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

[Deleted member]

I always manage to have horrific timing to be on the left side of the stage...

...recovering with PKT2...

...just in time for the wall to stop it and gimp me.

 

[John12346]

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

It is a reasonable line of thought, you know. Perfect planking warrants a ban, but isn't discrete nor enforceable, whereas MK fits the criteria for being discrete and enforceable for a ban, but we're not necessarily sure whether or not he warrants it(of course, I personally think he does, but that's another thing).

Banning MK fits all three criteria for banning MK's perfect planking. Perfect planking warrants a ban, so removing MK would do just that, and a rule regarding non-use of MK is both discrete and enforceable.

Edit: Inferno, BPC, and anyone else heavily involved in these matters, I'd like to hear your opinions on this post and my previous post(<-- Click there to go to it).

 

[Deleted member]

If he's banned, Vocal's train of thought will no longer end. It will continue to travel to unexplored lands of infinite possibilities.

Or to a grilled cheese sandwich.

 

[-Vocal-]

I always manage to have horrific timing to be on the left side of the stage...

...recovering with PKT2...

...just in time for the wall to stop it and gimp me.

How fascinating. Refresh my memory - is the road beneath you at that point, or is it made even worse by the fact that you fall to your doom? Either way is worrisome.

It is a reasonable line of thought, you know. Perfect planking warrants a ban, but isn't discrete nor enforceable, whereas MK fits the criteria for being discrete and enforceable for a ban, but we're not necessarily sure whether or not he warrants it(of course, I personally think he does, but that's another thing).

Banning MK fits all three criteria for banning MK's perfect planking. Perfect planking warrants a ban, so removing MK would do just that, and a rule regarding non-use of MK is both discrete and enforceable.

Edit: Inferno, BPC, and anyone else heavily involved in these matters, I'd like to hear your opinions on this post and my previous post(<-- Click there to go to it).

I know it's reasonable. But no one will listen to it; everyone just keeps trying to figure out other solutions, even though I don't think there are any that solve the problem without creating new ones. (And while a large segment of the community suddenly having to switch mains is a problem, this is a different problem than those caused by other "solutions.")

If he's banned, Vocal's train of thought will no longer end. It will continue to travel to unexplored lands of infinite possibilities.

Or to a grilled cheese sandwich.

At first I thought you were insane. When I finished reading, I realized you're just a genius

 

[Deleted member]

How fascinating. Refresh my memory - is the road beneath you at that point, or is it made even worse by the fact that you fall to your doom? Either way is worrisome.

There is a bit of space between the wall and the stage, but I've fallen to my doom because I was trying to go up through the bottom of the platform.

 

[-Vocal-]

There is a bit of space between the wall and the stage, but I've fallen to my doom because I was trying to go up through the bottom of the platform.

Interesting. I'd like to hear a Lucas main's opinion on this - could you just use your PK Fire > Absorber shenanigans to push yourself back to the road, then get hit up, then recover?

Man that sounds like an awful thing to have to do because you got knocked off the stage >.>

 

[Deleted member]

IIRC, there is no road below the platform at that point.

 

[-Vocal-]

IIRC, there is no road below the platform at that point.

Oh, so if there's a wall, there's no road? Meaning that if a Lucas player gets hit off the stage on the left side during that transformation, it's an automatic stock?

This is worrisome.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh, so if there's a wall, there's no road? Meaning that if a Lucas player gets hit off the stage on the left side during that transformation, it's an automatic stock?

This is worrisome.

Well, not automatic. If the Lucas is hit to the left, there's a good chance he'll still be above the platform at that point. It's just me being dumb and trying to recover from below, and not expecting that transformation.

It's just something I have to watch out for, but not anything that warrants OMG PTAD INSTANT COUNTERPICK vs LUCAS!!!

 

[Chuee]

I would probably CP PTAD.
Free Usmashes all dai.

 

[-Vocal-]

Well, not automatic. If the Lucas is hit to the left, there's a good chance he'll still be above the platform at that point. It's just me being dumb and trying to recover from below, and not expecting that transformation.

It's just something I have to watch out for, but not anything that warrants OMG PTAD INSTANT COUNTERPICK vs LUCAS!!!

I still see it possible to hit a Lucas out of his second jump and not leave him with an option to get back to the stage. But I don't play Lucas, so I'm not going to assert that.

However, it did just make me think of something: this basically erases the offstage edgeguarding game for characters who rely on tethers. On any other stage, I could run off the edge and fair an opponent to make sure he doesn't come back and then just tether back to the edge, but on PTAD I am robbed of this opportunity. I don't know about the edgeguarding habits of Ivysaur and ZSS as well, but I'm guessing that it would affect their ability as well. Should this really be allowed in a competitive stage?

 

[Deleted member]

I don't think it is that big of an issue, seeing as that this transformation only lasts a few seconds.

I'm more against Distant Planet because of that walkoff, which is always present(though the rain helps a little...)

 

[-Vocal-]

I don't think it is that big of an issue, seeing as that this transformation only lasts a few seconds.

I'm more against Distant Planet because of that walkoff, which is always present(though the rain helps a little...)

I'm more concerned with the circle camp - did you see the videos posted earlier today? I'm sure there will be more soon enough.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Correction: for most of the time that the wall hazard on the left is present, the floor is beneath you.

 

[-Vocal-]

Correction: for most of the time that the wall hazard on the left is present, the floor is beneath you.

I don't guess it's too much of a problem in terms of falling, then, but that's still quite the penalty for being knocked off the side...I don't know anymore. Some of these things just seem to be mitigating player skill for abnormal terrain advantage...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's a very powerful hazard. Don't get whacked into it; you know exactly when it's going to come.

 

[-Vocal-]

It's a very powerful hazard. Don't get whacked into it; you know exactly when it's going to come.

Yes, but...

Oh bother, I need to fully realize all of my thoughts on the matter before posting an opinion. There's so much tumbling around inside of my head that I know an attempt to express it right now would be inadequate. Expect a reply in a few days

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Eh, no worries. Not like PTAD needs much defense on that end.

 

[-Vocal-]

Eh, no worries. Not like PTAD needs much defense on that end.

Eh, it has less to do with PTAD specifically and more with what counterpicks should represent in a competitive game and what stages are best suited for this. I'd say more, but like I said, I don't know what all needs to be said yet ^_^

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I guess. I need to think about that too...

 

[John12346]

I wouldn't mind some assessment from what I said a page ago(The last two posts I made).

Even a "you're right" or "you're wrong" would be sufficient...

 

[The Real Inferno]

We hype up Sirlin a lot in our community, but it seems most people (at least from what I've seen around here) don't really know that much about him. While he is very intelligent and has good points to make, he isn't always correct, or even exactly sound in his reasoning on arguments. He sometimes makes claims that are just flat out not true, but a lot of it gets taken at face value. Because of this, I don't really recommend always using him as a basis for ban arguments and criteria, but to each his own.

As for banning MK to get rid of planking, I'd say this only makes sense in the instance that it is decided perfect planking is not considered stalling and must therefore be banned separately. Since it is impossible to create a rule that properly bans the technique, it would become a necessity to ban the only perpetrator of the technique.

Of course, I don't think this is true at all, since I already consider it stalling, but I don't get to make rule by myself beyond my own tournaments.

 

[John12346]

Well, in that case, I have one question for you? How do you determine what kind of planking falls under the "stalling rule?" Take the two scenarios I stated a little while ago(Yes, it still relates back to the Sirlin writeup, but I do believe these points hold some serious validity) and tell me what you think about them. How would you, as a TO, respond to them?

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?
.
.
.
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? MK has committed himself to some other move, therefore making the tactic beatable in that regard, 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?

 

[The Real Inferno]

You probably can't. To be honest, arguing about Ledge grab and planking is frustrating because no answer works 100% for making it work fairly. Ledge grab limits have so many issues, and every solution just leads to more loopholes and always goes back to MK ban discussion and after a while it's just not worth discussing, because once you realize this, you can't do anything BUT argue in a circle because we can't go into an MK ban discussion.

 

[John12346]

Yeah, you're right about that. I just wanted to know if you had a reliable method, is all. Definitely would help things out if one existed.

 

[Spelt]

We hype up Sirlin a lot in our community, but it seems most people (at least from what I've seen around here) don't really know that much about him. While he is very intelligent and has good points to make, he isn't always correct, or even exactly sound in his reasoning on arguments. He sometimes makes claims that are just flat out not true, but a lot of it get takes at face value. Because of this, I don't really recommend always using him as a basis for ban arguments and criteria, but to each his own.

I agree with this, seems like around here sirlin's word is taken as law. He's just another person like any of us, sure he has more experience making and playing competitive games, but he's not perfect.

 

[-Vocal-]

You probably can't. To be honest, arguing about Ledge grab and planking is frustrating because no answer works 100% for making it work fairly. Ledge grab limits have so many issues, and every solution just leads to more loopholes and always goes back to MK ban discussion and after a while it's just not worth discussing, because once you realize this, you can't do anything BUT argue in a circle because we can't go into an MK ban discussion.

You read my mind. Perhaps my posts, as well, but definitely my mind

 

[T-block]

The wall on PTAD always comes after a particular stop, and the track is beneath you. I don't see where the concern for the wall is coming from.

As for tether characters, Ivysaur also has a pretty good edgeguarding game that is not really present on PTAD. I don't see why you would think this makes the stage unfit for competitive play though... stages enhance and nullify certain aspects of a character's game all the time. Banning PTAD for tether characters not being able to edgeguard would be kind of like banning Brinstar because the stage eats Pikachu's t-jolts.

 

[Vermanubis]

I. and many other Ganons, would still like to negotiate the Ganon suicide rule. If Ganon were a better character, this rule would never be abided by, so I think the BBR's take on it is somewhat of a copout. I feel their stance on it, although they may flick a silver tongue to make it sound prettier, is "bad character, no need to use our heads to circumvent what is obviously a flaw in programming".

I understand why the rule was implemented. To achieve solidarity and universal consistency amongst suiciders. But it's making something consistent, with inconsistent dogmas. If Ganon never placed and all of them were hopeless, it'd be understandable to kind of say "Okay, whatever". But top Ganons place with Ganon, and have proven that he deserves, if nothing more, to not be "arbitrarily buffed", rather, given his ability to recover on his last stock back.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But Vermanubis, what you're missing is that it is an arbitrary buff. The game has never heard of it. The game does not let you set that up. In fact, the game lets you lose. It's as if it was designed that way... You don't see us stopping people from jumping in front of Ike's quickdash, or stopping us from abusing sheik's chain against you...

 

[The Real Inferno]

Sounds like you'd rather we institute Punch Time.

Also, He was never given a special suicide rule by the BBR.

Ever.

Anyone who told you otherwise was lying/stupid/trolling. So, as I say for the some ridiculous number of times now, we left him exactly as he was before, and it's -not our fault- he has a really bad move for recovering, but I don't see how you can make a post that points out the exact logical reasoning for why not buffing him makes sense than pull a logic 180 and say that he should be able "allowed" to recover anyway.....how is that not a buff? "Hey, I could totally beat you, but this rule says I gotta let you on stage now kk." That doesn't make any sense. Maybe Dan should be allowed to hit his Ultra more in SF4. I'm sure he'd like to be able to do that. =/

Actually to go further, you would have to program the game to make Ganondorf lose with that move. It would have had to been written to function so that he doesn't die second. They could have chose to fix his body positioning during the move to anything they want. So in effect, they chose to make it bad (probably because in Sakurai's limited scope, he believed the move to be overpowered and Ganon to be a balanced, good character).

 

[Blacknight99923]

I can see both sides of the argument I mean ganon mains have been coming from the suicide rule at like tournaments and stuff, even if the rule was unfair to publicly take it away from them would suck for any of those mains. However the rule is arbitrary so I won't say it isn't unfair in general

 

[The Real Inferno]

I can see both sides of the argument I mean ganon mains have been coming from the suicide rule at like tournaments and stuff, even if the rule was unfair to publicly take it away from them would suck for any of those mains. However the rule is arbitrary so I won't say it isn't unfair in general

*twitches* you can't "take away" what you never gave anyone.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I always thought the previous rule of "person who initiates the double KO suicide always wins" was a much better and fairer rule than "game screen decides who wins" simply because both are across-the-board type rules, but the first rule imo makes things appear to be more based on skill. Where as the second rule seems to add a bit more chance to the situation along with being much less asthetically pleasing (yes I know it may not matter but thats important to me)

I dont see it as an arbitrary buff to anyone, I just see it as, if you allow yourself to be caught in a suicide move on your last stock you deserve to lose, and if you are skilled enough to pull off said suicide on the other guys last stock, you deserve to win.

 

[lordhelmet]

Saying "it only applied to Bowser" is quite ignorant.

Every TO that used the suicide rule applied it to every other suicide KO. Why? Because there were no set rules to decide what happens when another character used a suicide move to end a match.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I always thought the previous rule of "person who initiates the double KO suicide always wins" was a much better and fairer rule than "game screen decides who wins" simply because both are across-the-board type rules

I would expect you of all people to be a little more informed than this. But there was never a rule in our ruleset that said that. Some TOs used a rule like that, but the BBR never had one. We only ever applied one to Bowser, and our oversight to what we consider to have been an unfair decision, simply corrects that.

Everything else in your post has been discussed in full, but it boils down to the same thing. While it seems on the surface to be more appealing to give everyone free wins. It is our belief that the ruling of the game itself should not be superseded unnecessarily for the sake of competitive play (we consider Sudden death to be uncompetitive, thus we have rules to avoid it).

Furthermore, people seem to be applying a regional bias to what they think the most common suicide rules were. In my region, there was only ever ONE tournament that applied the suicide win to others, and I ran that. All others were using the time out version of Percent/stock lead wins on suicides. In this case, our region actually gets buffed for suicides by this as many of them now no longer auto-lose for suiciding while losing, but instead get either a win or a 1 stock rematch.

So, depending on your point of reference, those characters did happen to get buffed, but INCIDENTALLY and not out of some agenda to make them better as some would like it to be.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I would expect you of all people to be a little more informed than this. But there was never a rule in our ruleset that said that. Some TOs used a rule like that, but the BBR never had one. We only ever applied one to Bowser, and our oversight to what we consider to have been an unfair decision, simply corrects that.

Is that so? Hmmm... my bad on that then I thought that whoever suicides wins rule was in the official ruleset, forgive my lapse of information. But regardless, if it was used widely enough for me to believe that it was the official BBR ruling then it seems that it must have been quite a popular ruling. And with good reason.

Everything else in your post has been discussed in full, but it boils down to the same thing. While it seems on the surface to be more appealing to give everyone free wins. It is our belief that the ruling of the game itself should not be superseded unnecessarily for the sake of competitive play (we consider Sudden death to be uncompetitive, thus we have rules to avoid it).

nahhhhhhhh dawg, it defintely does not appeal to me to give people free wins. But that might be where the difference in mindsets comes from.
You see it as giving someone a free win when all they did was kill themselves, but I see it as a very skillful use of the characters capabilities to eliminate the opponents last stock with a move that is highly risky, and thus warrents high rewards.

Furthermore, people seem to be applying a regional bias to what they think the most common suicide rules were. In my region, there was only ever ONE tournament that applied the suicide win to others, and I ran that. All others were using the time out version of Percent/stock lead wins on suicides. In this case, our region actually gets buffed for suicides by this as many of them now no longer auto-lose for suiciding while losing, but instead get either a win or a 1 stock rematch.

personally, I wouldnt say I was biased (if this is in anyway directed to me) as much as I was just misinformed, due to the things that were happening around me that I could actively see.

So, depending on your point of reference, those characters did happen to get buffed, but INCIDENTALLY and not out of some agenda to make them better as some would like it to be.

random question, would peoples views on this be any different if every character has a suicide kill move? for me, regardless if it was 1, 5, or 35 characters that could kill their opponent with a move that killed themself in the process, I would always elect to make the ruling that of the person who initiated the move wins.

 

[T-block]

I always thought the previous rule of "person who initiates the double KO suicide always wins" was a much better and fairer rule than "game screen decides who wins" simply because both are across-the-board type rules, but the first rule imo makes things appear to be more based on skill. Where as the second rule seems to add a bit more chance to the situation along with being much less asthetically pleasing (yes I know it may not matter but thats important to me)

I dont see it as an arbitrary buff to anyone, I just see it as, if you allow yourself to be caught in a suicide move on your last stock you deserve to lose, and if you are skilled enough to pull off said suicide on the other guys last stock, you deserve to win.

It's not arbitrary in the sense that there's no reasoning behind it. We recognize the logic behind giving the win to the initiator. It's arbitrary in that the logic is based on a notion (that you deserve to lose if you get caught in a suicide) that isn't objectively obvious. It could be flipped around to say "if you are skilled enough to force your opponent to suicide on his last stock, you deserve to win". It could also be said that "if you are stupid enough to suicide on your last stock when the game says you will lose, you deserve to lose".

So would you also reward the win to Kirby and Dedede? Those two cases have issues with enforceability, since it's difficult to tell if they really did die in the inhale or broke out at the last second and happened to die at the same time.

 

[lordhelmet]

I just tested on a CPU.

Ganoncide/NTSC

If Ganon is a higher port the game will always end in sudden death. If Ganon is the lower port the other player will always win.

So now we have more of a reason to fight over ports because of the current rule. I say simple is better and thusly the rule should be "the initiator of the suicide move is the winner".

 

[T-block]

There has been a LOT of testing that shows otherwise. If it were as simple as port, I would think more people would know that.

Not to completely dismiss your findings, but I'm very skeptical. Most are claiming that sudden death is pretty rare, and that the exact cause for it is unknown.