Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[-LzR-]

Going to the ledge is going out of Falcos zone. It's the safest place to be in. But oh wait that's lame, let's not allow it

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Dude, 100+% space animal get-up attack and broken spotdodge out of various ledge options. Falco players just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[Omni]

The usual stuff. Lasers, reflector, DACUS to the ledge, etc.

So you're losing to Falco's due to the LGL because he's forcing you onto the ledge?

I mean having a LGL itself is necessary/desired right? Why not take the time to make it a more solid rule? This isn't or shouldn't be 1 Ring to rule them all lol.

Ah, I think it should be. Creating individual LGL's for the entire cast seem excessive; not to mention the process of trying to measure what these numbers would become and why would be extremely hard to calculate and reason.

 

[WindMajor]

So you're losing to Falco's due to the LGL because he's forcing you onto the ledge?

More like lost to a Falco, but yeah. I was at high %s and didn't want to get off the ledge cause that would spell death, but I could barely find openings. When I would find one, the match would go on regularly, but every time I was on the ledge, the match would drag on for a while because waiting for that opening takes a while. Even though at the end I got the stock advantage, I had 51 edge grabs.

That match was ******** and I did not deserve to lose. >_>

 

[DMG]

Ah, I think it should be. Creating individual LGL's for the entire cast seem excessive; not to mention the process of trying to measure what these numbers would become and why would be extremely hard to calculate and reason.

That alone suggests that a single number isn't adequate though. Using more numbers and dividing characters into groups is harder and would take more time, but that doesn't make a single LGL the best option. We're already in a highly subjective area of trying to concretely attribute edge grabs to fool proof evidence of stalling (or stalling in a broken manner). Remember when the LGL was 50+? Remember how sets still occurred with people furious that the LGL was that high? Or at Genesis 1 when it was 35 and you had the Dojo Vs Larry Match where technically he didn't go over 35, but people still had the feeling that it was stalling? Sure you can keep dropping the LGL, but the further down you go the more it hurts regular characters and non broken usage of the edge. Or you could apply whatever limit is needed for characters in question, while giving other characters a much higher overhead so that no they don't need to worry if the LGL for other people is 15-25.

 

[Omni]

More like lost to a Falco, but yeah. I was at high %s and didn't want to get off the ledge cause that would spell death, but I could barely find openings. When I would find one, the match would go on regularly, but every time I was on the ledge, the match would drag on for a while because waiting for that opening takes a while. Even though at the end I got the stock advantage, I had 51 edge grabs.

That match was ******** and I did not deserve to lose. >_>

So because you were afraid to take damage by an edgeguarding Falco you decided that Toon Link planking was your only option to stay alive. The problem I see here is that you said, "If I found an opening, the match would go on" as in you would purposely give up a perfectly good vantage point where it seems taking any kind of damage/finishing blow was very difficult for the Falco.

Hm. LGL's removed.

What exactly is stopping Toon Link from doing this the entire match after gaining a life/stock lead?

 

[DMG]

I mean, you can stop TL from planking though. If TL wants to sit his butt on the edge, I'm game. I'd rather have that than flying ****** man running away from me

I HATE TL I ALWAYS GO MK VS YOU ****ERS AND SHUTTLE LOOP YOU ANYTIME YOU JUMP PULL A BOMB I HOPE HE DIES

 

[Omni]

That alone suggests that a single number isn't adequate though. Using more numbers and dividing characters into groups is harder and would take more time, but that doesn't make a single LGL the best option. We're already in a highly subjective area of trying to concretely attribute edge grabs to fool proof evidence of stalling (or stalling in a broken manner). Remember when the LGL was 50+? Remember how sets still occurred with people furious that the LGL was that high? Or at Genesis 1 when it was 35 and you had the Dojo Vs Larry Match where technically he didn't go over 35, but people still had the feeling that it was stalling? Sure you can keep dropping the LGL, but the further down you go the more it hurts regular characters and non broken usage of the edge. Or you could apply whatever limit is needed for characters in question, while giving other characters a much higher overhead so that no they don't need to worry if the LGL for other people is 15-25.

Hrm.

I agree that the LGL is subjective. However, I think a LGL is necessary. And simply put I think having a LGL for individual characters becomes excessive. I don't think the "damage" created by lowering or increasing the LGL is significant enough to warrant individual LGL's for each character in the game or characters in question.

Again, I think solidifying individual LGL's is simply too much.

I mean, you can stop TL from planking though. If TL wants to sit his butt on the edge, I'm game. I'd rather have that than flying ****** man running away from me

I HATE TL I ALWAYS GO MK VS YOU ****ERS AND SHUTTLE LOOP YOU ANYTIME YOU JUMP PULL A BOMB I HOPE HE DIES

I mean, the same thing can be said about MK's planking. For a character like Falco, it really isn't ever very advisable nor is the risk/reward in his favor. Bombs + tether + returning boomerangs + up+b ledge snap makes the scenario very uncomfortable for Falco and other characters of the cast. Not to say it isn't a bad idea, but the whole point of the LGL is to avoid this kind of playing. That idea is very subjective, yes, but I do not think the mass believe in promoting a game of "abuse invincibility and ledgesnaps" metagame.

 

[WindMajor]

So because you were afraid to take damage by an edgeguarding Falco you decided that Toon Link planking was your only option to stay alive. The problem I see here is that you said, "If I found an opening, the match would go on" as in you would purposely give up a perfectly good vantage point where it seems taking any kind of damage/finishing blow was very difficult for the Falco.

Hm. LGL's removed.

What exactly is stopping Toon Link from doing this the entire match after gaining a life/stock lead?

You're straying away from the point.

The point was that I lost a match because of a flawed rule that shouldn't even apply to me. I was Toon Link, and I got 51 ledge grabs. Toon Link can't plank to save his life. Literally. Toon Link doesn't even want to be on the ledge, because that is there he is most vulnerable. In order for Toon Link to do anything similar to planking, he would need to pull out a bomb first, which makes him extremely vulnerable to attacks, especially at high percents.

Your concern was "what's stopping TL from staying on the ledge for the rest of the match". Well, the answer is nothing. Nothing is stopping him from being on the ledge. But to be worried about that is like being worried about nothing stopping Snake or Sonic from hanging around the ledge forever.

It's like DMG said, "I'd rather have that than flying ****** man running away from me. "

Very similar to Sonic and Snake.

 

[Omni]

You're straying away from the point.

The point was that I lost a match because of a flawed rule that shouldn't even apply to me. I was Toon Link, and I got 51 ledge grabs. Toon Link can't plank to save his life. Literally. Toon Link doesn't even want to be on the ledge, because that is there he is most vulnerable. In order for Toon Link to do anything similar to planking, he would need to pull out a bomb first, which makes him extremely vulnerable to attacks, especially at high percents.

Wat.

TL on the ledge against Falco is free. Grab ledge. Fast fall bomb pull. Double jump toss bomb up to clear ledge if Falco grabbed. Up+b to take ledge. Now you have a bomb in the air above your head that you can choose to regrab, insta-toss, or you can repeat the same as above.

KT does this all the time.

Your concern was "what's stopping TL from staying on the ledge for the rest of the match". Well, the answer is nothing. Nothing is stopping him from being on the ledge. But to be worried about that is like being worried about nothing stopping Snake or Sonic from hanging around the ledge forever.

It's like DMG said, "I'd rather have that than flying ****** man running away from me. "

Very similar to Sonic and Snake.

My point was that it wasn't a dumb rule that cost you a lost. It was probably your positioning and/or stage choice and/or your lack of ability to safely pave a way back onto the stage; which TL can do better than most.

TL is way too mobile to be "forced" by a Falco to grab the ledge 50 times.

 

[WindMajor]

No, it was definitely the rule that got me the loss, otherwise, I would've won the match. The amount of times I grabbed the ledge and the amount of time that I stayed there for is irrelevant when there's literally no reason for the rule to exist for Toon Link in the first place.

Also, throw bomb back down at Toon Link.

 

[Omni]

...

If you knew there was a 50 ledge grab limit, then I'm sure you are more than capable of avoiding it via skill/stage selection, etc. Blaming your loss on the rule is... silly.

And throwing the bomb up, as I said, only applies to if Falco grabs the ledge. If Falco still grabs the ledge and tries to instant toss the bomb down TL snaps onto the ledge with up+b before the bomb hits.

Edit: That's like me blaming the timer for a loss due to time-out.

 

[DMG]

What if the timer is too low though? Would someone not have a legitimate complain if the timer was 5 min instead of 8?

 

[Omni]

No, you cannot complain about a rule being the reason why you lost if you know before you enter the tournament what the rules are.

I mean you can complain all you want, but if you're fully aware and conscious of these factors there is no one else to blame but your lack of skill or poor decisions.

 

[WindMajor]

...

If you knew there was a 50 ledge grab limit, then I'm sure you are more than capable of avoiding it via skill/stage selection, etc. Blaming your loss on the rule is... silly.

Edit: That's like me blaming the timer for a loss due to time-out.

Again, the point is the purpose of the rule. I accepted my loss, but it doesn't mean that the rule had any purpose to limit Toon Link in the first place.

The timer is there for a legitimate purpose, therefore I can accept a legitimate win from a time out (also because the person who is winning is the winner at the end). However, an LGL ignores who is winning and determines a victory based on the condition that someone was cheating by doing something illegal (stalling or planking).

Even if Toon Link could plank, nobody would be able to prove that I cheated because the ledge grab limit is that ****ty of a win condition. With no proof, I'm innocent. Why is my loss deserved under that circumstance?

 

[Omni]

Again, the point is the purpose of the rule. I accepted my loss, but it doesn't mean that the rule had any purpose to limit Toon Link in the first place.

The timer is there for a legitimate purpose, therefore I can accept a legitimate win from a time out (also because the person who is winning is the winner at the end). However, an LGL ignores who is winning and determines a victory based on the condition that someone was cheating by doing something illegal (stalling or planking).

Even if Toon Link could plank, nobody would be able to prove that I cheated because the ledge grab limit is that ****ty of a win condition. With no proof, I'm innocent. Why is my loss deserved under that circumstance?

The purpose of the rule is to prevent and discourage overcentralized ledge play.

Your second statement is false. You're not cheating or doing anything illegal by stalling or planking. However, the point is to create a limit of just how much this can occur in any given match to prevent stalling and planking to be the centralizing theme of the game.

What do you mean by cheat? Ledge grabs are a very accurate representation of what players spent most of their game doing: Grabbing the ledge. Your loss is deserved, regardless, because you accepted that as a potential consequence before entering the tournament.

How can you even try to put blame of your loss on a rule when everyone who entered the tournament is presented with the same cirmcumstances?

 

[DMG]

For individual tournaments sure. I think people mean more along the lines of how it relates to setting the standard. A lot of tournaments use the same LGL that the recommended ruleset/unity use. Now if something happens during a tournament using the standard rules, that doesn't just reflect on the individual tournament. You can't be angry at tournament X with host Y for using those rules, but you can be angry at the fact that those rules are the overall regular.


Although Coney after being planked by M2K at SiiS... I think we can give him a free pass to be upset at that specific tourney lol.

 

[Omni]

Dude, people have the right to complain and be angry and upset about any ruleset. That's totally within anyone's rights.

But I don't think it's ever acceptable to blame a rule as opposed to yourself for a loss. Never.

 

[Strong Badam]

Melee does have a ledgegrab counter iirc. The statistic is called Cliffhangers

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The purpose of the rule is to prevent and discourage overcentralized ledge play.

It was made to prevent planking in general. Not for having ledge play. Only one character ever made it necessary. He's also banned. This is very much false. Ledge play is a very legitimate way to play.

Your second statement is false. You're not cheating or doing anything illegal by stalling or planking. However, the point is to create a limit of just how much this can occur in any given match to prevent stalling and planking to be the centralizing theme of the game.

Planking is undefinable. Nobody can really stall that well on the ledge(except one), nor did we have any real chance to fight against ledge hoggers because the rule was put up SUPER early in the metagame. We never had a fair chance to see if it was needed. I would've waited, even with MK there. Limiting something early when it shows up without further testing is all the more reason why removing it for now is a better idea. We have no incentive to fight against planking, since we're letting a rule do it for us, not our own skill.

What do you mean by cheat? Ledge grabs are a very accurate representation of what players spent most of their game doing: Grabbing the ledge. Your loss is deserved, regardless, because you accepted that as a potential consequence before entering the tournament.

That's not how life works. Oh, somebody stabbed me beforehand, so I couldn't make it to the tournament. Guess I deserved that loss. It sounds just as bad as that. He only lost because of an arbitary rule. Nothing else.

How can you even try to put blame of your loss on a rule when everyone who entered the tournament is presented with the same cirmcumstances?

Not every rule is "good". We can blame it on poorly made rules. This is one of those, and only is really meant to affect Meta Knight. It still is catered to him. And that's clearly not going to change at this point. Either everybody has an equal, or everybody has a different one that caters to them. No Double Standards.

 

[WindMajor]

Omni, you're not getting me. Let me use an example.

I attend a tournament where Metaknight's Jab is banned. If you use Jab, all other win conditions are immediately ignored, and you lose.

I accidentally do a Jab, and lose.

I can accept my loss.
What I can't accept is the legitimacy of the rule. It's like, "Well, I used Jab, but did I do anything wrong? I didn't break the game. I didn't do anything that was overpowered. My opponent had options against it. It isn't broken. Did I really deserve that loss? Was I really being an ******* by breaking that rule?



Will respond to the rest later.

 

[Omni]

It was made to prevent planking in general. Not for having ledge play. Only one character ever made it necessary. He's also banned. This is very much false. Ledge play is a very legitimate way to play.

Planking = overcentralized ledge play.

Planking is undefinable. Nobody can really stall that well on the ledge(except one), nor did we have any real chance to fight against ledge hoggers because the rule was put up SUPER early in the metagame. We never had a fair chance to see if it was needed. I would've waited, even with MK there. Limiting something early when it shows up without further testing is all the more reason why removing it for now is a better idea. We have no incentive to fight against planking, since we're letting a rule do it for us, not our own skill.

Plenty of other characters can stall well. Regardless, the rule essentially fixed the issue.

That's not how life works. Oh, somebody stabbed me beforehand, so I couldn't make it to the tournament. Guess I deserved that loss. It sounds just as bad as that. He only lost because of an arbitary rule. Nothing else.

That is how life works. If someone stabs you in the hand and you enter the tournament and lose it's your own fault. It's not your fault you got stabbed, but it's your fault that you entered the tournament knowing very well that your hand is gushing out blood.

Not every rule is "good". We can blame it on poorly made rules. This is one of those, and only is really meant to affect Meta Knight. It still is catered to him. And that's clearly not going to change at this point. Either everybody has an equal, or everybody has a different one that caters to them. No Double Standards.

Rules don't have to be "good" to be followed or at least known. I don't necessarily agree wtih the time limit used in the ruleset, but if I get timed out I'm not going to blame the time limit rule for my loss suggesting, "I would have won if it was a 10 minute timer,". Regardless of what the rule is or was or isn't you are entering a tournament under the premise that it is designed in a way to apply to everyone. That means that wins or losses are always, always, always decided by the player.

Omni, you're not getting me. Let me use an example.

I attend a tournament where Metaknight's Jab is banned. If you use Jab, all other win conditions are immediately ignored, and you lose.

I accidentally do a Jab, and lose.

I can accept my loss.
What I can't accept is the legitimacy of the rule. It's like, "Well, I used Jab, but did I do anything wrong? I didn't break the game. I didn't do anything that was overpowered. My opponent had options against it. It isn't broken. Did I really deserve that loss? Was I really being an ******* by breaking that rule?

...That's fine. If you don't like the legitimacy of the rule, that's fine. But regardless of the legitimacy rules are rules. At Evo, some high level players accidentally hit pause during a set while they were winning which forced them to forfeit. Was it the rule that made them lost? No. It was the fact that they allowed their fingers to travel to the pause button whether it was directly or indirectly.

Removing blame of your own actions or lack thereof is silly. Rules are simple and clear cut. They don't ask questions like, "Well, he broke the rule... but does he deserve to lose?" Therefore, yes, you have to accept that you deserved to lose considering both you and your opponent were forced to play under the same circumstances.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Planking = overcentralized ledge play.

None that's actually any official problem. Outside of one guy. Likewise, if that's the case, then you should be up for banning MK too since he overcentralizes gameplay. No Double Standards here. I don't even care if this is a bit of a Strawman. Likewise, as long as we admit the only purpose that LGL serves is to limit planking(and only planking), we don't have a problem. Too bad it does not do its job. And that's not a concrete definition either. From what I know, planking is similar to ledge guarding itself, making it impossible for a character to actually recover. Which let's be honest, it's a legitimate tactic and is not stalling either. Now, I may hate camping/stalling with a passion, but I understand that is not broken by default.

Plenty of other characters can stall well. Regardless, the rule essentially fixed the issue.

If it did, then MK would not be able to plank effectively with even such a low limit of 35. It fixed nothing. Likewise, what about characters who do not even need it. Should they be screwed over because they're FORCED to grab the ledge. Much like Xivvii's Toon Link problem. Instead, it screws over people without good projectiles and makes projectile users much better. It's a double-edged sword. It's just as bad as it was earlier.

That is how life works. If someone stabs you in the hand and you enter the tournament and lose it's your own fault. It's not your fault you got stabbed, but it's your fault that you entered the tournament knowing very well that your hand is gushing out blood.

That is literally the stupidest thing I ever heard. I apologize for this, but that is not acceptable. You strictly ignored the context too. The context? Players should not get screwed over, nor should characters because of a bad rule that does not serve any purpose but to specifically limit one character. Nobody has PROVEN to need it outside of MK. Likewise, yes, you should call in. Duh. But it wasn't the content that I was getting at. And a hand? I'm talking about something much more lethal. But once again, ignore the content. Look at the entire context.

Rules don't have to be "good" to be followed or at least known. I don't necessarily agree wtih the time limit used in the ruleset, but if I get timed out I'm not going to blame the time limit rule for my loss suggesting, "I would have won if it was a 10 minute timer,". Regardless of what the rule is or was or isn't you are entering a tournament under the premise that it is designed in a way to apply to everyone. That means that wins or losses are always, always, always decided by the player.

Once again, a time limit is uncomparable because its purpose is not to make a win condition. At all. It's so tourneys don't go too long and matches finish. The win condition is unimportant. The LGL is strictly to stop planking, of which it does a terrible job of. Nor does it account for any characters' individual skills in it. MK is the only one it has any purpose for. And it does a terrible job of it. 35 does not stop him.

...That's fine. If you don't like the legitimacy of the rule, that's fine. But regardless of the legitimacy rules are rules. At Evo, some high level players accidentally hit pause during a set while they were winning which forced them to forfeit. Was it the rule that made them lost? No. It was the fact that they allowed their fingers to travel to the pause button whether it was directly or indirectly.

That's also bullcrap. If a rule is bad, it needs to be changed so it actually does the job as intended. That's why we argue it and fix it so it works. The LGL does not work whatsoever. It does not stop Meta Knight. It causes characters to lose for no legitimate reason. If we actually need the rule, we need to do a lot more testing. We put it on way too early, not allowing us to fight against the planking. Not even MK's.

Removing blame of your own actions or lack thereof is silly. Rules are simple and clear cut. They don't ask questions like, "Well, he broke the rule... but does he deserve to lose?" Therefore, yes, you have to accept that you deserved to lose considering both you and your opponent were forced to play under the same circumstances.

Xivii's actions would've won him the match since he played it just fine. He strictly only lost because of a poorly implemented rule. He did not deserve to lose. Time is a legit win condition since only the better player can win. The LGL is not because too many characters are severely being punished by it. Time does not ever punish a character either. The LGL does. And is even made to punish one specifically, which makes the rules all the more bad.

It was not his actions that lost him the match. It was only one rule. Nothing more. Likewise, a Time Limit has no negative aspects either. Its purpose is to keep Tourneys on schedule. It also forces players(but not characters) to stop camping and finish the match. Or to continue camping if they have the lead. But either way, only the better player won.

For the context, Falco's Laser goes across the whole stage. Most characters will be forced onto the ledge itself. In other words, a person is abusing the LGL to gain them the win. Thus, it is no longer restricting planking, and is causing bad wins. Most characters can't approach Falco that easily either. So instead of being able to wait for an opening, you're only losing strictly because of a rule. Nothing more. Spamming lasers takes no real skill anyway.(keep in mind that for all purposes, this is done on Final Destination) Short Hop Lasers does take some, but it's not terrifyingly difficult either. Even I find it easy, and I'm a pretty damn bad player. So most of the cast is not so much being outplayed, but losing because of a rule that is only meant to really stop a specific type of play. But in this case, it does the opposite. Instead, it bumps up characters and makes them better since our defensive option is killed.

A thing about a rule is that it should prevent something. If it is no longer preventing something, the rule is no longer good. In most scenarios, including the Toon Link one, Falco will win only because of the LGL. Not because of fighting the opponent or successfully camping. A rule is not meant to make players lose, it's to prevent a problem. So far, LGL doesn't actually successfully prevent the planking problem. It just buffs characters instead, which is exactly the opposite of what one wants to do.

Now I ask that you read the context more than the content. That's my key point.

 

[Omni]

You're impossible to reply to because I believe certain concepts are going over your head.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Nothing is going over my head. At all. You're refusing to even acknowledge our actual point too. Our point is that not only does the LGL give characters bad buffs, but it also debuffs characters.

That's never the purpose of rules. It's to prevent a degenerate gameplay. It never did that. People just believe it does. If we remove it, and wait to see if it's required, then we wouldn't have a problem. People are too afraid and used to a bad rule to do this. MK is gone. He's the only reason we bothered to make it in the first place. Test it now. That's the best way to do it. If it's needed, we should be able to figure that out with actual testing.

 

[_Kain_]

You guys are making situations up that never occur or will never occur. That's the problem with your points. Your making the rule out to be some nerf which it isn't. Unless your a lameduck trying to sit on the ledge a whole 8 min then it will be, but it never comes to that.

People making up situations to fit their arguement, even though said situation has never happened, makes no sense -__-

 

[Omni]

You guys are making situations up that never occur or will never occur. That's the problem with your points. Your making the rule out to be some nerf which it isn't. Unless your a lameduck trying to sit on the ledge a whole 8 min then it will be, but it never comes to that.

People making up situations to fit their arguement, even though said situation has never happened, makes no sense -__-

Endors ed.

Nothing is going over my head. At all. You're refusing to even acknowledge our actual point too. Our point is that not only does the LGL give characters bad buffs, but it also debuffs characters.

That's never the purpose of rules. It's to prevent a degenerate gameplay. It never did that. People just believe it does. If we remove it, and wait to see if it's required, then we wouldn't have a problem. People are too afraid and used to a bad rule to do this. MK is gone. He's the only reason we bothered to make it in the first place. Test it now. That's the best way to do it. If it's needed, we should be able to figure that out with actual testing.

Actually, I just looked at your join date and have found newfound respect.

But, yes, it is. I'm not discussing the legitimacy of the rule; I'm discussing the fact that the rule is already in place. ****, it could be the most awful rule in the world. However, if you compete in a tournament and know that this rule is in place and lose how much sense does it to blame your loss on the rule itself as opposed to yourself when your opponent undergos the same rules as well?

That is the point I am trying to make as Twinkie/Xiivi's Friend above was blaming the rule for his loss and not himself.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Actually, I just looked at your join date and have found newfound respect.

I ask that you ignore post count and that crap as it is entirely irrelevant to any discussion.

But, yes, it is. I'm not discussing the legitimacy of the rule; I'm discussing the fact that the rule is already in place. ****, it could be the most awful rule in the world. However, if you compete in a tournament and know that this rule is in place and lose how much sense does it to blame your loss on the rule itself as opposed to yourself when your opponent undergos the same rules as well?

And was the other player affected by the rule? Did the rule serve its purpose? Both answers are no. Likewise, the argument was always about the legitimacy. That's why I said to look at the context. Not the content.

That is the point I am trying to make as Twinkie/Xiivi's Friend above was blaming the rule for his loss and not himself.

The legitimacy was in question the entire time. That was his point. And he's correct anyway, as the rule was the ONLY reason he lost. He questions the legitimacy of the rule, not the fact that he lost, because if it isn't serving its purpose, than why should the rule exist?

My problem isn't that I would lose because of a bad rule. I've had that happen millions of times. I don't care whether I win or lose. But my goal is to make sure the rule serves its purpose and isn't bad either. Unfortunately, it's indeed bad and causes these kind of losses that the player doesn't actually deserve. What I want to do is remove rules that do not help gameplay(or have failed to do so), and may cause unfair losses. Not that games are respectively fair, of course. I won't lie about that. Crap happens. Bad situations do.

 

[Thino]

You're impossible to reply to because I believe certain concepts are going over your head.

Leaving the argument about rules legitimacy aside because I agree with you on that point, could you please elaborate on the other concepts that Hyperfalcon doesn't seem to understand?

namely the (negative?) effect of overcentralized ledge play and the actual effectiveness of the LGL in a MK legal environment because I assume there is not much info yet about what it changes when MK is not legal.

 

[Steam]

in a ruleset has a LGL, it's just as reasonable for it to have a rule against projectiles or camping in general. it's not MKs/GWs/Pit's/etc fault that their opponent refuses to approach them. if your character can't deal with it, then oh well, find a new character.

 

[Omni]

Afk. On metro.

FYI, it's hard to have a debate when the person I'm talking about says, "Ignore the content."

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

What Thino said. I have not been to any big tourneys. So I would like to know more information then. My problem is if it's really needed or not. I am more annoyed when it causes unfair wins. I can completely believe that it does help. But I like to look at the negative AND positive aspects of it. I know of the positive ones(attempting to defeat planking, only), and the negative of causing wins that is not related to better playing.(debatable as well, respectively)

@Omni: The content wasn't the point. It was the context I was strictly talking about. The content is important, but not the key thing. I wanted you to understand what my point was, not just look at the strict examples.

 

[_Kain_]

in a ruleset has a LGL, it's just as reasonable for it to have a rule against projectiles or camping in general. it's not MKs/GWs/Pit's/etc fault that their opponent refuses to approach them. if your character can't deal with it, then oh well, find a new character.

Overall this is just whining. Projectiles can be dealt with, characters can duck under them, Wario can AD over and over, some can reflect them. I've seen high level players force Falco's to approach by jus PSing their lasers. It's not that hard...

Why are people constantly ignoring the fact that the LGL is not a nerf it's in place to specifically shy away from timeouts? Planking still occurs, your character still has his pros in the game...

Quit making a big deal out of something that doesn't even take place in gameplay -__-

 

[Steam]

Overall this is just whining. Projectiles can be dealt with, characters can duck under them, Wario can AD over and over, some can reflect them. I've seen high level players force Falco's to approach by jus PSing their lasers. It's not that hard...

Why are people constantly ignoring the fact that the LGL is not a nerf it's in place to specifically shy away from timeouts? Planking still occurs, your character still has his pros in the game...

Quit making a big deal out of something that doesn't even take place in gameplay -__-

what's wrong with timeouts? it's just as valid of a win condition.

and yes, projectiles can be dealt with... as can ledge camping. neither should be outlawed.

characters shouldn't be punished because their opponent is unwilling to approach them.

 

[WindMajor]

Quit making a big deal out of something that doesn't even take place in gameplay -__-

*sigh*

You didn't read the last page or so, did you?

 

[fabulouspants]

3 stocks and 8 min is arbitrary rule that causes alot of players to lose. put it to 2 min timer.

 

[theONEjanitor]

the fact of the matter is that it's scrubby to ban characters because they're "too good". That's dumb and should never be done. if you have one character that is ruining your game, your game is broken period and probably shouldn't be played competitively.

Another fact of the matter however is that we legitimately have to look at what is best for the survival of this community.

Watching the APEX stream (esp doubles) literally gave me a headache. Metaknight is so good that it makes the game boring and makes me not want to play it or watch it. He requires VERY little creativity since he has so many safe options, the optimal way to play him is to pick his ridiculous safe approaches and option selects.

Now imagine MK having this kind of discouraging effect on the community as a whole. your scene will die.

Is this 'fair'? No. Is this scrubby. Yes.
But you have to decide between making a scrubby decision and potentially plateauing the growth of your community.

Brawl is a game that attracts casuals more than any other fighting game. as much we may hate to admit it, these players are the lifeblood of the community. They are the people who fill the pots at tournaments, and many of them will go on to succeed in their region and even nationally.

Metaknight LITERALLY discourages these up and coming players from taking the game seriously.

Is this scrubby? Yes. But see above.

 

[Komatik]

Long post is long, you have been warned! Less anger and incredulity, at the cost of coherency. Much rambling will follow:

On edgegrabby things:

I'm a bit puzzled by the situation wrt Xiivi's game. As far as I understand, the thought process was roughly "go to edge so Falco's zoning doesn't kill me, if I get an opening, plant sword in bird's face or get back to a better onstage position and then plant sword in bird's face."

Having watched some Apex matches involving Meta Knight played by Kakera, Nairo and the like, I have a hard time seeing them inspiring hatred. Just solid, technical play with a firm motivation to just cut the opponent to pieces, which at least to me sounds just like the kind of game most people who enjoy competition would want to play. I also did see some M2K game where he got the advantage and ran away, ran away, ran away. Oh, and ran away. Whereas according to the (horrible) commentator the Japanese seemed to plank in a way that didn't make you want to murder someone - probably because they were generally just looking for a mistake to punish and then go on normally instead of playing the absurdly long clock.

That issue of motivation seems like an interesting one: Are you on the edge to make the opponent make a mistake and punish it to get the advantage? Or are you doing it to run the timer out by running away for seven minutes of boredom and pain? What if the format for Brawl wasn't a Best of Three match with each game being 8 minutes, 3 stocks but a Best of Three match consisting of up to three Bo3 1-stock sets with a short timer? That way you don't get agonizing multi-minute campfests after a couple %'s have been scored for MK or G&W or someone.

Furthermore on the subject of stalling, much of my competitive background is in Magic, where there are rules against stalling (defined by the DCI roughly as playing slowly with the intent of timing out the match - Magic is typically played as a Bo3 match to be concluded within 50 minutes total.). The collective *gasp* at the rule being subjective over yet? Because yes, the rule is subjective. It also for the most part manages to work and most importantly focuses on motivation - going into the tank to make sure you make the best possible play is okay, but if it seems you're systematically doing it just to time out the match, penalties will ensue.

The parallels to Smash are nowhere near perfect, I admit, but I'd recommend looking at more subjective rules instead of strict technical definitions like the very narrow one you have on stalling - sometimes the subjective ones are just plain better because we aren't computers and can do some things they can't do yet. I feel identifying stalling is one of those things. No tournament format is perfect, but a more human anti-stalling system might encourage people to do more sword into the face than timing out the clock. All without bans.

Question to any and all: Does sword-to-face motivated MK anger you? Or just the insane stalling?


On stages and characters:

One thing that continues to confound me in this thread is that many people would rather ban a character instead of a couple stages. This attitude feels odd to me. Supposing that the game is fine with either Metaknight gone or a more conservative stagelist, why would you ban MK instead of a few stages? Are stages really of equal value to characters? The way I see it, characters add far more interesting kinds of interaction to the game than a stage or two. We also have a map editor that as far as I know doesn't see any use, which is puzzling given that maps are easily shared online and used via SD cards. A "calmer" stagelist would also encourage more character/player matchup focus than stage counterpick shenanigans which seem rather pointless to yours truly. Because the mindset is so alien to me would someone please try to give a thorough-ish explanation as to why banning MK instead of doing a stagelist switch would be a better idea?


Finally, I do have a certain inherent bias in this because MK is the only actually good character in the game I enjoy playing, and the URC banning MK definitely encourages the proliferation of the ban which I see as unnecessary.
(Like, think of
1.MK as Smash enjoyment + character enjoyment + competitive viability,
2.Pika, Marth or the like as Smash enjoyment + viability + distinct character boredom,
3.Zelda/Big Link as character enjoyment + smash enjoyment + total competitive self-sabotage,
4.plus a bunch of bad options = rest of cast.)

PS. Stop using the word overcentralizing, for goodness' sake. It's at the point where just reading the word makes me want to stab my eyes out.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

what's wrong with timeouts? it's just as valid of a win condition.

No it's not. Percent as the determining factor is arbitrary because stock =/= percent.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

the fact of the matter is that it's scrubby to ban characters because they're "too good". That's dumb and should never be done. if you have one character that is ruining your game, your game is broken period and probably shouldn't be played competitively.

People are not going to drop an entire game because of one character. We ban items(albeit, they need more testing), Stages(most have been tested enough), as well. If we can ban them, we can ban a character. He is not immune to this.

Another fact of the matter however is that we legitimately have to look at what is best for the survival of this community.

That 76%, which is official data anyway, clearly tell us what they want. And dismissing the data is also bullcrap. What's also scrubby is ignoring what the community showed they wanted.

Watching the APEX stream (esp doubles) literally gave me a headache. Metaknight is so good that it makes the game boring and makes me not want to play it or watch it. He requires VERY little creativity since he has so many safe options, the optimal way to play him is to pick his ridiculous safe approaches and option selects.

Then why is banning him a problem if he's not interesting to you at all?

Now imagine MK having this kind of discouraging effect on the community as a whole. your scene will die.

He already did. It discourages people to try out new characters and up their metagames. That is, against characters NOT named Meta Knight.

Is this 'fair'? No. Is this scrubby. Yes.
But you have to decide between making a scrubby decision and potentially plateauing the growth of your community.

What's equally scrubby is applying a poorly ideal Double Standard. Either they're all bannable, or nothing is. A character is just as much of an option or an item and Stage. We choose not to play them, and they're all equally easy to enforce. No Double Standards.

Brawl is a game that attracts casuals more than any other fighting game. as much we may hate to admit it, these players are the lifeblood of the community. They are the people who fill the pots at tournaments, and many of them will go on to succeed in their region and even nationally.

Casuals, by one definition, is the idea of not playing it competitively. However, this is for competitive gameplay. If they want to go to the tournaments, they will. Now they can win just by playing. The playing field itself isn't nearly as bad once we remove the bat.

Metaknight LITERALLY discourages these up and coming players from taking the game seriously.

Is this scrubby? Yes. But see above.

All the more reason to ban him. And then it should be scrubby for Street Fighter players to ban Akuma, despite clearly being broken. It sounds just as bad, now doesn't it?

In addition, one thing people need to realize is that the scrubby attitude means nada in actual gameplay. Eliminating problems to have an more unique gameplay is the goal of the actual rules list. It's only scrubby if we don't test it out well enough to know it's a problem. Some stages and Meta Knight were the only things given enough testing(Pictochat, for example) to figure out it's just unfit for fun gameplay for the majority of the players. Likewise, getting more players is better, and if we want more players, we should cater to them more. Vast majority spoke. But if people think it's the only reason MK got banned, you're wrong. It's just one of many.