Chatting with the BBR! Today's session cancelled :(

[Kewkky]

Not trying to be a dick, Kewkky, but If someone is in the back room, they should at least be able to provide an opinion on whether a stage should be legal or not. You're right, they're not computers, and they don't have to know everything, but stages are something so universal in the game that they almost have no choice but to have at least some wherewithal of the stages... especially being in the back room.

No problem man, I'm not offended in the least bit.

We WOULD be able to provide input... But as we all remember, when brawl came out, we banned stages without thinking twice about them. We were so intent in making it Melee v2.0 that we didn't think about whether or not a stage is more of a counterbick than banned. The vast majority of TOs try not to mess with the stagelist because the vast majority of tourney-goers don't like playing in new stages, they all prefer playing the ones they've been comfortable with from day 1. Other, fewer TOs, have tried stages like PTAD, JJ, PS2, (etc), and haven't gotten as much negative feedback as they expected, and instead gotten positive feedback, so we decided to start from square 1 this time. Stages that we banned before that the majority of the newer BBR felt wasn't banworthy today were brought into question, and so you saw how the voting went.

Well, it's more of a 'trial and error' thing. Kinda like the tierlist, we're gonna try a couple of times and fail before we get the ruleset as close as possible to perfect as we can. Meanwhile, bear with us and give us your good inputs on what's wrong with the ruleset, instead of "the BBR is broken, they're worth nothing, look at the ruleset it's PERFECT proof of this!", like many members of the community did in the BBR Ruleset V3.0 thread... Why do people think we're gonna listen to what they say, when they keep spouting sharp stuff at us whenever we don't perform to their expectations?

Instead of running the risk of having the thread closed and your inputs not taken seriously, the best thing to do would to work together to make a GREAT ruleset with as little hate and spam as possible, so that we don't close threads down and widen the animosity between BRB members and the public.

 

[gallax]

Not trying to be a dick, Kewkky, but If someone is in the back room, they should at least be able to provide an opinion on whether a stage should be legal or not. You're right, they're not computers, and they don't have to know everything, but stages are something so universal in the game that they almost have no choice but to have at least some wherewithal of the stages... especially being in the back room.

Its also more than just being able to provide your opinion on the matter. Anyone can say "I vote this" without just cause. To be in the BBR you have to be able to support most of you claims with evidence or just reasoning.

 

[Triforce Of Chozo]

I don't wanna leak anything, so I'll try to be real foggy while still sheding light on something. The BBR may only have "20 votes", but that's more votes than a combination of a couple of character boards. Some people aren't computers in there, so it's only natural some members don't know about EVERYTHING in the game. When the number of people get real even concerning a topic, or it becomes too controversial (like the MK debate), then we bring it to the public for input. Thing is, when we let the public talk, we get lots of morons and trolls posting crap in our threads and that just makes us not want to post anything and ask the community at all. Sometimes it's not even deserved, we're just human, yet people treat us like a holy entity that must bring the perfect answer to problems without making any mistakes.

I can't specify or guess anything that we're gonna be doing in the future, but at the very least I'd like to say that the vast majority of us don't think the community is worthless. We value the majority's opinion, but sometimes the topic gets so much controversy, we're forced to take it back into our forum and keep the discussions there, with the rest of "the most outstanding members brought together to make an overall best, brightest, and most organized group around pertaining to Brawl's competitive gameplay", or Brawl BackRoom.

I understand that the BBR members are only human, and that the majority of the community expects more than you can out of people who have real lives to live as well. I know that a lot of people in the BBR may be experts on half of the things in smash, or the most knowledgeable in the world at one or two things. That's why I was just wondering if you could have certain divisions people could put themselves in in the BBR, that way people aren't going "Oh, there's only two or three people who know about [insert character/stage]" or "Why do we only have twenty votes when there are a hundred members?" when the reality is that members know more than your average smasher, but don't have the time to memorize encyclopedic knowledge of everything in the game. I'm sure there are people who are experts in one thing, but may only know the basics of another. If you make sub-committees or something that can go off and discuss things in detail, then bring back their conclusions to main group for voting, or even reach a decision themselves. I think I may just be starting to sound like someone describing Congress, my apologies.
Trust me, I hold the BBR in the highest regard, but still realize that they maintain a human element as well.

 

[moomoomamoo]

You mean like this:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=264241

I think he meant a more specific list of exactly what topics were being discussed. That topic doesn't really accomplish that, but I don't think we could really post exact topics either.

This ^

I'm guessing the BBR can't post exact topics due to privacy? Then what about this thread. I mean if I ask right now, "what is the latest stage being discussed?" or "when will the discussion (if any) about if Mario Bros. should be banned or not?" I'll get an answer right? At this point I believe that because the BBR is willing to allow this thread, they should agree to post what exact topics they are talking and are planning to talk about. I also know that this task will be far from easy, but it is something that will without a doubt help keep the community on its toes for upcoming updates from the BBR.

 

[vVv Rapture]

The BBR just needs to end this MK thing and kill it with fire. Ban him or not. Temp ban him, fully ban him or leave him alone. Something. Just do something so that every other topic doesn't revert to something MK related. Seriously.

 

[T-block]

This ^

I'm guessing the BBR can't post exact topics due to privacy? Then what about this thread. I mean if I ask right now, "what is the latest stage being discussed?" or "when will the discussion (if any) about if Mario Bros. should be banned or not?" I'll get an answer right? At this point I believe that because the BBR is willing to allow this thread, they should agree to post what exact topics they are talking and are planning to talk about. I also know that this task will be far from easy, but it is something that will without a doubt help keep the community on its toes for upcoming updates from the BBR.

Yes, we are allowed to answer questions like that. As for your suggestion, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed, and if not something that gives fewer specifics (but still more than the current thread) is likely possible. Then it comes down to whether someone (probably Pierce) is willing to maintain it.

More support for this from others would help your cause

 

[-Vocal-]

I think a lot of you wrote off Sunshade's post earlier because you didn't understand what he was saying, when in actuality what he was saying is very logical. I'm going to try to say it a different way.

Let's say the backroom has these people in it (random names):

Kewkky
Pierce7d
T-Block
Gallax
Hylian

Now let's say that the last three are real lazy, so only Kewkky and Pierce7d vote on an issue. This gets released to the public, and people say things like "How can we take you seriously when you only had 40% of your members vote on this issue!" Then they also say that Backroom members must be required to vote.

Okay. Let's remove the people who lack initiative to do things. Our BR now looks like this:

Kewkky
Pierce7d

Oh look. We now have a 100% voter rate and the same result as last time.

The basic point here is that the inactive members didn't do anything to change the result. You can give good thinkers an opportunity to affect the outcome, but in the end you can't force them to vote. The ones who care about getting something done WILL vote, regardless of if others aroudn them aren't as motivated.

Sunshade is simply trying to say that whether there were 100 members in the BR or 25, if those 20 voters were the only ones willing to vote then we would have the same result either way. It would have helped the BR image if they didn't have people ruining their voter rate, but don't think that getting rid of the inactive people would have given a different result, because it just wouldn't.

In closing, BR voter rate is a problem that needs to be adressed, but not because someone disagrees with the results of what they put out.

 

[The Real Inferno]

This ^

I'm guessing the BBR can't post exact topics due to privacy? Then what about this thread. I mean if I ask right now, "what is the latest stage being discussed?" or "when will the discussion (if any) about if Mario Bros. should be banned or not?" I'll get an answer right? At this point I believe that because the BBR is willing to allow this thread, they should agree to post what exact topics they are talking and are planning to talk about. I also know that this task will be far from easy, but it is something that will without a doubt help keep the community on its toes for upcoming updates from the BBR.

Well, -I- can't make that decision, mostly because I'm not exactly what you would consider a high ranking member of the BBR. I'm not a project leader, owner, or part of the leading body, nor am I the public relations officer like Pierc7D is. If he wants to reveal such specific information, that's fine, but if I went over a line that I'm not sure about I could screw myself in the ***. I'm filling in at this topic for Pierc7d's absence as best I can for the time being, but I do have considerably less leeway with what I'm allowed to say, I hope you understand this. I don't always know what is okay or not until I ask someone else. I do think some BBR members would probably disagree with whether or not we should declare specific topics being discussed at any given time, so speaking for them and saying we would or wouldn't for sure, wouldn't really be within my scope.

 

[Eddie G]

80 out of the 100 most 'brilliant minds in smash' don't vote on one of the core mechanics of the game. That would suggest their knowledge isn't what it's cracked up to be. However there were obviously many other factors involved with non-voters, namely inactivity. My post had nothing to do with my opinion of the new ruleset.

Brilliant job taking my post out of context though, here's a cookie.

Heh...well it seemed as if all was fair game considering your post only consisted of "this would suggest otherwise". What would suggest otherwise? If you're going to claim something or post an intro to your thoughts, then post your full explanation as to why along with it. Common courtesy, so to say.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Well, in the inactive people voted, the results could have been different. That's probably the other point being made. If they were active, they could have voted and changed the results entirely.

For example, take those 5 people:
Kewkky
Pierce
T-Block
Gallax
Hylian

You take away those 3 "inactives" that you mentioned and the result is still the same, but if those people were active, the results would have been different if they had voted. But, because they did not, the result stayed the same, but they still had the potential to be different.

Thus, get rid of any BBR members who are not voting on these kinds of things. There's a difference in choosing not to vote intentionally and not voting due to inactivity. If every person in the BBR votes, even if some of those people vote to not vote on any other option on the topic, then we can safely say that we know the outcome of everyone voting rather than wondering what the results would have been if everyone had voted.

 

[StarLight]

Heh...well it seemed as if all was fair game considering your post only consisted of "this would suggest otherwise". What would suggest otherwise?

First off, there was more to my post, if you'll remember.

I hope not. The bbr is supposedly renowned for having a larger knowledge of Brawl than your average competitor/poster on here. This would suggest otherwise.

Secondly, I was quoting someone else who put forth a hypothetical situation, suggesting that the majority of members whom did not vote did so due to lack of knowledge. I replied that I hoped not and stated why. I'm sorry you weren't able to comprehend that fully from the get-go, but it was plain and simple and I fail to see how you could not.

 

[Justblaze647]

Can we stop censor bypassing please?

Yes sir, I apologize

Stages are not really universal with the way competitive Brawl has evolved. Many people I'm sure have no experience on Distant Planet other than four player FFAs with items, etc. If someone is gonna come in with "PTAD should be banned because the cars kill at 0% and are impossible to avoid for the entire course", then honestly I'd rather their vote did not count, because they are voting based on false information.

I do, however, disagree with you on this point. Stages are something that are not character dependent. With that being said, every player, regardless of their personal preference, must play the game on a stage. I am fairly confident when I say that everyone at least practiced to some degree on stages that they were previously opposed to in light of the MLG stagelist. This is different only in the sense that this was a stagelist that you yourselves developed for the betterment of the competitive smash scene. I think it's wildly unrealistic to say that BBR members couldn't at least play on the levels they knew were being reviewed, if only to obtain their own personal stance on them. I don't think that's asking for too much.

Also, if there was someone in the back room who was willing to vote based on false information, I would assume that they shouldn't be in there in the first place.

That said, the level of activity is a concern, and as has been stated several times already, we will address it.

Like I previously said, I wasn't sure if it had been addressed or not. I only brought it up because that was the most significant problem I had with the new ruleset.

No problem man, I'm not offended in the least bit.

We WOULD be able to provide input... But as we all remember, when brawl came out, we banned stages without thinking twice about them. We were so intent in making it Melee v2.0 that we didn't think about whether or not a stage is more of a counterbick than banned. The vast majority of TOs try not to mess with the stagelist because the vast majority of tourney-goers don't like playing in new stages, they all prefer playing the ones they've been comfortable with from day 1. Other, fewer TOs, have tried stages like PTAD, JJ, PS2, (etc), and haven't gotten as much negative feedback as they expected, and instead gotten positive feedback, so we decided to start from square 1 this time. Stages that we banned before that the majority of the newer BBR felt wasn't banworthy today were brought into question, and so you saw how the voting went.

I do fully understand and appreciate the willingness of the BBR to scrap the mindset of carrying on old tradition in favor of starting anew. I personally think you guys did a great job putting the new ruleset together, all things considered, especially considering that it's supposed to be referred to as a GUIDELINE. I also appreciate the lengths you guys are going to clear up any misconceptions and to explain your reasoning as best you possibly can.

So yeah, thanks for that.

Well, it's more of a 'trial and error' thing. Kinda like the tierlist, we're gonna try a couple of times and fail before we get the ruleset as close as possible to perfect as we can. Meanwhile, bear with us and give us your good inputs on what's wrong with the ruleset, instead of "the BBR is broken, they're worth nothing, look at the ruleset it's PERFECT proof of this!", like many members of the community did in the BBR Ruleset V3.0 thread... Why do people think we're gonna listen to what they say, when they keep spouting sharp stuff at us whenever we don't perform to their expectations?

I understand. 'Perfect' is such a relative term, and no matter what you guys do, you're going to have people who simply disagree. I think as long as you guys continue to progress with the interests of the players your attempting to aid in mind, the scene will continue to thrive. There's just too many people who love this game, who want to see the community grow to let something like DP or no LGL deter them from their passion.

Instead of running the risk of having the thread closed and your inputs not taken seriously, the best thing to do would to work together to make a GREAT ruleset with as little hate and spam as possible, so that we don't close threads down and widen the animosity between BRB members and the public.

I think Pierce said it best when he noted that you guys weren't fully prepared for the rebuttal of the community. There were just too many people trolling, and that discouraged people who wanted to legitimately discuss the ruleset. Nobody wants to combat a troll.

Its also more than just being able to provide your opinion on the matter. Anyone can say "I vote this" without just cause. To be in the BBR you have to be able to support most of you claims with evidence or just reasoning.

Like I said before, anyone who's in the back room should be able to back their statements with sound logic and reasoning. Otherwise they should'nt be in there.

 

[moomoomamoo]

Well, -I- can't make that decision, mostly because I'm not exactly what you would consider a high ranking member of the BBR. I'm not a project leader, owner, or part of the leading body, nor am I the public relations officer like Pierc7D is. If he wants to reveal such specific information, that's fine, but if I went over a line that I'm not sure about I could screw myself in the ***. I'm filling in at this topic for Pierc7d's absence as best I can for the time being, but I do have considerably less leeway with what I'm allowed to say, I hope you understand this. I don't always know what is okay or not until I ask someone else. I do think some BBR members would probably disagree with whether or not we should declare specific topics being discussed at any given time, so speaking for them and saying we would or wouldn't for sure, wouldn't really be within my scope.

I understand and respect your decision. All I guess I could ask of you or maybe Pierc7d would to bring this up to the BBR and have you guys discuss it among yourselves. I could study up on my point and try to present the better points on how this could improve the relationship between the BBR and the overall community, and how it can benefit both the BBR and the overall community.

Although a person in the BBR does not vote or is inactive, it shouldn't be they have to leave the BBR. The fact that they can input great information, test things, and ask questions is enough for them to stay. That being said, I would feel a LOT better having more active BBR members.

 

[T-block]

I do, however, disagree with you on this point. Stages are something that are not character dependent. With that being said, every player, regardless of their personal preference, must play the game on a stage. I am fairly confident when I say that everyone at least practiced to some degree on stages that they were previously opposed to in light of the MLG stagelist. This is different only in the sense that this was a stagelist that you yourselves developed for the betterment of the competitive smash scene. I think it's wildly unrealistic to say that BBR members couldn't at least play on the levels they knew were being reviewed, if only to obtain their own personal stance on them. I don't think that's asking for too much.

I see what you mean, and many members did at first say they were holding off on voting until more testing, actively tested the stages, and then voted accordingly. But yes, I agree that it's not an unreasonable expectation (although it does require a significant time commitment) for something as important as an official stage list.

Also, if there was someone in the back room who was willing to vote based on false information, I would assume that they shouldn't be in there in the first place.

That's exactly it... it's better to see "I don't know enough about this stage, so rather than vote based on false information, I will abstain" than "I don't know this stage very well, so ban". I know this comes back to the first point.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Requesting a write-up on Onett. It seems very legit.

 

[-Vocal-]

Well, in the inactive people voted, the results could have been different. That's probably the other point being made. If they were active, they could have voted and changed the results entirely.

For example, take those 5 people:
Kewkky
Pierce
T-Block
Gallax
Hylian

You take away those 3 "inactives" that you mentioned and the result is still the same, but if those people were active, the results would have been different if they had voted. But, because they did not, the result stayed the same, but they still had the potential to be different.

Thus, get rid of any BBR members who are not voting on these kinds of things. There's a difference in choosing not to vote intentionally and not voting due to inactivity. If every person in the BBR votes, even if some of those people vote to not vote on any other option on the topic, then we can safely say that we know the outcome of everyone voting rather than wondering what the results would have been if everyone had voted.

You can give good thinkers an opportunity to affect the outcome, but in the end you can't force them to vote.

First off, I think you missed that part of my post. The point is those people aren't going to vote period. I'm working under the assumption that active members vote, so the first two are the only active members there are and they both voted.

Moving on, it is a BAD IDEA to force BR members to vote on every issue. You will run into the problem of people voting on matters in which they don't have the proper amount of knowledge, and to expect them to learn everything is unreasonable.

So let's revise my example, same people.

Kewkky <Knowledgeable, votes
Pierce7d <Knowledgeable, votes
T-Block <Not knowledgeable because he was working on something else important in which he will vote, so does not vote
Gallax <Not knowledgeable because he was working on something else important in which he will vote, so does not vote
Hylian <Inactive, gets removed

We end up with the same result, but a lower voter rate. There's nothing wrong with that, because not everyone should vote on everything. Sure, they should vote on as many things as possible, but not everything.

 

[gallax]

I understand your point Vocal that it is a problem that can only be solved when you have people voting, and by choice not by force.

Question: How many votes would have been acceptable for stages? What do you think is "enough" when the bbr takes a vote?

 

[Justblaze647]

I see what you mean, and many members did at first say they were holding off on voting until more testing, actively tested the stages, and then voted accordingly. But yes, I agree that it's not an unreasonable expectation (although it does require a significant time commitment) for something as important as an official stage list.



That's exactly it... it's better to see "I don't know enough about this stage, so rather than vote based on false information, I will abstain" than "I don't know this stage very well, so ban". I know this comes back to the first point.

I see you guys have a lot of work to do then...

In that case, I guess I'll leave you alone

Edit: @ Gallax: I think it's good enough when you have at the very least a 50 percent voting rate

 

[gallax]

Would you guys have felt better about the stages with concern to voting if we had counted the total amount of people who abstained from voting and presented that too?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I still think the BBR should split up into various minigroups-each group responsible for different parts (although they're not mutually exclusive). Like, a lot of top players should be in talking about the tier lists/character discussions, but have no place in rule discussion. Just as an example.

 

[-Vocal-]

I think I'm somewhat in the same boat as Blaze. 50% voting seems like a good number, as long as there is a good reason why the other 50% didn't vote, such as them working on another project/thread.

@Gallax: I think that's kind of what Blaze is getting at, but this counting has given me another idea: would it be possible to count the number of projects that each member votes on in the future? Like let's say you have A, B, C, D, and E projects (maybe they're all stage threads, who knows, doesn't matter). I'd be happy with knowing that X, Y, and Z BBR members voted on/put significant work into at least two, preferably three, of those projects. This way we can be sure that BR members are being active and useful without causing them grief for not voting on/working on a particular project.

 

[Crow!]

I think it's good enough when you have at the very least a 50 percent voting rate

I'm not sure that I've EVER seen that large a percentage of the BBR voting on something.

Better question: What should be done when that a quorum is not obtained? As of right now, such a standard would render the BBR incapable of doing anything, which wouldn't help the community either.


@vVv Rapture (and others):

We do periodically perform an inactivity cut (one happened just before the ruleset was released, for instance). The method for doing this, however, is not very systematic and leaves plenty of names which are at minimal activity levels. There is definitely room for improvement there.

On the other hand, being more agressive about requiring activity isn't going to please everyone, either. All those players who want more pros in the BBR, for instance, would be disappointed to find that the pros would be the first ones eliminated on account of inactivity.

Also, GGs earlier tonight.

 

[-Vocal-]

What about my idea? Just require members to vote on a certain amount of projects. I think that's a better standard than individually looking at the voter rate for each project; it allows the BR members to make progress and be useful without requiring them to be glued to their computer screens and GC controllers.

 

[gallax]

I would rather not post a requirement on members such as you MUST vote on this many topics. We are grown up enough to realize whether or not a member has been giving good input on the issues at hand or trying to help out the community with their opinions.

 

[-Vocal-]

I can see where you're coming from. I guess it's really hard to gauge how much a person is contributing from a purely quantitative standpoint; for instance, maybe someone watched PTAD shift for 20 8-min cycles to gain insight into a stage, and as such didn't have time to really contribute to another thread.

In that case...at times when you don't reach a certain voter percentage, make an announcement that you need more people to vote OR ask members who haven't voted why they've refrained from voting?

This is a hard problem to solve, people shouldn't talk about it as if it's so easy.

 

[vVv Rapture]

@vVv Rapture (and others):

We do periodically perform an inactivity cut (one happened just before the ruleset was released, for instance). The method for doing this, however, is not very systematic and leaves plenty of names which are at minimal activity levels. There is definitely room for improvement there.

On the other hand, being more agressive about requiring activity isn't going to please everyone, either. All those players who want more pros in the BBR, for instance, would be disappointed to find that the pros would be the first ones eliminated on account of inactivity.

Also, GGs earlier tonight.

Very true. Though, then again, I was never for fulling the BBR full of top players just because they are top players, but I digress.

And yes, GGs, rematch anytime.

 

[-Vocal-]

Very true. Though, then again, I was never for fulling the BBR full of top players just because they are top players, but I digress.

And yes, GGs, rematch anytime.

Your signature made this post funny to me

 

[The Real Inferno]

Affinity said that same quote to me and KY once.

 

[moomoomamoo]

I would rather not post a requirement on members such as you MUST vote on this many topics. We are grown up enough to realize whether or not a member has been giving good input on the issues at hand or trying to help out the community with their opinions.

To answer your previous question, I don't think it should matter if we know how many didn't vote. It can be very misleading when comparing how much of the population of the BBR didn't vote and could make it sound like the BBR as a group only had very little people participate. I believe that maybe we should have a number to show how many people are within the discussion of a topic next to the voting numbers. This number would be a lot less misleading. Also this number would also express a lot better whether or not the BBR is taking the situation more or less seriously or if only a few people have discussed it at all.

 

[Affinity]

Affinity said that same quote to me and KY once.

Yep. It's scientifically proven.

 

[John12346]

I like the layout of the 3.1 ruleset, but there's something that was never made clear, and there seems to be a lot of controversy over it.

Metaknight's planking. Is it stalling?

 

[The Real Inferno]

Yep. It's scientifically proven.

lol name search

I like the layout of the 3.1 ruleset, but there's something that was never made clear, and there seems to be a lot of controversy over it.

Metaknight's planking. Is it stalling?

If you ask me? If you consider MK's planking to be unbeatable, I don't see how it couldn't possibly be stalling. TO discretion, but I consider it stalling.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I like the layout of the 3.1 ruleset, but there's something that was never made clear, and there seems to be a lot of controversy over it.

Metaknight's planking. Is it stalling?

Depends. If he's just hopping around on the ledge (think something like drop->jump 4 times->regrab) in a beatable pattern, then no. If he's doing an "unbeatable" pattern (drop->downB->regrab or drop->uair->jump->uair->regrab) then yes.

 

[John12346]

See, that(what BPC said) has been confusing me for a while. I understand that MK's perfect planking can be considered stalling and therefore not allowed, considered like a ban, but then... what about the whole "enforceable" and "discrete" criteria for such a restriction? I mean, obviously perfect planking hits the "warranted" criteria, but... (and yes, I'm referring to that big 'ol writeup Sirlin made on what should and shouldn't be banned, but it seems to be the accepted on SWR as criteria for a ban, so I'm gonna run with it for now)

Look, as far as it being enforceable, MK could always time it so he has one or two frames outside of the perfect planking and therefore can be attacked in within an extremely small timeframe. In that regard, it kinda makes it REALLY difficult to rule it as stalling since the opponent, framewise, can do something in this case, but can you really expect a player to capitalize on some 1/60th second timeframes that MK allows the opponent to do something?
.
.
.
.
.
And under the discrete criteria, well, read this first, even though pretty much everyone on SWR's read this already(because it's the Sirlin writeup, lol):

"The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic."

In this case, we replace "ban" with "considered as stalling," of course, but to what end would you consider it to be actual stalling? If MK grabs the ledge and does his famous "drop down Uair > midair jump Uair > ledgegrab" or something just once or twice, are you going to hold the player contemptible for doing so? And also, what if he changes it to "drop down Uair > midair jump Uair > drop down a little > midair jump Fair > ledgegrab" or something? It can't possibly be ruled stalling in this case because MK committed himself to some other move, but like I said before, can you honestly expect an opponent to take advantage of such mixups, considering the ridiculously low amounts of lag MK has to offer?

Spoiler

Note: I changed the color on some of the text because it'd prolly be harder to read in all this mess I typed up if I didn't.

 

[-Vocal-]

I hate that my trains of thought always come to an end on "ban Metaknight" yet it's not possible to say such a thing seriously. It is by and large the best way to solve all of the problems surround his gameplay and the things that players are able to do with him...but it just isn't an option so we must suffer ;-;

Thinking about Metaknight is the most depressing thing in the Brawl universe.

Thinking about tripping into a car on PTAD is a new fear. (Random, considering my post has nothign to do with PTAD, but it's true.)

 

[Deleted member]

I actually don't mind playing on PTAD at all. Just keep an eye on the backround at certain points and know where the cars can hit you.

 

[-Vocal-]

I actually don't mind playing on PTAD at all. Just keep an eye on the backround at certain points and know where the cars can hit you.

Character bias

Sorry bro

 

[da K.I.D.]

character bias?

isnt wolf one of those, reliant on the ledge to recover characters that should be hating this stage?

 

[Deleted member]

I've had no problems with it in friendlies thus far.

I absolutely hate it if I'm playing Lucas, though.

 

[-Vocal-]

I've had no problems with it in friendlies thus far.

I absolutely hate it if I'm playing Lucas, though.

What makes it so bad?