How come you guys still allow Stalling?

[Yunior597]

Well i was watching the SBR Rules 2.0 then i suddently started to see some videos, but i noticed that the no stalling rule is not being applied in tournaments, for example look at this video here.

Ally VS M2K (MK Ditto)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXaV-pwcg2Q

M2K is planking/stalling on the ledge the at the beginning of the match, i really can't understand your rules if they are not taken seriously in tournaments.

 

[Merce]

The reason why the "no stalling rule" isn't "being applied in tournaments" is because stalling is a very subjective idea. I wouldn't classify what m2k did at the beginning of the match as stalling, but apparently you do. Who is right?

Some TO's utilize the idea of a ledge grab limit. Essentially a player could be disqualified if they reach a predetermined amount of ledge grabs during a standard match. This number can be easily verified in the end of match statistics and makes "stalling" an enforceable offense.

S*** ain't black or white, son.

 

[KillerJawz]

^What he said.

It is pretty hard to actually tell what stalling is classified as nowadays :/

 

[Crow!]

There are some matchups in Brawl where approaching is suicidal... take, for instance, Ganon vs Olimar. In this matchup, simply standing still is, in a sense, stalling. But we're clearly not going to ban "Olimar standing still," and of course not, since Olimar is not stalling. He is not preventing Ganon from fighting him. It's just that Olimar can, on every stage, put himself in such a position where he is so much better off than Ganon that Ganon has no reasonable chance to regain the lead.

In this case, the solution to the problem is simple - choose a better character than Ganon.


Unfortunately, MK throws a monkey wrench in that plan. Like many characters, he can give himself an excellent defensive position by making use of a feature of the stage. Unfortunately, even something as simple as the ledge or, even funnier, the platform in Smashville is a sufficiently good stage feature to basically guarantee that he will win any exchange vs any non-MK opponent, and even MK himself is put in a severe disadvantage if he approaches an opposing MK hanging out at the ledge.

But here's the thing: like Olimar waiting for Ganon to approach, MK is NOT STALLING when he uses any of these techniques! You can still approach and fight a MK who is planking, scrooging, and what not. MK's not preventing you from fighting him, it's just that, on every stage, he can put himself in such a good position that you're probably better off not even trying.

In some matchups, that unbeatable position is "standing still." In others, it's air camping. For others, he can go to the ledge. But there's nothing truly different about any of these positions; MK is just patiently waiting for you to approach.


So... why do we "allow stalling?" Because we're apparently not man enough to eliminate the obvious source of the problem.

It should be noted that some TOs try to make special rules targeting various aspects of Meta Knight's game (sometimes doing collateral damage to other characters' legitimate strategies) in the name of stopping "stalling," when MK is not, in fact, doing anything of the sort.

 

[Variable]

The reason why the "no stalling rule" isn't "being applied in tournaments" is because stalling is a very subjective idea. I wouldn't classify what m2k did at the beginning of the match as stalling, but apparently you do. Who is right?

Some TO's utilize the idea of a ledge grab limit. Essentially a player could be disqualified if they reach a predetermined amount of ledge grabs during a standard match. This number can be easily verified in the end of match statistics and makes "stalling" an enforceable offense.

S*** ain't black or white, son.

Do you know the number of edge grabs you can make??


LOL what happens if someone has a pro edge guarding game and DQ's someone because he made them grab the ledge too much?

 

[Kewkky]

There are some matchups in Brawl where approaching is suicidal... take, for instance, Ganon vs Olimar. In this matchup, simply standing still is, in a sense, stalling. But we're clearly not going to ban "Olimar standing still," and of course not, since Olimar is not stalling. He is not preventing Ganon from fighting him. It's just that Olimar can, on every stage, put himself in such a position where he is so much better off than Ganon that Ganon has no reasonable chance to regain the lead.

In this case, the solution to the problem is simple - choose a better character than Ganon.


Unfortunately, MK throws a monkey wrench in that plan. Like many characters, he can give himself an excellent defensive position by making use of a feature of the stage. Unfortunately, even something as simple as the ledge or, even funnier, the platform in Smashville is a sufficiently good stage feature to basically guarantee that he will win any exchange vs any non-MK opponent, and even MK himself is put in a severe disadvantage if he approaches an opposing MK hanging out at the ledge.

But here's the thing: like Olimar waiting for Ganon to approach, MK is NOT STALLING when he uses any of these techniques! You can still approach and fight a MK who is planking, scrooging, and what not. MK's not preventing you from fighting him, it's just that, on every stage, he can put himself in such a good position that you're probably better off not even trying.

In some matchups, that unbeatable position is "standing still." In others, it's air camping. For others, he can go to the ledge. But there's nothing truly different about any of these positions; MK is just patiently waiting for you to approach.


So... why do we "allow stalling?" Because we're apparently not man enough to eliminate the obvious source of the problem.

It should be noted that some TOs try to make special rules targeting various aspects of Meta Knight's game (sometimes doing collateral damage to other characters' legitimate strategies) in the name of stopping "stalling," when MK is not, in fact, doing anything of the sort.

All right Crow, then what, in your opinion, constitutes stalling, besides infinites? If MK's pseudo-stalling is more along the lines of "forcing you to do something so he can take advantage of it", then circle camping would just be trying to make the opponent jump offstage so he could get gimped easier, or so the opponent tries to follow him and SD's, right? It's just positional advantage which makes the opponent run the risk of losing a stock or suffering lots of damage. Standing still may be the same thing when seen as a black-and-white scenario, but just standing still isn't "exploiting a character's tactic(s) so as to make the game unwinnable by the opponent"... Olimar, even though he won't be theoretically losing to Ganondorf, still is open for attacks, his person is still on the stage, open for attacks with only a shield and grabs to defend him. MK isn't, he's constantly exploiting his traits and tactics so as to make himself unable to be approached and/or beaten by the opponent. His position is so safe, not even projectiles from the entire cast can remove him from his "positional advantage".

To me, Olimar vs Ganondorf on FD is different than MK vs X character on stages that can be glided under.

 

[Kitamerby]

I didn't see any excessive stalling in that match. The most MK could attempt to "stall" by planking on the Ship is about 30-40 seconds, considering how the ship will sink if left alone, which will obviously force MK to stop. Every other standstill was simply smart play on both parties.

 

[salaboB]

All right Crow, then what, in your opinion, constitutes stalling, besides infinites? If MK's pseudo-stalling is more along the lines of "forcing you to do something so he can take advantage of it", then circle camping would just be trying to make the opponent jump offstage so he could get gimped easier, or so the opponent tries to follow him and SD's, right?

MK planking is staying in one position and is engagable. Circle camping is constantly staying out of range -- you never get to strike the opponent unless they change their behavior (Stop circle camping to go for a gimp on you) which only happens if you chase them while being unable to actually engage them.

 

[Kewkky]

MK planking is staying in one position and is engagable. Circle camping is constantly staying out of range -- you never get to strike the opponent unless they change their behavior (Stop circle camping to go for a gimp on you) which only happens if you chase them while being unable to actually engage them.

Name 3 examples of characters that aren't MK engaging and beating planking. Then tell me if you believe it to be so, and explain to me how it would work.

All I see is MK staying out of the fight by creating a danger zone above him and making himself invincible. He keeps this up until the timer runs out. It's even happened before, thus the notoriety behind it. Sounds like SOME form of stalling to me (hence why I refer to it as a form of pseudo-stalling in my posts whenever I talk about it).

 

[salaboB]

Name 3 examples of characters that aren't MK engaging and beating planking. Then tell me if you believe it to be so, and explain to me how it would work.

All I see is MK staying out of the fight by creating a danger zone above him and making himself invincible. He keeps this up until the timer runs out. It's even happened before, thus the notoriety behind it. Sounds like SOME form of stalling to me (hence why I refer to it as a form of pseudo-stalling in my posts whenever I talk about it).

I didn't say you could successfully engage, I said you could engage, but with circle stalling you can't engage.

I was just explaining to clarify why I think one is clearly stalling (And thus easily banned) and the other isn't.

If I had to classify planking, I'd put it as a form of camping. A very hard to break form, but nothing more. Snake laying out a mine, C4, and chucking grenades could also be classified as pseudo-stalling in some matchups if planking falls under that.

 

[Yunior597]

Well i have seen many other videos too but i took this as example this is the latest i saw.

 

[Crow!]

All right Crow, then what, in your opinion, constitutes stalling, besides infinites? If MK's pseudo-stalling is more along the lines of "forcing you to do something so he can take advantage of it", then circle camping would just be trying to make the opponent jump offstage so he could get gimped easier, or so the opponent tries to follow him and SD's, right? It's just positional advantage which makes the opponent run the risk of losing a stock or suffering lots of damage. Standing still may be the same thing when seen as a black-and-white scenario, but just standing still isn't "exploiting a character's tactic(s) so as to make the game unwinnable by the opponent"... Olimar, even though he won't be theoretically losing to Ganondorf, still is open for attacks, his person is still on the stage, open for attacks with only a shield and grabs to defend him. MK isn't, he's constantly exploiting his traits and tactics so as to make himself unable to be approached and/or beaten by the opponent. His position is so safe, not even projectiles from the entire cast can remove him from his "positional advantage".

To me, Olimar vs Ganondorf on FD is different than MK vs X character on stages that can be glided under.

Upon being pressured by the attacker, MK could mess up his planking, just like Olimar could mess up his defensive game upon being pressured by Ganon. It is just not reasonable to expect MK or Olimar in those situations to mess up.

Scrooging would become true stalling if MK were sufficiently faster than his opponent that he could perpetually stay out of range of all his opponent's attacks. Note that if a stage enables successful circle camping where the victim literally cannot reach and fight his opponent, that is generally grounds for a stage ban.

However, the scrooging pattern on Smashville requires MK to hang out on the moving platform while it is off the stage. You CAN approach and attack MK at this point, it's just stupid to do so.

The "pseudo-stalls," if we use the definition above, are consistent with responsible competitive play. What is described is simply finding a way to nearly guarantee victory, which is exactly the objective of every competitive player.


As for other examples of some non-infinite stalls, consider:

Snake endlessly C-4 teching under certain stages. Properly executed, Snake may not ever be in range for even a suicidal approach.

Sonic, similarly hanging out under certain stages in certain matchups with neutral-B.

Meta Knight using the dimensional cape's advanced technique(s) endlessly to prevent himself from being fightable.

Upon achieving one of the character freezing glitches (for example, certain situations with Diddy Kong's side-b), if you refuse to free the character by scoring a hit on him and instead wait the timer out, that would be stalling.

 

[6Mizu]

Also, it could also be because some people thing it "beatable".

 

[Kewkky]

I didn't say you could successfully engage, I said you could engage, but with circle stalling you can't engage.

I was just explaining to clarify why I think one is clearly stalling (And thus easily banned) and the other isn't.

If I had to classify planking, I'd put it as a form of camping. A very hard to break form, but nothing more. Snake laying out a mine, C4, and chucking grenades could also be classified as pseudo-stalling in some matchups if planking falls under that.

You can engage people who are circle-stalling. Slowly but surely, there are characters who can bypass the tactic. Pit's arrows will follow whoever you want them to follow manually, faster than any character can move in the air or ground. Falco can fire lasers as soon as they meet in the same horizontal plane, or ahead of them before they reach their destination. Snake could plant a C4 on the circle-camper's route, or he could use his Nikita to follow them, attacking whoever would go under the stage.

But MK's planking can't be overcome by these things that can put an end to circle-camping with proper use. MK might be vulnerable at a very small window, but reasonably, what character is able to interact with him during that moment? If they try an OoS option (which is the fastest thing that would work), there are a number of factors that prevent characters from doing so... Like uair shieldstun, uair shieldstab, active hitbox preventing optimal positioning for aerials, downB stalling to increase invincibility frames... It just seems too much for any character to deal with. As pointed out by a BBR member, the only reasonable characters that can bypass planking if done perfectly AND during that small frame window are Marth and MK (both's upB OoS), but just knowing that if they fail the small frame window they'll be very vulnerable to any and all attacks, and knowing that one of Marth's worst matchups is MK, your best option to stop planking, would be to use MK himself... And an MK fighting an MK all the time because his tactic is too good and the players don't want each other to be timed out by it, doesn't seem like a very appealing match to me.

Upon being pressured by the attacker, MK could mess up his planking, just like Olimar could mess up his defensive game upon being pressured by Ganon. It is just not reasonable to expect MK or Olimar in those situations to mess up.

Circle-campers could mess up their circle camping, just as ICs could mess up their CG past 300%, or Snake could miss his tech at any moment and lose a stock, or someone could run away from Sonic or closer to Sonic from a specific direction to influence his sideB's knockback direction... But the fact that they can be influenced doesn't make them any less "stalling". Olimar might mess up his defensive approach, but he's vulnerable to attacks and approaches at all times and he doesn't prevent gameplay by exploiting a game mechanic like "invincibility frames" for as long as the match is happening.

And really, I would not consider Olimar vs Ganondorf as stalling at all. I wouldn't classify as "stalling" the fact that one character is so bad that everything he does is punished, is currently fighting an opponent who punishes characters before they're able to do what they want. Olimar is not preventing any engagement of the sort, his strong defensive game is simply a strong counter to the bad character's horrible offensive game. And it doesn't even apply to THAT many MUs! MK, on the other hand, has a tactic that works on everyone, and the few ones that may have a slim chance of doing anything to it, have an immensely small error window and are at risk of widening the gap between their disadvantage and MK's advantage... Comparing a tactic that works universally and is pretty much known to be too close to unbeatable, to a matchup that is the definition of a hard counter due to the effectiveness of one character's strengths vs the other character's weaknesses AND not being a tactic that puts the other character in a position where he canNOT engage against the opposing player, is not really something that I would accept with the information and research material open and given for my viewing needs.

Given the example that you have given me and your opinion on it, Olimar vs Ganondorf sounds more like stalling than MK vs X character on any scroogable stage. Given the decision, if Olimar mains would unanimously decide that it is a better tactic to just stand still against Ganondorf and intercept him whenever he decides to get close AND let him live, would you apply a rule to make them kill Ganondorf as soon as they can? What if they started saying that they were trying to kill Ganondorf but he kept escaping and surviving everytime they tried to kill him,would you still consider it stalling? What if their tactic would be to just run away and do damage BUT not kill Ganondorf, how would you limit or prevent that?

However, the scrooging pattern on Smashville requires MK to hang out on the moving platform while it is off the stage. You CAN approach and attack MK at this point, it's just stupid to do so.

You can't really approach MK at all. Think about it...

*If you wait on the platform for him, he will just stay on the opposing ledges, or land on-stage until you start taking a position where he might be in danger of getting damage, then drop back to the ledge and continue waiting the platform out.

*If you try to go to the platform and engage him, he can just jump over you and race to the other side, tornado straight through you as soon as you go airborne and land on the other ledge, or drop through the platform and grab the ledge which sets up for a planking situation until the platform makes it to the other side of the stage, then he scrooges.

*If you try and camp him, he will just avoid the camping by either downB'ing, grabbing the ledge, jumping over the threat, shielding it, dodging it, or tornadoing through the threat.

Is it really a reasonable thing to say, that MK can be intercepted when scrooging and planking to run the timer?

The "pseudo-stalls," if we use the definition above, are consistent with responsible competitive play. What is described is simply finding a way to nearly guarantee victory, which is exactly the objective of every competitive player.

A way to nearly guarantee victory is achieved... Making it an optimum option, one that players unanimously would be wise to adopt, since it nearly guarantees victory. This being a competitive scene, having an optimum strategy of that magnitude in the game is detrimental to the competitive value of the game. Shouldn't such tactics be prevented from being used? The risk:reward factor is HEAVILY unbalanced in favor of reward, what with MK only running a small frame window risk, which is difficult to exploit by other characters, but very easy to fail and lose the advantage even more by said characters. It's not just an "optimum strategy that can be reasonably overcome by other differing options", it's an optimum strategy that CANNOT be overcome by other differing options, except by MK himself, which would make the strategy the eye of an 'overcentralization' scenario. Wouldn't this pseudo-stalling strategy have to be dealt with if my scenario would come true? What if this scenario is true, and a large amount of players are revolving around the character because the strategy is THAT good, and that character is the only one that can come close to beating the strategy while running the least risks?

As for other examples of some non-infinite stalls, consider:

Snake endlessly C-4 teching under certain stages. Properly executed, Snake may not ever be in range for even a suicidal approach.

Sonic, similarly hanging out under certain stages in certain matchups with neutral-B.

Meta Knight using the dimensional cape's advanced technique(s) endlessly to prevent himself from being fightable.

Upon achieving one of the character freezing glitches (for example, certain situations with Diddy Kong's side-b), if you refuse to free the character by scoring a hit on him and instead wait the timer out, that would be stalling.

You're right, I forgot about those, thanks for pointing them out.

Still, think about it... Snake can be stopped from teching below stages by a nice amount of characters, and so can Sonic's neutralB, so I wouldn't consider those strategies to be as bad as MK's pseudo-stalls... All it takes is a character that can remove them from those positions, and there's quite a number of them that can do so effortlessly. The other examples are indeed stalling, and cannot be beaten by any single character, so I won't look into them.

 

[Crow!]

You can engage people who are circle-stalling. Slowly but surely, there are characters who can bypass the tactic. Pit's arrows will follow whoever you want them to follow manually, faster than any character can move in the air or ground. Falco can fire lasers as soon as they meet in the same horizontal plane, or ahead of them before they reach their destination. Snake could plant a C4 on the circle-camper's route, or he could use his Nikita to follow them, attacking whoever would go under the stage.

True... for the characters you list, anyway. What is a true stall vs one character may indeed not be a true stall vs others.

There's nothing wrong with the things you actually do when you circle camp, so we can't easily ban it. So we remove the selection that enables the unfair strategy rather than leaving the TO with the headache of enforcing an unenforceable rule.

We could, in a desperate attempt to keep (as a comical example) Spear Pillar in the game, make rules about how many times you are allowed to make a complete circuit around the stage. Never you mind that there are legitimate reasons that a fight might meander around the stage that many times, we must force all players to abide by arbitrary rules because we don't want to ban this stage!!

But no, we don't do anything that silly. In this case, we're smart and we remove the stages which enable the unfair strategies, and the issue never comes into play.

But MK's planking can't be overcome by these things... [goes on to describe some stuff from DMG's thread]
...and knowing that one of Marth's worst matchups is MK, your best option to stop planking, would be to use MK himself... And an MK fighting an MK all the time because his tactic is too good and the players don't want each other to be timed out by it, doesn't seem like a very appealing match to me.

Ah, see, here's where the point becomes clear. MK is just so much better than every other character. I wouldn't classify as "stalling" the fact that every character that isn't Meta Knight is so bad that everything they do is punished, is currently fighting an opponent who punishes characters before they're able to do what they want. Meta Knight is not preventing any engagement of the sort, his strong defensive game is simply a strong counter to the bad characters' horrible offensive games.

See what I did there?


The rest of the paragraph I paraphrased above tries to attach importance to the number of matchups in which the tactic is so good. This, of course, is irrelevant to a discussion about stalling. An action is never intrinsically stalling, it doesn't need to reach some threshold of matchups it affects. If it is stalling in the matchup that's being played right now, that's all the rules care about. See, for a case in point, your own discussion on circle camping.

When it comes to evaluating how good a character is, yes, the number of matchups a strategy destroys is very important, and I agree with you that Meta Knight's gameplay is so good as to break the game.

Given the example that you have given me and your opinion on it, Olimar vs Ganondorf sounds more like stalling than MK vs X character on any scroogable stage. Given the decision, if Olimar mains would unanimously decide that it is a better tactic to just stand still against Ganondorf and intercept him whenever he decides to get close AND let him live, would you apply a rule to make them kill Ganondorf as soon as they can? ...[further questions which only make sense to answer if I said "yes"]

I ban neither scrooging nor Olimar standing still; there is nothing wrong with either strategy. Each one is just so good that the winner of the present game is pretty much set in stone once the better character gains a lead. In each case, the solution is to pick a better character. It's just that, in Meta Knight's case, the only relevant character to choose is Meta Knight himself.

A way to nearly guarantee victory is achieved... Making it an optimum option, one that players unanimously would be wise to adopt, since it nearly guarantees victory. ...[prose reiterating this idea]... What if this scenario is true, and a large amount of players are revolving around the character because the strategy is THAT good, and that character is the only one that can come close to beating the strategy while running the least risks?

Then you get the guts to execute the painfully obvious solution, and you remove from the players' list of permissable pre-game choices the selection which enables the plethora of unfair strategies.

 

[Kewkky]

True... for the characters you list, anyway. What is a true stall vs one character may indeed not be a true stall vs others.

Doesn't that pretty much make the stall less effective? The fact that there's a nice number of characters that can bypass said strategy would make it less dangerous to the health of the game, kind of like how DDD's standing infinites (which isn't banned by the BBR) limits certain characters, but other characters' inherent traits prevent them from falling to the same tactic, or lessens the effect received (normal infinite chaingrab instead of a standing infinite chaingrab). Why is his chaingrab not banned right now? And would it be banned if it would be applicable to a large majority of the cast? Why yes or no?

There's nothing wrong with the things you actually do when you circle camp, so we can't easily ban it. So we remove the selection that enables the unfair strategy rather than leaving the TO with the headache of enforcing an unenforceable rule.

We could, in a desperate attempt to keep (as a comical example) Spear Pillar in the game, make rules about how many times you are allowed to make a complete circuit around the stage. Never you mind that there are legitimate reasons that a fight might meander around the stage that many times, we must force all players to abide by arbitrary rules because we don't want to ban this stage!!

But no, we don't do anything that silly. In this case, we're smart and we remove the stages which enable the unfair strategies, and the issue never comes into play.

Yes, and I have no problem with that at all. I'm not suggesting some stages revisited and rechecked for tourney-play status alteration, just pointing this out... However, I believe MK's scrooging and planking COULD be seen as a form of circle-camping, seeing as his purpose is to stall the match so as to run out the timer, and win that way. Would you consider circle-camping as a form of stalling? Would "stalling the match" count as stalling and apply to my example? Why yes or no?

Ah, see, here's where the point becomes clear. MK is just so much better than every other character. I wouldn't classify as "stalling" the fact that every character that isn't Meta Knight is so bad that everything they do is punished, is currently fighting an opponent who punishes characters before they're able to do what they want. Meta Knight is not preventing any engagement of the sort, his strong defensive game is simply a strong counter to the bad characters' horrible offensive games.

See what I did there?

See, the difference with Meta Knight and the Olimar example... Is that Meta Knight is so much better than every other character, and not just a select few ones. The rational decision that should cross people's minds at first when they join the competitive scene, or when they decide they want to start winning, is to choose the one character who has it easiest, and it's usually the #1 character... Which is no problem at all! But in Brawl, the #1 character's traits are just so much better than everyone else's overall, that he can take his tactics and turn them into stalling tactics. He can plank and scrooge with the purpose of stalling the match, stopping encounters from happening in order to run out the clock, and achieve that goal alone.

Olimar, while he may be able to copy this objective to some degree vs Ganondorf, the truth is that he's still in very vulnerable positions, neutral positions. And unless his neutral position makes him invincible or invisibe, he can be hurt just like every other character can... And that's another difference between Meta Knight and Olimar: Meta Knight is exploiting one of the game's mechanics which grants the character invincibility, while protecting his one moment of vulnerability with attacks, in order to complete his objective, which would be stall the match and run the timer. Is there nothing wrong with this? Is this not what should be looked out for: exploitation of game mechanics to gain an extremely large advantage over the opponent? Meta Knight is doing this, and is capable of doing it at all times. He is invincible except on a very small window, and that window is protected by him. He may "mess up" and widen that window, but the truth is that it doesn't matter if it widens a bit more than the optimum version, he will still be protected by his attacks and multiple jumps, and how his character's traits alone instill fear in every character and prevents them from jumping outside and attempting to punish Meta Knight for that.

The rest of the paragraph I paraphrased above tries to attach importance to the number of matchups in which the tactic is so good. This, of course, is irrelevant to a discussion about stalling. An action is never intrinsically stalling, it doesn't need to reach some threshold of matchups it affects. If it is stalling in the matchup that's being played right now, that's all the rules care about. See, for a case in point, your own discussion on circle camping.

When it comes to evaluating how good a character is, yes, the number of matchups a strategy destroys is very important, and I agree with you that Meta Knight's gameplay is so good as to break the game.

Well, I agree that I may have derailed a bit trying to prove the point, but the point still stands, if not partially: a stalling tactic abusable against the whole cast is more dangerous than a stalling tactic abusable against a single, severely underused character.

I ban neither scrooging nor Olimar standing still; there is nothing wrong with either strategy. Each one is just so good that the winner of the present game is pretty much set in stone once the better character gains a lead. In each case, the solution is to pick a better character. It's just that, in Meta Knight's case, the only relevant character to choose is Meta Knight himself.

I'd hate to derail the topic of discussion once again, but doesn't this pretty much scream "danger"? If the only character to be able to counter the pseudo-stall is that same character, wouldn't you have to say that it's extremely detrimental to the game? If it's only able to be countered by the same character, wouldn't you have to say that to an extent, the tactic could be used to set oneself in such a powerful position where the opponent cannot possibly reach without taking lots of damage and/or suffering the loss of a stock every time he tries to get the character out of there?

By the way, I'd like you to please explain to me this line right here...

Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable.

Wouldn't you classify MK's scrooging and planking as an act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict? Isn't MK trying to make the game unplayable so as to run the timer while both are at opposite ends of the safety spectrum? If the opponent approaches, his disadvantage widens... If MK approaches, he loses his lead... So in order to avoid HIS scenario, he runs away the whole fight and expects the timer to run out while the opponent writhes in anger due to how useless his options are against a scrooging and planking MK. Wouldn't that count as unplayable?

Then you get the guts to execute the painfully obvious solution, and you remove from the players' list of permissable pre-game choices the selection which enables the plethora of unfair strategies.

You're pretty much saying "ban the option that enables the unfair strategies"... Would MK's pseudo-stalling, which can only be reasonably countered by MK himself, count as an unfair strategy? If not, then please explain to me why planking and scrooging gained infamy as soon as the competitive players caught a glimpse of both strategies the first day, and has only grown in infamy the more we have studied them and seen them gain popularity in tournaments. I mean, if it wasn't an "unfair strategy", wouldn't we have some options which we could use to stop MK from repeating himself? Why should we be forced to use MK himself to stop him from pseudo-stalling?

 

[Crow!]

Doesn't that pretty much make the stall less effective? The fact that there's a nice number of characters that can bypass said strategy...

Nonono. You're missing the point. There IS no overall effectiveness of the stall to evaluate. Either it's a stall or it's not in the current situation. Consider D3's standing chaingrab. Oh wait, here comes the rest of the paragraph:

... would make it less dangerous to the health of the game, kind of like how DDD's standing infinites (which isn't banned by the BBR) limits certain characters, but other characters' inherent traits prevent them from falling to the same tactic, or lessens the effect received (normal infinite chaingrab instead of a standing infinite chaingrab). Why is his chaingrab not banned right now? And would it be banned if it would be applicable to a large majority of the cast? Why yes or no?

We do our best to prevent D3 from stalling with his infinite. There is positively no way we're going to condone a ban on the use of that or any infinite to score a KO, even if it works vs the entire cast (consider, for instance, the Ice Climbers.) If the infinite makes D3 or the Ice Climbers too good, then we would ban the offending character rather than forcing everyone to pretend they're honor-abiding scrubs.

Incidentally, I'm a fan of revamping the rule so it eliminates some bugs with the 300% system, but the basic concept is that infinites are always and should always allowed as long as they're not stalling.

However, I believe MK's scrooging and planking COULD be seen as a form of circle-camping, seeing as his purpose is to stall the match so as to run out the timer, and win that way. Would you consider circle-camping as a form of stalling? Would "stalling the match" count as stalling and apply to my example? Why yes or no?

Already answered the first question. If the circle camper literally cannot be fought, it's stalling. So it's very stage and character specific. I know of no character for whom scrooging fits this category; while there are many characters that cannot reliably WIN any exchanges vs MK while he is doing his pattern, I don't think there are characters so slow that they cannot catch up to the moving platform and try.

For the second question, you seem to be assuming that any attempt to win by running out the timer is some sort of stall. This is completely untrue, and it's exactly why I brought up the Olimar thing. Running out the timer is a completely legitimate, competitively responsible strategy, and in fact I think, for instance, Samus mains should do it a lot more since her killing options are such crap compared to her defense and spam.

Allowing the player in this lead the honor of not needing to approach is deliberately written into the game's current rules. If you've found a way to score damage and then reset the situation every time your opponent approaches you, great! If you've found a way to prevent your opponent from approaching you in the first place, that's going to get you DQ-ed.

... [long tirade about how and why Olimar is not as good at winning by running out the clock as Meta Knight is]

Well, I agree that I may have derailed a bit trying to prove the point, but the point still stands, if not partially: a stalling tactic abusable against the whole cast is more dangerous than a stalling tactic abusable against a single, severely underused character.

...If the only character to be able to counter the pseudo-stall is that same character, wouldn't you have to say that it's extremely detrimental to the game? If it's only able to be countered by the same character, wouldn't you have to say that to an extent, the tactic could be used to set oneself in such a powerful position where the opponent cannot possibly reach without taking lots of damage and/or suffering the loss of a stock every time he tries to get the character out of there?

Cut the word "stalling" from the first sentence because neither strategy discussed is stalling. After removing that word, the conclusion is true: if a character has access to a strategy which beats the whole cast, that is more metagame warping and potentially damaging than a character who only nearly-auto-wins a single matchup. Were DDD to possess a 80-20 or whatever it is vs the whole cast rather than only vs Donkey Kong, we'd surely ban him. Were Meta Knight to possess a 80-20 vs the rest of the cast under responsible rulesets.. oh wait, if the discussion here is to be believed, he does.

I'd hate to derail the topic of discussion once again, but doesn't this pretty much scream "danger"?

THIS does a better job of derailing the topic and screaming "danger:"

By the way, I'd like you to please explain to me this line right here...

Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable.

Wouldn't you classify MK's scrooging and planking as an act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict? Isn't MK trying to make the game unplayable so as to run the timer while both are at opposite ends of the safety spectrum? If the opponent approaches, his disadvantage widens... If MK approaches, he loses his lead... So in order to avoid HIS scenario, he runs away the whole fight and expects the timer to run out while the opponent writhes in anger due to how useless his options are against a scrooging and planking MK. Wouldn't that count as unplayable?

Unwinnable and unplayable are very different concepts. You CAN attack a planking or scrooging MK. You won't succeed unless, maybe if you are also MK, but you can do it. On the other hand, a MK who is perpetually in the invisibility part of down-B cannot be fought whatsoever.

In one case, the game is effectively over and playing out the rest of it is just a formality. In the other case, the game actually IS over and the rest of it never happens.

You're pretty much saying "ban the option that enables the unfair strategies"... Would MK's pseudo-stalling, which can only be reasonably countered by MK himself, count as an unfair strategy? If not, then please explain to me why planking and scrooging gained infamy as soon as the competitive players caught a glimpse of both strategies the first day, and has only grown in infamy the more we have studied them and seen them gain popularity in tournaments.

Yes, they are unfair, and I have already said as much. They're not illegal, and there's no justification for forcing players to act like scrubs by imposing weird rules about how well you are allowed to play in-game but they're unfair.

I've been being a bit obtuse about what my proposed solution is because I thought it's more effective when it's painfully obvious but not directly stated, but you seem to be missing the message. So here it is, given straight.

Ban Meta Knight, the only character that enables strategies (and, in fact, MULTIPLE strategies) that are unfair versus every character other than another copy of himself. Problem solved.

I mean, if it wasn't an "unfair strategy", wouldn't we have some options which we could use to stop MK from repeating himself? Why should we be forced to use MK himself to stop him from pseudo-stalling?

We shouldn't. And frankly, we're forced to used MK himself if we want to play truly competitively even with the stupid rules limiting MK. Me, I'm not really competitive. Neither are most Brawl players, really. But if you study the results of tournaments, it becomes clear that when it comes to selecting a character, picking anyone other than Meta Knight is just stupid, unless maybe if you know your opponent is playing a character like Donkey Kong who has a specific abysmal matchup.

But THIS paragraph screams "danger" and would derail the thread. Suggest any further discussion along this particular line be redirected to the MK thread.

 

[ph00tbag]

The way I see it, there are two ways to stall a match in a broken manner.

1. Access a part of the map that none of the cast can access, and occupy the position in perpetuity (Rising Pound, IDC).

2. Totally remove the opponent's ability to control their character in perpetuity (IC's freeze glitch, Grab Infinites past 300%).

In both cases, the match is literally unable to progress until the stalling party screws up. Planking uses the universal ledge element--any character can utilize the ledge, and attempting to grab the ledge or beat MK doesn't even necessarily make it impossible to recover. It just gives MK an almost impossible to surmount positional advantage.

Circle camping is similar. It is not stalling, it is simply a broken way of camping. Fortunately, since the circle element is easily recognizable, circle stages can be banned without any major disagreement. But this can't be done with planking, because it can be done on any stage with ledges.

Even scrooging doesn't really apply as stalling, because it is not perpetual, and it has vulnerable moments, which rely on proper manipulation, prediction and option coverage to take advantage of. Sure, MK always has the advantage the whole time, but even when he's below the stage, he's not in a place no character can access. Hell, half the cast can go under FD, and more of them can go under SV without much difficulty. But scrooging is only potentially broken on SV, and lo, MK is the only character for whom this is the case.

Maybe I'm defining stalling selectively, but I don't see a reason to stretch the definition to fit whatever I want to call stalling.

 

[Kewkky]

To tell you the truth, I had the whole "stalling" thing confused, what with the whole "stalling the timer" phrase being heard before a lot. I also believe the definition should be re-worked though, don't know your reasons but as the stalling rule stands right now, the only thing it stops in the competitive scene is infinites past 300%, and there's lots of confusion between what would be classified as stalling and what shouldn't be classified as stalling.

(Plus, I just wanted to hear it directly from you, straight-up and not having to decode any wordings... Your standing on the debate, which pretty much this thread is derived of! )

 

[sunshade]

I would just like to point out that circle camping is not banned because it is stalling. It is banned because it as an unbeatable tactic which over centralizes the game.

 

[BluePeachy100]

Stalling will always be a matter of opinion. In trying to state a "legitimate reason" saying m2k wasn't really stalling I found that it was my OPINION more than anything. So, no matter how far we go into this, we had the right idea at the beginning, stalling can't really be proved. It's at least not making the game unplayable, I know that much.

^^^@ post above. This is also true, I suppose.

 

[ph00tbag]

I would just like to point out that circle camping is not banned because it is stalling. It is banned because it as an unbeatable tactic which over centralizes the game.

Technically, circle camping isn't banned. Stages that enable it are.

Because it's easier just to ban the stage than worry about defining circle camping. Take note.

 

[Tommy_G]

Sonic's spin ball under the stage technically isn't stalling because anyone with a projectile or a glide can hit him, yet it's still banned.

I see flying under the stage over and over again as something that's as bannable as Sonic's spin ball "stall."

Scrooging should be banned.

 

[Spelt]

guys, guys, guys.


I hear SBR is banning stalling.

 

[Tommy_G]

guys, guys, guys.


I hear SBR is banning stalling.

Her hips are f***ing huge.

Are you serious?!?!? Out of all of the stupid stuff I post, this is what I get infracted for?
I can't believe you didn't infract the person who posted the picture either.
I'll try to not have fun next time. D*** Smash boards is ridiculous......

 

[Pimpfish]

i like to stall. its actually fun to throw away 8 mins of my life. you could pay me to stall. stalling is so fun. more fun than fast paced actionpacked gay combos. combos are stupid and silly, thats why sakurai took them out of melee ,a stupid game, and replaced them with stalling. stalling is truly fun and has a spirit of competition. i can stall better than you. who wants to challenge me to a stalling competition? i know ill call it a tournement and no combos are allowed.

 

[Kitamerby]

i can stall better than you. .

Moneymatch on Brinstar? Put your money where your mouth is?
Stalling properly and proper gay play really isn't as easy as it sounds.

 

[napZzz]

Its sort of hard to call stalling unless its blatantly obvious. Alot of people can get away with stalling in a sense and not get called out on it. Noones gonna call out m2k on whatever he does anyways. He could probably plank for all 8 minutes and noone would care

 

[Problem2]

Stalling really needs to be redefined on the SBR's ruleset since the current definition considers camping and running away as stalling.

The tactic they are intending to ban is anything that makes you not hittable in the match up. Basically, it covers infinite dimension cape and infinite stalls under the stage when facing a character that cannot go down there. (ie, you can't duelist stall as snake under the stage vs Ike)

refusing to approach, dodging like crazy, running to the other side of the stage and even stalling (so long as it can't last forever) are acceptable tactics.

 

[BSP]

In that case problem, everyone's planking would be legal and shouldn't get a limit except for MK's. If stalling is making the game unplayable, planking does not do this, minus MK's.

 

[Tommy_G]

In that case problem, everyone's planking would be legal and shouldn't get a limit except for MK's. If stalling is making the game unplayable, planking does not do this, minus MK's.

MK's has 1 or a few frames without invulnerability.

Technically it's beatable.

 

[Kewkky]

Can you point to some examples where people could beat MK? And not just one, but at least 3 examples, from other characters who aren't MK himself?

I mean, if you're so sure that it's so beatatble, you MUST have something to back up your claims, right?

 

[Tommy_G]

I don't need to.

Frame data says it's beatable, so it must be beatable.

 

[Turbo Ether]

It's sad how awful most of this community is at utilizing frame data.

 

[Crow!]

Stalling really needs to be redefined on the SBR's ruleset since the current definition considers camping and running away as 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, while doing an infinite grab endlessly against a wall is. Any infinite chain grabs must end quickly after 300% has been reached so as to prevent excessive stalling.

Incidentally, I do think the stalling definition needs a revamp. However, this is not one of the bugs currently in the system.


@Tommy_G:
I'll pretend for a moment that you're not trolling. Because I'm bored, I guess.

Anyway, what you say is clearly wrong: suppose, for a very silly example, there were a character that, every 40-80 frames or so (randomly selected) gained 1 frame of vulnerability, but during every single other frame he filled a 1/2 FD radius with 999% damage, OHKO hitboxes. Clearly, this character is unbeatable, despite his frame data having vulnerability. (And incidentally, the character isn't stalling, either - he's winning.)

So if you're gauging beatability, the degree to which MK can protect his frames of vulnerability against specific attacks (say, with UAir) is, in fact, important, and until you address it, your analysis not done.

My point, however, is that beatability doesn't factor into a stalling question. You can devise all sorts of unwinnable scenarios which are not stalling.

 

[Kitamerby]

Wait what.

The 1 frame vulnerability is for his perfect, buffered CAPE STALL. AKA the one that doesn't hurt you.

He has quite a few more on his uair planking (9 iirc), although he also has a bajillion more options and ways to keep you from stopping him.

Please don't get them confused, guys.

 

[DanGR]

There are some matchups in Brawl where approaching is suicidal... take, for instance, Ganon vs Olimar. In this matchup, simply standing still is, in a sense, stalling. But we're clearly not going to ban "Olimar standing still," and of course not, since Olimar is not stalling. He is not preventing Ganon from fighting him. It's just that Olimar can, on every stage, put himself in such a position where he is so much better off than Ganon that Ganon has no reasonable chance to regain the lead.

In this case, the solution to the problem is simple - choose a better character than Ganon.


Unfortunately, MK throws a monkey wrench in that plan. Like many characters, he can give himself an excellent defensive position by making use of a feature of the stage. Unfortunately, even something as simple as the ledge or, even funnier, the platform in Smashville is a sufficiently good stage feature to basically guarantee that he will win any exchange vs any non-MK opponent, and even MK himself is put in a severe disadvantage if he approaches an opposing MK hanging out at the ledge.

But here's the thing: like Olimar waiting for Ganon to approach, MK is NOT STALLING when he uses any of these techniques! You can still approach and fight a MK who is planking, scrooging, and what not. MK's not preventing you from fighting him, it's just that, on every stage, he can put himself in such a good position that you're probably better off not even trying.

In some matchups, that unbeatable position is "standing still." In others, it's air camping. For others, he can go to the ledge. But there's nothing truly different about any of these positions; MK is just patiently waiting for you to approach.


So... why do we "allow stalling?" Because we're apparently not man enough to eliminate the obvious source of the problem.

It should be noted that some TOs try to make special rules targeting various aspects of Meta Knight's game (sometimes doing collateral damage to other characters' legitimate strategies) in the name of stopping "stalling," when MK is not, in fact, doing anything of the sort.

Signed in to quote this for truth.

Ganon vs. Olimar standing under a platform is the same scenario I've been explaining this concept with (-that and Wario or Wolf's air camping). There's really no difference between this type of stalling and planking except the use of a ledge is involved. It's totally arbitrary to try to limit one but not the other- enforceable or not, which is why I'm for either an MK ban OR no LGLs.

 

[Throwback]

Crow really knows his ****. We know by now that MK ****s over the rest of the cast and should be banned, but it hasn't happened because too many people play him by now and 'he is beatable'.

Which doesn't change the fact that according to current rules, 'not attacking' does not constitute stalling.

 

[BSP]

. It's totally arbitrary to try to limit one but not the other- enforceable or not, which is why I'm for either an MK ban OR no LGLs.

Why not just MK specific ledge rules? Is there another character that can play the ledge and "not stall" just as well as he can. Of course not. I don't get why we can't use character specific rules, when it's clear that the problem wouldn't exist if MK wasn't here.

And Sonic's homing stall underneath the stage needs to legal, since it is in no way making the game unplayable.

 

[darkNES386]

Why not just MK specific ledge rules? Is there another character that can play the ledge and "not stall" just as well as he can. Of course not. I don't get why we can't use character specific rules, when it's clear that the problem wouldn't exist if MK wasn't here.

And Sonic's homing stall underneath the stage needs to legal, since it is in no way making the game unplayable.

There's a difference between chasing after someone who is clearly in an impossible to get to without losing a stock spot and facing someone who clearly has the advantage.

With that being said...
Planking > Sonic under stage .... but Sonic under stage with a stock advantage is probably going to beat the entire cast except maybe MetaKnight, Pit and Peach who could go after him on certain stages and then safely come back. In fact.... ironically, meta knight would probably be the best at it.

Planking is just the slow death of the opponent while Sonic under the stage is black and white.... your opponent is rendered useless and you have the stock advantage so you win.