Active Player Thread: Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in

[rathy Aro]

So dmt you aren't putting a ban on stalling your are putting a ban on refusing to approach. Refusing to approach doesn't make the game unplayable just gay. You can't DQ someone for not being foolishly agressive.

Also I wouldn't say there should be a ban on stalling either. Rather their should be a ban on broken tactics that devolve the metagame like planking can do.

 

[iLight]

I run my own tournaments sometimes and my take on it is that in regard to a sheik potentially being DQ'd for running away would definately not happen, because it is basically just another potentially hard to beat form of camping, which is ok for brawl

 

[-dMT-]

So dmt you aren't putting a ban on stalling your are putting a ban on refusing to approach. Refusing to approach doesn't make the game unplayable just gay. You can't DQ someone for not being foolishly agressive.

Also I wouldn't say there should be a ban on stalling either. Rather their should be a ban on broken tactics that devolve the metagame like planking can do.

Rathy, I urge you to re-read my posts please. Do not confuse specific examples for overall decisions/bans.

Of course I am not putting a ban on refusing to approach. I am putting a ban on avoiding conflict. There's quite the difference between the two of them, although some examples can make it difficult to notice.

I presume our latest debate with Mars has you confused. In it he brought the example of Ganondorf vs Sheik. When the Sheik uses her chain, it is Sheik using a move that keeps her very safe while dealing plenty of damage and creating a wall that is incredibly hard to get past with Ganondorf, if not theoretically impossible. This is simply making use of a MU advantage. It is the Ganondorf player's responsibility to know this MU and that he may face this, and thus by choosing Ganondorf he must commit to the fight and play it. Refusing to appoach a Sheik chain camping under a platform is Ganondorf avoiding conflict BY refusing to approach. I am not banning the method, but rather the 'tactic' - for lack of a better word.

In a case where perhaps Olimar runs around throwing Pikmin and being very campy, he is not approaching, but is employing a long range strategy for dealing damage. He is therefore doing nothing to constitute a DQ by refusing to approach, since his isn't avoiding conflict at all. In fact he is applying offensive long range pressure and likely dealing a lot of damage.

I hope those 2 examples help shed light on any misunderstandings.

 

[rathy Aro]

I read it again and I see it the same. I don't understand why you would DQ someone for avoiding conflict and more importantly how would you decide to DQ one of two people is they are both avoiding conflict like in your Ganon vs Sheik example. They both are keeping away from eachother. Nothing's stopping sheik from putting the chain away and approaching ganon. Why should ganon have to approach sheik? It seems arbitrary to me.

 

[-Mars-]

^Exactly which is why nobody ever gets DQ'ed because it's almost impossible for a TO to make a fair decision on the matter.

 

[-dMT-]

I read it again and I see it the same. I don't understand why you would DQ someone for avoiding conflict and more importantly how would you decide to DQ one of two people is they are both avoiding conflict like in your Ganon vs Sheik example. They both are keeping away from eachother. Nothing's stopping sheik from putting the chain away and approaching ganon. Why should ganon have to approach sheik? It seems arbitrary to me.

Perhaps Sheik having a stock advantage? Sheik has an attack out. The reason its called Chain CAMPING, is because its a form of forcing an approach.

Avoiding conflict is a simple idea. Don't over-complicate that in your head. Applying it to the game at hand is the difficult part, being faced with many situations, or else we'd have hard set rules in stone to prevent dumb **** like planking all together.

Sheik has a chain out, challenging the Ganon to get past it. He has to if he wants to win.

Ganon sits there and gives up, refusing to approach.

Ganon's loss.

Unfair? Don't use Ganon.

 

[DanGR]

Woah, woah, woah. I don't plank to stall the game. I plank because I've got the stock lead, I want my opponent to approach me, and it gives me a tactical advantage. It's the best part of the stage for me to camp- as would it be for an Olimar player to camp under platforms, or a Wario player to hang out above them. Are you going to ban either of those? Camping isn't bad, right?

They're all the same thing. Camping. It's just that one is much more difficult to get past... and therefore most people take their jolly good time to beat it. That's why the clock runs down to 0 so often. And that's the ONLY reason. The same thing would happen to many Falco players... correction: the same thing would happen to ANY player using ANY tactic that doesn't provide a good amount of pressure if people were as patient against them as they are plankers, but so few are.

People get upset when they can't beat a really good tactic by a REALLY good character and end up running the clock to zero. "Let's ban it because... oh I know! It presents a time problem!"

Time constraints aren't the problem here. It's the responsibility of the player behind in stock and percent to make the approach.

The concern about planking is whether or not it's game breaking.

 

[-dMT-]

Woah, woah, woah. I don't plank to stall the game. I plank because I've got the stock lead, I want my opponent to approach me, and it gives me a tactical advantage. It's the best part of the stage for me to camp- as would it be for an Olimar player to camp under platforms, or a Wario player to hang out above them. Are you going to ban either of those? Camping isn't bad, right?

They're all the same thing. Camping. It's just that one is much more difficult to get past... and therefore most people take their jolly good time to beat it. That's why the clock runs down to 0 so often. And that's the ONLY reason. The same thing would happen to many Falco players... correction: the same thing would happen to ANY player using ANY tactic that doesn't provide a good amount of pressure if people were as patient against them as they are plankers, but so few are.

People get upset when they can't beat a really good tactic by a REALLY good character and end up running the clock to zero. "Let's ban it because... oh I know! It presents a time problem!"

Time constraints aren't the problem here. It's the responsibility of the player behind in stock and percent to make the approach.

The concern about planking is whether or not it's game breaking.

Pretty much true.

 

[Bsrk_]

Would you say that MK planking is regarded as game breaking_? In the argument i presented stating that he has more options, faster attacks and greater priority than the rest of the cast to make his planking become worse than many of the casts_ It is approachable but as mentioned before, will probably result in a stock loss_

If planking with MK forces an approach but next to none of the cast have an approach that guarantees a safe disruption of said planking, then i would say that it needs to be looked at_ Unlike say Falco, who can be approached and disrupted, MK's planking is much harder and generally not beneficial to anyone but MK when there are next to no available options for characters to disrupt it_

 

[-dMT-]

Would you say that MK planking is regarded as game breaking_? In the argument i presented stating that he has more options, faster attacks and greater priority than the rest of the cast to make his planking become worse than many of the casts_ It is approachable but as mentioned before, will probably result in a stock loss_

If planking with MK forces an approach but next to none of the cast have an approach that guarantees a safe disruption of said planking, then i would say that it needs to be looked at_ Unlike say Falco, who can be approached and disrupted, MK's planking is much harder and generally not beneficial to anyone but MK when there are next to no available options for characters to disrupt it_

For the ?-teenth time. There is a current limitation against planking, which is the ledge grab rule. This is almost directly intended for MK since he planks like no other.

 

[adumbrodeus]

East Coast there is, it's not a universal thing.

I'd love to see real evidence it's game breaking.

 

[-dMT-]

East Coast there is, it's not a universal thing.

I'd love to see real evidence it's game breaking.

It should be universal. Follow what the Japanese do. They know what they're doing when it comes to video games lol

What sort of evidence is needed? MK can plank versus anyone in the game, if not for a few possible exceptions, and thus force approaches when at high percent and be impossible to punish. This is fine if it's a tactic for specific match up, but against the whole cast?...

Also, it deviates too much from the intended method of playing the game. I mean there's turtling...and then there's MK planking...

 

[adumbrodeus]

It should be universal. Follow what the Japanese do. They know what they're doing when it comes to video games lol

I'm saying that not banning it should be universal till it's proven banworthy.

America's generally better in smash.

What sort of evidence is needed? MK can plank versus anyone in the game, if not for a few possible exceptions, and thus force approaches when at high percent and be impossible to punish. This is fine if it's a tactic for specific match up, but against the whole cast?...

Frame data and tournament results.

The thing is, you have options against an MK on the ledge, so they generally respond to your approach when you plank.

I don't see being forced to approach when at a higher percent as being worthy of an insta-ban, there's a process for this stuff, and we should be consistent in how we deal with banning, otherwise we can hurt the metagame's advancement.

Also, it deviates too much from the intended method of playing the game. I mean there's turtling...and then there's MK planking...

Why should we give a **** how it was intended to be played, we're already so far from developer's intent that it would be irrelevant even if it mattered before, it's irrelevant now. The intent was not competative play, we are not playing as intended, how should utilizing this strategy be any different.



We should be talking about overcentralization, does this reduce the metagame to almost just MK (at least worse then MK himself does, cause MK represents considerable centralization). In the meantime, every MK should plank so we can get data.

 

[-dMT-]

We should be talking about overcentralization, does this reduce the metagame to almost just MK (at least worse then MK himself does, cause MK represents considerable centralization). In the meantime, every MK should plank so we can get data.

That's a scary thought... but I see what you mean. Overcentralization is pretty much always the key in banning something. I guess we just follow the logic that, MK's existence already centralizes the game, and thus MK being extra campy and almost impossible to punish on the edge has a very high risk of overcentralizing.

It is just that at this point I suppose: a risk.

Evidence may be needed, but even in such a case banning planking would be a rather difficult thing to accomplish. How does one ban the notion of planking? How many continuous ledge-grabs does it take to be considered planking? The whole definition is vague, therefore banning it would be difficult.

That's why I suppose the best approach is limiting it; hence the ledge grab count limit.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That's a scary thought... but I see what you mean. Overcentralization is pretty much always the key in banning something. I guess we just follow the logic that, MK's existence already centralizes the game, and thus MK being extra campy and almost impossible to punish on the edge has a very high risk of overcentralizing.

It is just that at this point I suppose: a risk.

The thing is, if you're at the point where you have to ban every new strategy then doesn't that by it's nature prove that MK himself is banworthy?

Evidence may be needed, but even in such a case banning planking would be a rather difficult thing to accomplish. How does one ban the notion of planking? How many continuous ledge-grabs does it take to be considered planking? The whole definition is vague, therefore banning it would be difficult.

That's why I suppose the best approach is limiting it; hence the ledge grab count limit.

The thing is, the ledge-grab rule itself is an attempt to ban, and with it in place, the forced approach is now gone, so the core tenant of the strategy is gone.

I like the thought process here, you understand how things should be banned, no vague notions leaving room for misunderstanding and forcing a judicial ruling.


But, the ledge-grab does act as a ban on planking.


Therefore, like every ban it should go through the process.



I don't necessarily oppose a planking ban, however, I would like solid evidence that it is in fact banworthy, what if we treated the mk ban topic like this?

 

[-dMT-]

The thing is, if you're at the point where you have to ban every new strategy then doesn't that by it's nature prove that MK himself is banworthy?





The thing is, the ledge-grab rule itself is an attempt to ban, and with it in place, the forced approach is now gone, so the core tenant of the strategy is gone.

The idea behind planking is usually keeping a stock lead. In most cases it's used as an attempt to force an approach from the other player, preying on their motivation to catch up and gain a lead.

I understand what you mean by how limiting planking in such a way would give the other player reason to not approach, and thus effectively ban the strategy of planking altogether. However consider this: Having hosted tournamnets here in the East Coast for a while now, and attended many others - all of which include the ledge grab limit nowadays - I've seen MKs adapt to it. They've simply shifted their planking game to the last stock, during which the opponent is often pressured to approach out of risk of losing due to a time out. With the time running down and the MK aware that he hasn't grabbed the ledge many times at all, he uses the strategy to its fullest.

The way I've seen it, no one ever gets near 50 ledge grabs. People effectively plank on and off entire games and barely break 30 ledge grabs. The limit of 50 only serves to limit excessive use of it.

 

[DMG]

CHILDREN, AVERT YOUR EYES TO THIS UNHOLY DESECRATED PLACE!!!

Ok seriously WTF has transpired here? First some posts on running with Shiek, then some planking nonsense, I don't know where to start. Ok, how about here:

The problem is not about avoiding conflict. If you want to be a douchebag about it, you could argue that going after the opponent and trying to hit them is avoiding conflict because they cannot attack you in hitstun. The issue will NEVER be about avoiding conflict. The issue is about being in too powerful of a position/extremely limiting your opponent's options.

Take Akuma for Example. How many of you understand why he is banned? He's banned not really because he can avoid conflict, but because he takes away any worthy options your opponent has. He's so powerful that in some instances he takes away ALL options you have and you are forced to sit there and DIE. Now, you could argue that he is avoiding conflict by keeping you in one spot on purpose, not advancing towards you, but then again you can argue that he is initiating conflict because he is attacking you with fireballs. The problem is that you have no options to deal with it, no matter what.


Now, for Brawl. Running away will NEVER/SHOULD NEVER be banned. Unless by running away, you are putting yourself in a position that is obviously too powerful, then there is no need to try and impose anything on it. Think about it: is Circle Camping banned? Seriously, think about that one for a second. In most scenarios where Circle camping is seen as an issue, what happens? The stage in question is banned.

Look at Hyrule (obvious Circle Camp map, along with other problems but that is besides the point). We saw/know how bad circle camping is there. What happened once people realized this? Did we say "Hey, you can play on Hyrule, but don't run around like that" or did we say "Hey, let's not play on this stage, this could be a problem".

Circle camping in itself is not seen as a strategy that is too powerful on its own, otherwise we would have a rule saying that you cannot circle camp/run like that (in the SBR ruleset, it says you can run/camp for better position. Most people interpret that as camping/running away is allowed). However on certain stages, it is deemed that gameplay would degenerate enough that circle camping would then become too powerful.

If you have a strategy that you think is too good, it needs to pass the stage test. If it's too good on some stages, but on a fair number of other stages it doesn't break or over centralize things, then most likely it's not bannable. You can say what you want about MK's planking, but Shiek's "running away" CERTAINLY is not a bannable/DQable offense/strategy to use. If you are thinking about DQing someone for something like that, you need to reevaluate your perception on what is broken or not, or you need to start banning a LOT of things that are worse than that.

Now some things obviously fall into gray areas. Planking/Scrooging/similar things are not clear cut, and I am not fussing at anyone who takes either side on those issues. But if you seriously are thinking about DQing people for running away when we are not talking about those gray areas, then IDK what to say to you other than Wtf dude.

With that said, I think Shiek is a good "run away" character. In the air, hell no. Overall you don't need to camp in the air as Shiek. You CAN camp in the air as her, but it's hard and the benefits do not outweigh the consequences. On the ground, she is much better. You have so many tools to utilize for something like that, seriously. Dash to Shield, Crouching, Needles, fast attacks overall, not bad OOS game, etc. You also are a combo monster at lower % and getting a lead on another character is not out of the question. I think you Shiek players need to think more about getting the lead and retreating back for a second. That is quite powerful for her that I do not see used as much as it should IMO. But it's understandable, half of you might not even believe she is pretty good at such a thing.

Seriously, start thinking about that with her. And gtfo with this planking/stalling discussion, I do NOT want to write up a godly essay to **** some people.

 

[-dMT-]

CHILDREN, AVERT YOUR EYES TO THIS UNHOLY DESECRATED PLACE!!!

Ok seriously WTF has transpired here? First some posts on running with Shiek, then some planking nonsense, I don't know where to start. Ok, how about here:

The problem is not about avoiding conflict. If you want to be a douchebag about it, you could argue that going after the opponent and trying to hit them is avoiding conflict because they cannot attack you in hitstun. The issue will NEVER be about avoiding conflict. The issue is about being in too powerful of a position/extremely limiting your opponent's options.

Take Akuma for Example. How many of you understand why he is banned? He's banned not really because he can avoid conflict, but because he takes away any worthy options your opponent has. He's so powerful that in some instances he takes away ALL options you have and you are forced to sit there and DIE. Now, you could argue that he is avoiding conflict by keeping you in one spot on purpose, not advancing towards you, but then again you can argue that he is initiating conflict because he is attacking you with fireballs. The problem is that he is attacking you, and you have no options to deal with it, no matter what.


Now, for Brawl. Running away will NEVER/SHOULD NEVER be banned. Unless by running away, you are putting yourself in a position that is obviously too powerful, then there is no need to try and impose anything on it. Think about it: is Circle Camping banned? Seriously, think about that one for a second. In most scenarios where Circle camping is seen as an issue, what happens? The stage in question is banned.

Look at Hyrule (obvious Circle Camp map, along with other problems but that is besides the point). We saw/know how bad circle camping is there. What happened once people realized this? Did we say "Hey, you can play on Hyrule, but don't run around like that" or did we say "Hey, let's not play on this stage, this could be a problem".

Circle camping in itself is not seen as a strategy that is too powerful on its own, otherwise we would have a rule saying that you cannot circle camp/run like that (in the SBR ruleset, it says you can run/camp for better position. Most people interpret that as camping/running away is allowed). However on certain stages, it is deemed that gameplay would degenerate enough that circle camping would then become too powerful.

If you have a strategy that you think is too good, it needs to pass the stage test. If it's too good on some stages, but on a fair number of other stages it doesn't break or over centralize things, then most likely it's not bannable. You can say what you want about MK's planking, but Shiek's "running away" CERTAINLY is not a bannable/DQable offense/strategy to use. If you are thinking about DQing someone for something like that, you need to reevaluate your perception on what is broken or not, or you need to start banning a LOT of things that are worse than that.

Now some things obviously fall into gray areas. Planking/Scrooging/similar things are not clear cut, and I am not fussing at anyone who takes either side on those issues. But if you seriously are thinking about DQing people for running away when we are not talking about those gray areas, then IDK what to say to you other than Wtf dude.

With that said, I think Shiek is a good "run away" character. In the air, hell no. Overall you don't need to camp in the air as Shiek. You CAN camp in the air as her, but it's hard and the benefits do not outweigh the consequences. On the ground, she is much better. You have so many tools to utilize for something like that, seriously. Dash to Shield, Crouching, Needles, fast attacks overall, not bad OOS game, etc. You also are a combo monster at lower % and getting a lead on another character is not out of the question. I think you Shiek players need to think more about getting the lead and retreating back for a second. That is quite powerful for her that I do not see used as much as it should IMO. But it's understandable, half of you might not even believe she is pretty good at such a thing.

Seriously, start thinking about that with her. And gtfo with this planking/stalling discussion, I do NOT want to write up a godly essay to **** some people.

That was an epic read lol

I don't think the discussion was ever about a Sheik being banned for running away. If it was, it isn't what I was thinking lol. I see what you mean though, and it actually makes a lot of sense.

Enlightening post man.

 

[Judo777]

CHILDREN, AVERT YOUR EYES TO THIS UNHOLY DESECRATED PLACE!!!

Ok seriously WTF has transpired here? First some posts on running with Shiek, then some planking nonsense, I don't know where to start. Ok, how about here:

The problem is not about avoiding conflict. If you want to be a douchebag about it, you could argue that going after the opponent and trying to hit them is avoiding conflict because they cannot attack you in hitstun. The issue will NEVER be about avoiding conflict. The issue is about being in too powerful of a position/extremely limiting your opponent's options.

Take Akuma for Example. How many of you understand why he is banned? He's banned not really because he can avoid conflict, but because he takes away any worthy options your opponent has. He's so powerful that in some instances he takes away ALL options you have and you are forced to sit there and DIE. Now, you could argue that he is avoiding conflict by keeping you in one spot on purpose, not advancing towards you, but then again you can argue that he is initiating conflict because he is attacking you with fireballs. The problem is that you have no options to deal with it, no matter what.


Now, for Brawl. Running away will NEVER/SHOULD NEVER be banned. Unless by running away, you are putting yourself in a position that is obviously too powerful, then there is no need to try and impose anything on it. Think about it: is Circle Camping banned? Seriously, think about that one for a second. In most scenarios where Circle camping is seen as an issue, what happens? The stage in question is banned.

Look at Hyrule (obvious Circle Camp map, along with other problems but that is besides the point). We saw/know how bad circle camping is there. What happened once people realized this? Did we say "Hey, you can play on Hyrule, but don't run around like that" or did we say "Hey, let's not play on this stage, this could be a problem".

Circle camping in itself is not seen as a strategy that is too powerful on its own, otherwise we would have a rule saying that you cannot circle camp/run like that (in the SBR ruleset, it says you can run/camp for better position. Most people interpret that as camping/running away is allowed). However on certain stages, it is deemed that gameplay would degenerate enough that circle camping would then become too powerful.

If you have a strategy that you think is too good, it needs to pass the stage test. If it's too good on some stages, but on a fair number of other stages it doesn't break or over centralize things, then most likely it's not bannable. You can say what you want about MK's planking, but Shiek's "running away" CERTAINLY is not a bannable/DQable offense/strategy to use. If you are thinking about DQing someone for something like that, you need to reevaluate your perception on what is broken or not, or you need to start banning a LOT of things that are worse than that.

Now some things obviously fall into gray areas. Planking/Scrooging/similar things are not clear cut, and I am not fussing at anyone who takes either side on those issues. But if you seriously are thinking about DQing people for running away when we are not talking about those gray areas, then IDK what to say to you other than Wtf dude.

With that said, I think Shiek is a good "run away" character. In the air, hell no. Overall you don't need to camp in the air as Shiek. You CAN camp in the air as her, but it's hard and the benefits do not outweigh the consequences. On the ground, she is much better. You have so many tools to utilize for something like that, seriously. Dash to Shield, Crouching, Needles, fast attacks overall, not bad OOS game, etc. You also are a combo monster at lower % and getting a lead on another character is not out of the question. I think you Shiek players need to think more about getting the lead and retreating back for a second. That is quite powerful for her that I do not see used as much as it should IMO. But it's understandable, half of you might not even believe she is pretty good at such a thing.

Seriously, start thinking about that with her. And gtfo with this planking/stalling discussion, I do NOT want to write up a godly essay to **** some people.

I can't help but quote this it is just so right.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The idea behind planking is usually keeping a stock lead. In most cases it's used as an attempt to force an approach from the other player, preying on their motivation to catch up and gain a lead.

I understand what you mean by how limiting planking in such a way would give the other player reason to not approach, and thus effectively ban the strategy of planking altogether. However consider this: Having hosted tournamnets here in the East Coast for a while now, and attended many others - all of which include the ledge grab limit nowadays - I've seen MKs adapt to it. They've simply shifted their planking game to the last stock, during which the opponent is often pressured to approach out of risk of losing due to a time out. With the time running down and the MK aware that he hasn't grabbed the ledge many times at all, he uses the strategy to its fullest.

The way I've seen it, no one ever gets near 50 ledge grabs. People effectively plank on and off entire games and barely break 30 ledge grabs. The limit of 50 only serves to limit excessive use of it.

I think you misunderstand the concern.


The REAL overcentralization concern (as a possibility anyway) is that that you're essentially dealing with a situation that whenever MK gets the lead, getting it back is almost literally impossible.

Last stock camping isn't as much a concern, because the MK had to already be either winning or almost winning for the entire match in order to get the lead he needed to plank.




And you're right, the 50 ledge grabs are rarely ever hit, but understand, it's a matter of the threat being greater then the execution.

What I mean by this is the very fact that it's there means that early in the game the player can't acquire a small lead and win by planking because the opponent simply won't approach (from experience I know this, tried to do it to DEHF in snes pools but... ledgegrab rule), so you're back to square one.

Of course, if I could powershield reliably at that point...

That was an epic read lol

I don't think the discussion was ever about a Sheik being banned for running away. If it was, it isn't what I was thinking lol. I see what you mean though, and it actually makes a lot of sense.

Enlightening post man.

Don't be sure, I remember one of inui's old rulesets that banned running away too much...

 

[-dMT-]

I think you misunderstand the concern.


The REAL overcentralization concern (as a possibility anyway) is that that you're essentially dealing with a situation that whenever MK gets the lead, getting it back is almost literally impossible.

Last stock camping isn't as much a concern, because the MK had to already be either winning or almost winning for the entire match in order to get the lead he needed to plank.




And you're right, the 50 ledge grabs are rarely ever hit, but understand, it's a matter of the threat being greater then the execution.

What I mean by this is the very fact that it's there means that early in the game the player can't acquire a small lead and win by planking because the opponent simply won't approach (from experience I know this, tried to do it to DEHF in snes pools but... ledgegrab rule), so you're back to square one.

Of course, if I could powershield reliably at that point...




Don't be sure, I remember one of inui's old rulesets that banned running away too much...

Hey..technically my ruleset bans running away too much as well. It's one of those things that are hard to draw the line for, which is mainly what I was arguing. When is it really too much?

 

[DMG]

Running away is never too much. Unless it limits your opponent's options extremely/too much. As it stands, running away does not limit your opponent's options enough to warrant a ban.

Like I said, Circle camping isn't banned. If that isn't banned, the running away most likely shouldn't be. Now, if you consider Planking/something like that as running away, that's one specific thing that is in a gray area, but running away in a more traditional sense is not really a bannable offense unless you prove it is too powerful. The thing is, most strategies that prove to be too strong, are only too strong on certain stages or against certain characters. If your strategy is really ******** on Smashville, but obviously doesn't work on Castle Siege/Battle Field/fair number of other stages, then it's generally safe to say that the tactic/strategy overall is not strong enough to outright ban.

With that being said, we may need to evaluate how we see stages. For example, with planking/scrooging/circle camping under the stage, some people think MK is retardedly good on Smashville. This isn't unanimous in the least, but let's assume that MK is indeed too powerful on Smashville. What do we do about it?

Do we ban Smashville, or do we say "Hey, you can't do that?" One might seem "fairer" than the other (telling the MK player simply not to do that), but then you have the problem with arbitrary rules or the necessity of judges/infinite replay/TO discretion, and a mess of other stuff. If you ban the stage, that's clear cut in the sand, no questions asked/no quarrels about the strategy.

The way people perceive Smashville is as a neutral. The idea of having to ban a neutral to some people might be unfathomable, regardless of how powerful a strategy is on it. If MK is too good on that stage, we do need to consider removing it from gameplay. That option may be harder to swallow for some, but overall I think that may be a better decision than coming up with objective rules/rules and limits that might not even work/subjected to discretion/faulty/etc.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Hey..technically my ruleset bans running away too much as well. It's one of those things that are hard to draw the line for, which is mainly what I was arguing. When is it really too much?

But again, here's the problem with that, and it's something you said before, you're not banning a specific action, you're banning a strategy. How can you tell the difference between I was trying to project myself from damage vs. I was trying to run out the clock?

When you make it not an actual binary action you make it a judge's decision, which causes grey areas, headaches, and inconsistencies.


That's why you wanna make your bans only what is enforceable practically.


"Don't run away too much" is pretty much impossible to tell the difference from "running away just enough to not be too much", I would drop that rule.


But that's an entirely separate issue from where the line should be drawn (because they're practical issues of "even if the line should be here, we can't really ban a concept).



And I will say again what I consider warranted, does it reduce the game to basically just that strategy/character?

 

[DMG]

Even IF you could confidently draw a line on something like running away, it's honestly not proven itself to be a bannable offense. So even if you could ban it with no bumps in the way, smooth sailing ahead, it may not even be that bad in the first place.

If you can't realistically ban something in the first place however, then the debate can end right there as there's little point even trying to evaluate whether it's too strong or not.

 

[-dMT-]

Running away is never too much. Unless it limits your opponent's options extremely/too much. As it stands, running away does not limit your opponent's options enough to warrant a ban.

Like I said, Circle camping isn't banned. If that isn't banned, the running away most likely shouldn't be. Now, if you consider Planking/something like that as running away, that's one specific thing that is in a gray area, but running away in a more traditional sense is not really a bannable offense unless you prove it is too powerful. The thing is, most strategies that prove to be too strong, are only too strong on certain stages or against certain characters. If your strategy is really ******** on Smashville, but obviously doesn't work on Castle Siege/Battle Field/fair number of other stages, then it's generally safe to say that the tactic/strategy overall is not strong enough to outright ban.

With that being said, we may need to evaluate how we see stages. For example, with planking/scrooging/circle camping under the stage, some people think MK is retardedly good on Smashville. This isn't unanimous in the least, but let's assume that MK is indeed too powerful on Smashville. What do we do about it?

Do we ban Smashville, or do we say "Hey, you can't do that?" One might seem "fairer" than the other (telling the MK player simply not to do that), but then you have the problem with arbitrary rules or the necessity of judges/infinite replay/TO discretion, and a mess of other stuff. If you ban the stage, that's clear cut in the sand, no questions asked/no quarrels about the strategy.

The way people perceive Smashville is as a neutral. The idea of having to ban a neutral to some people might be unfathomable, regardless of how powerful a strategy is on it. If MK is too good on that stage, we do need to consider removing it from gameplay. That option may be harder to swallow for some, but overall I think that may be a better decision than coming up with objective rules/rules and limits that might not even work/subjected to discretion/faulty/etc.

I have to state again, I never looked at things from this perspective. It's quite enlightening to say the least. It's procedural, professional and most of all fair.

DMG, hit me up on AIM sometime if you can. There are some things I'd like to discuss with you without flooding threads.

 

[<π]

planking is why stages like port town should be legal...

but that saud I have nothing against it. If a player has the advantage it isn't and shouldn't be his responsibility to approach. he should play to maintain that lead. yeah it may be gay and hard to beat but it is a situation you can beat right off the bat. agianst pit you know how I beat planking? I get and maintain a percent lead at ALL times in the match. Ledge camping is so much less effective when it is impossible to win by doing it.

If you can't get the lead well... step you game up, learn how to beat the various forms of camping.

 

[Tristan_win]

I updated the ftilt thread and some of you will most likely notice the latest one is larger then previous well the reason for that is because I skipped over the lame characters a little while ago and did snake/de3 which numbers change the lay out size. I'm also adding a color system to help show how the number's change from character to character for that chart (don't worry we are talking 1-2% max, most of which don't appear until you near max decay and combo breakers like marth dolphin slash and snake grenade of course having priority when organizing charts.)

Part of the reason why I haven't posted the snake/de3 chart is because I can't decide on a good color layout that would be readable on smashboards.

 

[DMG]

yeah it may be gay and hard to beat but it is a situation you can beat right off the bat. agianst pit you know how I beat planking? I get and maintain a percent lead at ALL times in the match. Ledge camping is so much less effective when it is impossible to win by doing it.

If you can't get the lead well... step you game up, learn how to beat the various forms of camping.

The problem with telling someone to "step it up" to solve all of their problems is that the other person can "step it up" too. If you are telling someone to get better/always have the lead/to take the lead back, you could also argue that for the opponent to always have the lead/protect it properly/to not give it up.

If your argument for allowing planking is that "it doesn't work when you have the lead against them, so never lose it", that's fairly unrealistic to accomplish unless the odds are already stacked in your favor through other aspects, AND it doesn't explore or answer the question of what happens when you lose the lead/cannot get it back/other person steps it up.

I'm fine with people thinking planking isn't broken, but when your reasoning behind that is "Well if you always have the lead/never lose it, it won't work", then we have some issues lol.


Let's say we use that logic. I am fighting you. You get the lead on me. I take your advice, step it up, and take it back.

Now right here this early into the fight, there are some issues with that kind of reasoning. First, you get the lead against me. You could argue that because you obtained the lead, that I did not "step it up" to prevent that from happening. Now, the fight goes on, and I take the lead away from you. Here, you could argue that because I stole the lead from you, that you truly did not step it up and take appropriate measures to prevent me from taking the lead away.

Do you see where I am going with this?

 

[Nic64]

Pit can just grab the ledge at 0% from the start anyway seeing as he has 8 minutes to hit you with one arrow...

 

[-Mars-]

I watched Ally fight Ravyn on youtube a couple weeks ago and he was doing crazy things like drop off bairs amongst other things. I really think Pits ledge game is overrated.

 

[DanGR]

The problem with telling someone to "step it up" to solve all of their problems is that the other person can "step it up" too. If you are telling someone to get better/always have the lead/to take the lead back, you could also argue that for the opponent to always have the lead/protect it properly/to not give it up.

That was a common plea in the MK-banning debate.

"Get better."

It stemmed more-so from players not knowing how to fight Meta Knight rather than actually getting better. It was just worded poorly.

Same thing applies here, I think. "Get better", as in learn how to fight planking correctly. For one, just about no one takes advantage of grabbing the ledge, and thereby giving you invincibility frames to work with. That and once a character gets off the ledge, another overlapping one can immediately grab it.

Just simple things like that, albeit not "tactic breaking", but you get the point.

Edit: Well, actually... after reading <3's post again your post was addressing the right thing. <.<
My b.

 

[<π]

I think ledge games in general are over rated though. I didn't get planked by Rayven because I kept the lead and forced him to fight under my conditions. if he jumped above stage he got needled, if he went to low I could grab the edge and get invulnerability and time to think out my plans.

sheik has the speed and tools to presure characters on the edge.

 

[Jo0]

Any DFW Shieks free this week or next to play? Kinda want to get ready for Phase 5, and could use some help on fixing my shiek before hand.

 

[DMG]

I didn't get planked by Rayven because I kept the lead and forced him to fight under my conditions.

This is a no-no. If you were to say that having the lead deters/makes planking pointless, that would be fine. But when you suggest that you always have the lead, no matter what, then you start to run into problems. Having the lead the entire time suggests that you are clearly better than your opponent by a noticeable margin, or that he is incapable of taking the lead back. If we were to discuss planking, you would be hard pressed to argue against it because "Well I make it a point to never lose the lead".

I believe sheik has the speed and tools to presure characters on the edge.

Now this would be perfect. You are stating that you feel your character has the tools to either severely disrupt planking, or to strongly discourage it. That's better than "LEAD TIME!" lol.

 

[<π]

well as sheik in most match ups I definitely have the tools to deal damage, significant damage from a distance safely, and great defensive options; when people do decide to approach. In most matches I play I am always up in percent because of that. where I run into problems is killing. If I'm up xzillion percent and Di I'm behind, obviously.

Fortunately another perc of sheik is amazing ground speed and fast aerials. though often times risky can force people off the edge when I need to when being planked between needles chain and flat out speed I haven't found myself in situations where I feel like I can't at least attempt to get characters off the edge.

 

[Zankoku]

Established Sheik players (Tristan, Light, <3, Scary, dmt... uhh... anyone else?) please summarize for me how you feel Sheik should be played. Include aerial/ground focus, needle/chain/Vanish/transform usage, and of course general playstyle.

Thanks.

 

[-dMT-]

Sheik is an opportunist.

She has good punishing tools, a good camp game and at low percent incredibly high damage output.

In most MUs its safe to assume Sheik should be evasive and focused on needle camping to force approaches, hopefully sloppy or rushed. After some damage from needles the concentration should be spacing bairs mainly and looking for grab opportunities that can lead to a juggle game, or an ftilt setup depending on the MU. This is generally her High Damage Output Phase.

Once whatever guaranteed combos at low percent, be it ftilt lock or not, are out of the way, it turns into a punishing game. The Sheik should patiently revert back to spacing and punishing, even if 1 attack at a time to safely build damage, and look for an opportunity for the kill.

She also has good gimping tools, and against certain characters she also has the setups to force them to the edge and off of it. Often times this can lead to a scenario where Sheik lands a lot of damage on the desperately recovering opponent, and possibly gimps them. Either way, showing aggressive edge guarding in most MUs is often the right way to play Sheik to the fullest.

Her game is mainly ground based, although i would have liked to say her aerial game is great, it really isn't something to write home about. It is far from being bad, and is definitely viable but isn't the focus of her general ability as a character. I feel her juggling game is good, and her grab game is also great, often being led into by jabx2. Just using her jabs, tilts and grab effectively can make a rather large impact on your gameplay - especially those jabs.

Her needles are one of the better projectiles in the game, with great damage output, a nice transcendent hitbox and fast travel speed. The range is also good for long-range camping. This means needle camping is often a very good strategy as Sheik, and many opponents will find it annoying, and difficult to punish.

Her chain can be good for poking shields and in situations where the opponent doesn't expect it. It is also viable as a camp game versus certain opponents like Ganondorf, CF, MK to name a few. It can have high damage output, or act as a wall depending on how it is utilized and the match-up in question. It is not a move to be used very often due to its rather large start-up and end lag.

Vanish can definitely be used offensively, but should find itself more use as a sort of pseudo-counter attack. It has well-placed invincibility frames, and is also her 2nd best KO move. Saving it and catching an opponent off-guard with it can often lead to early KOs. Another one of her moves to be used sparingly, often by luring an opponent into a specific position.

Transforming into Zelda can provide bonuses in the way of KO power, fresh moveset, and change of pace for the opponent. On the other hand, the same change of pace can hinder the player's momentum and this can lead to being punished greatly for having transformed for the kill, even leading to being killed before the opponent.


In summary, Sheik is an opportunist excelling at evasive maneuvers and quick, hard to react against punishing attacks. Her lack of reliable KO power can be assessed by adopting a safe, opportunistic style.

 

[<π]

honestly I'm too tired to do a big write up... haven't really slept in 26 hours... BUT!!

I believe vanishes wind hit box decays the move as well... be wary of that since it can drastically reduce the kill power of vanish without your knowledge...

 

[#HBC | Scary]

Give me a few days to get back to you on this. I'm on vacation with family and I really don't have a chance to get to a computer lol.

 

[iLight]

give me a few days too, i'm just lazy