[Wii] Super Smash Bros. Brawl Tournament Discussion

Originally Posted by Turbo

If you wana play for just skill, all items off, all stages cept final destination allowed and there you go. Smash is about the levels, and the items, and the big chaotic mess it all makes.

I guess you meant "all stages cept final destination banned".

Anyway, yeah, I think the whole concept of banning is silly. Every tournament you hear about out there is the usual "no items" blather. On one hand it may lend to a more skilled and precise environment, but on the other it just seems kind of... boring. Smash is kind of unique in that it uses items and non-traditional stages, but it's the only game I know of where people insist on removing content.

Once again suggesting that things of this nature can simply be hashed out between the two competing parties before the match. Both fine with any stage? Then any stage goes. Both feel like a certain stage sucks? Then they can agree on which ones to not use. Just putting a ban on certain stuff seems kind of restrictive.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Chaotic

I understand about how banning does feel a bit restrictive on gameplay, but along with it being fun, I at least want the battles to be fair in a sense that it's gonna take 10 minutes to KO one life out of you.

My argument on keeping Temple banned is that slower characters will have some sort of disadvantage with chasing down your opponent. Since we're running this with 4 stock, 8 minutes, I don't want someone getting a win without earning it. I just don't want them camping out the whole time and letting them get their win by just standing there. Pretty much why I'm against using this stage.

Earn your wins, dammit.

I might just be playing Devil's Advocate here, but a win is a win pretty much (unless illegal hax is going on (in which case I don't believe there's anything to worry about here)). If they KO someone and then hightail it for the rest of the match... well, that's their prerogative isn't it?

If both sides agree that they don't want to deal with that, then they can hash it out beforehand. Otherwise... let it be! There's a time and stock limit anyway.

Most amazing jew boots

Sorry if this was mentioned and I missed it, but clarify something for me please:

what determines the makeup of these clans? Is it left up to ourselves to get organized (aka team with whoever you want), or is someone (Chaotic or Slash evidently) going to be splitting people up?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think, for peace of mind, I'd like to avoid any references to smashboards/whatever in the discussion of rules and whatnot. Not that I'm vehemently anti-tourneyfaghardcore brawler, but GFF is GFF and smashboards is smashboards. I mean, death lines? What the hell?

Given that there's already been a fair amount of dissent towards banning stages, it should be apparent that we think a bit differently in regards to some things. We'll do things our ways.

Besides, let's say someone truly is a really lame player. If the community wills it, just blackball 'em from participating. Being exclusive is of course a longstanding GFF tradition.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't see what's so difficult about just going "anything goes, but if players want specific bans/rules/what-have-you they can discuss it before their match." For example, team A and team B are scheduled to fight. Team B haaaaaaates stage Y and asks A if it's okay to skip it if it comes up. A says "that's cool" and the world moves on. I don't see how it gets any more simple than that.

Seriously, you guys keep saying "keep it simple" and all, but you also keep adding (interesting but undoubtedly complicating) ideas like "rule cards" or whatever. Which is it gonna be?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Slash

Because maybe there is a person in Team B who we can call Player Z who wants to play on Stage Y instead of stage X but the rest of the people, Player J, Player K and Player L don't like stage Y because Stage X is a better stage than stage Y while Player Z is extremely good at Stage Y and has a great strategy to use against Team A that want to play on stage X.

Or in other words, we can keep it simple, but make it interesting by adding our little rule cards in...which could make it interesting say one card is Items on high but the only one allowed are bob-ombs

Your example is really very unnecessarily complicated. Last I heard, clan matches were just a series of 1v1s so as long as the two players duking it out can agree, then it's all good.

Also the idea of rule cards adding in a random element seems to contradict all the other tourney-style rules considered (banning certain stages, items on low, etc) for a less random/more fair environment. Or did we get past that?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I imagine people would probably be more receptive to the idea of more tourney-style rules being implemented here if there were actually some kind of worthwhile incentive to winning. "WEEK #1 SMASH CHAMPION" on GFF just doesn't cut it, I guess.

I hope you don't take my comments as being super anti-yadayada negative criticism. I do like ideas like the rule cards, after all. I think I mentioned I was just playing devil's advocate. But yeah, sry.

So... tournament winners = top x seeded players = head of x clans = drafting lower seeded players. Is that how it's going to work?

FELIPE NO

What's the argument against having people just form up their own teams?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I imagine one reason might be the size of the clans. If it works out that there's only 4 per clan and some group has 5 people or some have 3, then there could be an issue of "you need to split up" or "you need to add someone." Kind of like grade school, eh?

But on the other hand, I think everyone could handle that sort of thing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.