Rock Paper Scissors

[Nelo Vergil]

Oh ya Jamie, lets BlazBlue when I get back home way later

 

[ColinJF]

I've been practising up my Rock Paper Scissors technique. I hope everybody is ready.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

did you guys see the new black metaknight? so cool

 

[red_comet]

Merry Christmas! Just saw this so...
Great stage list! Nice new rules too. Textures are nice, sometimes distracting but usually obvious. Can't wait to play!
Note to self: Never take Colin on that best of 9 RPS match, get *****.

 

[Kuraudo]

I might have to take Colin to a best of 9 RPS match.

 

[Nelo Vergil]

What Black MK?

 

[Limeee]

GT= Flame Tide

even though i'll be playing the borderlands DLC and shadow complex for the next few days!

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

What Black MK?

take a look

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzH-3EWYQSA

 

[Frio]

At least no stage hacks. Makes things like snake's mines and nades hard to see.

 

[T-block]

it'd be nice if you could hack snake's explosives to be bright pink or something. i don't even know if it's possible, but if it is i think we should try it out.

EDIT: NEW BANNER WOOOOO

 

[Nelo Vergil]

I have 3 stage hacks that literally change nothing, just a bit of the background, but everythings the exact same color scheme this time, the stages are john proof

I have that stage they used, its a very awesome setting change, while still being the same stage, Black MK was good to.

Epic banner Mike =D. Btw, I was wondering if a rule could be made regarding Snake and the 4th controller port, hes so gay already, so he shouldnt be allowed port priority IMO

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

lol haters on snake I see.

 

[ChaosDrifter]

haha love the new banner mike, amazing

as for snake, better practice up your rock paper scissors

 

[Nelo Vergil]

I dont hate Snake Dan....I hate Sakurai for being a ******** game designer, and Kojima for sucking Sakurai's **** so much that he made him that stupid >_>

I just noticed your question on the front page Chaos, lets make it the 23rd to do this.

 

[Limeee]

grenades do less damage than a dthrow lmao

no johns

 

[Alphicans]

Mike, I thought we agreed on the ledge grab rule, I guess you didn't understand?

 

[Nelo Vergil]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=259517

Ike's mid tier *****es, Best tier list ever (Lol at Sonic's placing)

 

[-Age]

Sweet Monthlies! too bad there in edmonton! makes me sad cuse it's really not worth the drive...
No hate on you all, just hate on Hotels and Highways.
Does anyone know if there are monthies hosted in Calgary? thats much more realistic for me.

 

[T-block]

Hi age =o Calgary doesn't have too much of a brawl scene yet, but there was talk of something starting up.

Luke I thought about the ledge grab rule, and I don't think what you said would even solve the problem. You said dan didn't even hit 50 ledgegrabs

 

[Alphicans]

It just makes the consequences more severe. By doing what WHOBO/Pound is doing, we're making it so it doesn't even have to time out in order for the rule to come into play, therefore, deterring how much planking there is. Dan didn't even know how many ledge grabs were allowed, so he's lucky if anything else. My question is why not do it? Do you not like the idea of punishing overpowered tactics?

 

[T-block]

Does it actually make it any better though? I think the question to ask is "if one person hits 50 ledgegrabs and then decides to rush to win by stock, should he still lose?". Keep in mind that the person in question now has to win before the time runs out and must play aggressively, so he is inherently at a disadvantage. I'm not sure how i'd answer that myself, but it's definitely not a clear "yes he should lose".

What does everyone else think?

 

[Alphicans]

50 ledge grabs is a lot.... Your argument actually enforces my position if anything >_>. If the person is planking until the last 40-30 seconds or so to kill off the person, he's probably just doing it so he doesn't lose the match because of the time out + ledge grab rule. It takes effort to get 50 ledge grabs, it doesn't just happen by accident.

 

[Nelo Vergil]

From what Im inferring, your suggesting to lower the ledge grab limit from 50, right Luke?

 

[Alphicans]

No, to make it so no matter what if you grab the ledge 50 times you lose, regardless of the time out.

 

[Nelo Vergil]

Ah, in that case, I agree with Luke...but I mean...I really doubt that scenario will ever happen with our monthlies, so its more of a why not

 

[Limeee]

how about we "call the stall?"

 

[Alphicans]

It's not stalling, because technically I can still hit him whenever I want, it's just extremely risky for me.

 

[Limeee]

Lets leave it for time out and 35 and if we have more problems we'll lookat it again.

 

[Alphicans]

You could have it at 1 + time out and it still wouldn't matter too much. Because that means he could bring it down to 1 stock each, get a 10% lead and grab the ledge 100 times, come out for the last minute and attempt to end it then.

 

[x After Dawn x]

Hi people.

 

[Frio]

The limit shouldn't be less than 50. But I kinda agree with Luke on it should be taken into account at all tmes.

EDIT: jk. It should only be taken into account when time runs out

 

[red_comet]

I think it should only be until the timer runs out. If one person does deliberately ledge grabs like 50+ times to stall, when he tries to take out the other guy in the last minute, what's stopping the other person from ledge grabbing to run the time out since he won't reach the 50+ rule with only a minute left? If that other guy is close to 50 he can just run around to waste the clock and force the win.

 

[Alphicans]

That's a somewhat good solution, but planking in general is a very powerful tool. It has like no disadvantage, and if you're in the lead it's a massive positional advantage. Even if it doesn't come close to a time out, any amount of planking is hard to deal with, and if you're not extra careful, you can fall further and further behind. Maybe I'll show some of you guys what it really means to get planked.

 

[ColinJF]

I don't see a problem with somebody winning the match normally after having ledge camped for X > 50 ledge grabs. It may be annoying to lose this way, but it's no more powerful than just attacking you normally without having done those last X - 50 ledge grabs for the following reason.

Consider that under either approach, you have to get them to grab the ledge fifty times before you can make use of the rule. So however powerful those fifty grabs are, you have to deal with them either way. The only difference between the two rules is that under the current one, they have a chance to win properly after using up their ledge grabs, rather than auto-losing, and I don't see a compelling reason to overturn a normal victory if they end up winning normally.

Also, as a secondary reason, I note that most of the time, you will not know exactly when the opponent exceeds fifty ledge grabs, so you are likely to continue playing the match, and it may end up being an intense and exciting match. It seems pretty lame to end up overturning a normal victory because one player got slightly over 50 ledge grabs. Conversely, you might think they have ledge grabbed 51 times, so you just sit back and let them kill you and intend to win on the results screen, but it turns you were wrong and it was only 50.

Luke's suggested rule would be more appealing to me if the match could end immediately after the 51st grab, but that isn't possible, and the prospect of having to overturn the latter part of a match is undesirable. With the current rule, normal victories don't end overturned, because we only apply the rule in the case of a time out.

 

[~Firefly~]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=259517

Ike's mid tier *****es, Best tier list ever (Lol at Sonic's placing)

And Yoshi is above Ike. XD

>>

<<

*flee*

 

[Yoshara]

And Wolf's position is awesome.

 

[Alphicans]

I don't see a problem with somebody winning the match normally after having ledge camped for X > 50 ledge grabs. It may be annoying to lose this way, but it's no more powerful than just attacking you normally without having done those last X - 50 ledge grabs for the following reason.

Consider that under either approach, you have to get them to grab the ledge fifty times before you can make use of the rule. So however powerful those fifty grabs are, you have to deal with them either way. The only difference between the two rules is that under the current one, they have a chance to win properly after using up their ledge grabs, rather than auto-losing, and I don't see a compelling reason to overturn a normal victory if they end up winning normally.

Also, as a secondary reason, I note that most of the time, you will not know exactly when the opponent exceeds fifty ledge grabs, so you are likely to continue playing the match, and it may end up being an intense and exciting match. It seems pretty lame to end up overturning a normal victory because one player got slightly over 50 ledge grabs. Conversely, you might think they have ledge grabbed 51 times, so you just sit back and let them kill you and intend to win on the results screen, but it turns you were wrong and it was only 50.

Luke's suggested rule would be more appealing to me if the match could end immediately after the 51st grab, but that isn't possible, and the prospect of having to overturn the latter part of a match is undesirable. With the current rule, normal victories don't end overturned, because we only apply the rule in the case of a time out.

You say it's no more powerful than playing normally, but you give no reasoning behind your point. Everything else in this post is reasoned nicely, but that one point ruins your whole argument. I don't believe you at all, planking is far more powerful than anything in the game. Also, just because a game is exciting shouldn't mean anything, that's just being a sucker for entertainment. On top of that it doesn't make the game less exciting, it just changes the victor of the match, all of the action doesn't just disappear and as if it never happened.

Under my suggested rule, I can guarantee that planking will be far less evident in matches, because people are scared. They are scared to lose, and they don't want to take unnecessary risks. Sure they might go for a few seconds on the ledge (if that's how they want to play the match out), but the whole mindset of doing it will be altered, because after they hit 50 ledge grabs, there is no turning back, the game ends no matter what. If you think about that, it's pretty devastating, and not worth the risk at all.

I don't get why some of you want to disagree with this rule. In starcraft they banned the simple tactic of placing an observer over a turret so it couldn't shoot air units (could still detect invisible units though) even though you can just mash the stop command to fix the bug. It's not a big deal to ban something, especially when it's incredibly over powered. I know I may sound extremely bias towards that, and even more so since I lost a game to excessive ledge stalling, and you'd be right. I don't want that to happen again, not to me, not to anyone. I can promise you that if the rule remains the same I'll show everyone why it should be changed. No one from AB, besides me, has experienced how powerful this tool is, and I think it's about time you virgins have experienced true gay.

tldr: wtf guys? If this doesn't change, the term, "luking" will have new meaning.

 

[Fraser]

New stages suck and there was no reason to change them. putting some really good cp's in the neutral category is uncalled for and not based on any real need.. i don't see why the unbroken stage system is being fixed when it didn't need it unless this is just the new host's adding a "personal flair" to distinguish these monthlies from our old ones. Absolutely unnecessary IMO.

 

[Alphicans]

Although I absolutely agree with you Fraser, taking a second look at stages is not always a bad idea. I am sure it will go back to the norm, but think of this as a new beginning to something good to come. We're starting off with something extremely rough, and we will shape it into the masterpiece it will soon be. =)

 

[ColinJF]

You say it's no more powerful than playing normally, but you give no reasoning behind your point.

I didn't say that. I said the ledge camping after the 50 ledge grabs have been exhausted are no more powerful than playing normally, probably even less powerful, since you're wasting valuable time you could be using to approach and win. (My use of the variable X probably obfuscated this point.)

I don't believe you at all, planking is far more powerful than anything in the game.

It is obviously powerful, but this is a stretch.

Under my suggested rule, I can guarantee that planking will be far less evident in matches, because people are scared. They are scared to lose, and they don't want to take unnecessary risks. Sure they might go for a few seconds on the ledge (if that's how they want to play the match out), but the whole mindset of doing it will be altered, because after they hit 50 ledge grabs, there is no turning back, the game ends no matter what. If you think about that, it's pretty devastating, and not worth the risk at all.

If you make use of a strategy involving excessive ledge grabbing, you are obviously going to count your ledge grabs. The opponent probably won't keep track, but you will, and you won't go over fifty; presumably you'll stop with a few to spare on the chance you miscounted slightly.

Besides, I haven't seen any reason to believe that ledge camping is so gamebreaking it needs to be nerfed to the point that "people are scared" to use it (and I'm not just talking about matches from Edmonton).

I don't get why some of you want to disagree with this rule. In starcraft they banned the simple tactic of placing an observer over a turret so it couldn't shoot air units (could still detect invisible units though) even though you can just mash the stop command to fix the bug. It's not a big deal to ban something, especially when it's incredibly over powered.

(Emphasis mine.) Of course it's a big deal to ban something. There should be a compelling reason to justify any ban. The rule in question isn't a ban as such, but your version is definitely more game-changing than the current one, so there should be an actual reason provided to justify why an auto-lose is required, and not simply an excellent incentive to stop ledge camping and start approaching (which seems quite good enough to limit the effectiveness of this strategy).

I can promise you that if the rule remains the same I'll show everyone why it should be changed. No one from AB, besides me, has experienced how powerful this tool is, and I think it's about time you virgins have experienced true gay.

What will you do to show that? Grab the ledge fifty times and then go on to win the match? I'm not sure how that will convince me or anybody that you should have got an auto loss. After all, you did go on to beat me properly. At worst, your fifty ledge grabs before doing so were a powerful annoyance; but even with an auto-loss, I still would have had to deal with them.

New stages suck and there was no reason to change them. putting some really good cp's in the neutral category is uncalled for and not based on any real need.. i don't see why the unbroken stage system is being fixed when it didn't need it unless this is just the new host's adding a "personal flair" to distinguish these monthlies from our old ones. Absolutely unnecessary IMO.

Personally I love the new ruleset. It probably won't change my placing in singles (or low tier: watch out Mike), but I'm certainly looking forward to having a wider array of counterpicks available, and a fairer set of starter stages, allowing for more interesting first match differentiation.