and then comes out the other side. It's fair because you can predict what's going to happen, and position yourself accordingly.

The majority of banned stages are banned because they would limit your options in tournament play. Stages that have a "cicular" structure are automatically banned because a faster character can simply get a small percentage lead and run away for the rest of the match. Stages that have random movements (brinstar depths, icicle mountain) are banned because they randomly give one person an advantage over the other. Stages with a natural divider (Vennom and Princess Peach's Castle) are banned because it forces the losing player to approach, but at the same time gives the advantage to the defending opponent. The one approaching almost always takes more damage than the defender just because of the dificulty of approaching. Corneria seems to be an exception because it's not that hard for you opponent to simply jump over the fin and out of range for your attacks. Then we've got stages with walk off edges banned because of Fox's waveshining and certain character's back throws (Pikachu).

We banned items and stages because we want to minimize the luck involved. That's because tournaments are competative settings that focus on the skill of the players. Yes, it does take skill to use items effectively, but the fact of the matter is that one player is unfairly given a potential advantage over the other player because an item spawned close to him. It doesn't matter that he may not be able to use it right, what matters is that he was given the opportunity for no particular reason, while his opponent wasn't. Anything that takes away from the fairness of the match (anything that gives one player an advantage that neither player can predict) should be removed whenever possible, for the sake of competition.

 

[-Wolfy-]

This isn't a casual rule set. Medium would probably suffice for items if it was just casual. 10 matches seems excessive for casual as most series in anything are best of's ranging from like 3 to 7.

I'm not against this, so don't think I'm just knocking it because
i favor a competitive ruleset.

And man, haven't heard it any better Adi.

The casual vs competitive has become close to the tier wars.

In my oppinion this is just like the start of melee and the coast dispute on rules.
The new generation of casual games like the premise now, but soon they'll probably come into their own and realize that we weren't being demanding, they'll learn about camping tactics and gravitate towards a competitive ruleset. I'm not worried about this whole two generation issue at all.

 

[Puffer]

Actually, both of those things run on a timer, so it's completely fair. Both players have access to the information before it happens. It's true that the actual order of transformations on pokemon stadium are random, but the screen in the back tells you what it's going to change to before it happens. That cloud on Yoshi's story also stays out on one side for 5 seconds, goes back into the stage for 5 seconds, and then comes out the other side. It's fair because you can predict what's going to happen, and position yourself accordingly.

So... because they run on a "timer", they're "fair"? That's what it takes to make something "fair"? Basically, you're saying that since we're given the ability to know when a given change on Pokemon stadium is going to happen that it automatically becomes "fair"? Does this change the fact that one player can end up on an "advantageous" piece of terrain while the other can find him/herself on a "disadvantageous" one? Does this change the fact that the stage changes still actively AFFECT the match, even IF both players can predict them? Of course not. What counts is that it's THERE; it exists, and it could therefore be considered a hinderance to the match. Or, on the other hand, it could be considered a way to add depth to the game, just like items/other stages.

As for the cloud on Yoshi's story...well, let's just say I enjoy hearing people's explanations for why this is "fair." So, because you can SEE the cloud and KNOW where it's going to end up, it's fair, right? That means that, as long as you can see that cloud and know where it's going to be, it won't desert you or let you fall to your death, right? No, not at all. I could grow a third eye on my head that could watch that cloud for me the entire game, and I'd know EXACTLY where it was at all times, and where it was about to be. Then, a funny thing happens: Let's say me and my opponent are duking it out around the center of the stage, and we jump into the air and hit each other simultaneously (or close to it) with our neutral airs. Being at high percentages, we go flying to our respective opposite sides of the screen. Remember, I know EXACTLY where that cloud is, and as I'm using my up-B to return to the stage, I KNOW that it is now on my opponent's side. Can I do anything about it? No. As my character falls to his/her death, I have the innate pleasure of seeing my opponent's character land on that soft, white cloud and return safely to the stage. (And he wasn't even WATCHING that cloud like I was....awww). So, in other words: No matter how much you watch that cloud, no matter how much you KNOW where it'll be, all of that gets tossed out of the window as soon as you're actually hit. Because then, like I said with the Pokemon Stadium stage, it DOESN'T MATTER that you know what that aspect of the stage will do. What counts is that the cloud is THERE and you can do NOTHING to stop it from "deserting" you and "aiding" your opponent. Or vice versa. Watch the cloud all you want. Try to "position yourself accordingly", as you say. Then keep right on watching, after you're hit, as the cloud saves your opponent from what would have otherwise been his/her death. Nice, huh?

The majority of banned stages are banned because they would limit your options in tournament play. Stages that have a "cicular" structure are automatically banned because a faster character can simply get a small percentage lead and run away for the rest of the match. Stages that have random movements (brinstar depths, icicle mountain) are banned because they randomly give one person an advantage over the other. Stages with a natural divider (Vennom and Princess Peach's Castle) are banned because it forces the losing player to approach, but at the same time gives the advantage to the defending opponent. The one approaching almost always takes more damage than the defender just because of the dificulty of approaching. Corneria seems to be an exception because it's not that hard for you opponent to simply jump over the fin and out of range for your attacks. Then we've got stages with walk off edges banned because of Fox's waveshining and certain character's back throws (Pikachu).

"Limit your options in tournament play?" Again, what's your criteria? Some people might view it as limiting; others might say expanding. Perhaps some people view "natural dividers" as strategic elements that create added motivation to gain a certain piece of ground. Stages with "circular" structures allow smaller characters to "run away" after scoring hits? Well, what about other stages? So Fox, Falco, and Sheik can't use evasive techniques on Final Destination? Battlefield? Pokemon Stadium? Yes, they can. It may not be as easy to do, but the same thing still applies. I could say that you shouldn't LET your opponent get a percentage lead on you...after all, "Don't get hit" has a lot of truth to it. And can't Fox still shinespike/waveshine people to death on other stages? Again, it's more difficult, but it can still be done.

For the most part, however, I'd say that the vast majority of the banned stages have a good reason to be banned, like you said. Yes, they give certain characters more of a chance at winning in certain situations (but, aren't the characters ALREADY imbalanced?) and thus create a "lop-sided" match for both players. I guess you could argue that both players should know the map well enough and be proficient enough in movement to be able to make full use of its features so that there wouldn't be an "underdog" in terms of location, but I think that'd be expecting a tad too much from Smash players.

We banned items and stages because we want to minimize the luck involved. That's because tournaments are competative settings that focus on the skill of the players. Yes, it does take skill to use items effectively, but the fact of the matter is that one player is unfairly given a potential advantage over the other player because an item spawned close to him. It doesn't matter that he may not be able to use it right, what matters is that he was given the opportunity for no particular reason, while his opponent wasn't. Anything that takes away from the fairness of the match (anything that gives one player an advantage that neither player can predict) should be removed whenever possible, for the sake of competition.

Potential advantage...you mean like the cloud just HAPPENING to be near one player over the other? So something is unfair when it's "anything that gives one player an advantage that neither player can predict"? What about when you CAN predict the advantage, but can't actually DO anything about it? Back to the cloud example, it's quite hard to DO something about that cloud when you're flying through the air, even if you KNEW where the cloud was for the entire match. I don't think knowing in this case is as valuable as some people claim it to be.

And for those of you who embrace that whole "play to win" policy, items should fit right in with your beliefs on Smash. "An explosive capsule appeared on you and killed you? You scrub! You should have DIed that thing, teched into the ground and saved yourself! Stop johnning! And so WHAT if a hammer appeared right in my hands? You know how to avoid it! Don't whine so much!" ....etc etc etc. Basically, I could apply the modern "play-to-win" concept to items. As misleading as this concept is (winning shouldn't be your focus; learning should. Unless you're playing for money...), it can still help explain how players could ADAPT to the addition of items and learn to integrate them into Smash games. It would take some work, just like learning to ledge-tech or DI takes work, but it could be done. Furthermore, it would add more depth to the game and allow people to start applying their skill on more aspects of the game.

 

[Dark Sonic]

So... because they run on a "timer", they're "fair"? That's what it takes to make something "fair"? Basically, you're saying that since we're given the ability to know when a given change on Pokemon stadium is going to happen that it automatically becomes "fair"?

Yes, that does make it fair. Because both players become aware of the stage change and actively position themselves in a more advantageous spot. A stage advantage itself is fine on it's own. It's no different than positioning yourself in the bottom platform of battlefield and keeping your opponent above you.

As for the cloud on Yoshi's story...well, let's just say I enjoy hearing people's explanations for why this is "fair." So, because you can SEE the cloud and KNOW where it's going to end up, it's fair, right? That means that, as long as you can see that cloud and know where it's going to be, it won't desert you or let you fall to your death, right? No, not at all.

No, it's because you can predict that the cloud is going to be on the opponent's side before it actually comes out. You can time your recovery to land on the cloud as soon as it comes out by simply paying attention to the time limit above your head.

"Limit your options in tournament play?" Again, what's your criteria? Some people might view it as limiting; others might say expanding. Perhaps some people view "natural dividers" as strategic elements that create added motivation to gain a certain piece of ground. Stages with "circular" structures allow smaller characters to "run away" after scoring hits? Well, what about other stages? So Fox, Falco, and Sheik can't use evasive techniques on Final Destination? Battlefield? Pokemon Stadium? Yes, they can. It may not be as easy to do, but the same thing still applies. I could say that you shouldn't LET your opponent get a percentage lead on you...after all, "Don't get hit" has a lot of truth to it. And can't Fox still shinespike/waveshine people to death on other stages? Again, it's more difficult, but it can still be done.

A natural divider in itself is not a game breaking flaw, but one in which the defending character has just as much or more manuverability than the attacking character can be an insurmountable advantage. Lets say that Marth decides to stay right next to the large fin on Venom and he has a percentage lead. In order to approach you'd have to go over the fin. The only problem is that he can attack you as you approach, and very easily. You'd have to go very high to get over both him and the Fin, but then he'd simply move to the other side of the fin and you'd start all over again.

On stages that aren't circular than it is assumed that it is actually possible to catch an opponent. That isn't the case with stages like Hyrule temple and Termina Bay, where it is litterally impossible to catch the opponent because they are faster than you and never actually have to cross your path. On stages like FD and Battlefield they have to eventually turn around and go back, allowing you to intercept them.

For the most part, however, I'd say that the vast majority of the banned stages have a good reason to be banned, like you said. Yes, they give certain characters more of a chance at winning in certain situations (but, aren't the characters ALREADY imbalanced?) and thus create a "lop-sided" match for both players. I guess you could argue that both players should know the map well enough and be proficient enough in movement to be able to make full use of its features so that there wouldn't be an "underdog" in terms of location, but I think that'd be expecting a tad too much from Smash players.

In the most extreme cases, it's actually impossible to overcome the stage advantage with certain characters. If you opponent counterpicks Hyrule temple and choses Fox, all he has to do is laser you once and run in circles for the rest of the match. The only vaiable character choice for this situation would be Fox. If you ban Fox, then Falco becomes the only choice, and so on. It's much more effective to ban the stage in this situation.

Potential advantage...you mean like the cloud just HAPPENING to be near one player over the other? So something is unfair when it's "anything that gives one player an advantage that neither player can predict"? What about when you CAN predict the advantage, but can't actually DO anything about it? Back to the cloud example, it's quite hard to DO something about that cloud when you're flying through the air, even if you KNEW where the cloud was for the entire match. I don't think knowing in this case is as valuable as some people claim it to be.

But, the cloud doesn't just happen to be there. You could look up at the timer and predict when it will be out next. Knowing the case is everything. If you know the cloud will be on one side in the next 5 seconds, move the fight to the other side if you want to kill your opponent, or move to the side with the cloud if you're on the defensive. If you haven't noticed the cloud until after you knocked your opponent towards it then it's just your poor usage of the stage, not the stage unfairly benifiting your opponent. If you did know the cloud was going to be there, and you still hit your opponent that way, then you've just willingly given your opponent the stage advantage. That would be no different than jumping onto a platform that's right above Marth. You've practially asked them to use part of the stage against you.

And for those of you who embrace that whole "play to win" policy, items should fit right in with your beliefs on Smash. "An explosive capsule appeared on you and killed you? You scrub! You should have DIed that thing, teched into the ground and saved yourself!

At certain percents and positions that's not always an option. In competative play where money is on the line I think it's best to remove that possibility if possible.

Stop johnning! And so WHAT if a hammer appeared right in my hands? You know how to avoid it! Don't whine so much!" ....etc etc etc. Basically, I could apply the modern "play-to-win" concept to items.

So what if a Bomb-omb popped out of no where while you were comboing me and you got killed by it, you shouldn't have attacked me knowing that there was the possibility for something like this to eventually happen.


Do you see my point here? It's not that the items appear, it's where they spawn and more importantly when they spawn. Neither player can plan for something they have now way of knowing will happen, and it's naturally advantageous to one player over the other. I don't care that the hammer is really easy to avoid, it still shouldn't randomly pop up when money is on the line.

As misleading as this concept is (winning shouldn't be your focus; learning should. Unless you're playing for money...), it can still help explain how players could ADAPT to the addition of items and learn to integrate them into Smash games. It would take some work, just like learning to ledge-tech or DI takes work, but it could be done. Furthermore, it would add more depth to the game and allow people to start applying their skill on more aspects of the game.

Winning is your first priority in a competative tournament. If you didn't win, you analyze why you didn't win and try to win next time. I believe that items would never fully be integrated in competative play because there's just no way to predict when and where they will appear. I personally believe it would take away depth from the game because it would on occasion lessen the importance of skill in a match. In competative play we want to get rid of as much randomness as possible, in order to emphasize the importance of skill in this game.

 

[Firebert]

I like the part where characters are chosen at random.

I'll leave this open to see if there actually is any interest in this idea, though keep in mind interest and finding a person who actually wants their tournaments to use such rules, are two different things.

I like this idea. It could be a fun thing to try. I would definitely support it, especially with the characters being chosen at random.

 

[Adi]

Some of the stages indeed have questionable legality. In fact Japan only plays on Final Destination and Dreamland, we are fairly generous concerning banned stages. However using the argument that there is already existing luck on levels does not validate the option of adding more luck into the fray. Competitive play tries to eliminate as much luck as possible. And the neutral stages which do have slight amounts of luck on them are not chosen because of the luck, but because of their unique features which tournament directors believed would be suitable and provide for interesting for competitive play. Items have been PROVEN to simply add a luck factor which was determined unsuitable for competitive play, and moreso than that, an impediment to the fight.

 

[Puffer]

Yes, that does make it fair. Because both players become aware of the stage change and actively position themselves in a more advantageous spot. A stage advantage itself is fine on it's own. It's no different than positioning yourself in the bottom platform of battlefield and keeping your opponent above you.

What you said above is true, except for one small condition: What if you DON'T manage to "position yourself in a more advantageous spot?" You're assuming here that, upon seeing an impending stage change, both players would be able to secure an advantageous spot on the battlefield in a very short amount of time. Especially where certain character match-ups are concerned, this would be very, very difficult. Just like the Venom stage has situations that inherently favor one area, so would the Pokemon Stadium stage favor certain areas. Certain characters (Marth comes to mind) would have a much easier time holding certain pieces of ground on Pokemon Stadium than would others; thus, you can't really "claim an advantageous piece of ground" that easily. I can see where you're coming on it being "fair", however, since even if you can't get the spot you want, you WERE technically forewarned.

No, it's because you can predict that the cloud is going to be on the opponent's side before it actually comes out. You can time your recovery to land on the cloud as soon as it comes out by simply paying attention to the time limit above your head.

I agree that you can effectively predict where the cloud is going to be...however, my question to you is, can you predict where YOU will be in the next 5 - 10 seconds of the game? No, you can't. You can certainly TRY your best to "time your recovery"; however, again, you make this sound like a surefire shot - you will NOT be able to land on the cloud every time because, sometimes, the cloud won't be on your side AT ALL. Most characters can't stay in the air long enough to just wait for the cloud to come and save them; fast-falling characters like Fox and Falco especially would be dead long before it reached them. Again, you can "know the situation" all you want - my point is that you can't know where your character will be relative to the cloud at any future point in the game. Thus, luck still plays a strong factor in who gets saved and who gets dumped.

A natural divider in itself is not a game breaking flaw, but one in which the defending character has just as much or more manuverability than the attacking character can be an insurmountable advantage. Lets say that Marth decides to stay right next to the large fin on Venom and he has a percentage lead. In order to approach you'd have to go over the fin. The only problem is that he can attack you as you approach, and very easily. You'd have to go very high to get over both him and the Fin, but then he'd simply move to the other side of the fin and you'd start all over again.

On stages that aren't circular than it is assumed that it is actually possible to catch an opponent. That isn't the case with stages like Hyrule temple and Termina Bay, where it is litterally impossible to catch the opponent because they are faster than you and never actually have to cross your path. On stages like FD and Battlefield they have to eventually turn around and go back, allowing you to intercept them.


In the most extreme cases, it's actually impossible to overcome the stage advantage with certain characters. If you opponent counterpicks Hyrule temple and choses Fox, all he has to do is laser you once and run in circles for the rest of the match. The only vaiable character choice for this situation would be Fox. If you ban Fox, then Falco becomes the only choice, and so on. It's much more effective to ban the stage in this situation.

Alright...I accept the fact that some stages simply aren't built for serious competitive play.

But, the cloud doesn't just happen to be there. You could look up at the timer and predict when it will be out next. Knowing the case is everything. If you know the cloud will be on one side in the next 5 seconds, move the fight to the other side if you want to kill your opponent, or move to the side with the cloud if you're on the defensive. If you haven't noticed the cloud until after you knocked your opponent towards it then it's just your poor usage of the stage, not the stage unfairly benifiting your opponent. If you did know the cloud was going to be there, and you still hit your opponent that way, then you've just willingly given your opponent the stage advantage. That would be no different than jumping onto a platform that's right above Marth. You've practially asked them to use part of the stage against you.

Again, you're right about being able to predict where the cloud will be in the next few seconds of the game. However, as I said before, you CANNOT do the same with your character. If everyone knew exactly where their character would be relative to the cloud at every future point of the game, then everyone would get saved by the cloud, every time (neglecting the possibility of your opponent knocking/spiking you away from it). But it's not that simple. You can certainly TRY to "move the fight to the other side" when you see the cloud moving towards one side, but whether you'll actually succeed or not is another matter. Your explanation makes it sound simple to "switch sides" on the stage with your opponent and manipulate the situation so that it benefits ONLY you. This is absolutely not the case - as I said before, you can always know where the cloud will be, but you can't always know where your character will be relative to that cloud in the next few seconds of a given game. I don't think anyone truly PLANS on being hit away from the cloud, nor do they plan to have their strategy messed up by their opponent. However, these things do happen, constantly and consistently. They happen so often that it can be assumed that luck plays a large part in who gets that cloud - true, skill plays some part as well, like you said, but luck is still undeniably there. The bottom line is this: anyone can predict where that cloud will be - but NO ONE can predict where THEY will be in the next few seconds.

At certain percents and positions that's not always an option. In competative play where money is on the line I think it's best to remove that possibility if possible.

True - items do not mix well with money and competitive play.

So what if a Bomb-omb popped out of no where while you were comboing me and you got killed by it, you shouldn't have attacked me knowing that there was the possibility for something like this to eventually happen.

By the "playing-to-win" theory, I wouldn't have been killed by the Bomb-omb...I would have DIed the hit, teched to the ground, and returned to the fight. If items were integrated effectively into your game, you would constantly be expecting the possibility of a random explosive item like that - much in the same way that you'd be expecting a chance to jump on the Yoshi's story cloud.

Do you see my point here? It's not that the items appear, it's where they spawn and more importantly when they spawn. Neither player can plan for something they have now way of knowing will happen, and it's naturally advantageous to one player over the other. I don't care that the hammer is really easy to avoid, it still shouldn't randomly pop up when money is on the line.

Yes, when money is on the line, it would not be smart to involve items. I still think it would be worth it for Smashers to start experimenting with item-intensive games and start applying their skills to them.

Winning is your first priority in a competative tournament. If you didn't win, you analyze why you didn't win and try to win next time. I believe that items would never fully be integrated in competative play because there's just no way to predict when and where they will appear. I personally believe it would take away depth from the game because it would on occasion lessen the importance of skill in a match. In competative play we want to get rid of as much randomness as possible, in order to emphasize the importance of skill in this game.

Again, if items were integrated, people would learn (I hope) to be ready to DI/grab/dodge/use items as soon as they appeared. In other words, it could very well become second nature. Whether or not they take away from the depth of the game depends not on items in general but on the specific case - if a match degenerated into both players simply charging for all the items and throwing/using them madly, then yes, the depth would be gone. This could be compared to a normal match where characters simply spam smash attacks or powerful B attacks - relatively no depth. However, if both players were using a MIX of item-based combat and standard character based combat, plus advanced techniques, you would get a healthy hybrid of Smash play that would be very, very interesting to watch and probably even more interesting to play. In this case, it would either add depth or keep it the same, as well as make it a tad livelier.

I will say, though, that at this point item-based matches would not work in competitive gaming because they would introduce more luck into the matches than there already is - which, when money's in the question, would not be as fair. In other words, even if you DI every Bomb-omb that blows up on you, it'd still increase your percent and therefore give the other player an advantage.

 

[-Wolfy-]

And for those of you who embrace that whole "play to win" policy, items should fit right in with your beliefs on Smash. "An explosive capsule appeared on you and killed you? You scrub! You should have DIed that thing, teched into the ground and saved yourself! Stop johnning! And so WHAT if a hammer appeared right in my hands? You know how to avoid it! Don't whine so much!" ....etc etc etc. Basically, I could apply the modern "play-to-win" concept to items. As misleading as this concept is (winning shouldn't be your focus; learning should. Unless you're playing for money...), it can still help explain how players could ADAPT to the addition of items and learn to integrate them into Smash games. It would take some work, just like learning to ledge-tech or DI takes work, but it could be done. Furthermore, it would add more depth to the game and allow people to start applying their skill on more aspects of the game.

You saying that a random 20 odd percent of damage is that same as a cloud the floats around or the terrain at pokemon stadium?

Play to win doesn't apply to this. Maybe, whoever had the most fun wins does?

Your logic is extremely one sided and beligerent, Tell me, do you ever watch any videos on Youtube? Alot of players just wait out the transformations on Pokemon stadium. Stages are banned through years of experience in the people who abuse "cheap" tactics. We never banned stages on a whim. We didn't ban items because we're too scrub-ish to use them. And your "winning shouldn't be your focus; learning should. Unless your playing for money...

We do play for money. And I'd rather earn it than win it in a game of chance where a Joe Schmoe could beat a Mew2king because he was having a lucky time with item spawns. We play with a rule set that makes it as close to completely skill based as possible, while still allowing a bit of depth for counter picking levels, unlike the japanese who are alot more limited than we are. the so called casual players just don't grasp that we DO play for money. we travel to play for money. we practice in the same rule sets and have fun with our friends in the same rule set so we're prepared.

My best analogy would be this;

Imagine you become very interested in Texas Hold'em. You play and you play, you're even considered very good. So good, even, that you decided to go to Vegas and try to win some money. When you get there, they decided that the Texas Hold'em tournament was too boring and wasn't fun enough for the tourist or casual gambler, so they decided to play high stakes Go Fish instead because it is more fun and less competitive and relies less on experience.

Don't get me wrong. I could enjoy something like this if I were bored, but the items on high are my only complaint. Maybe on medium. This is up there with like the Bowser Challenge, Ironman, and other games of the sort. I don't see it catching on as a major event, but people will play like this. We aren't always fox vs fox on final destination, we like to screw around and play all clocks too XD Just not in legit matches.

 

[thesage]

DI'ing a hit you're not expecting is hard to do. Plus you'd have to Smash DI a bomb/exploding capsule in order to have a chance to tech it (usually). Very few people can smash DI regular attacks.

Besides the cloud and the Pokemon Stadium transformations are not game-breaking (cause they aren't permanent). The cloud can both be helpful and hurtful (just because you land on the cloud doesn't mean you make it back to the stage), and if you run out of jumps on YS, you should be dead anyways because the stage boundaries are really small.

Besides isn't this a thread talking about a "casual" rule set tournament? Why are normal tournament rules being discussed. This kind of tournament is basically just going to be a gamble on whether you win or not (with the very high setting for items or not). Why doesn't somebody just host one of these and we can see how it turns out. People need to stop talking about this and just host it.

 

[Puffer]

You saying that a random 20 odd percent of damage is that same as a cloud the floats around or the terrain at pokemon stadium?

Actually, in the case of the cloud, it could potentially be making a difference not in percentage, but in stock...which is an even larger difference. Again, I'm not saying that Pokemon Stadium is a completely "lucky" stage to play on, or that the Yoshi's Island cloud is based completely on luck - my point was only to illustrate that the current tournament rules DO allow for some "luck" to influence matches. If the Smash community is really that serious about playing for money, then they should technically ban ALL stages that have the slightest semblance of luck included (although that would probably mean that Final Destination, Battlefield, and Fountain of Dreams would be the only stages played).

Play to win doesn't apply to this. Maybe, whoever had the most fun wins does?

It depends on how seriously you want to take the "play-to-win" policy - most people would probably only apply it to what they consider to be "serious" matches, which in this case would rule out item matches.

Your logic is extremely one sided and beligerent, Tell me, do you ever watch any videos on Youtube? Alot of players just wait out the transformations on Pokemon stadium. Stages are banned through years of experience in the people who abuse "cheap" tactics. We never banned stages on a whim. We didn't ban items because we're too scrub-ish to use them. And your "winning shouldn't be your focus; learning should. Unless your playing for money...

"Belligerent", eh? Yes, I've watched MANY videos on YouTube of SmashGames - most recently I watched some Gimpyfish videos, and before that I cycled through some PC Chris VS Ken videos. As for people "waiting out" the transformations on Pokemon Stadium, that's their own problem - technically they should be learning to maximize their advantages (or avoid disadvantages) as much as possible, like Sonic_Wave was saying.

We do play for money. And I'd rather earn it than win it in a game of chance where a Joe Schmoe could beat a Mew2king because he was having a lucky time with item spawns. We play with a rule set that makes it as close to completely skill based as possible, while still allowing a bit of depth for counter picking levels, unlike the japanese who are alot more limited than we are. the so called casual players just don't grasp that we DO play for money. we travel to play for money. we practice in the same rule sets and have fun with our friends in the same rule set so we're prepared.

Every match you play is played for money? I don't think so...please keep in mind, I'm NOT saying that item matches should replace current competitive Smash matches. I would not want that. You would not want that. Probably every Smasher with half a head would not want that. However, it WOULD be neat to see people start experimenting more with items and learning to use them well - perhaps, eventually, a "happy medium" would be found with items, to the point where some of them even COULD be used in competitive Smash. The problem is that no one has actually given this a valid try for some time. Items used to be part of competitive Smash, but now people tend to scoff at the very mention of them without even giving it a try. I think that some Smashers should at least try this, on various settings. Try with different types of items and different rates of appearance, and try mastering the usages and techniques of items. Perhaps a whole new area of advanced techniques could arise from the use of items, who knows?

As for a "random Joe Schmoe" beating Mew2King, you KNOW that's an exaggeration. It's not like an item match depends solely upon items...it's not like you're forbidden from showing your character skill when items are on. I'd be willing to bet that Mew2King would be able to thoroughly thrash any normal Smash player in an item match, simply because his own skill would be so much above their's. You CAN dodge Bomb-ombs, you know...

I see where you're coming from on the money aspect, though - I guess it wouldn't be wise to practice any other way then by the current tournament rules, or you might slip out of practice and get rusty.

My best analogy would be this;

Imagine you become very interested in Texas Hold'em. You play and you play, you're even considered very good. So good, even, that you decided to go to Vegas and try to win some money. When you get there, they decided that the Texas Hold'em tournament was too boring and wasn't fun enough for the tourist or casual gambler, so they decided to play high stakes Go Fish instead because it is more fun and less competitive and relies less on experience.

Don't get me wrong. I could enjoy something like this if I were bored, but the items on high are my only complaint. Maybe on medium. This is up there with like the Bowser Challenge, Ironman, and other games of the sort. I don't see it catching on as a major event, but people will play like this. We aren't always fox vs fox on final destination, we like to screw around and play all clocks too XD Just not in legit matches.

I think we could ALL enjoy something like this...essentially, Smash was built to be played with items and with all the stages. Since current tournament rules don't make room for them, though, it's unlikely we'll ever see them in competitive play. It would be nice, too, however, to see that snobbish attitude that a lot of Smashers have towards items go away, since there's nothing really "wrong" with items - they do add more luck, but they also add a great deal of fun. I hope people are having as much fun playing their "money matches" out there in the "competitive" world...

 

[Ixninjax]

Im not sure what you mean puffer, as items WERE experimented with a lot in tourneys. Smash in the west coast for a long time was done with items on, but as time went on (at least a few years) items had been proven in tourneys time and time again that they were to random. And not random joe schmoe tourneys, ppl like ken regularly attended these tourneys.

You may not realize it, but current tournament settings have evolved from casual settings. They evolved from 4 player free for all with items. Items were given their chance for a long time with GOOD smashers, If you did a little research you would know this.

Also, please do not compare how much "fun" the game is when played seriously and not seriously. Fun is completely subjective, playing seriously does not remove the "fun" factor at all. We play with and without items, and we have fun with and without items.

 

[Tank McCannon]

I think we could ALL enjoy something like this...essentially, Smash was built to be played with items and with all the stages. Since current tournament rules don't make room for them, though, it's unlikely we'll ever see them in competitive play. It would be nice, too, however, to see that snobbish attitude that a lot of Smashers have towards items go away, since there's nothing really "wrong" with items - they do add more luck, but they also add a great deal of fun. I hope people are having as much fun playing their "money matches" out there in the "competitive" world...

I hate the "Smash was meant to be played this way" argument. Smash was built to be a fun video game for everyone, so everyone can play the game however they want to. How do I know this? Because we were given many options to use! This is why we have Item Switch. What if instead of starting the game with items like it does, the game started with no items and you had to go into the options to turn items on? Would that mean that the game was meant to be played with no items just because that's how it starts?

If you're going to say that "Well it starts you off with items so that's how it was meant to be played!" forget it. If that's the case, that means that Smash was "built" to be played in two minute time matches, but I never hear anyone complain about four stock eight minute matches.

And it's the same with the "all stages" argument. Yes, we can always pick any one level we want, but we also have the option to take levels out of random. We're using an option that was given to us.

The game gives us options for us to use however we like. The competitive scene chooses to use them a certain way and if people like our way, they're more than welcome to join in. If it's not their style, by all means, do what the topic creator did and propose a new idea for more people like you. But please, don't try to argue that the competitive scene is "wrong" and should change things. We do what we do because we've been playing for years and this is what works best for us.

Yes, items can add fun, this isn't news to us. That's why on our own free time, if we're not playing for money, we'll throw items on here an there if we want to. Yes, I'm a competitive player, but that doesn't stop me from having "all pokeball" battles with my friends for some laughs.

And yes, we do have fun playing money matches. Why else do you think we do it? It's not like it's a chore. It adds a certain thrill to the game. But hey, if that's not for you, that's cool too. Just let us do our thing, and you can do yours.

 

[greenblob]

I'll bet that competitive smashers are having ten times as much fun as you casual smashers.

 

[Tank McCannon]

I'll bet that competitive smashers are having ten times as much fun as you casual smashers.

No one is having more fun than the other.

 

[BigRick]

Today's tournament rules evolved from casual rules.

This topic only tries to travel 6 years back in time...

 

[snoblo]

You make it sound like it's much easier to smash DI a bomb-omb than DI toward the ys cloud. And plus, not very often does the cloud come into play in a regular match anyway.

Yes, when money is on the line, it would not be smart to involve items. I still think it would be worth it for Smashers to start experimenting with item-intensive games and start applying their skills to them.

You realize that the smash community (since the beginning) have been trying to implement items in tournaments for years, and they've decided as a whole that it's best without them.



IF it weren't for exploding capsules/crates, items would have a high chance of still being around, or at least in the pools (like how MLG used to do, if I remember correctly?)

"Belligerent", eh? Yes, I've watched MANY videos on YouTube of SmashGames - most recently I watched some Gimpyfish videos, and before that I cycled through some PC Chris VS Ken videos. As for people "waiting out" the transformations on Pokemon Stadium, that's their own problem - technically they should be learning to maximize their advantages (or avoid disadvantages) as much as possible, like Sonic_Wave was saying.

a lot of the time, they're actually waiting for the opponent to make the first move. In certain places and situations, waiting for the opponent to approach is "maximizing their advantages"

I think we could ALL enjoy something like this...essentially, Smash was built to be played with items and with all the stages. Since current tournament rules don't make room for them, though, it's unlikely we'll ever see them in competitive play. It would be nice, too, however, to see that snobbish attitude that a lot of Smashers have towards items go away, since there's nothing really "wrong" with items - they do add more luck, but they also add a great deal of fun. I hope people are having as much fun playing their "money matches" out there in the "competitive" world...

The main reason you might think we seem snobbish is that it gets annoying when millions (slight exaggeration) of people are asking why items aren't allowed in competitive tournies, and we give them the same answer every single time. Don't take it personally

and yes, people are having lots of fun in competitive play =)

I see where you're coming from on the money aspect, though - I guess it wouldn't be wise to practice any other way then by the current tournament rules, or you might slip out of practice and get rusty.

Alright...I accept the fact that some stages simply aren't built for serious competitive play.

True - items do not mix well with money and competitive play.

 

[HeadISBAgent]

Haha I didn't know those UC Berkeley Bomb Matches were recorded, although it doesn't look like any of our good players (besides SNAP) showed up because I've never heard of MILK or Dan ...don't judge
Anyways, I guess we have a little experience in competitive "casual" play as our typical tournaments will have a singles tournament and one other tournament on rotation (teams, low tier, items on, etc). While turning on items certainly does add a whole new factor of randomness, what I have consistently seen here is that the best players still win (look at DSF and Hugs items matches if you don't believe me haha).

Many casual players believe they can stand toe-to-toe with pros with items on and all the stages set to random. I'll try to give you some reasons as to why this is not true.
1. Stage Awareness-Do many casual players know why stages have been banned? Probably not, but the pros do and they can exploit the stage to give them a decisive advantage. With Fox alone, on most of the banned stages you will find yourself getting waveshined off the stage, getting infinite shined against a wall, or chasing your opponent the whole time while getting laser'd in the face. Yes, items are going to help you a little to interrupt these sequences but when he's doing it to you all 4 stocks expect him to derive more benefit from the items than you.

2. Survivability-When you open up random stages, you will find that pros will achieve prolonged life spans simply from more places to tech. Where you will die from a bomb at 60% and ricocheting off the Mushroom Kingdom I wall a pro will survive the same situation at any % simply by wall teching the impact. In addition, many of the recovery tactics/mindgames still apply when coming back to the stage, with items on it just makes it harder for less skilled players to make it back.

3. Item Awareness-Pros really do know how to implement items into their games, in a much different way thanmost casual players think. When a Home-run Bat drops or a Hammer, usually what I see happening is that a casual player will abandon whatever it is he is doing and rush out to grab the item thus relieving any potential pressure being applied to the other player. Competitive players who play items will typically grab items at appropriate times without exposing themselves ie when the opponent is recovering, camping, coming back from a stock. While it is true that a large number of competitive players aren't very adept with items, when you get to the pro level you see them doing the same ridiculous things with items that they would be doing anyways.

 

[Yoshi'stheBombers7]

No one is having more fun than the other.

That's right. If you want to play your "Casual Way" cause it's "more fun", with all due respect you go right ahead and do that. We'll attend our competitive stuff, while you attend your "Casual Stuff".

 

[HeadISBAgent]

With that said, I do think the Smash community certainly does have a certain dogma against the use of items (which really is more fair than people put it out to be, judging from results that I've seen at other tournaments and personal experience the best players actually DO win)

Here is my suggestion for a more fair items rule set
1. Items on Medium, No invincibility items, No health items
There is a much less chance for you to get randomly knocked out of a combo you're doing on the other character while still being enough of a factor to surprise you every now and then. This factor is mitigated by greater advantages you get the better you are with items.

2. Introduce more stages back into the fold, but still some stages should be banned
Camping is much less of an issue with items on, that said it opens up the possibility for new stages such as Mushroom Kingdoms which help to mitigate random deaths as there are many places to walltech off of. Still stages like Hyrule Temple and that other Brinstar stage should be banned.

3. Character selection, random with a twist
I think random character selection is interesting, but face it, there's only so much you can do in a Fox-Bowser matchup on Yoshi's Island. Instead, I think it would be interesting to have say in a best of 3 match the first round both players double-blind pick their characters as per tradition. In the next round, the characters are chosen at random in a tier that the loser decides and then the loser gets to choose a stage after seeing the characters chosen. (ie loser says "low tier" and they both random till they have low tier characters, and then the loser chooses a stage based off the character he got). Thus the loser still retains a modest counter-picking advantage even if the characters are random.

 

[Midboss]

I don't think the rules need any changes, but I actually really like the idea of some level of random character selection, and also the idea of having item matches every so often, to a lesser extent. Obviously it wouldn't do as well as a serious tournament where people are playing for money, but it'd be fun to enter and, in my opinion fun to watch. After drifting around Youtube a while, I can only watch Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, and Peach so many times before I get extremely bored of them, so the idea of random selection within a set tier (even during one round as HeadISBAgent suggested) sounds like a great idea, to me. Of course, I don't have any experience with actual tournament play, given my situation, but I generally agree with the ruleset, especially under the circumstance that tournaments are generally played for money.

Really, any ruleset that will make it a bit more commonplace to see the rarer characters step onto the battlefield, played by talented players, would be awesome. Even if purely from a spectator entertainment perspective. Before skimming over this topic, I was actually unaware item tournaments or low tier tournaments were even held, so if I can ever start getting out to tourneys I'll have to look into those.

Edit: By "I don't think the rules need any changes..." I'm referring to the commonly accepted standard tourney rules. They've undergone more than enough testing and proven to be the most fair for a serious tournament, and I play by them every so often for fun. Even if they DID somehow "suck the fun out of Smash" like a few would suggest, that wouldn't change the fact that they're the best rules for the setting.

 

[BigRick]

I do not have a thing against items.

I do not have a thing against wacky stages.

However, not being able to choose your character is pure BS.

Let me say it again... PURE BS.

Sorry AZ, but sometimes ppl cross the line.

EDIT: If you wanna see more variety... play Guilty Gear. If you truly like Smash you gotta accept the fact that it's imbalanced.

EDIT2: Also Low Tier tourneys are BS... the most played chars only end up being DK, Link and Luigi: the guys that got ''Low tier'' status because the back room didn't recognize correctly the power of these chars

 

[Midboss]

I'm not a fan of Guilty Gear, so no thank you. I'm not complaining about the imbalances, hell, really I'm not even complaining. I'm just stating my opinion that seeing more variance, even if it's forced, would be fun. And it's just that, an opinion. Same goes for expressing interest in low tier tourneys -- it's the same as wanting to play low tier Pokemon while still having a reasonably level playing field, in which circumstance two players who both share that desire agree to have a UU- or NU-tier battle. The general tone of your post seems fairly coarse, and it's kind of uncalled for, for you to point it in my general direction just because I have interest in tournament styles you don't. Of course, if it wasn't intended that way, I'm sorry for mistaking it.

 

[Gea]

Lol wut? That other tourny wasn't pros.

Try PANDATRATION:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Pandatration+ITEMS&search=Search