Creation of BBR Ruleset Committee; Brawl Nationals Agree to Same Stagelist! New TO's!

[Spelt]

the bbr and bbr-rc are two completely different things.
the bbr-rc is making their own ruleset.

 

[Orion*]

You can predict to some extent: once a picture has been shown, it's not going to show up again in that fight. So you can keep in mind your odds of having a hazard that directly deals damage to opp

Im mad that you even argued this LOL

the bbr and bbr-rc are two completely different things.
the bbr-rc is making their own ruleset.

Thank you for taking care of browny

 

[John12346]

Three rules(IDC rule included) specifically targeting MK, plus another targeting planking, which was likely influenced by MK anyway

lmao

 

[MK26]

This is news to me, and certainly a point in the stage's favor...

an additional bar appears simultanously with the drawings.

yeah, it doesnt really help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg3C9mhTkw&t=1m45s
check the bars in the bottom left corner

...

OHHHH SNAP
not that it necessarily helps for games shorter than 10 mins
but a new bar is added on the left side each time a drawing is drawn
which is the same thing that occurs on the actual pictochat on the ds
and im assuming that theres enough space for every drawing possible
and once every drawing is drawn, the left side will erase, telling the players that the cycle is starting over
not that it really helps us for our purposes

 

[ShadowLink84]

DeDeDe's Infinite grab: You CANNOT Chain grab IN PLACE(not even once). The small step CG is banned as well. Normal CG is legal.

The standing Infinite grab-release on ness/lucas is banned(do not even do it once). You must HIT them out of the release, do not re-grab

Stalling

Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling. Plainking is a perfect example. If i see it, you WILL lose your ENTIRE SET. No warnings! Play, dont gay.


MetaKnight Ledge Grab Limit Rule

ALL METAKNIGHTs that enter a match will be under the LGL rule. Metaknights are allowed to grab the ledge a TOTAL of 40 times PER MATCH(assuming the game goes to timer). The numbers can be viewed AFTER a match on the results screen. If you exceed the limit even by a single ledge grab you will lose your entire SET or match( the TO will decide).


Stage Gliding Rule(metaknight ONLY)

Due to recent events of M2k vs Meep/Gnes, i have created the Stage Gliding Rule. Metaknight is not allowed to glide under ANY stage more than 2 times in a row. He MUST land an attack in order to be able to reset the the stage glide count

...
...
...

 

[Yikarur]

...
...
...

I have to share your opionion once =(

 

[ShadowLink84]

I have to share your opionion once =(

You usually share the same opinion, you just don't say it openly.

That png is epic though, I love it.

 

[Yikarur]

but we disagree on a lot! :0

but that spam of anti MK Rules is a biiiit exaggerated.

"No warnings! Play, dont gay." lol

relative Set lose (TO Decides lol?) by exceeding the ledgegrab limit? wtf D:

I actually thought that "infinites banned" is an old story and is abolished already.

who makes the rules for that? D:

 

[Raziek]

Xyro, IIRC.

I don't know why people are surprised by this. TOs that don't feel the "unified" ruleset suits their purposes are just going to do their own thing anyway.

See: Apex 2.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It begins to fail before it even starts.
Very disappointing.

 

[T0MMY]

Okay, so you're seriously going to tell me that against EVERY Meta-Knight you face, you hold the lead for the entire match?

That was a jump in conclusions.

And secondly, your point doesn't stand. I hate to have to keep repeating this, but:
- If the ruleset awards victory to whoever's winning when time runs out, MK can plank while winning. It's not possible for you to hold a lead in EVERY match against Meta-Knight, so planking is a problem on this ruleset.
- If the ruleset calls for a rematch in the event of a timeout, MK can plank while losing for a free heal into a rematch. Since MK can choose to plank at any point if he feels threatened, he can use it if he's losing by a big enough margin, and reset the game to neutral ground. Planking is a problem on this ruleset too.

The point of Meta Knight "losing" was already made. I asked why Meta Knight would be considered "losing" if he's tied in stock. It's up to the player to stop him from planking, because, as it was already stated, it is not broken, not unstoppable, and in all practicality beatable. So if MK planks away the last 2 minutes to try to take it to a rematch simply punish the planking and get your KO off him from that.
But, honestly, so far it seems like playing out Sudden Death has been the only solution to any of these what-if scenarios.

Whatever. If R.O.B. can't stop planking, then all the better for me. We've already gone over how a lot of onstage projectiles are no good to stop MK's planking. Adding Gyro to that list helps me out.

Good job missing the point completely. The Gyro not having much advantage over any other projectile =/= no good to stop MK's planking. Nearly every projectile can be used to harass MK off the ledge, score damage, or outright KO him. With that kind of attitude I can see why you have problems stopping planking.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=267257

Scroll down to the part where it says projectiles are garbage at stopping MK.

I read that post a long time ago. Yes, it's an old post. Yes it's so old that the errors have been made apparent. Errors like claiming both MK's U-airs are invincible. Of course if grievous errors like that didn't exist the argument of "you must be on crack" and "get out of here with that garbage" still doesn't convince me.
Please refer to this post: Beating Planking
That should help you out a bit.

I believe someone already disproved what you said about Coney vs. M2K. Something about how:
- M2K only got hit a total of 4 times while planking for the duration of the match.
- M2K dealt out more damage to Coney than Coney did to M2K while he was on the ledge.
- M2K got back up on the stage of his own accord, rather than from the pressure Coney was giving out.

Yeah, now imagine how much of an easier time Coney would have had if he knew anti-planking techniques! Instead of staying back and playing it safe (which was very smart in his unfamiliar situation) he could have punished a lot of what was happening, shut down the game, and focused on more pwnage. Why stifle players' progress by imposing out-of-game rules on planking?

You want more examples of planking? Well, here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0nc8l0XKEY ---------> two years old on Norfair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4jYJ-Yjf3w ----------> two years old
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-kmLXBWsVo -------> over two years old

Yeah, I thought the reason you'd post a link to planking now was because the last one was over two years old...

They are a tad old, but planking was discovered in 2008, and these matches occurred in 2009, which means that there's been theoretically more than enough time for the metagame to develop to counter this.

I was around when planking hit the scene big with Plank vs SK92 at Axis at the END of 2008, which gave it just a few months to get known & widespread... and look at that, the videos you provided are early 2009. That would be perfect timing to get a tactic down correctly to be used but not have opponents know how to deal with it. Heck, even today people would still rather play the scrub card of banning it rather than learn to deal with it. Post up some videos of someone who knows how to deal with planking plz.

Brawl has a different physics engine from SSB and SSBM. What might not be stoppable in Brawl may be a simple nuisance in Melee.

Physics engines have no bearing on planking techniques in a Melee/Brawl compare/contrast. Invincibility on the ledge that CANNOT be stopped in Melee exists and no special rules outside of the standard stalling rules were used. No ledge invincibility in Brawl like that exists, planking is defeatable, yet there is an outcry to instate rules banning it. Where is the logic in that? Fallible.

MK slamming Uairs from below, using Nado from above, or Drill Rushing from side while someone's on the edge doesn't require the MK to NEED any time to react since the hitboxes are out there the whole time. His moves come out before s/he is able to get off the ledge, and long after his or her invincibility wears off.

His U-air hit area is not out the entire time he's invincible. The other attacks can be punished. This has been gone over plenty of times. Everything is beatable/punishable -- should I say except for a possibility of the Mach Tornado because it is broken and should be banned? lol

The victim, on the other hand, will be struggling to react to the fact MK made "a move." Figuring out exactly what move he's using, along with his positional advantages and how to even stop it will take far too long to do anything about it.

You're starting to figure out what "cheap" really means, aren't you? This is why Meta Knight is considered the best character in the game. He's cheap. Nearly everything he does is simple, which fills the gap of skill between two players. He's also not ban-worthy. So you're just going to have to deal with him.

Nado is... an overpowering move. You're right about that. However, what you don't realize is that there are ways to counter it. PSC'ing, grabbing through it, hitting from the top, using transcendant or outprioritizing projectiles, or simply angling your shield up to block the whole thing and reset to a neutral position... there are a multitude of ways to handle Nado, despite it being very, VERY hard to do so.

Not only are you very wrong that I don't realize there are ways to counter the Mach Tornado, but you have just defeated your own points about planking with that argument:
There are ways to counter Mach Tornado planking, therefore no out-of-game rules should be instated against it.

Planking, however, has frame data, information from matches and videos, and simply a CRAPTON of players that all say the same thing about planking.

Where? I don't want 2009 matches of players not knowing how to deal with planking being used as solid evidence otherwise my videos linking players getting wrecked by Mach Tornado suffice for the evidence to ban the Mach Tornado.
What we do have is frame data that DISPROVES the assumption planking is broken.

Just believe me when I say stuff has been banned in other competitive games:

- Pokemon: Banned Pokemon range from Pokemon with ridiculously overbearing stats(Deoxys Attack Forme, for example), to Pokemon with simply extremely good stats(Salamence and Garchomp, although Garchomp also has Sand Veil).
- Yu-Gi-Oh: Has an evolving metagame that changes with new cards and strategies. Banned cards range from cards that can make the game completely unplayable(Yata-Garasu, which negates the opponent's ability to draw, thus forcing a lock), to cards that are simply very strong(Heavy Storm, which nukes all Spells and Traps on the field).
- Soul Caliber 4: Algol and Hilde are banned.
- Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo: Akuma is banned.

Thanks for posting some examples you believe are bans in competitive games. Now we can examine them and see if they can apply to our current discussion.

Pokemon: Ubers are not banned, they have different modes of tournament play. For instance Onix is not allowed in "little cup", but we wouldn't say Onix is a "banned" Pokemon. The normal standard of play is "Over Used" ("OU") which disallows ubers, but these ubers are not banned in no-restriction play. To translate it into Smash terms, characters like Meta Knight, Snake, Diddy Kong, Falco, etc. are not allowed in "low tier" play, but to say these characters are "banned" would be correct given the circumstances, though misleading.
This isn't going to help in our discussion.

Yu-Gi-Oh: I do not play this game and am unfamiliar with the card. Is this card justified being banned? Also note that I do play similar card games, and a lot of CCG cycle in new card sets regularly so the idea of banning a card is usually temporary until it is updated -- something that does not apply to Smash.

Algol & Hilde (SC4): Algol was thought to be banned because one attack seemed to both be too powerful AND temporarily blocked the camera. He was unbanned when Hilde was deemed to be viable against him. In an attempt to keep players from quitting SC4 to play other, more popular fighters (without camera-blocking bubble oversights) TO's on the east coast banned both of them. It didn't work, SC4 died and SF4 and other fighters became successes (this should argue AGAINST banning characters to keep a community together... yes, Meta-banners, know your history!)
I would say this was an unwarranted ban. It doesn't apply to planking, it would apply to a meta-ban... but as evidence against a ban.

Akuma (SSF2T) Oh, the classic Akuma ban. First off, the Japanese simply used a soft ban. He was still used in tournaments (and Japan still has Super Turbo tournaments today!), however the BEST players refused to use him.
The reason for the ban was mostly due to the fact that he was a "boss" character (much like the reason to ban Algol in SC4) and was a "secret" character -- he was technically not part of the character roster. It seemed evident that he was not to be used in usual matches.
Again, this would apply to Meta Knight ban arguments (and again, there's more here to argue AGAINST a ban) rather than planking arguments.
The SOFT ban was warranted in this case.

Fear of planking? Maybe.
But I do believe my explanations will prove to be more than sufficient to show precedent for it being legit broken.

I guess time will tell. So far there's been no evidence for imposing rules on planking, and I have provided plenty of evidence why there shouldn't be.
However, I keep saying you & I both ultimately agree on the same thing: Planking shouldn't happen -- gay things shouldn't happen. I simply say not to be a scrub about it.

In-game rules? Point these out to me, will ya?

Turn on Brawl, the rules section. You should know this kind of stuff before you know where smashboards is.

You mean like PTAD, which is non-random? Jungle Japes? Apparently not pictochat?

I don't think those are the best stages for competitive play. But, your point being?

We agree on this count.

Yeah, most people seem to favor 5 stages with strikes and Double Blind character selection (if desired by one or more players). Thank goodness we don't have to argue those rules in, it's tiring enough as it is :^)


On Ties/Sudden Death:

A few factors. The bombs are a big one, essentially randomizing the victor if it goes on past a certain point. Then there's planking (oh boy planking again) which, without LGLs, gives you absolutely 0 margin of error with all but a few members of the cast (one uair will kill you).

The bombs obviously are one of the apparent aspects of SD. However, I disagree with you about randomizing the victor. As previously stated the Bombs have a detonation time WELL AFTER THEY'VE SPAWNED -- sometimes they'll just sit on the ground for a long time; THEY WILL NOT BLOW YOU UP UNLESS YOU HAVE POOR REACTION TIME (at which point that's a player flaw, not a game mechanic flaw).
So, now that the spawning of bombs is put aside we have PLANKING!
I actually agree here, it is too much risk vs reward to stop a planker in Sudden Death. However, you don't have to approach. Ever. At which point the bombs start to drop. And this is my one and only qualm I have with SD. If both players avoid the bombs and don't approach... sure, eventually someone will die... but that might not happen for a while... at which point I think a referee should just announce that after a minute of planking/non-action the match will be forcefully ended and the stale-mate ruling would determine winner.

What? Okay, I'll agree, technically it's functional. Realistically? It will not work. Also, your definition of competition seems just a little bit off, at least when talking about brawl. Or, more realistically, we haven't been playing brawl competitively. Ever. Not once. Nor was it that way in melee. Furthermore, if "brawl with rule X" is simply a more viable competitive game than "brawl", then why not play brawl with rule X? There's simply no good reason not to raise the competitive foundation.

Ok, so my argument on functionality is now the standard since we both agree to it.
Now you bring up the question of "realistic" function (I think you mean to say "practical" function here). SIMPLY STATING IT WILL NOT WORK WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Blowing it off by attacking my concepts of "competition" (which I have at least researched!) is not support, it's just ad hominem which weakens your argument. Until you provide reason for your assumptions then it cannot be considered.
As a competitive player in Brawl I simply scoff at your statement that we have not been playing Brawl competitively ever. Extreme assumptions need extreme proof.
Your assumptions: Playing SD is not practical; My definition of (Brawl) "competition" is a little bit off; Brawl hasn't ever been played competitively.

You will have A LOT of work to do here supporting those assumptions. Good luck.

...Except that "fair stage selection" has been ****ed for quite a while, ever since people stopped listening to the BBR. You yourself don't run tournaments with "Fair" stage selection.

Define "fair". Also there is a thing to be said about TO'ing vs competitive play: Your attendees come first. If everyone wants to play on 75M then I will have it as an available stage. So mind your claims on my tourney stage choices -- I have used everything from "5 stages only" to "everything available".

Really? REALLY? Slippery slope again? Did you actually read my "Appeal to Results"?

No, and until I read something from you that gets me eager to read more I probably won't.

If you can clearly demonstrate that the game is more competitively viable with a rule than without it, than that rule belongs in the game. However, the burden of proof is on you. I.e. you can prove that the game is better with PS2 legal, but you can't prove that it's better with a rule like Punch Time.

That is trickery.
"clearly demonstrate" and "more competitive" just means if you can convince someone that changing the game to be in YOUR favor then you can get away with it. I call BS.

No, but rules that legalize Temple Hyrule can work too if your region doesn't circle camp.

Again: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Banning things is not automatically anticompetitive nor automatically scrubby.

I never said it was.

You treat originalism like a religion.

Ad hominem, again, you're weakening your argument with these statements. Focus on the argument at hand.

Furthermore, at least on a theoretical level, all tie-breakers that have to do with repeating the round have issues, not limited to but including the classic "okay, now the 5-minute, 1-stock match went to time, what now?".
First off, if it isn't a perfect rule, that doesn't mean it's not a BETTER rule. To get up the stairs you have to take the first step.
Secondly, it functions just fine in case of a time out (if time is being used): But this isn't the rematch-rule specific question, is it? What if % is tied on time out in current rules? That's right, 1-stock rematch. So what if that goes to a tie? That's right, under current rules being used IN NATIONALS then Sudden Death would be played out. But what if there's a stalemate? Oh, the rules I proposed can handle that... CURRENT RULES DO NOT!

Now you see that current rules reach a NON FUNCTIONAL ERROR -- the rules I am proposing do not.
Which would you support?

Wait, is your solution to planking seriously "never lose the lead against the best character in the game"?

I don't think I ever said that, not in the many, many, many posts I've made on the topic detailing and outlining how to stop planking....... and you go and just make that assumption?
Well, I guess your method works too... though it may be a more difficult way of going about it :^p

That massive-*** nair, along with one of the longest recoveries in the game. ROB doesn't automatically die if he ****s up.

Shows how much you know about R.O.B. if you mentioned his N-air.

 

[Yikarur]

oh my god, your arguments are so bad and you hide your bad arguments in a gigantic wall of text so that I'm not going to directly answer to your arguements but "ubers are not banned, it's just another format" Argument lol........

 

[Ghostbone]

Physics engines have no bearing on planking techniques in a Melee/Brawl compare/contrast. Invincibility on the ledge that CANNOT be stopped in Melee exists and no special rules outside of the standard stalling rules were used. No ledge invincibility in Brawl like that exists, planking is defeatable, yet there is an outcry to instate rules banning it. Where is the logic in that? Fallible.

Uhh, Planking in melee can be much more easily stopped than brawl.
While there is ledge stalling that gives you full invincibility the opponent can just edge-hog you and you're forced to recover on stage where you'll be punished.

I can go through every character's options against it if you want lol, but MK's planking is definitely much worse than anything in melee.

And the stalling rules don't (or at least shouldn't) apply to staying on the edge....all it is is staying in an advantaged position.



And lol at the WHOBO rules
"Running away from the opponent to reach a better position is not stalling"
And then goes on to say Planking is stalling?
lolwut, so running away to a better position isn't stalling, but staying at that position is?

 

[theunabletable]

Uhh, Planking in melee can be much more easily stopped than brawl.

I think I remember Magus once saying that frame perfect Bowser once on the ledge can't be beaten lol

And the stalling rules don't (or at least shouldn't) apply to staying on the edge....all it is is staying in an advantaged position.

oh, well good thing it's not for staying on the ledge, it's for getting off the ledge and getting back on repeatedly

lolwut, so running away to a better position isn't stalling, but staying at that position is?

Actually, I can see how someone might make an argument for that. If you're running away, you'll run out of space to run away to eventually, and you can't run away to stall anymore. If you're staying at a position that makes you invincible/unhittable (whether MKs planking is or is not isn't the point), then there's not the option that works well against running away: waiting until they can't run any further away. They're just at a position where they can continuously run the clock without the risk of running out of space.

Staying in the same place, and moving away from the opponent ARE definitely two different concepts, so what rules apply to one may not necessarily apply to the other.

 

[Ghostbone]

I think I remember Magus once saying that frame perfect Bowser once on the ledge can't be beaten lol

lolboozer, even so it's incredibly easy to keep the lead against him. (plus it's pretty impossible for a human to do it frame perfectly)

oh, well good thing it's not for staying on the ledge, it's for getting off the ledge and getting back on repeatedly

>.>

Actually, I can see how someone might make an argument for that. If you're running away, you'll run out of space to run away to eventually, and you can't run away to stall anymore. If you're staying at a position that makes you invincible/unhittable (whether MKs planking is or is not isn't the point), then there's not the option that works well against running away: waiting until they can't run any further away. They're just at a position where they can continuously run the clock without the risk of running out of space.

Staying in the same place, and moving away from the opponent ARE definitely two different concepts, so what rules apply to one may not necessarily apply to the other.

Ehh maybe, but it's still kinda pointless having a LGL AND classifying planking as stalling.

 

[theunabletable]

lolboozer, even so it's incredibly easy to keep the lead against him. (plus it's pretty impossible for a human to do it frame perfectly)

Doesn't change the fact that Bowser can get a draw guaranteed against pretty much everyone when played right lol

yeah very impractical, but it does exist, which I assume (might be wrong) is what tommy was talking about

Ehh maybe, but it's still kinda pointless having a LGL AND classifying planking as stalling.

Oh I hadn't noticed that.

yeah that is a bit silly haha, but I can see why it might be like that.

maybe it's to prevent people from air camping for 6 and a half minutes without grabbing the ledge, then using 30 ledge grabs for the other minute and a half, and not go over the limit.

 

[Browny]

Xyro, IIRC.

I don't know why people are surprised by this. TOs that don't feel the "unified" ruleset suits their purposes are just going to do their own thing anyway.

See: Apex 2.

Except one of those players is in the BBR-RC and has their tourney stickied etc and the other is not?

 

[Ghostbone]

Doesn't change the fact that Bowser can get a draw guaranteed against pretty much everyone when played right lol

I disagree, Fox and Falco can do quick damage, Sheik probably as well.
Plus you can choose where you spawn through ports....so pick one that puts you between him and the ledge, or at least as close as possible to him.

 

[Flayl]

Bowser stalling in Melee

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=1276676

Shine Stall: *as quoted from TheCape*
"Pretty much how it works is Fox ( also works with falco) grabs the ledge, falls, shines, then JCs into a firefox. The firefox then cancels and fox grabs the ledge. This allows you to stay invincible, and shine spike at the same time."

Cool story bros.

 

[Chuee]

I've also heard that M2K went to WC and convinced them that Melee needed a LGL by planking with Jiggz lol.

 

[Ghostbone]

I've also heard that M2K went to WC and convinced them that Melee needed a LGL by planking with Jiggz lol.

The melee boards had a discussion about Planking not too long ago....but the general consensus was to wait until the tactic was shown to be broken in tournament.

 

[John12346]

Once again, I'd like to request a second opinion. Am I being too unreasonable or something? What about T0MMY? Opinions, opinions, people.

T0MMY, you don't seem to understand that, if MK is in a "winning" position, he can plank for the win. If he's in a "tied stock" position under rematch rules, he can plank for a rematch into a free heal. The only time he can't plank is when he'll be considered as in a "losing" position, and as obvious as it is, it's not possible for everyone to gain and keep a lead against MK in every single match. It's a problem in every matchup.
.
.
.
.
.
Now, onto planking. You seem to say it's beatable. Show video evidence. I've shown some, albeit old, video evidence, which more than proves the possibility that planking is indeed broken. In fact, I'm on a quest to collect video evidence of MK's planking being broken via specialized money matches without LGLs. I have done three such matches so far, and I'll let you know right now that I've won all of them in a landslide. If you really want to disprove my theory that MK's planking isn't broken, show some video evidence of someone beating it. If you say it's "hard to find," then it may as well not exist.

You have theorized a million things stating MK's planking isn't broken. Prove it.
.
.
.
.
.
Next, onto your so called evidence against a MK ban... first off, it's been proven pretty well that this game will not die if MK becomes banned. Not even a fifth of the Brawl community uses MK... and even among all of these MK mains, almost all of them have a secondary character that they can play at a reasonable/high level of play. And even moreso, there are a lot of MK mains out there who are actually pro-ban. Most of the MK mains aren't going to quit the game from a MK ban because they all either have a secondary or they want it that way.

And you can't relate SC4's "death" to the banning of Algol and Hilde. There may have been an underlying cause... more popular fighting games maybe? Keep in mind there's no game that runs the same physics engine as Brawl, so there's not exactly an alternative to go to, sans Melee. In any case, MK getting banned isn't going to kill the community. You can count on that.

Outside of MK "killing the community," as you say, what makes you say MK doesn't warrant a ban? Let's hear your thoughts.

 

[T0MMY]

Uhh, Planking in melee can be much more easily stopped than brawl.

I wasn't saying "planking" in Melee, I was referring to the ledge-options available which give complete invincibility. All arguments for planking in Brawl can be applied here in this situation, so one cannot be hypocritical and say it's ok for Melee but not Brawl and expected to have a carrying argument.

And the stalling rules don't (or at least shouldn't) apply to staying on the edge....all it is is staying in an advantaged position.
And lol at the WHOBO rules
"Running away from the opponent to reach a better position is not stalling"
And then goes on to say Planking is stalling?
lolwut, so running away to a better position isn't stalling, but staying at that position is?

I completely agree!
It's a positional advantage. Defeat it and you stop it forever. Making up ridiculous rules to thwart it just gives the MK player opportunities to take liberties with rulings (scrooging anyone?); also, re-examine the time-out tie rules.

Once again, I'd like to request a second opinion. Am I being too unreasonable or something? What about T0MMY? Opinions, opinions, people.

Rhetoric is not welcomed in this argument. This would be an appeal to emotions rather than to arguments at hand; taking an ad hominem approach will only weaken an argument. It matters not if a million people have a problem with me personally because my argument will stand strongly by itself without me.
So, yes, I agree you are being unreasonable.

T0MMY, you don't seem to understand that...

Stop right there; Once again your attempts to convince me that I don't understand that which I do understand is completely unacceptable. If you truly believe someone doesn't understand something then explain it to them, don't try to rub it in their face.

...if MK is in a "winning" position, he can plank for the win.
If he's in a "tied stock" position under rematch rules, he can plank for a rematch into a free heal.

Define what a "winning position" is please. But using either ruling MK can plank, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

Tied Stocks -- %-based vs Stock-only-based​

In case of a Tied Stock position under Stock Lead Only rules, he can plank for a rematch into a "free heal". Planking =/= free heal. At best, if his opponent knows how to stop planking, MK loses a stock. At worst his opponent doesn't approach, which means the opponent also gets a free heal. A new round is played.

Contrasted to how the %-based rule works: MK gays out the timer with planking: MK wins! We award the gayest player playing as gay as possible with the win and NO CHANCE for the opponent who isn't playing gay to win.
So, which is the better option?

The only time he can't plank is when he'll be considered as in a "losing" position, and as obvious as it is, it's not possible for everyone to gain and keep a lead against MK in every single match. It's a problem in every matchup.

It sounds like you're thinking of a %-based lead here. It is asking too much of everyone to keep a PERCENT LEAD in a %-based ruling against a character obviously built around getting chip damage in like Meta Knight!
In a stock-based-only ruling it is only asking that you stay tied in stocks -- much more likely to happen, don't you think?

Now, onto planking. You seem to say it's beatable. Show video evidence. I've shown some, albeit old, video evidence, which more than proves the possibility that planking is indeed broken.

I don't "seem to say" planking is beatable -- I've shown SOLID IN-GAME CODE/FRAME DATA EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THIS.
If the data PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT then it is PROOF UNTIL DISPROVEN -- If your opinion is planking is "broken" and the frame data proves it is not, then your opinion is absolutely crushed by solid frame data evidence.
Whether it is intentional or not, you are using a debating trick where the solid evidence is ignored then weaker evidence is introduced to replace the solid evidence and then proclaim that there is no evidence opposing the weak evidence.
I'm not going to waste my time finding video evidence for you when it can simply be swept aside in the same manner the in-game code has been -- burden of proof is on you; Either disprove the evidence at hand with some hard work like I did, or retract the statement that planking is broken; because it's proven to not be broken (cheap, gay and annoying? Yes! But certainly not yet shown to be anywhere near broken status!).

In fact, I'm on a quest to collect video evidence of MK's planking being broken via specialized money matches without LGLs. I have done three such matches so far, and I'll let you know right now that I've won all of them in a landslide. If you really want to disprove my theory that MK's planking isn't broken, show some video evidence of someone beating it. If you say it's "hard to find," then it may as well not exist.

Congrats, you are creating evidence you are looking for. This is presupposition bias. If I set out to win MMs against planking Meta Knights I will win all mine as well and have video "evidence". In the end biased evidence makes for weak evidence.
I have no interest in disproving your theory, but I challenge you to disprove my very solid empirical data -- the very data that helps me beat good Meta Knights.

You have theorized a million things stating MK's planking isn't broken. Prove it.

No, burden of proof is on those who claim it is broken. Proof of broken status still has yet to emerge. (And, btw, I have enough proof on my side anyway, still very solid and standing strong only having to face opinions being thrown at it so far).

Next, onto your so called evidence against a MK ban...

I barely even brought up a MK ban. I didn't provide any evidence. Empty assumption. But it is now apparent where your other standpoints are coming from. And I have to say it is lulzy how arguments for a ban are perfect arguments against a ban X^D

And you can't relate SC4's "death" to the banning of Algol and Hilde.

Again, an empty assumption. I did not. I simply stated what I researched. The community was dying and they banned those characters in an attempt to salvage the community. This directly applies to the argument that we need to ban MK in an attempt to save the Smash community. Directly applies. It didn't work.
History is a great teacher.

Outside of MK "killing the community," as you say, what makes you say MK doesn't warrant a ban? Let's hear your thoughts.

MK doesn't kill the community, I agree. It is a THIRD empty assumption to assume I said that.
Also, I don't troll bait. It's apparent your true passion is arguing a MK ban, so I'll ask you to take that to a better area than our post regarding rules. Because you really need to focus on prior arguments before you bite off more than you can chew.

 

[John12346]

Rhetoric is not welcomed in this argument. This would be an appeal to emotions rather than to arguments at hand; taking an ad hominem approach will only weaken an argument. It matters not if a million people have a problem with me personally because my argument will stand strongly by itself without me.
So, yes, I agree you are being unreasonable.

Actually, I brought this up because I was worried I was trippin' or something, because the fact you've been going on for this long against me is starting to make me second guess a few things about yourself and myself. I wasn't trying to mount any "person-based" attacks here, I just wanted confirmation from someone else that I, personally, wasn't on the wrong track of anything.

Stop right there; Once again your attempts to convince me that I don't understand that which I do understand is completely unacceptable. If you truly believe someone doesn't understand something then explain it to them, don't try to rub it in their face.

I don't even know why you brought this up, lol. Stick to the argument.

Define what a "winning position" is please. But using either ruling MK can plank, so it ultimately doesn't matter.

Winning position, as in if time were to run out, MK would be declared the winner.
Tied position, as in if time were to run out, a rematch would commence.

But yes, MK can plank on either, so w/e.

Tied Stocks -- %-based vs Stock-only-based​

In case of a Tied Stock position under Stock Lead Only rules, he can plank for a rematch into a "free heal". Planking =/= free heal. At best, if his opponent knows how to stop planking, MK loses a stock. At worst his opponent doesn't approach, which means the opponent also gets a free heal. A new round is played.

MK's at 170%, and the opponent's at 12%. Both last stock. If time runs out, the opponent heals 12 damage, and MK heals 170 damage. I don't care what the skill gap is between the two players, and how much the non-MK is going to **** in the rematch battle, healing 170% damage is flat out unreasonable.

Contrasted to how the %-based rule works: MK gays out the timer with planking: MK wins! We award the gayest player playing as gay as possible with the win and NO CHANCE for the opponent who isn't playing gay to win.
So, which is the better option?

Your "tied stock = rematch" rule doesn't cover stock leads. MK's at 135%, two stocks, and the opponent's at 20%, one stock. If time runs out, MK wins despite him and the opponent being at almost even ground.

It sounds like you're thinking of a %-based lead here. It is asking too much of everyone to keep a PERCENT LEAD in a %-based ruling against a character obviously built around getting chip damage in like Meta Knight!
In a stock-based-only ruling it is only asking that you stay tied in stocks -- much more likely to happen, don't you think?

Obviously, it's much easier to keep a stock tie/lead against MK than it is to keep a stock and percent tie/lead...

But you must remember, that MK is the best character in the game to begin with. If you're seriously going to tell me every player on the planet is capable of keeping the upper hand on stocks against MK in 100% of their matches, then...

I don't "seem to say" planking is beatable -- I've shown SOLID IN-GAME CODE/FRAME DATA EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THIS.
If the data PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT then it is PROOF UNTIL DISPROVEN -- If your opinion is planking is "broken" and the frame data proves it is not, then your opinion is absolutely crushed by solid frame data evidence.
Whether it is intentional or not, you are using a debating trick where the solid evidence is ignored then weaker evidence is introduced to replace the solid evidence and then proclaim that there is no evidence opposing the weak evidence.
I'm not going to waste my time finding video evidence for you when it can simply be swept aside in the same manner the in-game code has been -- burden of proof is on you; Either disprove the evidence at hand with some hard work like I did, or retract the statement that planking is broken; because it's proven to not be broken (cheap, gay and annoying? Yes! But certainly not yet shown to be anywhere near broken status!).

I seem to recall the issue of reaction times being brought into this conversation a long time back. You do not take that into account in your AiB thread. The only way your scenario works is if you perfectly guess every move MK is going to make. If he varies his movements by even a slight amount of frames, your approach isn't going to work.

The average human reaction time is 12 frames. And that doesn't even take into account that that's the amount of time it takes to react to the fact "something happened." Even more time must be spent for one to process what happened and how to counter it.

Congrats, you are creating evidence you are looking for. This is presupposition bias. If I set out to win MMs against planking Meta Knights I will win all mine as well and have video "evidence". In the end biased evidence makes for weak evidence.
I have no interest in disproving your theory, but I challenge you to disprove my very solid empirical data -- the very data that helps me beat good Meta Knights.

I'm not being biased. I'm recording every match, win or lose. Everything will be posted, regardless of my victories or failures. If I just so happen to win all of them, then it just goes to prove that planking is broken in practice.

Also, in case I wasn't clear enough, I'm the one using MK to plank. Not my opponent.

As far as the video evidence I've shown you so far, it's the best I could find for planking. Plus, I'm currently collecting more evidence of it being broken to this day. Think you can top it?

No, burden of proof is on those who claim it is broken. Proof of broken status still has yet to emerge. (And, btw, I have enough proof on my side anyway, still very solid and standing strong only having to face opinions being thrown at it so far).

Proving your point with data that doesn't take all variables into account, such as reaction time and character ability, alongside non-existent videos.

I also seem to recall a certain someone saying that evidence obtained through theorycraft isn't quite as concrete as evidence obtained through practice(not sure if it was you, but yeah).

Yep, you sure have binding evidence.

I barely even brought up a MK ban. I didn't provide any evidence. Empty assumption. But it is now apparent where your other standpoints are coming from. And I have to say it is lulzy how arguments for a ban are perfect arguments against a ban X^D

Not exactly. If, say, Mario had all of these tactics(and we assume MK didn't, of course), I'd still be arguing everything the exact same way.

Again, an empty assumption. I did not. I simply stated what I researched. The community was dying and they banned those characters in an attempt to salvage the community. This directly applies to the argument that we need to ban MK in an attempt to save the Smash community. Directly applies. It didn't work.
History is a great teacher.

Smash isn't dying, though. Melee is still booming as far as I know(I know MK isn't in Melee, but you know what I mean), and Brawl is still an extremely popular game, despite it somewhat sucking. Keep in mind that, over the course of 2011 so, there have been 115 different Brawl tournaments(not including this weekend), with a total of over $25000 of prizes distributed among players, indicating an average of about 10 tournaments a week and an average of over $2000 in prizes every week. You're going to tell me Smash is dying? Seriously?

Plus, I'm not even arguing for an MK ban with intent to "save the community." I do believe the ban of MK will help the community out a lot, but the main reasons I'm pro-ban are due to his significant presence in tournaments; he's used way more significantly more than any other character, and he's won significantly more money than any other character.

In addition, I've seen more than my fair share of matches in person in an otherwise MK infested region(NY and NJ), and I've seen too many tragic losses to the non-MK players simply because they got gimped at 40%, or lost to someone they're clearly more skilled than. I feel a large amount of sympathy towards these players.

MK doesn't kill the community, I agree. It is a THIRD empty assumption to assume I said that.
Also, I don't troll bait. It's apparent your true passion is arguing a MK ban, so I'll ask you to take that to a better area than our post regarding rules. Because you really need to focus on prior arguments before you bite off more than you can chew.

Er, I meant to say banning MK won't kill the community, but w/e.

MK doesn't really kill the community, of course, but getting rid of him would likely be a big step in the right direction.

Anyway...

Yes... yes... let's stick to the planking for now.

 

[Ghostbone]

I wasn't saying "planking" in Melee, I was referring to the ledge-options available which give complete invincibility. All arguments for planking in Brawl can be applied here in this situation, so one cannot be hypocritical and say it's ok for Melee but not Brawl and expected to have a carrying argument.

I really don't see how the arguments for Planking in Brawl can be applied to Melee.....

Planking/Ledge-stalling/whatever you want to call it is much more easily beaten in Melee than Brawl, not sure what you're trying to say >.> It can be stopped, except for some where your opponent needs to be frame perfect. But it's impossible for a human to do that for very long anyway (think IDC difficulty x100 or something), so it doesn't matter.

But anyway this is a Brawl ruleset thread, Melee has nothing to do with it....

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This isn't an assumption but a fact, SC4 died because SC3 struck a deadly blow to the community, SC4 was the nail in the coffin.

As for Yu-gi-oh. yata is banned for a very very good reason, it's ended games if it hit someone and was almost impossible to kill being a spirit monster. It's stats made it easily tutor-able, it's gone and it is never coming back.

Except one of those players is in the BBR-RC and has their tourney stickied etc and the other is not?

I beleive the rule only is concerning stage list atm.

Might incorporate more when they make a full ruleset later.

 

[BSP]

So after Whobo, are you guys planning on making any changes?

MK-only LGL was just Xyro specific right?

 

[Raziek]

If enough people QQ about DK, I'm willing to bet they'll make it global.

 

[san.]

That is so very stupid..

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm gonna wait and see if the match was recorded first. I'd rather not act prematurely to it, granted there is the 6 frames DK is vulnerable, so it may be possible he did have options he could have used but the stage made it near impossible.

Still I'd rather not have the game turn into who has the best edge play, but oh well.

 

[fkacyan]

Who brought up Yata Garasu?

Oh man I will moneymatch for $500 whoever thinks that card should be legal, come at me bros.

 

[Yikarur]

I always said global LGL is necessary because we don't need to see "It's broken" but we need to see how polarizing it really is and there are more characters than MK that can shut down other characters through planking.

 

[swordgard]

Who brought up Yata Garasu?

Oh man I will moneymatch for $500 whoever thinks that card should be legal, come at me bros.

That card should be legal.

Can I use it too? : D Broken card was broken lol.

Tommy, link to your proof by frame data please. Better be good.



TBH I think a few characters can beat MK's planking, but these characters also happen to already lose fairly decently to MK on stage.

 

[fkacyan]

That card should be legal.

Can I use it too? : D Broken card was broken lol.

Tommy, link to your proof by frame data please. Better be good.



TBH I think a few characters can beat MK's planking, but these characters also happen to already lose fairly decently to MK on stage.

Nah only I can use it that's the stipulation.

Otherwise it becomes "Who draws YG's combo first" lol

 

[swordgard]

Nah only I can use it that's the stipulation.

Otherwise it becomes "Who draws YG's combo first" lol

Oh you scared bro.


Plus I cheat like a boss.

 

[John12346]

I always said global LGL is necessary because we don't need to see "It's broken" but we need to see how polarizing it really is and there are more characters than MK that can shut down other characters through planking.

I don't know...

I'm pretty sure DK's planking isn't THAT hard to beat... you sure ADHD and whoever else Will fought was doing it right? Because I can think of quite a few anti-planking measures all characters can take against DK's Spinning Kong planking.

Although I do admit GaW's planking is really tough.

 

[san.]

It's just strange coincidence that the current list of "declining" or perceived "stale" characters are also the ones that benefit from strong ledge-play the most: G&W, ROB, Pit, (and I guess apparently DK now) etc. Should we blame them for being limited by the current ruleset?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

DK "declining"? "Stale"? Will and Ook are placing top 8 at major regionals pretty regularly... TBH I've changed my mind on DK, at least. Legit char.

 

[ElDominio]

Great, the power goes completley to the TO's. Extremely fair.

 

[san.]

DK "declining"? "Stale"? Will and Ook are placing top 8 at major regionals pretty regularly... TBH I've changed my mind on DK, at least. Legit char.

Not results wise, perception wise. AKA DK dropping 4 spots every tier list. I don't personally think any of those characters are stale.

And Ook did decently at 1 tournament like 6 months ago lol. I hear more from Will, Dr. G, and Cable when he feels like entering.