A simple solution to camping?

[nightSN]

the only solution to camping is items. which will never happen. this thread is DONE.

 

['V']

the only solution to camping is items. which will never happen. this thread is DONE.

Agreed.

/thread

 

[Cold Fusion]

Here's the solution:

If it's timed out, both players get DQ'd

This is a horrible solution. I have had matches last real long before when neither myself and my opponent were camping. What if none of the players are camping? Will they be DQ'd even though it was just a slow paced match? What if only one player was camping and the other was trying to stop it the entire time? WIll the player on the offense be DQ'd too?

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Yes get items pls

Cough Falco infinite jumps for infinite stall.

 

[Nanaki]

Yes get items pls

Cough Falco infinite jumps for infinite stall.

Cough Sonic gets Smashball and breaks Falco's stalling behind in half.

That would be so lulzy.

Anyway, itemsrbadamirite?

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Cough Sonic gets Smashball and breaks Falco's stalling behind in half.

That would be so lulzy.

Anyway, itemsrbadamirite?

Items are bad because they can easily turn the tide of battle without giving your opponent a chance to come-back.

Depending on which items are on, ofc.

 

[godofrock72]

Yeah, does anyone know if it has been tried before? If not it would be something to try out in at least one tourney and see what happens

Well try having tournaments with only 8 people instead of a whopping 32! Matches could last 15 minutes each, but it's a big difference!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Time limits and all rules regarding stalling are only there to keep the tournament from lasting so long.

You have to have a timer.

Here's the solution:

If it's timed out, both players get DQ'd

Something similar to this could be effective; if a time-out occurs, both players are marked as losing. So if you camp/plank, you didn't make your opponent get DQ'd, but you did make him lose-like he would if you won. You lose too though. Would this be realistic?

Like DMG said, I also think 5 minutes is better than 4.

So ruleset would be:
- 2 Stocks
- 5 Minutes
- Bo5 Pools and Bracket
- Bo7 Loosers and Winners Final
- Bo9 Grand Finals

I can see this beeing much more pleasant than a tourney with normal ruleset.

This sounds good...

 

[DanGR]

Something similar to this could be effective; if a time-out occurs, both players are marked as losing. So if you camp/plank, you didn't make your opponent get DQ'd, but you did make him lose-like he would if you won. You lose too though. Would this be realistic?

"Both players losing" fails for very obvious reasons. Just... no.

 

[Miles.]

"Both players losing" fails for very obvious reasons. Just... no.

well isnt that sorta like what camping does now?

if the match times out and both lose....how different is that that when one person times it out he wins...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"Both players losing" fails for very obvious reasons. Just... no.

They aren't obvious to me. Explain please?

 

[DerpDaBerp]

They aren't obvious to me. Explain please?

In the extreme, a double-dq makes it possible for no one to win a tournament, and that doesn't make sense.

Besides, a double-dq doesn't change the matter for the probable loser, so they still don't have a reason to change their tactics * --"If I'm going down, might as well take you with me."

*(this assumes that the worse player is excercising planking/camping in order gain a better chance at winning)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not double DQ. Double loss. They don't get disqualified, they both get treated as if they lost. It would have to be figured out how that works in brackets... But your second point is decent. However, in high level play, it would be pointless to stall because it would guarantee that you lose.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Kewkky's quotes sump why we feel that removing the time limit is a bad idea.

No timer is a very bad idea. Think about it...

Let's say that there's a falco and an MK fighting. MK is at an advantage, and he starts planking and won't get out no matter what happens. Falco knows he can't get MK out of that position, so he starts laser camping expecting MK to get off the ledge sooner or later, and he won't stop no matter what happens.

Stalemate? Both are heavy campers and won't move no matter what happens. Who will win? When will it be decided? WHY should it be decided, if the screen doesn't declare a winner? What if the whole bracket is waiting for them to finish the match, since they need them to move onto winners'/losers' to continue the tourney? ... If you're thinking of answering "Well, if worst comes to worst, why not make the TO end the match?", then a timer would've been a better idea than dragging on the tourney for an hour more than it was meant to end. See what I'm trying to say?


The timer isn't some neat way of ending a match quickly, it's to PREVENT hardcore camping. Eventually one of the two campers will have to make a move, or the timer will end and the camper with the advantage will win.

.....I think you misunderstood the "hour" part. I meant that if the people who rented the area to the TO gave him a specific time to clean up and close the place, then people who would camp as a strategy would drag on the tourney for at LEAST an hour more than what the TO was given. Instead of the tourney ending at 10:00pm, for example, it would end at 11:00pm, and that's a problem. A timer assures that the tourney runs smoothest, and matches don't drag on longer than they're supposed to... And it's no uncommon event to see a match last longer than 8 minutes, you just have to meet the right players.

The only way no timer would EVER work is of there were player caps for every tournament.

 

[1048576]

Both players getting dqed is stupid. There'd be so many people with no chance of winning trying to bring down good players by stalling for 8 minutes. People would bring cronies with them to shut down rival competition. It'd be like brawl gangs or something, except with planking instead of shanking.

 

[Throwback]

I just watched the SF4 Evo final...planking/playing gay is present in all fighting games.

I don't mind the idea of a 2-stock match though.

 

[superyoshi888]

Like DMG said, I also think 5 minutes is better than 4.

So ruleset would be:
- 2 Stocks
- 5 Minutes
- Bo5 Pools and Bracket
- Bo7 Loosers and Winners Final
- Bo9 Grand Finals

I can see this beeing much more pleasant than a tourney with normal ruleset.

This looks like it would be the best answer. But really, you guys aren't going to convince the SBR to change their rules. But! You can still hold tourneys with this ruleset. The SBR's rulesets are just guidelines, nothing is stoping you from making changes as you see fit.

....I feel like I've been preaching that over and over for various things(Mk-ban, PSA characters), but it's true.

 

[Hobs]

Does no time limit really affect tournament lengths that badly?

How often do matches go 8 minutes without camping?

 

[1048576]

People need to read threads that they post in.

Okay, Hobs. I'm gonna explain this just for you since you're slow. I'm MK. You're Falco. I grab the egde. You retreat to the other side and start firin yah lazor. We both like money. How are we supposed to resolve such a situation when there's no timer. When nobody has to approach, nobody will, and the tournament will drag on indefinitely.

 

[smashmachine]

They aren't obvious to me. Explain please?

noobs with no chance at winning plank/air camp/whatever for 8 minutes against top players
yeah...not good

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Like others have said, removing the Timer is a bad idea. For example, think of this situation:

It's a Marth ditto. One has 3 stock, 0%, the other has 2 stock, 0%. If there is a timer, the one with 2 stock is forced to approach the 3 stock one, or else he will lose. If you remove the timer, then the balance of pressure will be upset and things just don't go well XD.

However, increasing the timer is a solution. In Japan, a lot of tournies (or most, rather) have a time limit of 10 minutes.

You could either increase the timer and/or set rules to limit (but not TOTALLY restrict) planking.


I agree with Kewkky.

This looks like it would be the best answer. But really, you guys aren't going to convince the SBR to change their rules. But! You can still hold tourneys with this ruleset. The SBR's rulesets are just guidelines, nothing is stoping you from making changes as you see fit.

....I feel like I've been preaching that over and over for various things(Mk-ban, PSA characters), but it's true.

I agree with this too. The SBR aren't gods or anything. It's simply a group of people on a forum that decided to form and share their opinion with others. TO's hold all the power . The 2 stock idea sounds ok, but I would prefer it to be 3 stock simple because if you get gimped/epicly combo'd and lose a life real quick in a 2 stock game, you pretty much lost half of your stock, while in a 3 stock game, you can still catch up easier. But again, it's all dependent on each person's tastes and how effective (and rewarding) they think gimping/suiciding/etc should be.

 

[Kitamerby]

Two stock matches nerf Lucario as a character.

I say we just leave things as they are.

Besides, the timer is the only thing that keeps DMG from winning national tournaments. I bet he could play keep away for days if he felt like it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

noobs with no chance at winning plank/air camp/whatever for 8 minutes against top players
yeah...not good

Hang on, let's get something straight here.

noobs ... against top players

How well could a noob successfully camp/plank against a professional player?

 

[Kitamerby]

noobs with no chance at winning plank/air camp/whatever for 8 minutes against top players
yeah...not good

You're wrong.

Top players are top players because they play... at the top.

I highly doubt your average Joe would be able to out-plank Ally.


Especially since even the other top Meta Knights can't do it, so I have no idea why you would think that someone who wouldn't win otherwise would be able to.


The reason that forcing both players into a "double loss" is wrong is because if you have two losses in a set, it doesn't matter whether your opponent has a loss or not. You still lose. All a guy has to do is win the first match, time out the second one and it's the exact same thing as winning twice. Also, if it's done on the third match of a set, it would end up with some SEVERELY awkward brackets.

Pretend Jack's Meta Knight and Jill's Game and Watch were paired up in a set. Jack wins match 1 on Battlefield, and Jill counterpicks Jack to Halberd. Jill takes off the first stock very early because Jack somehow gets combo'd from the laser into Jill's fully charged usmash and dies at like 50% with Jill still at 20%. Jack realizes that he can't win this match normally, so he thinks up a scheme and ends up camping/planking the entire rest of the match (without going over the edgegrab limit). Time runs out. Jill has 2 losses now, so Jill loses the set, even though she was winning in Match 2.

In short, a rule causing an automatic double loss will be even WORSE for competition than one causing a win for higher % and stock. At least with % and stock, there's a reason for the person behind to try to go on the offensive. With a double loss, there's absolutely no reason at all to not time out the second match if you won the first one, because it becomes an automatic win for you regardless of your standing in the second match.

 

[blakinola]

Stamina mode, perhaps?

 

[Jonas]

With stamina mode you change the basic rules of the game and you alter it completely. Besides, chaingrabs that stop working at a certain % will work until the match is over (think about Wario's Dthrow chain).

 

[nezzedaoriginal]

Maybe keep all the rules, but change the 'units' of what is won.

Instead of winning one game, and it counting for only 'one' point, make it 'two' points. That way, if someone times out the clock, it'll count for 'one' point for both people.

The only problem we would have is if both players win a game and a game where they both time out.

Eh, nvm.

 

[Tien2500]

Ok... so what if we allow items. But not all items, just one item. Food. On low. The food would be unlikely to change the impact of a typical match but would eliminate camping as a strategy unless you're a stock ahead to begin with.

If MK was ahead by say 30% and he begins planking then slowly but surely the food would take away his stock lead and would force him to approach. Same thing with air planking.

Other characters who camp with projectiles would be pretty unaffected since they could do enough damage to offset the amount the food could give.

I'm sure this is a stupid idea for a reason I've missed but it may be interesting for some smaller tournaments to try.

Edit: Apparently someone already thought of this and made a whole topic about it. Lol.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

It's possible, but Food on Low would not work in my head at all. There will be capsules that appear along with the food. Also, this will cause G&W's Hammer to be able to produce food. This will also allow DDD to throw capsules. Etc. And Items on Low is still pretty often.

Anyways, we do not know if the items spawn randomly or at a specific spot regarding certain conditions of the round. If they do spawn at specific spots in specific conditions, such as spawning near the losing player, then this will be unfair.

 

[Tien2500]

It's possible, but Food on Low would not work in my head at all. There will be capsules that appear along with the food. Also, this will cause G&W's Hammer to be able to produce food. This will also allow DDD to throw capsules. Etc. And Items on Low is still pretty often.

Anyways, we do not know if the items spawn randomly or at a specific spot regarding certain conditions of the round. If they do spawn at specific spots in specific conditions, such as spawning near the losing player, then this will be unfair.

Is there anything lower than low? Very low maybe? I haven't used items in a while. Anyway I'm 90% sure that item spawns are random and I think you can shut off capsules so they don't appear. Dedede may still throw capsules but they would only have food in them which I don't see as a big problem. I also don't see G&W's hammer as an issue. I suppose G&W could theoretically use it to heal but GW doesn't have the tool to keep people away while he uses hammer often enough to get any real health out of it.

There is another topic below this one that already has a detailed discussion on it.

 

[nash123]

fo real? Items? ***** please, stallin/campin/whateva ya call it a legit strategy git over it son

 

[Spelt]

actually stalling isn't. xD

 

[nash123]

Ye it is, if ya can't stop it, your at fault. Play to winnnn mayne. Also to da guy who said stamina mode, that would ruin chars like d3, dk who are meant to live long.

 

[Yikarur]

actually stalling isn't. xD

Stalling is a legit strategy.
excessive stalling, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to hit you is banned

 

[Kitamerby]

Stalling is a legit strategy.
excessive stalling, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to hit you is banned

Sonic isn't invincible while he's using homing attack under the stage. Meta Knight can hit him and easily make it to the other side.

 

[BSP]

Stamina mode, perhaps?

Camping would become an even more appealing strategy. Legal, but annoying IMO

I still think the food on low is worth a shot.

 

[ViletheJoker!]

I agree with the fact that the heavy weight charecters like D3, DK, and Bowser would be destroyed because of stamina mode and would make spaming lasers and CGs that much more destructive.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Stalling is a legit strategy.
excessive stalling, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to hit you is banned

^This .

Stamina is a no-no, that'd change the whole gameplay and style.

There is no Very Low option for items. Low is the lowest.

And when I was talking about DDD throwing capsules, I wasn't concerned very much about the fact that the capsules can be used to eat food, but I was concerned about the capsule being used as a projectile, as it is very strong and can kill earlier than most of people's smashes.

 

[BSP]

if D3 throws a capsule, can it explode too?

 

[Tien2500]

^This .

Stamina is a no-no, that'd change the whole gameplay and style.

There is no Very Low option for items. Low is the lowest.

And when I was talking about DDD throwing capsules, I wasn't concerned very much about the fact that the capsules can be used to eat food, but I was concerned about the capsule being used as a projectile, as it is very strong and can kill earlier than most of people's smashes.

It would have to be tested and then we'd have to determine if the capsule thing outweighed camping.