#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
The person who initiated it wins.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Chatting with the BBR! Today's session cancelled :(
- Thread starter Pierce7d
- Start date
Then I'm for the PAL version. I do think the suicide initiator should get the victory.
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
I think they had something like that, and I think Pierce just replaced it with this one. I could be wrong though
edit: wait, that's true about the PAL version? Oh heck no. This is gonna cause rage unless a rule is added - if it's in the PAL version, why are NTSC players deprived? I suppose one could say "Why are PAL players buffed," but I don't see that going over too well...
edit: wait, that's true about the PAL version? Oh heck no. This is gonna cause rage unless a rule is added - if it's in the PAL version, why are NTSC players deprived? I suppose one could say "Why are PAL players buffed," but I don't see that going over too well...
ADHD
Smash Hero
Stop trying to sound smart, pierce. We all know you failed english!
CR4SH
Smash Lord
Lol I figured it would go over your head. The IDC rule doof.ADHD said:
And the answer is really blatantly obvious for that and the statment you THOUGHT I was making.
Dr. Tuen
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,396
- 3DS FC
- 0559-7294-8323
Heyo! I'd like to give a helping hand too.
I can be found at "tuenrey" on AIM and "DDR-Nefcy@hotmail.com" on MSN.
From what I read here, I can answer questions about general BBR reasoning and my own opinions (even if they don't align), but I can't reveal another person's votes or personal opinions.
I'm all for more communication between the BBR and the public. I'm online at very weird times (though I'll be on now), but I'll try to be on every... Sunday? Something like that.
I can be found at "tuenrey" on AIM and "DDR-Nefcy@hotmail.com" on MSN.
From what I read here, I can answer questions about general BBR reasoning and my own opinions (even if they don't align), but I can't reveal another person's votes or personal opinions.
I'm all for more communication between the BBR and the public. I'm online at very weird times (though I'll be on now), but I'll try to be on every... Sunday? Something like that.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I'm also on board for that.
Pierce7d
Wise Hermit
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,289
- 3DS FC
- 1993-9028-0439
Yes, feel free to ask any question. I might not be able to answer all of them, but I'll at least try to answer if I can.
Thanks a million
Change is always a possibility, and thanks for being civil.I want to flame you hard for this post...but they're watching...
Of course we could just not use the ruleset. But if that's all that mattered, nobody would be mad about it. The community wants to follow an official ruleset as much as possible, so there is plenty reason to ask for a different one.
edit: Thanks Inferno
All I wanted to know is that change is a possibility.
Yes, well we'll definitely be updating.
Well, we decided the LGL was an arbitrary addition meant to nerf MK's planking. Otherwise, it's not something that needed limiting. If we're going to address MK's planking, we'll either remove the character, or remove the tactic without affecting a large aspect of the game: ledge-play.
Yeah of course! Thanks a lot. Also, way to hold it down in the Ruleset thread.Indeed, there's always more goodness on the horizon, the best is yet to come.
Also, Pierce, if I'm at home / not busy with something work related, I would love to partake in the chat sessions and help you out in any way that I can.
Yeah, I've been REALLY busy today catching up with everything, and I'm heading out to Apex really soon, so I won't have time to pop on any IMs tonight, but I would love to talk to you at a later date. I'll check out your thread though.
Haha, thanks a lot.
Well, a lot of people have added the really valid purpose that the BBR is supposed to represent our community, and set a standard for us all to follow, even if the ruleset is just recommended. We'll try to make the ruleset as fair and competitive as possible. In some cases, we'll yield to the community, and in some cases, we hope to sway the community to see things our way. Of course, it's not required, as you said.
Haha, correct. On some popular websites or services (like AIM or MSN), Pierce is already taken, so I just use the 7d to be completely unique. No one ever puts a letter after a number, and it's very unique.It stands for seven d**ks to please seven beautiful women at the same time.
Least that's what I heard
In reality it has to do with him liking the number seven and his real name being Daniel
*knows because I asked him the same thing (and actually got that first response from someone else)*
Rykoshet, a famous retired Ike player that used to be in my crew, also noted that coincidentally, 7d looks like ZB cut in half horizontally. ZB is short for my crew, "Zodiac Braves." This was unintentional, but I cherish the fact.
Yes, you can definitely post suggestions. I'll have to consider this a lot more, but for now I'll just say that I am against going against the results screen when not necessary, and I actually led the movement for this particular reform. I did not know the PAL version had a more consistent method of decision, so I promise that I WILL consider this, however, I feel that if we're playing NTSC, we should stick to NTSC's rulings.
I wasn't aware it was different before now either.
There is such a thread located here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=264241
It's stickied, but a lot of people don't see it. Perhaps I'll put the link in my signature later.
Thank you, I did not know this.
I'm personally in favor of following the game's ruling, but if you can come up with a convincing argument of why we should favor the initiator, then I'm willing to listen/debate. I warn you though, I've been through this debate quite a few times
It is not replaced. It is still active, and can be found here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=264241
Also, I can only speculate that the game coders didn't figure out a way to give victory to the initiator until PAL, but as that's only speculation, I'd never act on that assumption.
I can double infract you here you know
<3
Pierce7d
Wise Hermit
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,289
- 3DS FC
- 1993-9028-0439
Did ADHD modify the post you're quoting? This statement doesn't correlate.
Thanks a lot Tuen!
We'll definitely discuss it, and note the popularity for this method.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
Ah, I see. You have a good point.
But would your opinion change if you were in europe?
Before coming here, I became addicted to smashwiki. Got that from there
I swear, ADHD had to repeat kindergarden.I can double infract you here you know
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
I'm personally in favor of following the game's ruling, but if you can come up with a convincing argument of why we should favor the initiator, then I'm willing to listen/debate. I warn you though, I've been through this debate quite a few times
I understand your policy on speculation, but I don't think that speculation is necessary here. We know that the PAL version was released later. We also know that the game creators obviously changed the coding for these moves. Ergo, the creators of the game thought it was better that the initiator of a suicide move be declared the victor and specifically made a change to reflect that philosophy.
Why can't we respect this and arbitrarily make a rule that the game creators instituted with code in a later version of the game? Are we too tied to our old version's coding that we can't use the new coding as a source of authority?
@ Pierce (though anyone else can comment): Well, seeing as it's sort of on topic, let me give my two cents on the suicide KO thing.
In my honest opinion, if a suicide KO attempt occurs and is successful, the player who initiated the attack that caused the death of both players simultaneously should receive the victory.
With that said, and before I move on, the "attacks that cause death to both players" would be only ones that have only one result: simultaneous death. So, these would be Ganon's Side B when used off-stage, Bowser's Klaw when maneuvered past the stage, Kirby's Neutral B when used to drag both off/past stage, etc. This would not include an attempt such as Donkey Kong using his forward aerial, killing an opponent and then dieing, whether or not both attempts are simultaneous.
Now that that's cleared up, let's move on.
The initiator of the suicide KO should be rewarded with the win because:
1) The initiator is intentionally losing a stock with the reward of the opponent also losing a stock. The player knows this risk/reward, but also knows that this move only has this one option. Gimping can have the same result, as a player could successfully gimp an opponent, but not successfully recover, however that is perfectly legal.
The problem is that while gimping can have multiple results (both characters recovery, both characters die, only one recovers), a suicide KO move only has one option: the suicide KO. When you are in the suicide KO, you cannot attempt to change the results. If Bowser klaws you with enough clearance past the stage and with no obstacles below you, you will die.
Why is is significant is because it goes with the nature of the move. It would essentially be taking a characteristic of the move; essentially, you are penalized for using a move, while essentially all attacks are used to rack up damage/get a KO/win. By doing this, you are stripping the move from having this potential in certain situations.
Basically, the rule removes one of the attacks characteristics (sure, the match still continues, but it unfairly balances it in an overtime situation that wouldn't have happened with the old rule/lack of one) and penalizes the character for using it.
(sorry if that got a little long-winded, I hope you got my point on this one)
2) In Ganon's situation, the opponent can now manipulate the move itself to change the outcome of the game, essentially rewarding the opponent for no reason. Ganon's side-b, in many instances, is his only reliable recovery. If an opponent decides to move in front of the move in its duration, not even attack but just move, the move itself becomes a suicide KO rather than a recovery option.
Now, with this rule, the opponent can easily throw things in his favor just by simply getting in the way of Ganon. It really isn't even gimping because the opponent is doing nothing to stop Ganon from recovering; the nature of the move forces the suicide KO. Essentially, the opponent is forcing the suicide KO knowing the nature of the move and knowing the results because of the rule.
For example, let's say Ganon is winning a match with both him and an opponent on their last stock. The opponent is at a clear disadvantage in percent and Ganon could probably land one or two more hits for the KO. However, he is knocked offstage for whatever reason and now has to recover.
The losing opponent is now in a position in which he can manipulate the match in his or her favor just because of the rule. All the opponent has to do is move in front of Ganon in duration of the recovery. That's it. Not even attack.
Because of the rule, the match puts both characters on an even plain again. How is that fair to the Ganon user when, because of a rule, he loses the advantage he has and is forced to gain it again?
Not only that, but forcing this suicide KO gives only one option to end the match, as said before. If the opponent didn't do anything, Ganon recovers and the fight continues. If the opponent tries to gimp, Ganon still has a chance at recovering fairly. However, forcing the suicide, Ganon has a 0% chance of avoiding the suicide.
Basically, a rule that rewards the opponent that forces Ganon to suicide KO isn't exactly fair. Forcing a suicide shouldn't be a reward if it's that kind of manipulation.
...and finally...
3) A Suicide KO is a legitimate way to score a kill, simple as that. Think about this for a second:
-Kirby has two stocks, opponent has one. Kirby initiates a Kirbycide and does not get penalized when it is successful, rather, both he and his opponent lose a stock and Kirby wins.
However...
-Kirby and opponent both have one stock. Kirby initiates a Kirbycide and gets penalized when it is successful, as both players lose a stock and, instead of Kirby winning since it was his attempt and his attack that ended the match, the game goes to overtime because of the rule.
Remember, it is the initiator's attack that causes this suicide kill. Not rewarding a player for fairly getting a KO with the victory he or she deserves (assuming this last KO gained is, in fact, the last KO gained in the entire match) isn't fair.
Back on what I was going for, essentially, the player can suicide KO whenever he wants, just as long as it isn't the game-ending kill. Why is it that you cannot fairly and intentionally perform a suicide KO at the end of a match, but it is allowed in its duration or if the initiator has more than one stock left?
________________
Okay, that's it. I apologize in advance if any of that was unclear or just illogical. So, with that said, in the end, my point is that the rule unfairly penalizes characters with suicide KO moves/tactics arbitrarily or because the game's decision (which, by the way, is it always fair or right?) needs to be honored for some reason.
EDIT: Also, I apologize for the length. xD
In my honest opinion, if a suicide KO attempt occurs and is successful, the player who initiated the attack that caused the death of both players simultaneously should receive the victory.
With that said, and before I move on, the "attacks that cause death to both players" would be only ones that have only one result: simultaneous death. So, these would be Ganon's Side B when used off-stage, Bowser's Klaw when maneuvered past the stage, Kirby's Neutral B when used to drag both off/past stage, etc. This would not include an attempt such as Donkey Kong using his forward aerial, killing an opponent and then dieing, whether or not both attempts are simultaneous.
Now that that's cleared up, let's move on.
The initiator of the suicide KO should be rewarded with the win because:
1) The initiator is intentionally losing a stock with the reward of the opponent also losing a stock. The player knows this risk/reward, but also knows that this move only has this one option. Gimping can have the same result, as a player could successfully gimp an opponent, but not successfully recover, however that is perfectly legal.
The problem is that while gimping can have multiple results (both characters recovery, both characters die, only one recovers), a suicide KO move only has one option: the suicide KO. When you are in the suicide KO, you cannot attempt to change the results. If Bowser klaws you with enough clearance past the stage and with no obstacles below you, you will die.
Why is is significant is because it goes with the nature of the move. It would essentially be taking a characteristic of the move; essentially, you are penalized for using a move, while essentially all attacks are used to rack up damage/get a KO/win. By doing this, you are stripping the move from having this potential in certain situations.
Basically, the rule removes one of the attacks characteristics (sure, the match still continues, but it unfairly balances it in an overtime situation that wouldn't have happened with the old rule/lack of one) and penalizes the character for using it.
(sorry if that got a little long-winded, I hope you got my point on this one)
2) In Ganon's situation, the opponent can now manipulate the move itself to change the outcome of the game, essentially rewarding the opponent for no reason. Ganon's side-b, in many instances, is his only reliable recovery. If an opponent decides to move in front of the move in its duration, not even attack but just move, the move itself becomes a suicide KO rather than a recovery option.
Now, with this rule, the opponent can easily throw things in his favor just by simply getting in the way of Ganon. It really isn't even gimping because the opponent is doing nothing to stop Ganon from recovering; the nature of the move forces the suicide KO. Essentially, the opponent is forcing the suicide KO knowing the nature of the move and knowing the results because of the rule.
For example, let's say Ganon is winning a match with both him and an opponent on their last stock. The opponent is at a clear disadvantage in percent and Ganon could probably land one or two more hits for the KO. However, he is knocked offstage for whatever reason and now has to recover.
The losing opponent is now in a position in which he can manipulate the match in his or her favor just because of the rule. All the opponent has to do is move in front of Ganon in duration of the recovery. That's it. Not even attack.
Because of the rule, the match puts both characters on an even plain again. How is that fair to the Ganon user when, because of a rule, he loses the advantage he has and is forced to gain it again?
Not only that, but forcing this suicide KO gives only one option to end the match, as said before. If the opponent didn't do anything, Ganon recovers and the fight continues. If the opponent tries to gimp, Ganon still has a chance at recovering fairly. However, forcing the suicide, Ganon has a 0% chance of avoiding the suicide.
Basically, a rule that rewards the opponent that forces Ganon to suicide KO isn't exactly fair. Forcing a suicide shouldn't be a reward if it's that kind of manipulation.
...and finally...
3) A Suicide KO is a legitimate way to score a kill, simple as that. Think about this for a second:
-Kirby has two stocks, opponent has one. Kirby initiates a Kirbycide and does not get penalized when it is successful, rather, both he and his opponent lose a stock and Kirby wins.
However...
-Kirby and opponent both have one stock. Kirby initiates a Kirbycide and gets penalized when it is successful, as both players lose a stock and, instead of Kirby winning since it was his attempt and his attack that ended the match, the game goes to overtime because of the rule.
Remember, it is the initiator's attack that causes this suicide kill. Not rewarding a player for fairly getting a KO with the victory he or she deserves (assuming this last KO gained is, in fact, the last KO gained in the entire match) isn't fair.
Back on what I was going for, essentially, the player can suicide KO whenever he wants, just as long as it isn't the game-ending kill. Why is it that you cannot fairly and intentionally perform a suicide KO at the end of a match, but it is allowed in its duration or if the initiator has more than one stock left?
________________
Okay, that's it. I apologize in advance if any of that was unclear or just illogical. So, with that said, in the end, my point is that the rule unfairly penalizes characters with suicide KO moves/tactics arbitrarily or because the game's decision (which, by the way, is it always fair or right?) needs to be honored for some reason.
EDIT: Also, I apologize for the length. xD
lordhelmet
Smash Master
Excellent post Rapture, I hope that changes some minds.
The Real Inferno
Smash Hero
I've outlined the reasoning behind the suicide rule in laborious detail already in the rule discussion topic. It's a pretty big post, so it shouldn't be too hard to search for it using the search function. I'm going to say it smaller here.
The reasoning behind the change in suicide moves is confusing mostly to those who believed it to be different than it ever was. The BBR used to recommend a suicide rule FOR BOWSER. Never for any other character. Ever. Many TOs came up wit those rules, and people started to assume we recommended rules for Kirby, Ganon, or DDD (or Wario too I suppose). What we did, was give Bowser a buff that he otherwise does not have. (for the sake of argument, we usually run under the assumption of NTSC Brawl, you have to remember, most players in the BBR are from NTSC regions).
We established through rule debating over other things that it is not fair for us to grant a character specific advantage to any character for any reason. This is why we do not ban things like the standing Infinite on Luigi even though it would probably make his DDD matchup much much better. Because of this established policy, it made no sense for us to circumvent what is already stated by the game to be a clear decision, and change the result of it.
I've never heard before about the PAL version of suicides being treated differently by the game. I'd like someone who got their information from something that isn't the smashwiki (don't trust it farther than I can throw it, and being insubstantial, that isn't very far) to confirm this for me. In either case, both rules amount to the same thing, the game's decision stands. You just happen to be a little better off in Europe than in the States.
As for Ganon himself, it's definitely not fair to buff him because his recovery is bad. This makes no sense. If the opponent can force him to lose a match out of his recovery, this is the sign that he is a very bad character, indicative to someone at the bottom of the tier list for sure. I call this line of thinking "Pokemon Solo Hacks" school of thought, because it is the same line of thinking that it should be fair for someone to use a hack of only Squirtle with no fatigue. This of course takes away the characters major drawbacks (forced switching and fatigue). Giving Ganon a free win on his side B is paramount to buffing him as well, which isn't fair as it only affects him.
What didn't make a rule that punishes Ganon. We made no rule at all which treats Ganondorf just as equally as any other character in the game. There is nothing more fair than that to be done if you ask me. Anything else requires arbitrary rules to buff certain moves that otherwise wouldn't result in victory.
Edit: Huh...the whole smaller thing didn't work out
The reasoning behind the change in suicide moves is confusing mostly to those who believed it to be different than it ever was. The BBR used to recommend a suicide rule FOR BOWSER. Never for any other character. Ever. Many TOs came up wit those rules, and people started to assume we recommended rules for Kirby, Ganon, or DDD (or Wario too I suppose). What we did, was give Bowser a buff that he otherwise does not have. (for the sake of argument, we usually run under the assumption of NTSC Brawl, you have to remember, most players in the BBR are from NTSC regions).
We established through rule debating over other things that it is not fair for us to grant a character specific advantage to any character for any reason. This is why we do not ban things like the standing Infinite on Luigi even though it would probably make his DDD matchup much much better. Because of this established policy, it made no sense for us to circumvent what is already stated by the game to be a clear decision, and change the result of it.
I've never heard before about the PAL version of suicides being treated differently by the game. I'd like someone who got their information from something that isn't the smashwiki (don't trust it farther than I can throw it, and being insubstantial, that isn't very far) to confirm this for me. In either case, both rules amount to the same thing, the game's decision stands. You just happen to be a little better off in Europe than in the States.
As for Ganon himself, it's definitely not fair to buff him because his recovery is bad. This makes no sense. If the opponent can force him to lose a match out of his recovery, this is the sign that he is a very bad character, indicative to someone at the bottom of the tier list for sure. I call this line of thinking "Pokemon Solo Hacks" school of thought, because it is the same line of thinking that it should be fair for someone to use a hack of only Squirtle with no fatigue. This of course takes away the characters major drawbacks (forced switching and fatigue). Giving Ganon a free win on his side B is paramount to buffing him as well, which isn't fair as it only affects him.
What didn't make a rule that punishes Ganon. We made no rule at all which treats Ganondorf just as equally as any other character in the game. There is nothing more fair than that to be done if you ask me. Anything else requires arbitrary rules to buff certain moves that otherwise wouldn't result in victory.
Edit: Huh...the whole smaller thing didn't work out
John12346
Smash Master
Personally speaking, I think this rule should extend only to Bowser. The percents dictate who's in control of the direction the Klaw heads after Bowser grabs the opponent. Everyone else simply has to get the move to connect offstage.
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
But...if we make a suicide rule based off of the latest version of the game (that being the PAL version), is that really wrong/entirely arbitrary?
If the PAL version changes did not exist, I would agree with the logic being aimed at suicide moves - it makes sense. However...the creators of the game changed how they think the moves should work, and isn't the point of many arguments to stay as true to the game creator's intent as possible?
If the PAL version changes did not exist, I would agree with the logic being aimed at suicide moves - it makes sense. However...the creators of the game changed how they think the moves should work, and isn't the point of many arguments to stay as true to the game creator's intent as possible?
The Real Inferno
Smash Hero
My personal opinion, which at this point in the debate is all I can give you now that we're getting into hypothetical territory, would be that arbitrarily forcing a European game mechanic onto other regions isn't fair. The rule we have lets Europe have its mechanic, and lets America have its mechanic, and treats both as equally as we can treat it without making new rules by region.
That's the thing though: Bowser's ability to land a KO with his Klaw is not a buff. It's a part of that move's characteristics. Whether or not you ever addressed it at any point in time, Bowser's side-b can still successfully kill someone by suicide KO.
Knowing that, the establishment of this new rule arbitrarily changes things. Why? Because the move itself is treated differently depending on usage.
For example, Metaknight's IDC is banned in an instances. I could have just knocked my opponent off the stage, or even killed him, and IDC for no reason at all and get penalized because it is banned. In any situation, the technique is banned.
However, this rule deals with Bowser's side-b depending on situation, not in all situations. Bowser can legally take the lead by scoring a kill during a match with this move. However, because of this rule, he can no longer legally win by scoring a kill at the end of the match with this rule. No matter how you look at it, Bowser is still legally getting a kill. The technique is not banned. However, because of the context in which the move is used, the results obtained by the move are arbitrarily changed because of this rule. That, in it of itself, is wrong.
Again, it's part of the move's characteristics and capabilities. It is not a buff to allow this character to win because of using the move because one of the characteristics of the move is the ability to win just by using it once. Taking away that capability is nerfing it.
I didn't know either, but it's sort of unfair to go by the game's rules knowing that the game's decision changes between versions. That's just being silly allowing that if it is indeed true. That's doing something just to do it or to be ignorant of something else. If there are truly difference between game decisions, then clearly the best option for determining victory is not the game itself.
Not necessarily. The usage of the move does not automatically mean free win. It only would, technically, if Ganon uses it offstage and if an opponent gets in the way. But, by the opponent getting in the way, he is forcing Ganon to suicide, regardless of whether or not that is Ganon's intention.
The rule essentially makes it fair to manipulate a move and force a suicide without the input of the character doing it.
It'd be different in the following instance. Let's say when Captain Falcon used his Up-B on someone, when he pushes off, it sent him farther backwards. So, if he used the attack and someone moved in front of him, it is possible that, by doing so, the result could be Falcon (and potentially his opponent) dieing. However, Falcon can still recover by another attack (let's say his side-b, for example). He is not forced into an overtime match or losing position. He still has options.
The rule pretty much takes away one of Ganon's recovery options unfairly. Sure, he is a bad character, but that doesn't mean that a rule should reward the opponent for forcing Ganon to kill himself.
I guess my response to this would be the same as one of those above, as I can't think of anything else I would say differently.
Guess not, though mine was longer, so I can't complain. xD
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
So...Ganondorf, Bowser, Kirby, and DDD mains should have been born in Europe if they wanted to play their character the way that the game creators intended for the character to work...I am saddened if this is the philosophy we live by - what argument is there against it?
Why couldn't we just accept that the moves were changed and make a ruleset that reflects that?
Why must the fact that our version was released first and not second dictate how we view a result from a move...
Why couldn't we just accept that the moves were changed and make a ruleset that reflects that?
Why must the fact that our version was released first and not second dictate how we view a result from a move...
The Real Inferno
Smash Hero
*RECORD SCRATCH*
Wait...what? Of course bowser can win with the current rule. Hell, Bowser can jump out of Side B, and always be declared winner. Which would have had him win under -ANY- rule. The current rule has that stand. When we say the game decision stands, then Bowser can win so long as the game says he won. Did you know he can always buffer jump out of suicide and die second, thus winning? Suicide kills aren't banned or anything. Have you read the rule? It just doesn't grant auto-wins. If you perform a suicide in a way that makes you win, you still win. In fact, Ganon has more of a chance of winning now with Side B than he did before if you take into account the following.
His side B is retardedly easy to edgeguard. So it rarely hits anyway. In the off chance it does hit, he often loses the game. But he can also go to Sudden death. In that occurrence, he gets a 1 stock 3 minutes rematch as the character with the most kill power in the game. Not that bad of a trade off really.
Let me point out a problem in your logic. I don't mean to insult but here's the key different in what we are saying.
"Again, it's part of the move's characteristics and capabilities. It is not a buff to allow this character to win because of using the move because one of the characteristics of the move is the ability to win just by using it once. Taking away that capability is nerfing it. "
you see this statement? What you are saying is that the characteristic of the move is for you to win with it in one swoop, so taking that away is nerfing it (read: We never gave it to begin with, thus we didn't take it away, did we?We took Away Bowser's and I already showed you earlier, that he can win anyway, so it affects him none to have a move or not). What are you arguing for is not that we removed an ability from a character (we didn't, we never gave him one), but rather that we should ADD the ability to win. If what you say is true and one of the characteristics of the move is to allow Ganon to win, then he would win by the game's declaration, not by an arbitrary rule that just says he wins by default (though he can win that way on Norfair if you care, using lava tricks).
Do you see the difference between these two things? The ONLY way for us to comply with what you want is to add an arbitrary rule to other versions of the game that only exists in one regions of the world. I also don't even know this to be fact yet, as nothing has been presented to me to prove such, nor do I have a PAL iso I could boot up right now to test it myself. I would if I did.
You keep telling me that it's unfair to take ganon's recovery option away, but I keep telling you we didn't. The game did that to him by making his recovery suck. I know that really sucks, it shouldn't be that bad. But I reiterate, we took nothing FROM him, and gave him nothing either. He was treated just as neutral as possible.
As for IDC, I've never really yelled at anyone for taunting with it before (I do on occasion), but I'm a little confused how that fit into your whole argument, it seemed really out of place and sentences leading into it didn't make much sense to me. The IDC is a wholey different subject.
Edit: I can't really respond like this again for now. I've got to get back to work on this project.
CR4SH
Smash Lord
It was from the other thread you closed, I just used a shortcut and quoted a post here with a copy paste, simply neglected to remove the post number.
Alright, alright, fair enough. I'm really just looking for an explanation, so that cleared it up for me. I honestly did not fully know the results of if it does hit (I'm guessing it is based on random elements or, IIRC, someone mentioned height of something, I don't know), so I guess I misunderstood it.
Yeah, I understand that with Bowser at this point.
On Ganon, however, that then brings up in the differences in games. Why would they change this from version to version if it was not meant for Ganon to win? Wouldn't it make more sense to go with a more precise decision (as shown in the PAL version) rather than what we have?
I truly don't know if it is completely true. Can someone test this, by the way?
Anyways, seeing as other parts of the rules are arbitrary, adding an arbitrary rule is by no means out of the question.
Okay, fair enough. It sucks that there is really only two options: give Ganondorf something for having bad recovery or just not doing something and leaving his recovery as is, which is a bad recovery. So yeah, that makes sense.
.
I know that. I was using it as an example as something that is treated in one way regardless of the situation it is used.
In the end, I'm not trying to like win a debate or something. I was just making a case to get answers. I'm at a point where I'm satisfied with the answers I got, so I'll leave it as is. Nothing personal if you wanted to keep discussing it or something, but I do appreciate, at the very least, talking about it.
ADHD
Smash Hero
Yes, because the point wasn't vague at all!
B!squick
Smash Master
Don't you remember the song? "SBR decided that they voted for the last time..."
Seriously, though I saw this coming, I really don't know why you (the BR) would have said that the most recent vote was the last one and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'd just like to point out that it was silly to call that the last time you'd be voting.
Also, until MK is re-discussed I guess I might as well pick him up with this rule set. I may have fewer friends, but I'll be rich! :D
Juushichi
sugoi ~ sugoi ~
I would imagine that they said that it was the last time because they honestly believed that it would be the last time. Was it a mistake? Yes, of course. Is making mistakes bad? Not necessarily.
Also, if you feel like you can pick up MK in this set and place in the money in the region you're in (possibly with like-minded individuals), then all power to you.
B!squick
Smash Master
Also, going back to the OP, while it is good to have a broad rule set when it's recommended, the new rule set isn't broad at all.
The ledge grab limit, for example. There is none. Obviously this isn't going to fly with a lot of TOs. So, what should it be if the "recommended rules" don't recommend anything? Same with infinites. Granted, TOs always have and always will do their own thing, but I really think the rule set should have suggestions for LGLs, infinites and the like, otherwise it's not really recommending **** then, is it?
The ledge grab limit, for example. There is none. Obviously this isn't going to fly with a lot of TOs. So, what should it be if the "recommended rules" don't recommend anything? Same with infinites. Granted, TOs always have and always will do their own thing, but I really think the rule set should have suggestions for LGLs, infinites and the like, otherwise it's not really recommending **** then, is it?
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
First, the ruleset is not meant to be broad, the stagelist is.
And I'm not going to type out the long response to the second part of your post. Suffice it to say that there are much larger implication in the BBR instituting a LGL as opposed to TOs doing so individually; it would pave the way for much more argument.
I do feel your pain at the removal of the suicide rule, though. Then again, let me ask you out of curiosity: have you ever won a game this way in tournament? I'm really am curious, no hidden motives behind asking ^_^
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
LGLs are horrible, the only real reason the exist is to try and stop unbeatble planking.
As a suggestion, can MK's unbeatble planking be banned?
Is it even possible to stop MK from perfect planking under the ruleset? If there's no LGL and it's not considered stalling....
ADHD
Smash Hero
If we're trying so hard to limit this one character, then we mise well just ban him-but NOT because of the newly implemented stagelist-that's silly.
I never understood why LGLs are bad in the first place, though. Anyone that doesn't have the intention of planking would not exceed 25.
Nidtendofreak
Smash Hero
To put it bluntly, IMO: they changed it basically for the lulz, the slight differences in format somehow cause it to occur, or somebody in charge of making the PAL version decided to randomly change it. They didn't fix it to be "more precise" or "to fix the game". They didn't fix his fair. They didn't fix Peach's AD frames. They didn't either fix Ike's QD so it can be canceled, or change the manual so it no longer says that it can be canceled (correct me if the manual in fact no longer says that), ect. That is the ONLY difference as far as I know. I really so no reason to force the other versions to match the PAL version. It is what it is.
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
Not discretely, that's the problem.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
I'm against LGL. Do you understand that?
There are people flaming the BBR because of no LGL. They should read your last sentence (including yourself).
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
As far as I know, the only thing you can do to a PPlanking MK is SDI a Uair inside of your shield so that you end up on the ledge, but this just puts you on the ledge with MK in a position to edgeguard you...or run to the other ledge and start PPlanking again.
ADHD
Smash Hero
Whataver, that post was useless.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
What's PPlanking mean?
@ADHD
There are some characters that have a good ledgegame, yet LGLs are just to stop one thing. It unnecessarily nerds those characters.
@ADHD
There are some characters that have a good ledgegame, yet LGLs are just to stop one thing. It unnecessarily nerds those characters.
-Vocal-
Smash Hero
Perfect Planking - a specific variation of Planking during which he is invulnerable to attack. There is a 10 frame leeway to do this and therefore is quite within human capabilities. However, as this has not been used to win a major tournament yet, skeptics say that this is not a strong enough reason to ban anything.
That's a quick summary of the situation surrounding PPlanking.
edit: ninja'd, but mine is more thorough so suck it
That's a quick summary of the situation surrounding PPlanking.
edit: ninja'd, but mine is more thorough so suck it
demonictoonlink
Smash Master
So we agree. lol