Anti Stalling Rule (Modified LGL)

[SaveMeJebus]

"If both players exceed their Ledge Grab Limit, then this rule is ignored." Unity Rule Set

If we add this to my rule set, it would fix all the problems that my rule set has

 

[Conviction]

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

"If both players exceed their Ledge Grab Limit, then this rule is ignored." Unity Rule Set

If we add this to my rule set it would fix all the problems that my rule set has

Lol what is more likely some one breaking past 50 LGLs or 15?

Just go ahead and admit you can't answer these questions I'm giving you.

**** Checkmate, this is Fool's Mate.

 

[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

This one??? By adding the unity set rule (If both players exceed their Ledge Grab Limit, then this rule is ignored) it fixes this problem. Now the match would go back to player with higher stock/less percentage wins.

 

[Conviction]

...no...just no if you are unable to see question marks in my posts you are not capable of arguing with.

I'm done here. Have fun people if you want to try your hand at insanity.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You're just pissed that I found a way to solve the problem with my rule set and now you have nothing

 

[Conviction]

You're just pissed that I found a way to solve the problem with my rule set and now you have nothing

Lol quite the contrary there homie.

I could break down your next "line of defense" if I wanted to but you refuse to answer other questions that I have previously stated.

Until you are able to answer all my questions without picking and choosing, because that's what you are doing. I won't comment on your insanity.

You win sir.

Insanity - 1
Logic - 0

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That's the only one I saw. If you can find the rest for me, I will answer all if them

 

[Conviction]

Lol it's not hard to read, at least you are capable of it right?

Why should I provide my questions when they already been provident? Stop being lazy/dancing around the questions.

I believe if you go to page 11 of the "Anti Stalling Rule (Modified LGL)", you will find some post made by xIblisx and then there if you read you will find question marks that signify that sentence was a interrogative sentence. There you will find the questions.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

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.

You wrote this before I added the Unity rule set LG rule. This is no longer a problem since I added this rule to my rule set

 

[Conviction]

Oh this is so simple.

If the rule is ignored after both players have broken it.

Check this out.

Player 1, 3 stocks, passed the 3 stock LGL
Player 2, 2 stocks, passed the 2 stock LGL
Player 2 wants to win so he SDs, so the "the LGL nullification" is broken.
Player 1 wants to win as well so he SDs to keep the lead.
I still see sponsoring SDing, which still, is non-competitive.

Now what?

EDIT: All you are doing is giving off that you have made your rule more complex when, in reality, the same way to loophole it was the same way before you added your "complexity".

EDIT2: Fool's Mate.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Why would they go over the LGL in the first place?

 

[John12346]

Because in a match against Meta-Knight's crazy ledgetrapping game, it's more than possible to grab the ledge 15 or 30 times over a specified period of time.

 

[Bizkit047]

Is this guy for real, or is he just like an amazing troll? I can't quite figure it out. I understand people being unfairly biased towards their own rules, but no ones THIS stubborn...

 

[Conviction]

Why would they go over the LGL in the first place?

herp a derp, good job at failing to address my point.

Because in a match against Meta-Knight's crazy ledgetrapping game, it's more than possible to grab the ledge 15 or 30 times over a specified period of time.

this or any other character edgeguarding game.

Is this guy for real, or is he just like an amazing troll? I can't quite figure it out. I understand people being unfairly biased towards their own rules, but no ones THIS stubborn...

Idk homes. Either way I've proven my point, so there is no reason to stay XD

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Why would they go over the LGL in the first place?

Why would they go over the LGL in any rulesset?

You're the best at debating lol

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If we used stocks taken instead of actual stocks, it would stop players from SDing since that wouldn't change anything. Problem solved

 

[Conviction]

LOL, that is completely stupid and completely contradicts what you were trying accomplish! Have you ever gotten a good grade on a debate in any of your lit classes?
So look at this.
1. Your rule doesn't make since, you can only have 45 ledge grabs if you take three stock then right? There are only 3 stock a game kid.
2. I kill you 2 times run the clock and then use my extended ledge grabs because I killed you twice. This is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen. Thank you for defeating your whole argument before I even looked at it.

Jebus quit every change makes you look worse and this is the WORST. How are you going to defeat yourself in a debate?

 

[Tarmogoyf]

If we used stocks taken instead of actual stocks, it would stop players from SDing since that wouldn't change anything. Problem solved

So, I kill my opponent (1st stock) with like 16 LGs. For the rest of the game, I have to approach. Even though I have the lead my opponent can just sit there, and even though I have more stocks, I went over the LGL, so I lose.

/adopt rulesset

 

[Conviction]

So, I kill my opponent (1st stock) with like 16 LGs. For the rest of the game, I have to approach. Even though I have the lead my opponent can just sit there, and even though I have more stocks, I went over the LGL, so I lose.

/adopt rulesset

Wait whoa if it's like this. It's even worse than I thought....

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Well, If I SD, it doesn't count, so If I go over the LGL (which is super low), and I'm at 3 stocks to 1, I still lose. They do this with regular LGLs, so why not with this one? The problem is the losing player ending up winning from running away and timing their opponent out.

I SAY WE TRY IT IT'S SO FUNNY!

 

[Conviction]

Stop it, just stop loool, stop breaking down this guy. I'm starting to die of laughter.

 

[Ripple]

well then let's give the person who took a stock more ledge grabs. in fact, lets reverse the current rule
1 stock 15
2 stocks 30
3 stocks 45

 

[Code Lyon]

That's the only one I saw. If you can find the rest for me, I will answer all if them

No

You wrote this before I added the Unity rule set LG rule. This is no longer a problem since I added this rule to my rule set

Awww that's cute...but it's wrong!

Why would they go over the LGL in the first place?

If we used stocks taken instead of actual stocks, it would stop players from SDing since that wouldn't change anything. Problem solved

Hey idiot, camp stupid has a population of one, and you are the one.

They shouldn't let people with this low of an IQ touch technology.

well then let's give the person who took a stock more ledge grabs. in fact, lets reverse the current rule
1 stock 15
2 stocks 30
3 stocks 45

LOL, that is completely stupid and completely contradicts what you were trying accomplish! Have you ever gotten a good grade on a debate in any of your lit classes?
So look at this.
1. Your rule doesn't make since, you can only have 45 ledge grabs if you take three stock then right? There are only 3 stock a game kid.
2. I kill you 2 times run the clock and then use my extended ledge grabs because I killed you twice. This is exactly the opposie of what you want to happen. Thank you for defeating your whole argument before I even looked at it.

Jebus quit every change makes you look worse and this is the WORST. How are you going to defeat yourself in a debate?

Problem solved

You are the problem

.

L

afk

 

[san.]

Let's cut Jebus some slack (did not read past first post). The whole different amount of ledge grabs per stock was pretty interesting compared to all of the other variations/replacement proposals of the LGL.

 

[Conviction]

San, just keep it that way, don't read past the first post.

 

[san.]

Haha, I am afraid to after the way you word that. I might read a little later, though.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

LOL, that is completely stupid and completely contradicts what you were trying accomplish! Have you ever gotten a good grade on a debate in any of your lit classes?
So look at this.
1. Your rule doesn't make since, you can only have 45 ledge grabs if you take three stock then right? There are only 3 stock a game kid.
2. I kill you 2 times run the clock and then use my extended ledge grabs because I killed you twice. This is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen. Thank you for defeating your whole argument before I even looked at it.

Jebus quit every change makes you look worse and this is the WORST. How are you going to defeat yourself in a debate?

1. you take no stocks, you get 15 ledge grabs.1 stock, you get 30 ledge grabs etc.

2. that's not even how the rule works. you get more ledge grabs depending on the amount of times you've gotten killed.

 

[Ripple]

1. you take no stocks, you get 15 ledge grabs.1 stock, you get 30 ledge grabs etc.

2. that's not even how the rule works. you get more ledge grabs depending on the amount of times you've gotten killed.

1. so instead of having the opponent kill me, I can SD can technically they didn't take a stock so they are still at 15 LGs.

congrats jebus, you've been promoting the same thing for the past 4 pages. suiciding as a tactic to win

2. that'S STILL promoting SDIng as a tactic

 

[Conviction]

LOL RIPPLE BEAT ME TO IT
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

/caps

 

[Ripple]

LOL RIPPLE BEAT ME TO IT
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

/caps

watching this thread like a hawk because its my entertainment

 

[SaveMeJebus]

1. so instead of having the opponent kill me, I can SD can technically they didn't take a stock so they are still at 15 LGs.

congrats jebus, you've been promoting the same thing for the past 4 pages. suiciding as a tactic to win

2. that'S STILL promoting SDIng as a tactic

1. How would you build up legit ledge grabs if you SDed? why should you get more?

2. SDing doesn't give you more ledge grabs, so no

 

[Ripple]

1. How would you build up legit ledge grabs if you SDed? why should you get more?

2. SDing doesn't give you more ledge grabs, so no

1. you build up ledge grabs THEN SD.

2. what if I accidently SD? what then? when I lose 1 stock I'm down to one with 30 LG but if I killed my opponent 2x then they are at 1 stock with 45 LG.

do you read what you post?

 

[Conviction]

You're no fun Ripple now I'm lost because he is being really vague and you keep ******.

Fill me in please?

*Tags*

 

[Ripple]

You're no fun Ripple now I'm lost because he is being really vague and you keep ******.

Fill me in please?

*Tags*

he says if you SD you don't get the reward of more ledge grabs. I said what If it's an accident? <-- which implies he knows that SDing is now a tactic in his rules

you can have the next one

 

[Conviction]

I got this **** then!

Get juggled on purpose and DI over so you die. You technically didn't SD.

Let's go!

 

[SaveMeJebus]

he says if you SD you don't get the reward of more ledge grabs. I said what If it's an accident?

you can have the next one

If you SDed, you SDed. What do you want me to say. No rule set helps people who SD

 

[Conviction]

Refute my point please.

 

[Ripple]

If you SDed, you SDed. What do you want me to say. No rule set helps people who SD

YOURS DOES

sorry xiblisx, I responded because this wasn't a point

I swear if jebus is trolling he is by far the best troll I've ever met

 

[Conviction]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

and just call me Iblis Ripple.

Yeah Jebus you support SD'ing apparently. Good ****.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

YOURS DOES

sorry xiblisx, I responded because this wasn't a point

I swear if jebus is trolling he is by far the best troll I've ever met

How? you get less ledge grabs if you SD with my rule set