ATTENTION ALL TOURNEY HOSTS - Ban Ledge Stalling

[ProdigyKid]

This thread needs to be closed.

 

[Miles.]

hm?
i would never do such a thing

Lulz

and

Sexy sig mang!

 

[EdreesesPieces]

yeah there are ways to get around this.

what mike said is right -- i camp the edge because i'm not going to take any chances of getting hit when i get up, because that situation, especially right after they respawn, is when most of your opponent's kills occur in melee if you notice. if they give me an opening i'll take it, but even then i'm going to camp the side of the stage until i can safely reach the middle again. it's called playing smart.

and you can't take that away from the game. so modify the rule however you want, i'll still legally camp my *** off and other smart players will too

It's one thing to do this because you want to get back on the stage. I do this myself, Mikehaze is known to do that - and that is perfectly fine. BUT if someone moves across the stage, LETS you get back on , and you continue doing it, I'd vouch for stalling disqualification. It's ALREADY against the rules. M2K is simply calling for an enforcement of PRE-EXISTING RULESET.

It's not up to debate whether infinite stalling the match is allowed or not. EVERY TOURNEY ALREADY BANS THIS TACTIC. It's simply just not enforced enough.

Wtf...

When you play a tournament match against someone you totally do not know, you don't enjoy playing them. Your aiming to win so u can win that money. Having fun and enjoyment when you play friendlies good sir.

So what Mike Haze said, u dont know what your talking about.

Justin - I play this game for fun and fun only. I enjoy playing everybody. It's a fun game to me. I don't do it for the money. It's just that I happen to love playing it in a competitive setting because the game isn't as fun if people aren't trying their best. I do it for the fun and competition.

 

[mikeHAZE]

It's one thing to do this because you want to get back on the stage. That is perfectly fine. BUT if someone moves across the stage, LETS you get back on , and you continue doing it, I'd vouch for stalling disqualification. It's ALREADY against the rules. M2K is simply calling for an enforcement of PRE-EXISTING RULESET. .

this^^^^^^^^

 

[FALCOMIST]

It's one thing to do this because you want to get back on the stage. That is perfectly fine. BUT if someone moves across the stage, LETS you get back on , and you continue doing it, I'd vouch for stalling disqualification. It's ALREADY against the rules. M2K is simply calling for an enforcement of PRE-EXISTING RULESET.

It's not up to debate whether infinite stalling the match is allowed or not. EVERY TOURNEY ALREADY BANS THIS TACTIC. It's simply just not enforced enough.



Justin - I play this game for fun and fun only. I enjoy playing everybody. It's a fun game to me. I don't do it for the money. It's just that I happen to love playing it in a competitive setting because the game isn't as fun if people aren't trying their best.

lol ppl all have different opinions on how they play there tourney matches. If its norcal or socal I like playing those tourney for fun, but if its like out of state I have a sense to try my best and not mess up. Iono if thats fun or not but I just like to represent my state.

 

[killer tofu]

but if your opponent is on the ledge not approaching
and your on the stage not approaching

aren't you both stalling O.o

 

[embracethe12]

I would have never expected this from someone who is apparently well known and does good at tournaments. If this is your weakness, then why should they stop? You know what happens when I try something like this? I usually get knocked off by a bair or some spike. You should try the same. You main MK, right? At least that's what I'm assuming. If you do, then you should have no problem attacking someone on the edge. Personally I'd rather deal with someone who stalls than someone who spams.

lol, btw guy m2k made this idea up on his own.

fail

 

[Gishnak]

One of the general rules of the SBR recommended Rule List:
"Stalling is banned."

Because ledge stalling is in fact stalling, ledge stalling is already banned. Just no one enforces it... I figure if a few tourney hosts start dqing players for ledge stalling and word gets out, people will stop in fear of getting dqed. Dunno, worth a shot.

 

[UnderWing]

Stalling is banned in most rulesets, but as people have said before -- it's hard to enforce. Setting a timer doesn't really fix that -- it just puts an arbitrary rule into the ruleset. A player who just stays on the ledge, even when they're unchallenged in their recovery, is obviously stalling... the problem is, when they're *challenged*, sometimes the ledge is the safest place to be -- they have to bide time, wait for an opening, and take advantage of it, and if they're being pressured, not being able to secure a safe route back to the stage shouldn't be punished -- they're having enough trouble as it is.

Brawl's defensive in nature -- the advantage in a conflict is generally the person who's defending from an assault -- especially when they're on solid ground, and can shield. In a situation where a light character is up against a heavy character (let's say TL and Snake, for instance -- a situation I'm all too familiar with), and TL's on the ledge, it's *very* hard to safely get back up once Snake comes over to the same side of the stage, and it's an even more intense situation when TL's at 80%+ -- kill range for half of Snake's tilts. If the rule is a 10 second timer, the Snake doesn't even *need* to try to hit TL while he's on the ledge... he can just wait 10 seconds, slightly away from the ledge, and know that his opponent has to come to him. When this happens, it's going to be a ledge recovery (attack, simple climb, roll, jump) or a drop->jump with an attack or a dodge on the way back up -- a good Snake will punish any of these, and most of the time that spells death for poor little TL (*coughuptiltcough*). Is it stalling if all you're doing is trying to safely get back on the platform?

A timer's insufficient for a rules clarification -- it defines an arbitrary amount of time that's going to be inappropriate for one situation or another. The existing rule needs to be better enforced, which likely means a neutral third party... it's tricky to say what the best course of action is, really, but a simple time limit's just not going to do the trick, I'm afraid. It's an important issue to discuss, though.