Anti Stalling Rule (Modified LGL)

[SaveMeJebus]

What's the problem with it?

 

[Conviction]

LOL what's wrong with it?

All the things that have been stated already. Also why ask what do people think about it when all you've been getting is negative responses?

At first I was lol'ing at the silliness going on in here but now it's stupid.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

This rule set would help stop games from going to time when both players have two or more stocks. It doesn't effect any character any more than the regular LGL effects them already. What is the problem?

 

[Conviction]

This rule set would help stop games from going to time when both players have two or more stocks. It doesn't effect any character any more than the regular LGL effects them already. What is the problem?

Repeat last 8 pages....

...Someone let me know when this thread stops going around in circles or gets funny again.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The reason it goes around in circles is because people bring up stupid things like jungle japes and other rules like food on high. You could check yourselves. No one can give a good reason on why this rule set wouldn't work. It's better than the current rule. It would stop players from stalling when they have more that three stocks and there is a short amount of time left on the counter.

This situation usually only occurs when both players are trying to stall each other out. Why would you want that to happen at all?

 

[Conviction]

I'm just going to predict the future and outcome of this thread and then I'm done.

This is never getting picked up.

L.

Afk.

 

[Jonas]

This rule set would help stop games from going to time when both players have two or more stocks. It doesn't effect any character any more than the regular LGL effects them already. What is the problem?

If I have 1 stock and my opponent has 3 stocks at the end of the 10 minutes, my opponent loses if he has more than 15 ledgegrabs and I have less than 45 ledgegrabs. Is that what you're suggesting? Because if it is, I shouldn't have to explain why it is such a bad rule.

 

[Ghostbone]

This situation usually only occurs when both players are trying to stall each other out. Why would you want that to happen at all?

Why wouldn't you want it to happen?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If I have 1 stock and my opponent has 3 stocks at the end of the 10 minutes, my opponent loses if he has more than 15 ledgegrabs and I have less than 45 ledgegrabs. Is that what you're suggesting? Because if it is, I shouldn't have to explain why it is such a bad rule.

Why does your opponent have more than 15 ledge grabs on their first stock? Even then, they could always just SD their first stock and get an extra 15 ledge grabs


@Ghostbone, because that's what the rules are trying to prevent in the first place

 

[WindMajor]

If you're trying to prevent stalling, why have 3 degrees of stalling? Usually the line in the sand is drawn in one place, but if you draw it in three places, it gets contradicting. One player is allowed to get 14 ledge grabs before his stalling is unacceptable, and the other is allowed to get 44 ledge grabs before his stalling becomes unacceptable. Do you see what's wrong with that?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If you're trying to prevent stalling, why have 3 degrees of stalling? Usually the line in the sand is drawn in one place, but if you draw it in three places, it gets contradicting. One player is allowed to get 14 ledge grabs before his stalling is unacceptable, and the other is allowed to get 44 ledge grabs before his stalling becomes unacceptable. Do you see what's wrong with that?

The player that has the stock/percentage is the only one who can really stall out in a match. This rule set helps prevent those matches in which one player got gimped or accidentally SDed from going to time. With the current rule set, there is nothing stopping the opponent from stalling him out especially if there are like three minutes left on the timer.

 

[WindMajor]

You missed my point. How much time is too much stalling in your opinion?

Also, who cares about people that accidentally SD or get gimped?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So, what do you guys think of my ledge grab rule???

I personally think you should stop trying to propose ruleset changes. This is the best one yet and it's still worse than the existing LGL in pretty much every single way.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You missed my point. How much time is too much stalling in your opinion?

Also, who cares about people that accidentally SD or get gimped?

Does it really matter? My opinion of stalling might be completely different than your opinion of stalling. If a person stays in a place where the opponent can't hit him or the risk outweighs the reward, that's what I consider stalling

Also, I think that's the reason why we play with three stocks and not one

 

[Ripple]

I already told you the problem with it. it punishes people for killing their opponent

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I already told you the problem with it. it punishes people for killing their opponent

That's stupid. If you kill the opponent then that means you have the stock lead which means that as long as you don't go over the LGL, you shouldn't lose the match.

 

[Ripple]

That's stupid. If you kill the opponent then that means you have the stock lead which means that as long as you don't go over the LGL, you shouldn't lose the match.

scenario time.

2 stocks left 10 seconds remaining. we are tied in %. AND both over 30 ledge grabs because 30 is obscenely low especially for a 10 min timer.

what are my options?

If I kill my opponent, I LOSE. plain and simple.

If I Kill myself, I WIN.

do you honestly not see the problem with this?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

scenario time.

2 stocks left 10 seconds remaining. we are tied in %. AND both over 30 ledge grabs because 30 is obscenely low especially for a 10 min timer.

what are my options?

If I kill my opponent, I LOSE. plain and simple.

If I Kill myself, I WIN.

do you honestly not see the problem with this?

Current rule set, 6 mins into the match. The opponent takes out my first stock and decides to stall me out on the ledge since 35 ledge grabs are more than enough to time someone out with the time remaining.

Food rule set. Two characters with no projectiles are facing each other. one character hits the other character and expects him to approach. the character that got hit just waits for either his opponent to approach or for food to appear.

This can be done for any rule set to make it look bad. At least with mine, you get options. you can always change the LGL to 20, 40 , 60

 

[Tarmogoyf]

The problem with that argument is, if they are all flawed to some degree, then there is basically no reason to change the status quo.

And you can modify an LGL in any rulesset anyways.....

 

[Conviction]

This rule is a foot in the *** to characters who have recovery problems and have to grab the ledge.

 

[Nike.]

SaveMeJebus, I approve of your avi

 

[Jonas]

Why does your opponent have more than 15 ledge grabs on their first stock?

Because he spends a lot of time recovering?

Even then, they could always just SD their first stock and get an extra 15 ledge grabs

When a rule forces a strategy in which you intentially SD, it's a bad rule. A rule should never punish a player for being ahead of his opponent.

 

[Raziek]

Jebus, just.... stop.

We told you very clearly the problems with this rule. You responded with "I don't think they're problems", then asked AGAIN what we thought of the rule.

smfh

 

[Player-1]

raziek 4 president of world <3

 

[Conviction]

Jebus, just.... stop.

We told you very clearly the problems with this rule. You responded with "I don't think they're problems", then asked AGAIN what we thought of the rule.

smfh

Reqouting this because he said it the way I was getting to.

So with this, can this thread be closed?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Yeah, I'm done repeating myself too

 

[Ghostbone]

If a person stays in a place where the opponent can't hit him or the risk outweighs the reward, that's what I consider stalling

Erm

You do realise in brawl it's almost always more risky to approach then not right?

 

[sunshade]

try recovering with sopo on the left side while trying to hit a stalling DK (no projectiles. not every character has projectiles). I'll permaban myself if you can do that

Easy.

Dk is on the far left side of the screen and uses a short hopped up-b out of the water and begins to move towards the right side of the screen. Sopo runs off of the platform so that he intercepts DK after up-b ends but before dk falls in the water and hits DK with back air. Sopo hits the water ending any lag he would have on his back air, then recovers to the stage. Rinse and repeat till the back air kills DK. Now please proceed to permaban yourself.

Does it really matter? My opinion of stalling might be completely different than your opinion of stalling. If a person stays in a place where the opponent can't hit him or the risk outweighs the reward, that's what I consider stalling

Also, I think that's the reason why we play with three stocks and not one

You clearly have no idea what stalling is (and when I say stalling I mean stalling, not camping. There is a massive difference) and number of stocks used is entirely subjective.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Easy.

Dk is on the far left side of the screen and uses a short hopped up-b out of the water and begins to move towards the right side of the screen. Sopo runs off of the platform so that he intercepts DK after up-b ends but before dk falls in the water and hits DK with back air. Sopo hits the water ending any lag he would have on his back air, then recovers to the stage. Rinse and repeat till the back air kills DK. Now please proceed to permaban yourself.



You clearly have no idea what stalling is (and when I say stalling I mean stalling, not camping. There is a massive difference) and number of stocks used is entirely subjective.

Have you even tested that out? there are very few characters that can com back once they have hit the water on the left side and popo is definitely not one of them

 

[Conviction]

Answer me this.

What happens if they break your 1st stock LGL and they have killed their opponent and they've reached the limit already of the 2nd stock lgl, ...so the only way to stop from losing is each one of them SDing?

Are you sponsoring suiciding? I hope you know that is very uncompetitive to the community and to those looking to join the comminutym

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If the game was played with one stock, what what would be a good amount for the LGL? This rule set gives you more overall ledge grabs than the current rule set everyone uses.

 

[Ripple]

If the game was played with one stock, what what would be a good amount for the LGL? This rule set gives you more overall ledge grabs than the current rule set everyone uses.

quit strawmanning jebus, no matter how many times you post you refuse to answer this point brought up by some people. you just ignore it.

Answer me this.

What happens if they break your 1st stock LGL and they have killed their opponent and they've reached the limit already of the 2nd stock lgl, ...so the only way to stop from losing is each one of them SDing?

Are you sponsoring suiciding? I hope you know that is very uncompetitive to the community and to those looking to join the comminutym

 

[Conviction]

Checkmate.

Unless he legitly responds to my question, any further arguments with him in this thread is completely out of your enjoyment or stupidity/insanity.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Answer me this.

What happens if they break your 1st stock LGL and they have killed their opponent and they've reached the limit already of the 2nd stock lgl, ...so the only way to stop from losing is each one of them SDing?

Are you sponsoring suiciding? I hope you know that is very uncompetitive to the community and to those looking to join the comminutym

I don't see how it is any different from both players going over 35 or 50 ledge grabs with the current rule set. Are both of them basically ****ed in this situation?

 

[Vyse]

1 stock, food on pretty much fixes every single problem in brawl at the cost of introducing a new, random dynamic.



And removes an arbitrary one.


The only unfair thing is the nerf to lucario, but imo that's arguable too. And besides, the alternative is nerfing a number of characters who happen to need the ledge.

If I get punished for accidentally eating food then bad luck lol. Random chance is better than an arbitrary win condition.

I'm gonna do this for house tournaments once I get moved in to a house at the end of the month.

 

[Tesh]

Hold on wait for me, I'm buying a plane ticket to Australia........one way.

Why do people say Lucario is at "base" power at 75%? Wouldn't he be at base power at 0%? Anyway I'd totally be ready to argue that our 3 stock standard buffs Lucario and nerfs Squirtle Trainer.

 

[Jonas]

Because his attacks' damage multiplier is 1 at 75%? Idk, just guessing.

 

[Conviction]

I don't see how it is any different from both players going over 35 or 50 ledge grabs with the current rule set. Are both of them basically ****ed in this situation?

The difference is, in the current ruleset, the LGL is constant, not random number stuck to how many stocks you have left.

Case Scenario - Under your Ruleset:

Time is running out. Player has 3 stocks and Player has 2, Player 1 is Falco and Player 2 is Samus, in this MU you will see a lot of camping so it's not too hard to imagining it going to time so follow me here. Player 1 has past the LGL for 3 stocks because Player 2 has been edgeguarding well but can't get the kill (Samus and her killing problems). Only way for Player 1 not to lose is to eventually SD so he can stay under your legalized LGL rules.

This is non-competitive am I wrong? Why should Player 1 be punished for keeping the lead or forced to kill himself which could possibly change the momentum of the match he had and make him lose the match when he was clearly in the lead beforehand of killing himself?

Same Case Scenario - Under Current Ruleset:

Time is running out. Player has 3 stocks and Player has 2, Player 1 is Falco and Player 2 is Samus, in this MU you will see a lot of camping so it's not too hard to imagining it going to time so follow me here. Player 1 is pushing 15 legde grabs because Player 2 has been edgeguarding well but can't get the kill (Samus and her killing problems.) Player keeps the lead by camping (that does not have to include grabbing the ledge but even then he has lead way to grab the ledge again 35 more times) and times out the clock. Player 1 wins.
________________________________________________________________________

Both Rulesets have their faults but answer this.

Which looks more competitive, trying to stop some one ledge camping with a constant LGL? or on the other hand going back to your suggestion, having to suicide because you need to keep in bounds of a LGL that increases with less stocks, possibly giving up your momentum of the game?

Now one could argue that Ledge camping is a strong tactic but is really only a different form of camping, it's not broken (unless we are talking about a character whose name won't be mentioned). So do what do you want to do ban camping? Extorting some characters best traits and basically derailing the use of have a projectile? I'll this paragrah here because I don't want to turn this into anti-ban X character vs. pro-ban X character thread.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Under Current Ruleset: Player one takes out the opponent's first stock with 3 min left on the timer. Having used only 5 ledge grabs and having 30 ledge grabs remaining (or 45 with the new ruleset), he decides to time the other player out by stalling on the ledge.

My rule set: same situation. the player now gets 10 ledge grabs instead of 30. try stalling someone out with that amount of ledge grabs. The new unity rule set has a one stock 18 lgl rematch if the match ended up being tied. Without stalling, no one should really have to go over 15 ledge grabs unless they are trying to stall

 

[Conviction]

Under Current Ruleset: Player one takes out the opponent's first stock with 3 min left on the timer. Having used only 5 ledge grabs and having 30 ledge grabs remaining (or 45 with the new ruleset), he decides to time the other player out by stalling on the ledge.

My rule set: same situation. the player now gets 10 ledge grabs instead of 30. try stalling someone out with that amount of ledge grabs. The new unity rule set has a one stock 18 lgl rematch if the match ended up being tied. Without stalling, no one should really have to go over 15 ledge grabs unless they are trying to stall

You didn't answer any of my questions...

Response to your thing though.

First off, Who goes 5 mins without grabbing a more than 5 times?
Second, you are going have to do some form of camping to 3 stock someone or keep the lead.

Your ruleset still is wrong, because there is 8 minutes on the clock + three stocks, you can't compare that to the tie-breaker match ruleset because it has, 1 stock and 3 minutes which is way more reasonable to have such a low LGL. Sorry those don't compare at all.

Now Jebus, stop dancing around the question and answer the ones on this post and my previous post.