Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

[Arcansi]

They would lose minimal amounts of hype.

Note that the hype also an acquired taste.

And that very little is lost, you still get 3 regrabs.

 

[SKidd]

That's because we could say anything, no matter how serious or trollish, and will be greeted with a wall of text shortly after.

 

[| Big D |]

Arcansi, MM, DDD dittos.(Unity) Then you will understand.

 

[Captain L]

k


leave the game unaltered as much as possible unless 100% necessary, such as the idc rule.

and then we get to define "100% necessary"

in my opinion chaingrabs aren't necessary to ban.

In yours they are.




danggg

I say tomato you say tomato

 

[SKidd]

I don't fall for that troll anymore dawson u mad>?

 

[SinisterB]

i don't normally pick DDD, but when i do

it's dittos

Spoiler

or ****ing Quads on picto

 

[Arcansi]

See: Acquired taste.

See: Gain > Loss.

Captain L: I would be fine with this, but this means reimplementing items, removing stock, testing all the stages, and a bunch of other things.

Are you for all these things? (see: Sudden Death, espicially on ganon or bowsercide)

 

[Captain L]

stay invincible my friends


also items are pretty gay

 

[Arcansi]

Then you don't support yourself.

 

[| Big D |]

See: DDD dittos

NOW EXPERIENCE IT

 

[SinisterB]

See: Acquired taste.

See: Gain > Loss.

Captain L: I would be fine with this, but this means reimplementing items, removing stock, testing all the stages, and a bunch of other things.

Are you for all these things? (see: Sudden Death, espicially on ganon or bowsercide)

If it were implied to only use items and time there wouldn't be options to change them

 

[SKidd]

Arcansi































What's the shape of Italy?

 

[SinisterB]

Big D's boot

 

[Arcansi]

Sinister, do you mean weren't only implied?

Are you suggesting proper testing has been done to remove this implication from competitive standard, being that it is implied?

Skidd: Italy.

 

[| Big D |]

What's my favorite monopoly piece?
























Das boot.

 

[SinisterB]

i don't even know what he's talking about

Spoiler

seriously

Spoiler

no really

edit - just realized what you meant, you can stop writing that brick of text

 

[Alphicans]

Removing stages, items and stock isn't a changing the game at all. Those rules are in game changeable. He can disagree with items and still hold to the ideal of leaving the game as unaltered as possible unless needed.

 

[Arcansi]

Okay, but removing stages is an arguably outside limitation.

Sudden death is definitely so. Banning metaknight is definitely so (and isn't 100% needed)

LGL is definitely so.

And most of all. A lack of testing on the many possible factors is definitely so. Because the implication was to use items and 2 mins timer.

 

[Captain L]

okay then

items suck

pictochat needs testing

chaingrabs are part of the game



you don't make surgical changes, only ones that don't require silly in match rules

idc is the exception because brawl would suck without it.



For the record I don't support an LGL, for two reasons. One, the number we chose is arbitrary. I mean, if our culture used a base 11 number system would we have 55 as the limit (since that would be the equivalent of an easy number to work with)? Two, I <3 planking

 

[Alacion]

Okay, but removing stages is an arguably outside limitation.

Sudden death is definitely so. Banning metaknight is definitely so (and isn't 100% needed)

LGL is definitely so.

And most of all. A lack of testing on the many possible factors is definitely so. Because the implication was to use items and 2 mins timer.

Source? 10chars

 

[Arcansi]

okay then

items suck

pictochat needs testing

chaingrabs are part of the game

Not just pictochat, most every stage.

Also stock, timer, coin, and score.

Correct?

you don't make surgical changes, only ones that don't require silly in match rules

idc is the exception because brawl would suck without it.

So rules outside of the match keep the game unchanged somehow? I don't understand.

What about lgl, sudden death, banning mk?

@Courier: On the implication? Every wii is set to that when they first play multiplayer Brawl.

 

[Alphicans]

Okay, but removing stages is an arguably outside limitation.

Sudden death is definitely so. Banning metaknight is definitely so (and isn't 100% needed)

LGL is definitely so.

And most of all. A lack of testing on the many possible factors is definitely so. Because the implication was to use items and 2 mins timer.

Removing stages is not arguable.

Sudden death rule is necessary because the sudden death doesn't test skill in the competitive sense. It has too much luck factor (bombs).

Banning MK is arguably 100% necessary. If he's over centralizing, then it's necessary. It's true there is a debate, but it's too large of a topic to discuss within this conversation.

LGL with MK is needed, but without MK, the LGL should be taken away. Also what do you mean the implication was to use items and a 2 min timer?

 

[| Big D |]

Edited for privileged information.

 

[Captain L]

chaingrabs aren't even over centralizing



look, there's a huge difference between changing the conditions and rules set before a match begins, and changing some aspects of a fight after the match begins. I choose to play 3 stock Brawl with certain stages legal. However, once a fight begins I'm going to do anything within my power to win. LGLs and IDC rules wouldn't exist unless they were 100% necessary to make brawl playable in the most extreme circumstances.

Also pausing should really be turned off.

 

[SinisterB]

Also pausing should really be turned off.

But what if i can't hear the TV and it's playing the PokeRap

who would want to miss that??

 

[Kantrip]

Shoutouts to SKidd.

<3

 

[Arcansi]

Trust me, the LGL is needed and I'll tell you why, the smash lab hasn't released it to the public out of fear of the atrocities that would occur, but many characters can completely take advantage of the invincibility frames on the ledge and become invincible indefinitely while approaching would instantly lead to atleast 60% and for many characters getting gimped and this whole thing has been one long sentence.

I can trust you on this. I'd like an explanation, but I doubt I'd get one even if you were allowed to give one.

Are you OK with me arguing with this knowledge? I don't want to get you in trouble.

chaingrabs aren't even over centralizing



look, there's a huge difference between changing the conditions and rules set before a match begins, and changing some aspects of a fight after the match begins. I choose to play 3 stock Brawl with certain stages legal. However, once a fight begins I'm going to do anything within my power to win. LGLs and IDC rules wouldn't exist unless they were 100% necessary to make brawl playable in the most extreme circumstances.

Also pausing should really be turned off.

You mean to tell me LGL is required to make brawl playable with MK banned?

Are pit & G&W that over centralizing?

Also, that difference is just that they're defined before the game starts. Assume a menu is found in brawl that allows you to change the number of unavoidable regrabs a player can take on another player before the grab will auto-fail. Is this rule suddenly an implementable rule?

If so, why?

over centralizing doesn't even matter. They're bad in the matchups they influence (marth vs lucas, anyone?).

Those matchups are the only ones that matter in the context of the rule, and they overcentralize within them.

 

[Asa]

lol marth vs lucas

 

[SinisterB]

Oli vs Wolf is another example

hella wolf favor

 

[| Big D |]

The thing is though, if you bring it up, people will ask for proof. Everybody in the smashlab cannot reveal what I have said, I believe I actually said too much already. I wouldn't use this as you can't really use it in an argument.

 

[Asa]

ban wolf

makes me qq

Spoiler

but not really anymore 80 dollar mm sinister

 

[SinisterB]

might as well make it $100

Spoiler

we're talking solid canada dollars.. no Hawaiian bs

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Arcansi, here are a few examples of matches we can do for me to prove that a ledge grab limit is required (assume no ledge grab limit in these examples):

I'll go Marth, you go Falcon. I will spend the entire match on the ledge, repeating the exact same thing over and over again all match long (no difference at all, no matter where you are). I claim that you will not take a single stock off of me (we can do the match if you wish).

If you want even more pain, you go Falcon once again, I'll go GaW. From the start of the match, I will grab the ledge. From then on, I can no longer land on the stage, and my only contact with the stage must be on the ledge. I claim that I will win this, and once again, you will not take a stock (and I think you won't even damage me).

The ledge grab limit is in place because in some match-ups, it can make the matchup completely unplayable for one character. If you disagree with my examples, lets play them out next time we face each other.



And Arcansi... something I find very ironic. Melee and 64 players all make fun of brawl for two main reasons: No combos, and no advanced techniques. I find it very ironic that you are trying to remove what little combos brawl has (melee has chainthrows perfectly legal, 64 has chainthrows perfectly legal). Why is it so bad that brawl be forced to remove all their chaingrabs?



Oh, and my source for my claims:

Marth can ledge drop forward air (invincibility throughout the time he is vulnerable, while attacking anyone close to the ledge) into immediate up-B back onto the ledge.

GaW ledge-drop double-jump nair/uair, up-B back onto the ledge (sometimes up-B isn't even required).

My source for my claims that melee and 64 players make fun of brawl for lack of combos and lack of techskill: the entire melee and 64 community. Ask them yourself.

My source for melee and 64 having chainthrows completely legal: check the ruleset. Both have all chainthrows legal, including melee wobbling last I checked.



For any response you do to this post, include sources. If you are forcing us to source our statements, you should therefore be forced to source your statements.




Edit: Big D, that was actually already fairly well-known (or at the very least, assumed or almost confirmed). Not everyone has the frame data, but we know that some characters are virtually invincible on the ledge.

 

[Asa]

might as well make it $100

Spoiler

we're talking solid canada dollars.. no Hawaiian bs

deal

10deals

 

[| Big D |]

I honestly think that brawl has more ATs then 64 and melee.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it has more depth(it doesn't).

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, here are a few examples of matches we can do for me to prove that a ledge grab limit is required (assume no ledge grab limit in these examples):

I'll go Marth, you go Falcon. I will spend the entire match on the ledge, repeating the exact same thing over and over again all match long (no difference at all, no matter where you are). I claim that you will not take a single stock off of me (we can do the match if you wish).

If you want even more pain, you go Falcon once again, I'll go GaW. From the start of the match, I will grab the ledge. From then on, I can no longer land on the stage, and my only contact with the stage must be on the ledge. I claim that I will win this, and once again, you will not take a stock (and I think you won't even damage me).

The ledge grab limit is in place because in some match-ups, it can make the matchup completely unplayable for one character. If you disagree with my examples, lets play them out next time we face each other.

I agree with all of this, now...

If we can assume that stuff like this matters, then it is logical to limit stuff like regrabs and such, correct?

Because the same situations can quite easily occur, although they aren't as obvious.

(Lucas vs Marth, DDD vs DK, Wolf vs Oli)

And if you agree with me, would you mind making an appearance in my thread? Not to like be obnoxious or anything, but it would be AMAZING.

And Arcansi... something I find very ironic. Melee and 64 players all make fun of brawl for two main reasons: No combos, and no advanced techniques. I find it very ironic that you are trying to remove what little combos brawl has (melee has chainthrows perfectly legal, 64 has chainthrows perfectly legal). Why is it so bad that brawl be forced to remove all their chaingrabs?

For the same reason ledge grabbing is so bad we have to be forced to limit them.

There are matchups where it just ruins the whole thing.

(See: Above)

For any response you do to this post, include sources.

Rob, I think your taking a joke and shoving it into reality.

I don't ask for scources often, only when I can't find one on my own (see: stuff like knowing how marth planks, or I would usually just ask) or when something seems really opinionated or messed up.

Sources aren't needed on common knowledge (although if someone asks you should explain) or things that are just straight logic.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

My bad for being vague and unclear.

And Arcansi... something I find very ironic. Melee and 64 players all make fun of brawl for two main reasons: No combos, and no advanced techniques. I find it very ironic that you are trying to remove what little combos brawl has (melee has chainthrows perfectly legal, 64 has chainthrows perfectly legal). Why is it so bad that brawl be forced to remove all their chaingrabs?

This entire paragraph was about limiting chainthrows, nothing to do with ledge grab limit.

And Arcansi, as it's probably very clear, I am just sick and tired of pointless arguments that go absolutely nowhere. I'm actually nearing the point where if these useless arguments continue, I may stop reading this thread altogether. I am perfectly fine and encourage debates and discussion, but what this thread is turning into, I have better things to do with my time (I know that doesn't sound nice, but I don't know how to word that better, so I'll leave it like that and sound like a you-know-what and hope you know what I mean so that it doesn't sound as bad).

 

[Asa]

LOL why did you reference wolf vs oli rofllll

 

[Arcansi]

This entire paragraph was about limiting chainthrows, nothing to do with ledge grab limit.

I was refrencing LGL as a rule that is analogous to the one I am implementing in reason for implementation.

And Arcansi, as it's probably very clear, I am just sick and tired of pointless arguments that go absolutely nowhere. I'm actually nearing the point where if these useless arguments continue, I may stop reading this thread altogether. I am perfectly fine and encourage debates and discussion, but what this thread is turning into, I have better things to do with my time (I know that doesn't sound nice, but I don't know how to word that better, so I'll leave it like that and sound like a you-know-what and hope you know what I mean so that it doesn't sound as bad).

I don't see these as useless, and don't understand how you do.

Even in my infinites thread I see the progress, and while it's slow, I have to argue 3+ arguments at once most of the time, so I can accept this.

My last debate in this thread lead to amazing pictochat data, me learning a bunch of new stuff, and very likely will lead to me opening a thread on picto.

 

[Jason!]

Whoever money matched me in D3 dittos I'm salty. I want rematch D: