A thought on MK Dimensional Cloaking that deserves its own thread...

PEEF! · Jul 17, 2008

OK, so many members of the smash community are trying to figure out what to do with MK's Dimensional Cloaking (so I call it). I have a unique thought that I believe you should consider. I am not very well known on this forum, but please don't question my involvement in the community. I am a moderator on AllisBrawl, and I wrote the new Meta-Knight guide for both AiB and Smashboards. I am not trying to flash some credentials at you to make you listen to me, but I just want you to know I am no scrub.

Anyway, back on topic.

From what I understand there has not been any SSB AT that is 100% hard banned. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a AT that absolutely cannot be used. Tactics can be ABUSED, and after a ref's warning, can cause a forfeit, yes. But just using a tech in regular gameplay is fine. Also, stalls such as peach-bombing can be used in moderation, but ABUSE will lead toforfeits. That judgment will be called by a ref.

The moves used in stalls are not allowed to be used this way, but there is nobody
saying that peach cannot bomb. It is the USAGE that causes problems, not
the move itself.

The thought of this move just sounds broken, but it really is not at all. When using it for approach/mindgames there is NOTHING wrong with that. MK has a thousand better approaches anyway.

This move is absolutely not broken when used as anything other than a stall. As far as approaching, you will be punished majorly. Trying to use the cape attack will end out terribad for you. Most characters can F-smash the lag of that move after he lands it. The only thing it is good for is mindgames. Nobody is really trying to argue this point, but I figured I would just let it make an appearance.

One point that people make is that it is very hard to determine how long someone has done the stall. That is what a ref is for. The ref must give a warning, and so he says "Keep doing that and you will be disqualified". You do it, and you get the DQ. That jugement is completely up to the ref, and we as players must respect that, and do respect that.

Another argument. Even if a time limit was made, what stops them from just coming out of invincibility, attacking once, then going back in. The same loophole applies for every stall. Lets say we put a limit on Peach Bombing. 10 peach bombs in a row and you must return to the map. OK, peach bombs 10 times, returns to the map, jabs once, then returns to peach bombing. This logic is applicable to every stall, Therefore if you ban Dimensional Cloaking because of its stalling abilities, you must ban Peach's bomb, and ban Jigg's Pound. Do they have non-stall uses? Yes. Can they be used to stall? Yes. Same goes for Dimensional Cloaking.

Another point I have heard made: "Meta knight is invincible during his stall. Jiggs and Peach are vulnerable during theirs!" As far as Captain Falcon, or any other non-projectile character is concerned, Jiggs and Peach ARE invincible during their stalls. They have no way of getting to the staller in order to damage them, therefore they are invulnerable for all practical purposes. This is why stalling is banned! Because they can let time run out without being vulnerable to damage.

People are saying "ZOMG THIS MOVE CAN BE USED TO STALL INVINCIBLY FOREVER
AHHH! BAN IT NOWW!" What already know, but are not remembering, is that stalling is banned already! So if someone stalls with it, they lose the game, that simple. Just like if anyone else stalls with any other stall tactic, they will lose the game.

Here is my main example: Jigglypuff is facing Marth on Smashville for instance. Jiggs can fly under the stage and stall perfectly effectively with little to no risk of SD, and little to no risk of being hit. This is called a stall. If abused, and continued after warning, they would forfeit the game. Correct? "ZOMG JIGGLYPUFF CAN UNDERSTAGE STALL SO EFFECTIVELY! LETS BAN HER JUMPS!"

=/

ShadowLink84 · Jul 17, 2008

Unlike Peach bombing monitoring the usage of the infinite dimensional cape is much more difficult.
Considering that a partial ban does not work in this case a full ban is warranted.

The Halloween Captain · Jul 17, 2008

ShadowLink84 said:
Unlike Peach bombing monitoring the usage of the infinite dimensional cape is much more difficult.
Considering that a partial ban does not work in this case a full ban is warranted.

Actually, I kind of agree with the OP. Keep in mind that MK's cape cannot be kept up forever anyway, because it is one of the most physically taxing button combinations in the game.

PEEF! · Jul 17, 2008

ShadowLink84 said:
Unlike Peach bombing monitoring the usage of the infinite dimensional cape is much more difficult.
Considering that a partial ban does not work in this case a full ban is warranted.

That decision is up to the ref. It is very easy to see an monitor. The ref gives a warning, and if the cloaking does not ceace, MK forfeits. That is how it is monitored, and it is not difficult.

BBQ° · Jul 17, 2008

The Halloween Captain said:
Actually, I kind of agree with the OP. Keep in mind that MK's cape cannot be kept up forever anyway, because it is one of the most physically taxing button combinations in the game.

If you've ever played competitive Melee than infinite dimensional cape isn't that bad on the fingers

TwinkleToes · Jul 17, 2008

ShadowLink84 said:
Unlike Peach bombing monitoring the usage of the infinite dimensional cape is much more difficult.
Considering that a partial ban does not work in this case a full ban is warranted.

How so? Is it because it's invisible?
No, but seriously, there's no difference in monitoring either. A stall is a stall.
I know a few tourney runners were dumb enough to ban this before they even tried to see how things would play out. That was a combination of ignorance and pandering to the mobs of whiners who thought for an unexplained reason that this tech made MK "god tier" or some other such nonsense.

FishkeeperTimmay! · Jul 17, 2008

TwinkleToes said:
How so? Is it because it's invisible?
No, but seriously, there's no difference in monitoring either. A stall is a stall.
I know a few tourney runners were dumb enough to ban this before they even tried to see how things would play out. That was a combination of ignorance and pandering to the mobs of whiners who thought for an unexplained reason that this tech made MK "god tier" or some other such nonsense.

Are you freakin' ********? Stalling is obvious. You have to go off the edge, and repeat an action that doesn't do ANYTHING but stall.

Then you get this tactic, where it can be used interchangeably between a Stall or an Approach, depending ENTIRELY on how long you hold it. So, where do you draw the line? How long can you stay invisible before its a stall? 10 Seconds? Then people will stall for 9 seconds, recover well out of range, then reapply for 9 seconds.

Regardless of the time limit you use to impose it, people will work around it, so its just plain easier to ban the tactic and say "You can only use the Down-B's minimum invisibility time."

PEEF! · Jul 17, 2008

FishkeeperTimmay! said:
So, where do you draw the line? How long can you stay invisible before its a stall? 10 Seconds? Then people will stall for 9 seconds, recover well out of range, then reapply for 9 seconds.

Regardless of the time limit you use to impose it, people will work around it, so its just plain easier to ban the tactic and say

That decision is completely up to the ref. He doesnt have any sure rules he has to go by. If he says its stalling, gives a warning, and the other person keeps cloaking, he loses. No time limits. The ref is not limited by a time limit. He can judge it as a stall or not.

acv · Jul 17, 2008

all the points in this thread including the thread itself have been made.anyways some people want it banned because of stalling which is nearly impossible since it requires precise timing and there is always a chance that you mess up,your finger messes up or your controller messes up.others say its broken which isnt since the lag.some scrubs want the whole character banned since they are terribly bad at the game and cant deal with it.

FishkeeperTimmay! · Jul 17, 2008

Rich Wheeler said:
That decision is completely up to the ref. He doesnt have any sure rules he has to go by. If he says its stalling, gives a warning, and the other person keeps cloaking, he loses. No time limits. The ref is not limited by a time limit. He can judge it as a stall or not.

Then you have inconsistent rulings that can easily cause bias. Without clear cut rules, players can argue with each other AND the judge and fairness is thus dramatically reduced. A truly good whiner can get an annoyed/stressed judge to make unfair decisions when there isn't CLEAR CUT rules.

And don't use the "then that judge was a bad judge" argument. Judges are people too and WILL make mistakes and WILL be biased when they are stressed/tired. I've seen it happen before and it will most certainly happen if there isn't a clear cut rule for this technique.

Pearl Floatzel · Jul 17, 2008

FishkeeperTimmay! said:
Then you have inconsistent rulings that can easily cause bias. Without clear cut rules, players can argue with each other AND the judge and fairness is thus dramatically reduced. A truly good whiner can get an annoyed/stressed judge to make unfair decisions when there isn't CLEAR CUT rules.

And don't use the "then that judge was a bad judge" argument. Judges are people too and WILL make mistakes and WILL be biased when they are stressed/tired. I've seen it happen before and it will most certainly happen if there isn't a clear cut rule for this technique.

So? That's how all judges work in games and sports. If the judge is obviously in a bad mood, don't do anything that would be confused with stalling. Even remotely. If they accuse you of stalling, don't argue. Just stop doing what they thought was stalling, even if you think that it's not. They're the boss. Whining is not going to change what they think for the better.

Judges are really the only option, I think. Some arbitrary time limit, as the OP said, will just get manipulated. All other, non-mathematical ways involve a human judge.

And for your earlier post, how are you going to enforce minimum invisibility time? That's just as hard to enforce as anything else. You can't be policing everyone, all the time.

Good point, OP. Have you put this in the official topic, as well? You'll get more feedback that way.

And you said something about Metaknight having a thousand better approaches? Better than invisible invincibility?

Patsie · Jul 17, 2008

Don't mean to be a ****, you brought up some good points, but most, if not all, of them were brought up already under the original topic. I'd go there to keep arguing those points, but I don't think they're new.

PEEF! · Jul 18, 2008

Patsie said:
Don't mean to be a ****, you brought up some good points, but most, if not all, of them were brought up already under the original topic. I'd go there to keep arguing those points, but I don't think they're new.

Well I didnt get anything from them. I guess we have similar thoughts.

Goober · Jul 18, 2008

dude, what the hell kind of tournaments are you going to that have refs?

TwinkleToes · Jul 18, 2008

FishkeeperTimmay! said:
Are you freakin' ********? Stalling is obvious. You have to go off the edge, and repeat an action that doesn't do ANYTHING but stall.

Then you get this tactic, where it can be used interchangeably between a Stall or an Approach, depending ENTIRELY on how long you hold it. So, where do you draw the line? How long can you stay invisible before its a stall? 10 Seconds? Then people will stall for 9 seconds, recover well out of range, then reapply for 9 seconds.

Regardless of the time limit you use to impose it, people will work around it, so its just plain easier to ban the tactic and say "You can only use the Down-B's minimum invisibility time."

1) I like your first statement. STALLING IS OBVIOUS.
2) You do not have to go off an edge to stall. A character like Sonic can stall very effectively against anyone by running away and springing. Now, this COULD be used in non-stall fashion, but if it isn't, it would become rather obvious that it is being used as a stalling tactic as there is a continuous evasion of confrontation.
3) Saying it can be used interchangeably between a stall or an approach is like saying running and jumping can be used interchangeably between a stall or an approach. It is obvious if it is one or the other because as you said STALLING IS OBVIOUS, and as I said you can tell if there is a continuous evasion of confrontation.
4) It's not about how long you hold it for at all, and there is no reason for you to assume that I am using time as a basis for what should or should not be banned. Personally, I draw no distinction between someone stalling for 1 second or 100. Either way it impedes the process of the game. Rather than put it to a test of time, put it to this test: can I stand still and have nothing happen to me? If so, my opponent is probably stalling.

The whole straw-man of "well if you ban it over 10 seconds what about 9 seconds" doesn't mean anything to me. I think restricting a move in that fashion is idiotic and poorly reasoned. I think restricting it altogether is equally idiotic and poorly reasoned (just in a different way).

Lastly, have any of the people voicing this concern actually come up against this problem in tournament play? Why not let it become a problem first so we can see how to deal with it then? Why preemptively ban something based on preconceived notions that are largely unfounded?

I guess the biggest problem I have is that many of you are assuming we have a problem before that has actually been verified. If in the end it turns out dimensional cloaking does indeed make the game less fun no matter how/when it is used, then sure we can ban it altogether. However, I do not see that we've come to that point at all.

Yuna · Jul 18, 2008

Not... yet... another... thread... where... someone... who... hasn't... read... anything... in... the... main... thread... is... spewing... old... tired... arguments...

Come on!

TwinkleToes · Jul 18, 2008

FishkeeperTimmay! said:
Then you have inconsistent rulings that can easily cause bias. Without clear cut rules, players can argue with each other AND the judge and fairness is thus dramatically reduced. A truly good whiner can get an annoyed/stressed judge to make unfair decisions when there isn't CLEAR CUT rules.

And don't use the "then that judge was a bad judge" argument. Judges are people too and WILL make mistakes and WILL be biased when they are stressed/tired. I've seen it happen before and it will most certainly happen if there isn't a clear cut rule for this technique.

Oh what ever. Why not make any backward movement illegal then? After all, how can any flawed human possibly make a fair assessment of whether a retreat is stalling or strategic?

Clear cut rules my foot. There are NO clear cut rules on stalling of the evasive sort. Tell me of one tournament that limited the number of times you could go under a level, or run away from your opponent, or consistently dodge and jump out of harm's way.

Here again you make a presupposition that is completely false. We do not play with absolute and clear rules, there is always some manner of judgment involved. More than that, the very decisions that go into making the rules in the first place are judgments in and of themselves and subject to the exact same bias.

NESSBOUNDER · Jul 18, 2008

Then you have inconsistent rulings that can easily cause bias. Without clear cut rules, players can argue with each other AND the judge and fairness is thus dramatically reduced. A truly good whiner can get an annoyed/stressed judge to make unfair decisions when there isn't CLEAR CUT rules.

And don't use the "then that judge was a bad judge" argument. Judges are people too and WILL make mistakes and WILL be biased when they are stressed/tired. I've seen it happen before and it will most certainly happen if there isn't a clear cut rule for this technique.

I have the perfect suggestion to fix this problem.

We have to make sure that the judges we employ are in a bad mood or not, or if they are liable to bias. If we employ completely fair and happy judges, then there will be no problem.

"But that's impossible" I hear you say. Well perhaps it would be impossible...that is if it weren't for Nintendo's own DS system.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xpSpDXBnlVs

Kokoro scan can.

PEEF! · Jul 18, 2008

FishkeeperTimmay! said:
Then you have inconsistent rulings that can easily cause bias. Without clear cut rules, players can argue with each other AND the judge and fairness is thus dramatically reduced. A truly good whiner can get an annoyed/stressed judge to make unfair decisions when there isn't CLEAR CUT rules.

And don't use the "then that judge was a bad judge" argument. Judges are people too and WILL make mistakes and WILL be biased when they are stressed/tired. I've seen it happen before and it will most certainly happen if there isn't a clear cut rule for this technique.

THERE ISN'T ANY CLEAR CUT RULES ON ANY TYPE OF STALLING RIGHT NOW, But it isnt a problem now is it? Because a ref has proper judgment at the time. Don't bring up the clear cut rules crap when there isn't any clear cut rules on any type of stalling.

Crizthakidd · Jul 18, 2008

lol dont spend 7 mins stalling...

xiferp · Jul 18, 2008

Stalling aside, it's still imba. Invisibility+invincibility+mobility+practically unlimited time?

Neb · Jul 18, 2008

Why not stop complaining about what we already know, and begin to collaborate better ways to deal with this AT? That is, if you really want it. The individuals supporting a ban, have given you the problem, now find ways to control it.

Aesir · Jul 18, 2008

Wow 08 players are dumb.

if you really think this shouldn't be banned then wow I think I lost faith with brawl players ONCE AGAIN.

fkacyan · Jul 18, 2008

Aesir said:
Wow 08 players are dumb.

Correction: Dumb players are dumb.

Not all '08 posters are idiots. Just most of them.

xandeR- · Jul 18, 2008

This post was dumb on AllisBrawl and it's dumb here once again.

It gets banned. End of story.

It gives MK a completely unfair approach method that allows him to attack without warning.

Again, I can't believe this conversation has gone on so long. It's a one post deal.

PEEF! · Jul 18, 2008

xandeR- said:
It gives MK a completely unfair approach method that allows him to attack without warning.

This is the crappiest approach ever. You probably have never used it. You lag terribad, and you can be easily punished EVEN IF you hit with the horribly low knockback slash. Trying to reappear and attack with a different move is very very laggy, and most of the cast can punish it with a D-smash.

Smooth Criminal · Jul 18, 2008

Rich Wheeler said:
This is the crappiest approach ever. You probably have never used it. You lag terribad, and you can be easily punished EVEN IF you hit with the horribly low knockback slash. Trying to reappear and attack with a different move is very very laggy, and most of the cast can punish it with a D-smash.

Yup.

But stalling is the issue here, not the actual approach itself.

Smooth Criminal

iamthelifeonmars · Jul 18, 2008

grab the edge with it and stop saying "terribad."

if you want to know why i'm not happy, i can't tell you, but heart scan can ^^^^^^^^^^.

xandeR- · Jul 18, 2008

Fine.

What about as an escape?

MK gets in trouble and just disappears to the other side of the stage.

It's not fair. Regardless.

3xSwords · Jul 18, 2008

Yuna said:
Not... yet... another... thread... where... someone... who... hasn't... read... anything... in... the... main... thread... is... spewing... old... tired... arguments...

Come on!

Yuna is right once again. Stalling isn't the only issue. Every dumb **** head can agree that stalling is banned. Duh that's given. The reason why this is banned is it has the ability to turn a disadvantagous situation into a neutral or a favorable one for MK. There are options like these in the game like but they are either open to ALL members of the cast, like shielding and spot dodging or they carry high risk, like counter or double team.

But infinite cape is neither. Its character specific and minimal risks in pre lag and as long as you don't attack upon reappearing no post lag either. Thus this argument is stupid. And just go on the original thread.

TwinkleToes · Jul 18, 2008

xiferp said:
Stalling aside, it's still imba. Invisibility+invincibility+mobility+practically unlimited time?

He can't hurt you either though. Plus, if you think about it, most situations where MK can cape away from you he would be able to avoid you normally anyways.

xandeR- said:
This post was dumb on AllisBrawl and it's dumb here once again.

It gets banned. End of story.

It gives MK a completely unfair approach method that allows him to attack without warning.

Again, I can't believe this conversation has gone on so long. It's a one post deal.

I don't see how it's an approach method at all. People keep saying this but you gotta be pretty stupid to get hit by this if you know what it is.

xandeR- said:
Fine.

What about as an escape?

MK gets in trouble and just disappears to the other side of the stage.

It's not fair. Regardless.

As I said before, you people make assumptions that this will be the case. While I don't think it would play out that way, the only way to really find out is to let people do it and see how things unfold. It would not be all that bad to let it happen for a while even if the end result will just be the banning of it completely anyways. At least then we have past evidence to talk about and not unsound suppositions.

Sosuke · Jul 18, 2008

*post*
i wanna see how this goes.
And whoever said 2008 posters are dumb, thats just stupid.

acv · Jul 18, 2008

xandeR- said:
This post was dumb on AllisBrawl and it's dumb here once again.

It gets banned. End of story.

It gives MK a completely unfair approach method that allows him to attack without warning.

Again, I can't believe this conversation has gone on so long. It's a one post deal.

have you even tried using this?

Aesir · Jul 18, 2008

sasukebowser said:
*post*
i wanna see how this goes.
And whoever said 2008 posters are dumb, thats just stupid.

Not when a Majority of them prove the point.

Look at a dumb post, then look at the join date and it'll be more recent.

More recent the join date, the more of a chance that they're dumb. (in regards to smash, not saying they're literally incapable of becoming smart. Maybe I should have used inexperienced?)

Sosuke · Jul 18, 2008

Aesir said:
Not when a Majority of them prove the point.

Look at a dumb post, then look at the join date and it'll be more recent.

More recent the join date, the more of a chance that they're dumb. (in regards to smash, not saying they're literally incapable of becoming smart. Maybe I should have used inexperienced?)

Inexperienced would have worked better yeah.
But hey, I know what you mean don't wanna argue or anything. =P

PEEF! · Jul 18, 2008

@ 3xSwords...Going into the cape has FAR more lag that shielding, Spotdodging, or rolling. You say there is no post lag unless he attacks? There is a very large amount of lag, have you ever tried it?

I hope you are not directing these join date comments at me. I thought I squashed that bug already -__-

ShadowLink84 · Jul 18, 2008

TwinkleToes said:
He can't hurt you either though. Plus, if you think about it, most situations where MK can cape away from you he would be able to avoid you normally anyways.

He doens't need to attack you. As long as he is a few percent up above you or a stocka bove you he has no need to attack you at all.

Offensively it sucks arse. However the defensive capability and stalling ability is what makes it ban worthy.
Let alone the fact it cannot be stopped, countered or monitored partially like the Peach bomber,

IC infinite? Can be countered by separating Nana from Popo and maintaining distance.
DDD's infinite on 5 characters? Its character specific and you are supposed to be using more than 1 character this game.

MK infinite? Can be done against all the characters, has no limit to how long it can be done, cannot be prevented or countered.

Most likely it will be banned.

You cannot monitor the infinite dimensional cape easily.
A ref is not always going to be there watching and considering it lags already from air to ground, who is to say the person stalled or that its normal behavior?

ADHD · Jul 18, 2008

Just ban the **** tech no character should EVER, I mean EVER be able to approach invinicible when the rest of the cast has to go at it old school style.

I swear to god, if this doesn't get banned, I'm going back to melee, for good.......

PEEF! · Jul 18, 2008

ChromePirate said:
I swear to god, if this doesn't get banned, I'm going back to melee, for good.......

Go then. Nobody's stopping you. This tech hasnt even proven to be useful in any way, so I dont understand why everyone is acting like the Meta Knight is the only character that can ever win a tournament because of this tech. At least see how it goes...

TheKneeOfJustice · Jul 18, 2008

It's going to get banned, but...

For people talking about stalling matches. Hear this:

I challenge you to stall every match that you would need to win with this in tournament, the ENTIRE tournament. I guarantee NO ONE can do it.

It can be used for short periods of time, and it might get you a game win or two, but there's no realistic way any human could hit someone first every match, and then manage to do this for every game, all game.

A thought on MK Dimensional Cloaking that deserves its own thread...

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Journeyman

Smash Ace

Smash Apprentice

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

Da Cheef

Smash Cadet

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Obsessed

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Obsessed

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Information

Network