Final Destination is already banned in over 1/3rd of the sets played in competitive tournaments...and you guys are attacking Pictochat?
- It's also being used about three times more -- more people like it, right?
- Keep in mind with so many "gay" stages are banned Picto would be overlooked -- give us data on Green Greens, Norfair, PS2, etc.
- More people like FD than Pictochat, why ban a stage you are unsure if your opponent likes?
- FD is a neutral stage -- Pictochat is not. It is easier to understand what will happen on a stage like FD whereas the "anything goes" nature of Pictochat would benefit the lesser skilled player; the lesser skilled player makes up the majority, so it follows the less skill the more it is likely Pictochat will be favored by the majority.
- WHO are the ones counterpicking? A massive amount of random noobs picking Pictochat shouldn't have a massive effect on competitive play intended for pro players.
In the end it comes down to INTERPRETATION of the statistics you've collected. You selected a narrow view of interpretation, showing a bit of bias towards liberal stages... but then again, you are the one who set up these stages, yes?
About the planking/time-out rules:
I really don't see how the arguments for Planking in Brawl can be applied to Melee.....
It can be stopped, except for some where your opponent needs to be frame perfect. But anyway this is a Brawl ruleset thread, Melee has nothing to do with it....
You think melee players can't be frame perfect? I have been a competitive melee player for nearly 10 years. If you think someone cannot perform actions in one frame you are only fooling yourself. If that were true we would not be seeing such consistent amazing technical performance by so many great players. Do not scoff at their years of practice.
Also, if such stalling were impossible to perform there wouldn't have been any need for their "no stalling" rules, would there? Because it'd be impossible.
So don't just blow this off; it is VERY important to what is being examined here. To overlook data that will help us just to satisfy ego is a grievance to the community, it's good to be mistaken, that's how we learn.
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.
I think the problem is you believe I've been "going on this long" against YOU. I am not going "against" you, I am in a discussion
with you, as with everyone else. If you take the time I have placed quotes in my posts to show who I am responding to and I've responded to everyone who has responded to me.
In case you're unfamiliar with an ad hominem, it is simply a focus on myself rather than an argument at hand. If we are discussing planking or other Brawl-related topics and you say 'wait a minute, who has a problem with t0mmy?' then that directs the argument to me, which is an ad hominem. I simply just ask to stay focused on the argument so we can work it out together, because it really does take both of us to stay focused on the topic to get through the discussion, no need to call out a personal difference.
I don't even know why you brought this up, lol. Stick to the argument.
If you want to believe I brought it up, go ahead and believe that. But if you want to take the time to go back and see that I simply responded to your ad hominem (the second time around, mind you, not even the first time) you'll see that I am simply responding, not instigating.
So as long as this is brought into the discussion I am sticking to the argument. And I believe ad hominems are loose ends of the argument that I need to tie up so we can stay focused.
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.
Well that's an odd rule! Where are you playing tournaments that declare MK the winner when time runs out?
But it seems like we're (kinda) making progress here when you say "MK can plank on either". Now that we know this, which is MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO MK? Personally, I feel it is the current tie-break rules, as I illustrated: It is more difficult to keep a lead on MK with a %-based rule; in order to lose in a stock-based ruling you have to be at least a full stock behind him! Keeping on-par with stocks is
a lot easier than trying to keep a %-lead against insubstantial attacks, glitchy hit-area Mach Tornados, and super cheap planking/scrooging/keep-away techniques.
So the big question: WHY ARE WE PROMOTING PLANKING META KNIGHTS?
If we have a problem with planking, don't promote it then punish them, simply just don't promote it.
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.
Of course ignoring skill gap would be beneficial to your argument, because that's the determining factor. If MK's opponent is unable or unwilling punish the planking and get their KO then that will determine if they can win or not. Simple as that. It's the same thing if MK spammed Mach Tornado and timed out his opponent then the opponent cried for a ban on the 'nado. If they are not good enough to know how to punish the 'nado and get their KO they simply have to quit crying and get better.
Seriously, with a 10 min timer and someone can't score one hit on a MK performing a punishable technique they should lose.
Is it cheap? Yes.
Welcome to competitive play -- But the beauty of competitive play is competitive players will LEARN TO DEFEAT TACTICS LIKE THIS. Introducing scrubby rules that ban these tactics impede metagame development.
If this were actually broken I would say "ban it", just as I am not opposed to stalling with the IDC -- off topic I think we should call it the BDC (Banned Dimensional Cape).
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.
First, it's not MY RULE.
Second, it does cover stock lead.
Third, it doesn't need to cover stock lead because the game itself does. When time runs out and there's a stock lead that player wins.
WHAT'S THIS PLAYING BY THE GAME'S RULES WORKS, WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING? ALL THIS TIME I THOUGHT PILING ON RULE-AFTER-RULE-AFTER-RULE WILL HELP EVERYTHING! /sarcasm
Obviously, it's much easier to keep a stock tie/lead against MK than it is to keep a stock and percent tie/lead...
Yep.
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.
That thread was written for FRAME DATA ONLY.
Just because I provide frame data does not mean I did not take into account reaction time. If you look over my posts here you will see that I provide that when it was brought into question.
The main point I made was the MK player would be stuck in a "pattern" where the reacting player was in the position of pattern-breaker. In this way the MK player would be caught with conjoined thoughts, nearly DOUBLING the "lag" of his mental process, whereas the reacting player would have read the pattern and interrupts the action BEFORE it is even inputted. This means the "reacting" player has less "reaction" time than the MK player.
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.
It's doomed to failure, just as if I did the same thing. Which is why I'm not wasting my time on "proof" because I don't see it as such.
If you just so happen to win all of them, that is NOT proof that planking is broken. That is simply correlated evidence. Most likely it will only show proof that your opponents don't know how to stop your planking.
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?
Asking if I think I could top it makes it sound like it's on top of the evidence list. It's not.
It doesn't even make the list.
Hardcore frame data is the only thing I've seen that has persuaded my opinion on this. I looked at DMG's data (which was mixed with a lot of opinion) I found plenty of flaws. When I polished it up it painted a new picture: Planking is beatable.
I put that data to practice.
I stopped people from planking me.
I presented the evidence -- some applied it, thought it was genius, it helped them. But those who want to impose rules against MK (who coincidentally also want him banned) try to shoot it down with opinion, conjecture, rhetoric, and insubstantial correlated evidence.
The evidence still stands.
Proving your point with data that doesn't take all variables into account, such as reaction time and character ability, alongside non-existent videos.
Considering we went over data, reaction time, and character ability and my argument came out STRONGER because of it, I'd like to say it's a nice starting point.
Let's see where your video evidence takes things...
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).
Not something I'd be likely to say. Even so, it's an irrelevant tangent, I'd rather focus on actual evidence than track down who said what, if something was said that doesn't add anything to the discussion then it is better that it gets ignored.
Yep, you sure have binding evidence.
Cool, thanks.
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.
Conjecture. But just know where your other opinions situate you.
Smash isn't dying, though.
Yeah, I know this.
You're going to tell me Smash is dying? Seriously?
No, I have never uttered such a thing, and argued against the nay-sayers in my community. This is one of the reasons why my local scene is so well off: I keep things positive.
So I am unsure why you made that presumption.
MK doesn't really kill the community, of course, but getting rid of him would likely be a big step in the right direction.
I'd seriously consider quitting if he gets banned. It would just show me that the community is full of scrubs, the game is not competitive, and if one character is banned for unsubstantial reasons, who's to say my character won't be banned? Ridiculous.
I have sympathy for those player who get gimped at 40% and don't want to play, but you know what I do? I sit them down and show them how NOT TO GET GIMPED! After I have a talk with them and show them their options there's a grin on their face.
If I punished people for playing the game then those people will quit playing and I guarantee you the person who wanted to quit because they got gimped at 40% will have already quit by then.
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.
Like I said, I'm not interested in discussing Meta Knight's status here. But if you want to see less people use him, then consider helping me promote how to beat the "cheap" tactics such as planking. Layering rule after rule after rule is only hurting us NON-MK players -- seriously, all these rules have been the ONLY THING in my entire Smash career that has made me want to quit.
Consider that.
