Allowing No Fatigue/No Forced Switch PT Hacks in Tourney Play

[Seanson]

edit: i wont go there

 

[Brinzy]

edit: i wont go there

Because we know THAT had nothing to do with this thread. : (

 

[Evenkor]

I say we should not ever allow hacks into a game, especially for tournaments, etc. Why? First of all, it's a major insult to the creators of the game - your game wasn't good enough, we had to mess with the coding. Second of all, where do the hacks stop? Like what if we nerf Metaknight somehow? Is that the right thing to do? Third of all, for players without homebrew, tournaments will be vastly different then their experiences before.

Finally, one has to ask what truly defines a "character"? If we allow hacks to characters, aren't they no longer the characters they were before, but created characters based off of pre-existing ones.

 

[Rockin]

I say we should not ever allow hacks into a game, especially for tournaments, etc. Why? First of all, it's a major insult to the creators of the game - your game wasn't good enough, we had to mess with the coding. Second of all, where do the hacks stop? Like what if we nerf Metaknight somehow? Is that the right thing to do? Third of all, for players without homebrew, tournaments will be vastly different then their experiences before.

Finally, one has to ask what truly defines a "character"? If we allow hacks to characters, aren't they no longer the characters they were before, but created characters based off of pre-existing ones.

erm...major insult? Not sure about that, now

Hacks are fun at times. It's just when it's in a competitive setting, that's when its sometimes an issue. I hear MvC2 guys use hacks, but only in terms of color designs for the characters.

 

[leafgreen386]

AA's points are all valid and I don't intend on arguing them. I don't actually think that these hacks have a chance at making it in to official tournaments, nor do I care to see them make it in to official tournaments. The main thing that drew me to this topic were people insulting hacks used for competitive purposes in general, in particular brawl+. We're not pushing to make it the standard, but we do want it to eventually become an alternate form of play. If it does somehow become the standard, then that's great, too. It would mean that many more people actually enjoy it. But we don't want to snuff out brawl.

Again, it is not the same argument and it is not even close. Just because "designer" is used with both doesn't make it close. It is one thing to play with certain options in the game that a designer placed in the game - it is an entirely different thing to change/add characters that a designer created not so you could have a "choice", but so you had to use the mechanisms of that character. If PT did not switch out on his own, I would not argue this point because Down B would still be here and it'd be the intention to use all three Pokemon, but PT switches out, so you pretty much have to deal with that.

The point is that PT was designed to be the way he is. That is developer's intent. Sakurai wanted PT to have to switch pokemon, so he designed the game that way. Whether what you want to do with a game is ordinarily possible within its own limits or not - whether you're talking about an exploit in the physics of the game that was already there or a straight up hack - it doesn't matter for it to be a developer's intent argument. If what you're arguing against fits under either of those categories, and you're arguing against them because of that, that makes it developer's intent. The very fact that sakurai didn't include a way to change this mechanic only strengthens the fact that you're making a developer's intent argument. The game was made the way it was intended to be made.

 

[ShadowLink84]

He is a designer not a developer.
He said "I want this" the developers then put it in. He checked it out, said it was good , just like tripping...

 

[Brinzy]

Thank you, Shadowlink.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not making a "developer's intent" argument. I'm making the argument that PT's development is the way it is because that's how PT was built. Stop saying it. Start countering my points with something else.

WHY does this deserve to happen?

 

[leafgreen386]

He is a designer not a developer.
He said "I want this" the developers then put it in. He checked it out, said it was good , just like tripping...

Ok. Then... "designer's intent." Whatever. The person who was directing everything's... intent. It's all the same thing. Sakurai had the game made the way he wanted it made. Arguing that we shouldn't change something because that isn't the way the game was made is arguing for developer's intent.

Thank you, Shadowlink.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not making a "developer's intent" argument. Stop saying it. Start countering my points with something else.

Just because you say your argument isn't developer's intent doesn't suddenly change the fact that it is. I'm not countering your points with something else because there is nothing else to counter. You're making an argument based on a flawed concept.

 

[Brinzy]

Alright, explain to me why PT has three movesets and then explain to me why you guys want a hack so you can have a character that's like any other character. I'm growing tired of the same responses and I'm extremely tired of people trying to prove I'm making some form of argument while conveniently not answering why PT warrants this.

Why should he be given no forced switch? That's his ****ing character. If that's a weakness for him, that's too bad. Don't write this off as some "developer's intent" bull**** either, because there's a difference between and intention and the actual mechanic.

 

[metaXzero]

Alright, explain to me why PT has three movesets and then explain to me why you guys want a hack so you can have a character that's like any other character. I'm growing tired of the same responses and I'm extremely tired of people trying to prove I'm making some form of argument while conveniently not answering why PT warrants this.

Why should he be given no forced switch? That's his ****ing character. If that's a weakness for him, that's too bad. Don't write this off as some "developer's intent" bull**** either, because there's a difference between and intention and the actual mechanic.

In the long run it's unneccessary. But it doesn't hurt.

Their's simply no strong reason to go through with this (unless their were some large movement). But then, their's no strong reason NOT to go through with this (ignoring logistics).

 

[Ussi]

I'm going to a tourney with this hack aloud lol ;P I'm going all Charizard

 

[Palpi]

It is not developer's intent, but it is something that is a good idea in mine and other's opinions. I understand completely that Pokemon Trainer is the character and people have to get good with all three, but say I really like squirtle and think he is really fun, I am not gonna play pokemon trainer if I hate the other two. I think it is also a good idea because it opens for more match up analysis and experience because people will be focussing how to beat characters with one character not three.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Ok. Then... "designer's intent." Whatever. The person who was directing everything's... intent. It's all the same thing. Sakurai had the game made the way he wanted it made. Arguing that we shouldn't change something because that isn't the way the game was made is arguing for developer's intent.

Sakurai clearly wanted the game to be based for casuals. He clearly intended for items to be in play (considering glide tossing).
The fact that we can still make our own choice but remain within the confines of the game.
One can say the overall game was his intent but the usage, how we do things is anything but designer intent.

 

[adumbrodeus]

i agree that unlike banning, "fixing" does not have such strict requirements but...you seem to think we can change anything we feel like changing, that is just....wrong.
the thing is, slippery slope DOES indeed apply. okay, in this particular hack, they plan to buff PT. why PT? why not CF, Ganon, Jiggs, or (insert character name here)?
why? because they felt like it. that's a big problem. like i said, what if i feel like buffing falco? sure, he doesn't need a buff, but i feel like it. so who gets to decide who gets buffed or not? me? you? the sbr? you answered this with "the design team", and by that you mean nintendo right?
we as a community do not make those kind of decisions, if sakurai wants to re-release brawl with this added, or MK nerfed, or infinites gone, or falcon high tier, then we deal with it.

EDIT: if by "design team" you did mean the developers, then i would agree.

By "design team" I meant whoever was performing the change, regardless of the group.


Again, like any niche version, it's up to the community to decide if they want to accept it as a niche version of the game, so it's ultimately community consensus that decides what is warranted (nobody plays the versions that aren't balanced).

So, if you feel like creating a hack that buff Falco, by all means DO IT. Just don't expect people to actually play it.

Wait what? L canceling not awesome.
Kill yourself adumbrodeus.

It was a stupid way to implement it, and a pointless barrier to depth.

Indeed but people like hitting buttons so we might as well let them.

There's always the d-pad.

Most characters don't rteally suffer too greatly if they fail to use the L cancel, ( a good number of moves end before landing to begin with) so its not an issue.

Regardless, why make the characters that use it more dependent on random button presses then necessary.

Tech skill only sets people apart at the lower levels of play, once you've passed a certain level, everyone has a sufficient level of tech skill and it doesn't matter.

Emphasizing tech skill only makes that plateau (understanding the game in ATs) more difficult to get past.

BUT requiring tech skill IS a legitimate trade-off for additional depth. That's why auto-l-canceling is better then L canceling.

I'll have to get back to this argument later but i agree with most of what you said thus far.

I do think its more complication in terms of rebalancing things, I just have no good argument yet to back it up.

Actually now that I think about it, slippery slope would indeed apply.

This hack improves those characters correct SO why not improve the other characters? If we improve those characters, why not the others?
Considering it is difficult to dictate how to balance the characters, any attempt to do so would open the way to a slippery slope would it not?

It IS a slippery slope, but my point is, it doesn't matter.

People can rebalanced the game all they want, but regardless of the hack, for logistical reasons it cannot be the community standard.

Therefore all hacks are aimed at niche communities, and a hack is judged only on community acceptance.

I don't know. It's not like I stay up all night thinking up ways to hack the game that would not "hurt the metagame" in any way.

"No Tripping" makes dashing more viable. Characters with fast dashes and who dash a lot hurt less from this than characters with slow dashes and those who don't dash that much, anyway. The tiers might shift from this.

So we'd have to find a hack was universal and didn't only affect a single character (or certain characters)(No Fatigue) and the hack must also affect everyone equally (No Tripping) and otherwise play no great role in changing how the game works in general (No Tripping, since now we'll be dashing more).

But you're missing a fundamental point. Hacks can never be the standard, NOT because they rebalance the game, but because they're logistically non-viable. So, NO hack can be the standard. Ever.

However, hacks that can be freely incorporated are non-gameplay hacks, such as music hacks.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It was a stupid way to implement it, and a pointless barrier to depth.

What other way would you prefer?

There's always the d-pad.

D-pad uses taunts.

Regardless, why make the characters that use it more dependent on random button presses then necessary.

Then why not remove the lag completely?

Tech skill only sets people apart at the lower levels of play, once you've passed a certain level, everyone has a sufficient level of tech skill and it doesn't matter.

Emphasizing tech skill only makes that plateau (understanding the game in ATs) more difficult to get past.

BUT requiring tech skill IS a legitimate trade-off for additional depth. That's why auto-l-canceling is better then L canceling.

That is true but if the argument of "at so and so level it won't matter." then it means that several things should be done automatically because at that skill level, it won't matter anyway.

 

[XxBlackxX]

By "design team" I meant whoever was performing the change, regardless of the group.


Again, like any niche version, it's up to the community to decide if they want to accept it as a niche version of the game, so it's ultimately community consensus that decides what is warranted (nobody plays the versions that aren't balanced).

So, if you feel like creating a hack that buff Falco, by all means DO IT. Just don't expect people to actually play it.

okay, i see what you mean now.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What other way would you prefer?

Automatic, there's no benefit to not doing it, so why bother?

D-pad uses taunts.

You can't taunt during an aerial.

Then why not remove the lag completely?

That would make the game TOO aerial-centric IMO, but if Z-canceling was in the game, why not?

I think that halving aerial lag is effective, and makes things punishable while keeping the overall game pace fast, and granting depth.


But if you have any technique that universally removes all landing lag, it's already pointless to make it a technique. It's just as effective to actually have no landing lag for aerials.

That is true but if the argument of "at so and so level it won't matter." then it means that several things should be done automatically because at that skill level, it won't matter anyway.

I have no issue whatsoever with things being made easier so long as depth isn't sacrificed in the process.

The only exception is stuff that isn't humanly possible (JC shine infinite).


However, since a lot of the stuff is discovered, making it easier isn't possible, however if we're consciously adding stuff, why make it more difficult then necessary?

 

[Tornadith]

By "design team" I meant whoever was performing the change, regardless of the group.


Again, like any niche version, it's up to the community to decide if they want to accept it as a niche version of the game, so it's ultimately community consensus that decides what is warranted (nobody plays the versions that aren't balanced).

So, if you feel like creating a hack that buff Falco, by all means DO IT. Just don't expect people to actually play it.

Exactly. You can make the hack. That's fine with me. But when you start using this PT hack in tournaments. THEN we intervene. So make the hack, whatever. Just don't use it in tournaments.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Automatic, there's no benefit to not doing it, so why bother?

Same reason why there is no benefit from not autocancelling your Fair as Wolf.

You can't taunt during an aerial.

Unless you main Eddie in GG this becomes troublesome.

That would make the game TOO aerial-centric IMO, but if Z-canceling was in the game, why not?

I think that halving aerial lag is effective, and makes things punishable while keeping the overall game pace fast, and granting depth.


But if you have any technique that universally removes all landing lag, it's already pointless to make it a technique. It's just as effective to actually have no landing lag for aerials.

You missed my point. What I am getting at is you are saying it is pointless to make a barrier since at a skill level everyone can do it.
As such anything that requires some technical skill should be done automatically because of how at the higher skill level, it means little.

I have no issue whatsoever with things being made easier so long as depth isn't sacrificed in the process.

The only exception is stuff that isn't humanly possible (JC shine infinite).

However, since a lot of the stuff is discovered, making it easier isn't possible, however if we're consciously adding stuff, why make it more difficult then necessary?

Why make it more easy? ITs not hard to hit L as you land on the ground.

 

[marthmaster04]

All i see is buff buff whine pout piss moan butthurt. How is this a buff compared to other characters? It WOULD be a buff if other chars were affected by stamina as the pokemon are. IMO it just makes it to where someone can solo main a pokemon. Its as simple as that. The pokemon are the same, its not like they're becoming broken or getting more priority boosts or to combo better. They'll just finally be the same as other chars. Without having to switch. You guys get too analytical i swear. Telling someone to main a different character doesn't apply to this either. Thats completely irrelevent.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Its a buff because they gain a positive. No more fatigue worry, no more bad pokemon matchup worry.

 

[metaXzero]

All i see is buff buff whine pout piss moan butthurt. How is this a buff compared to other characters? It WOULD be a buff if other chars were affected by stamina as the pokemon are. IMO it just makes it to where someone can solo main a pokemon. Its as simple as that. The pokemon are the same, its not like they're becoming broken or getting more priority boosts or to combo better. They'll just finally be the same as other chars. Without having to switch. You guys get too analytical i swear. Telling someone to main a different character doesn't apply to this either. Thats completely irrelevent.

Again, as I've said to other people, on the off chance this were used, the "No Fatigue" hack couldn't be used without arguing the buff of other characters. "No Force Switch" would make the individual Pkm, but "no Fatigue" would be a character buff.

That's all I'm addressing here.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Same reason why there is no benefit from not autocancelling your Fair as Wolf.

False, you may need to hit lower.

Not so much wolf's fair, but other moves there's a definate benefit to not auto-canceling in some situations.

Unless you main Eddie in GG this becomes troublesome.

We're talking about smash.

You missed my point. What I am getting at is you are saying it is pointless to make a barrier since at a skill level everyone can do it.
As such anything that requires some technical skill should be done automatically because of how at the higher skill level, it means little.

And I have no issue with that.

The point is, technical skill is ultimately not a barrier. What is a barrier is smart application (aka, choosing when and how to use a technique).

You wouldn't want to wavedash all the time, so making it automatic is BAD (making it easier isn't however).

However, for any pass/fail mechanic where not doing it is useless... why isn't it automatic? It's pointless to make it a conscious tech in that circumstance.

Why make it more easy? ITs not hard to hit L as you land on the ground.

Why force people to spend more time practicing a tech that has no benefits for smart application, beyond "use it always"?

That's really the crux of my position.

 

[ShadowLink84]

False, you may need to hit lower.

Not so much wolf's fair, but other moves there's a definate benefit to not auto-canceling in some situations.

Example? I have a ahrd time remembering them.

We're talking about smash.

My point is that you need a third hand since you need to control your aerial motion.
Like Wario.

stuff

Hmm I see your point but however I shall use a poitt you made earlier, sometimes you shouldn't L cancel, in some instance sits better to autocancel the move.
Ganon's Dair for example.

 

[leafgreen386]

Am I reading this right that people are actually debating about manual and auto l-cancels? Like... still?

I don't know if everything has already been said, but I'm sure that me repeating something that's been said here would be better than me directing you to a thread longer than this that is solely about MLC vs ALC.

Ultimately, people decided that ALC would be better for brawl+ because it's an arbitrary tech skill barrier. Anyone who has practiced it can and will do it. The player will attempt it 100% of the time, and regardless of if they fail it every time, making that attempt to perform it will still be the best option every single time. There is no downside to performing it or even failing it. Success grants you halved aerial lag, while failure results in the exact same thing as had you never attempted it. Depth is attained by adding options in various situations and then requiring the player to make a choice about what to do. The halving of lag itself is what adds depth. Having to press a button to do it does not, and thus is pointless and arbitrary.

We could make the game more technical in any number of ways, including forcing you to rotate your control stick around every time you perform a move or else you'll go into your broken shield animation afterward. This wouldn't add any depth to the game, though it would make it more technical. I don't think anyone wants this, though, and it's not a whole lot different than requiring a button press for halved aerial lag.

Hmm I see your point but however I shall use a poitt you made earlier, sometimes you shouldn't L cancel, in some instance sits better to autocancel the move.
Ganon's Dair for example.

But then if you do that you wouldn't have any lag to cancel to begin with. If you're going to land with lag then it is always better to l-cancel.

 

[Palpi]

Honestly, I wouldn't really mind if I could play as 1 of the pokemon the whole time, but fatigued. Realizing it would be probably worse than pokemon trainer as a whole. People wanting the hack aren't fighting to make it better, but personal preference on the enjoyment of specific characters.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I keep regretting not C/Ping my post...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Example? I have a ahrd time remembering them.

For wolf's fair, a crouching kirby perhaps, or close to the edge for interception.

It's more of an issue for Ganondorf's dair really, you can't hit grounded opponent's with the auto-canceled version, or opponents on the ledge. His uair is probably the most appreciable of all though, to auto-cancel or not is always a question.

That's really the reason why auto-canceling is different, it limits you towards attacking with the tech a certain way, otherwise no auto-cancel. So you have to make a decision, so I want to attack this angle, or be lagless? Either has it's advantages, in certain situations.

My point is that you need a third hand since you need to control your aerial motion.
Like Wario.

And you're missing the point I'm making, if people wanna randomly press buttons, there are buttons to press that don't do anything. Why force everyone else to have to press a button because they want to.

Hmm I see your point but however I shall use a poitt you made earlier, sometimes you shouldn't L cancel, in some instance sits better to autocancel the move.
Ganon's Dair for example.

They're not mutually exclusive, with all aerial landing lag halved auto-cancel vs. landing lag is a far more worthwhile question, so why not have both?

stuff

Which is precisely what I've been saying, you guys sure you haven't been quoting me? j/k


But this isn't about Brawl+, it's a tangent that developed off him proclaiming how great L canceling is in general, and me saying, that it's not so great but better then current landing lag.

I keep regretting not C/Ping my post...

Why don't you, it's right on page 15 anyway.

Though, while I agree with your conclusion, your conclusion was really the crux of the issue. People can play on this if they want, but making it the standard is the issue because it forces people to hack their wiis to train against this character. Therefore it shouldn't be the standard, because we should not be forcing people to play a non retail version of the game to be part of the competitive community.

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

This is all very funny to me. I remember visiting this forum when Brawl first came out, rummaging through threads hastily trying to find any amount of evidence of Brawl's prowess to match up to its successor Melee. Thread after thread people would post new finds in hopes that their 'discovery' was Brawl's answer to wavedashing. But what accompanied every thread with that endearing grasp of the nuts to discredit any finds? None other than Yuna. Trolling almost every thread that claimed to find something decent, using whatever he can to downplay the find, Yuna said whatever he could to make the game look like trash. I kid you not, the man must've been up 12 hours a day checking every thread to see what he can say to bash Brawl and discredit those who tried to muster up what they could to breathe life back into the hopes that game was tourney-viable.

Now, many months later, the community finally has a chance to change the game for the better. And who's first, spear and shield in hand? Yuna. Congratulations; lest this be a celebration of close-mindedness and isolated thought. I hope you enjoy your vanilla, for I prefer mine with oreos and a dash of caramel.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This is all very funny to me. I remember visiting this forum when Brawl first came out, rummaging through threads hastily trying to find any amount of evidence of Brawl's prowess to match up to its successor Melee. Thread after thread people would post new finds in hopes that their 'discovery' was Brawl's answer to wavedashing. But what accompanied every thread with that endearing grasp of the nuts to discredit any finds? None other than Yuna. Trolling almost every thread that claimed to find something decent, using whatever he can to downplay the find, Yuna said whatever he could to make the game look like trash. I kid you not, the man must've been up 12 hours a day checking every thread to see what he can say to bash Brawl and discredit those who tried to muster up what they could to breathe life back into the hopes that game was tourney-viable.

Now, many months later, the community finally has a chance to change the game for the better. And who's first, spear and shield in hand? Yuna. Congratulations; lest this be a celebration of close-mindedness and isolated thought. I hope you enjoy your vanilla, for I prefer mine with oreos and a dash of caramel.

Which is relevant how?

This isn't a brawl vs. melee debate here, the con side here probably comes from very different backgrounds, we have people like AlphaZealot who have been very vocal in attempting to improve Brawl as is in addition to Yuna who believes it is an inferior game. All that's a topic for a different thread.


However the only relevant thing that unites the con side is this, a fundamental idea that, "players should not be forced to hack the game and create non-standard version of the game to be part of a game's competitive community".


As far as this thread is concerned, that's all that's relevant.

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

oh, it wasn't meant to be relevant. i was just merely making an observation.

 

[DemonFart]

this hack for brawl+ will be so epic and pokemon trainer will be different because it will people to only use one pokemon out of the three. If this hack will stop all stamina and switching issues then i am for it. it would help pokemon trainer greatly,why wouldn't it be used. even steeler agrees with this hack, i know thats not how the creators of brawl intended pokemon trainer to be but that can be fixed. the creator must've just screwed up or something. i don't care if my opinion gets flamed by others, i am still for it and nothing i hear will change what i stand for.
,Amen

 

[Olimarman]

All this hack would really do is remove 1 character and add 3 more. The idea of PT is to learn how to swap between the 3 and use them strategically, thus you need to get good with all 3 to do well. If the hack is added, you can get good with a single character and thats enough. Its essentially just making PT like zelda/sheik.

Though PT may not be that good, I feel that hacks 1.shouldn't even be used, and 2. especially if they mess with characters in particular. So what if Brawl isn't like Melee? Thats why its a sequel.... making another melee would be dumb.

 

[metaXzero]

All this hack would really do is remove 1 character and add 3 more. The idea of PT is to learn how to swap between the 3 and use them strategically, thus you need to get good with all 3 to do well. If the hack is added, you can get good with a single character and thats enough. Its essentially just making PT like zelda/sheik.

Though PT may not be that good, I feel that hacks 1.shouldn't even be used, and 2. especially if they mess with characters in particular. So what if Brawl isn't like Melee? Thats why its a sequel.... making another melee would be dumb.

NO IT WON'T! Pokemon Trainer (All 3 Pokemon, switching between the 3) can still be played! And PT is unchanged! It's not removing anything!

Aaah! Isn't it in the OP?

 

[Olimarman]

Of course you can still use all 3, its just less necessary since all you NEED to get good with is 1. The idea of PT is to NOT do this, and adding this hack is essentially completely changing how the character can be played.

Like I said, he would become like Zelda/Sheik. You don't NEED to get good with both, but you can. But why bother if 1 will work?

 

[CO18]

I want this to happen so then I can second Charizard without having to worry about fatigue or scrubbish Squirtle and Ivysaur!

 

[Yuna]

I want this to happen so then I can second Charizard without having to worry about fatigue or scrubbish Squirtle and Ivysaur!

So basically it's just your selfish desire to be able to play the way you want to play the game and to make it easier for you to play as a certain character? Hey, I want Zelda's smashes to become non-Smash-DI:able so she won't get screwed over by Smash DI. Let's hack that in!

This did not contribute to the thread or the debate. Please argue for why this should be added, not why you want it to be added.

 

[CO18]

So basically it's just your selfish desire to be able to play the way you want to play the game and to make it easier for you to play as a certain character? Hey, I want Zelda's smashes to become non-Smash-DI:able so she won't get screwed over by Smash DI. Let's hack that in!

This did not contribute to the thread or the debate. Please argue for why this should be added, not why you want it to be added.

The answer to the first question is Yes and It should be added to make the game more fun!

 

[Yuna]

The answer to the first question is Yes and It should be added to make the game more fun!

This one sentence has not disqualified you (in my eyes) from any future debates about whether or not something should be banned/added to the metagame.

I don't care if you're a very respected King DeDeDe-player. We don't ban and/or hack the game to "make it more fun".

 

[CO18]

I know, Im just really not into this arguing thing. I got over it awhile back after the DDD-infinite banning question. Its just a big waste of time since people keep bringing up the same points after forgetting you disproved them 10 pages back and nothing really said has that much of an influence over the end result anyway.

I just said Id like it because I would enjoy using charizard solo. I never said in my original post that it should be allowed because of it, I was just stating that I would indeed like it if it did happen.