MetaKnight Infinite Dimensional Cape - hope you enjoy

[Marth & Ike]

Because it's not just the stalling that's broken as heck, as I already stated, the approach is no less broken.

Furthermore, it's not unreasonable, if that's the best strategy, people will adapt. If people can make stuff like praying (evil EVIL Ness AT in melee that involved tailwhipping fox, and fox only with pk thunder, incredibly difficult but instant death) automatic, I think that can train this in so it can be done continuously for a couple of minutes.

Oh, I already realize the approach is broken - absolutely. It makes campers/projectile spammers obsolete, because that part of their game becomes worthless.

I just prefer not to see techniques banned in general, although this is clearly broken in many forms.

 

[Arigon]

Nice find its fun to use when im playing 4 person free for all with my friends. But yes as always metaknight has another very annoying tech/combo/attack

 

[GodotAA]

The whole thing is broken that is what it comes down too.

 

[Froth]

Does this happen to everyone? I try doing that and...he automatically moves to the left...

 

[GodotAA]

your tilting the control stick

 

[Froth]

your tilting the control stick

no lol. and it happens with dtilt moves too. I'm holding the control sick down, not to the right or the left in any way. :embarrass

 

[GodotAA]

then i got no idea im to busy drinkin tea and watchin the boondocks

your controller might just be messed up

 

[Froth]

Hmm, I can still move to the right. though, it's hard :/

 

[OldSchool]

I disagree. Ban short term useage. If you can keep that up for 8 mins u deserve to win.

 

[Froth]

I could keep it up for about 20 seconds...online that is. The dude was confused as hell.

 

[Yuna]

Pretty much,,,

Yeah, so if the tech is allowed but infinite stalling isn't, MK just becomes Akuma tier(Super Street Fighter II Turbo of course).

Seriously, this tech is so far beyond broken that, how can we even consider allowing it in competitive play?

As usual, the vast majority of non-Meta-players want to auto-ban it without discussion, the vast majority of Meta-players don't want it ban.

Meanwhile, out of the few of us who actually analyzed the situation objectively, I believe the majority of us want it banned, so that's something at least.

The moral of the story is that people are way too biased. If something like this was discovered for Zelda, I'd call for a ban too. It's called wanting to preserve the Competitive viability of Smash.

And, yeah, I've said it too, Meta will be Akuma S-Tier with this tech (with a time limit), so that works against him as well.

Well, I try it out, and overall, it's actually is easy to do and have a dangerous potential to be stalling with enough patience and stamina to the fingers. However, just to note that it's harder to do it on curves and floors that are not completely flat. Still, I wouldn't suggest it should be banned though. Until I see a flock of MKs taking over the scene, then I have no choice but to agree.

I'm sorry, "It's harder to do"? Wow, horrible.

Stuff.

Bla bla, difficulty to enforce. (No, seriously, this will be my default response to people who've obviously not bothered with that aspect of the debate from now on)

I'll bother with it. As long as this is legal, I have a CP planned with Metaknight for instawin XD

Just need to practice it now

Please do. Wear a stamp of approval lettered "Approved by Yuna" while you do it. I want my name involved with this great endeavour.

There's no ending lag if you just wrap from it and choose not to go on the offense. Also, with the Nunchuk combo and custom controls, it's so ridiculously easy to do that any naysayers that haven't already been refuted by Yuna, and still believe this technique isn't humanly possible for extended periods of time might as well not have said anything at all.

Tsk, tsk, you will be forever branded a Yuna fanboy for that.

btw, has anyone even tested if u can get hit out of this? my friend linked me the vid, then linked me the thread, and im **** sure not reading all of that first page LOL like can snakades or robeams or anything go through this? what about MKs tornado?

No, because he's, you know, invincible.

hmmmmm I'm way to lazy to read EVERY post.... I've read most of um tho....

I still think this tech is more trouble than it's worth.... The stamina it takes to do this move for a long time is crazy... + like said before, MK can be punished for this, and its pretty easy to avoid...

No, no, no and no. You should've read more.

Huh. Shoryuken says banned if used to stall.

Anything wrong with that wording?

EDIT: I am not supporting for or against D.I.C.K. I just want to see what people think of Shoryuken's ruling.

Shoryuken says a lot of things. Heck, EVO's rule originally stated something akin to "If a TO at any time subjectively judges that you've excessively stalled or camped (yes, camped!), it will result in your forfeiture of the match" (this might have changed by now, but I doubt it).

In other words, EVO's ridiculous solution is to have subjective TO judgment calls, something we strongly oppose. Of course, these are the people who are also allowed Final Smashes, so don't point at them and go "Hey, solution!", people.

Why on earth can't I do this? I'm on training mode and I'm tapping up on the c-stick with the control stick down as fast as I can ON 1/4 SPEED

WTF?!

You have you, you know, time it.

I'm also have an account on SRK, and I'm currently in the delicate process of asking Mr. Wizard for clarification on the banning of this technique. This has the potential to be lucrative enough if not banned for me to go to Evo and use this to attempt a win, and at least to win a few money matches. I'm going to have to start practicing MK though so I can have a good enough regular game to fall back on when my thumb gets tired.

for those who don't know, I'm a G&W main who plays Wolf online, so it might be hard to pick up MK in time for evo.

I'm almost regretting that we blew the lid on this now. We should've waited 'til after EVO, allowing an army of Meta-Knights from SWF to swoop in and take the entire Top 20 by using this move. Of course, EVO might have disqualified them all through subjective judgment calls...

Stacey from AiB claims to be able to do this for 8 minutes. she (?) uses her pinky to hold down on the control stick and uses thumbs to alternate hitting the c-stick.

There was someone else who claimed to be able to do t for 2-3 minutes at a time yesterday using the exact same technique as well. Either it's the same person ("2-3 minute Stacey" evolved into... "8 minute Stacey"!) or they both had the same idea.

For the record, I am not entirely sure why keep mentioning this move being lagless, but it has a significant amount of lag out of it. Nothing huge, but not enough to sneak up behind someone and Shuttle Loop, DSmash, or anything else without them having a lot of time to Smash you, dodge, or even run. Actually, using the attack out of the Dimension Cape seems faster than just releasing it.

Yah, you'd only have to be standing around doing nothing. If Meta-Knight's close to you, you have four options:
* Shield
* Spotdodge
* Roll
* Do nothing

If Meta-Knight decides to just let the cape, you'll have won the mixup and can now punish him since you're standing around doing nothing. If he does it right next to you, you can also let go of your shield (though you will just have diminished it).

If he attacks you while you're just standing around, you lose. If you spotdodge or roll and he intercepts it, you lose. If you shield and he does nothing, your shield will diminish for no good reason, you lose.

This mixup is more of a "Get less screwed over by Meta-Knight" technique.

Also, this move allows Meta Knight to move as fast as Sonic can whilst running.

I vaguely remember people claiming he moved slower than he ran early on and that it would be really easy to catch up to him if he used it as a runaway tactic since the camera follows him. Hmmmm...

In Florida, we have been discussing this extensively trying to decide whether or not it should be banned in our upcoming tournament FAST 1.

My policy has always been to never ban something until it is proven broken by means of decisive evidence (i.e. tournament results, basically anything more concrete than "i tested it today it should be banned").

One person in particular made a good argument against banning it, and it's a sentiment that I too share, which is why it will not be banned in our upcoming tournament. This was his argument, which I reposted to hopefully clear things up about this.

Seriously, the vast majority of what he said was misinformation and blatant lies. In fact, at this writing moment, the vast majority of what he said has been proven false.

Even for use as a mixup, it's way too good.

As to using a Turbo Controler so as to hold the Cstick up and do it perfectly. This isn't neccesarily true since there is a timing to this whole thing right. Just think of the people doing it too fast at 1/4 speed.

And this is by far more broken then anything yet discovered in Brawl or in my opinion any Smash game. You can niether be hit or seen. The only way it could be more broken was if it allowed you to hit your opponent during you invis/inviciblity.

A question occurs:
There is a timing for it, but are you punished for timing it wrongly if you time it right as well?

As in, let's assume the timing is:
Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 50 ms -> Up

Fine, if you do it like this:
Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 34 Ms -> Up

Then it will fail after the 3rd up.

However, what happens if you do this:
Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 50 ms -> Up -> 25 ms -> Up (takes 5 ms) -> 20 ms -> Up

Will it fail after the 3rd MS? Or will it just ignore the 4th Up and go for the 5th Up since it was timed "right"? If so, then Turbo controllers would indeed allow you to just use Turbo (but that's banned, anyway) to perform this technique.

Everyone seems to be disregarding the fact that even without stalling, retreating, etc this still breaks Meta-Knight. He was already the best character in the game. Now he has the hands down best approach, he can nullify projectile spam, and this move can't be realistically countered.

I think some of us mentioned this 10 pages ago.

Since the only realistic way to make it last for long periods of time is using the Wiimote + Nunchuck (with a custom configuration), why not just ban custom configurations on the Wiimote + Nunchuck for Metaknight?

1) No.
2) Who says it's impossible to learn how to do well using a GC controller other than people who've only tired for less than a day and went "My thumbs hurt"? Also, what part of "We're able to do this holding down down with our pinkies and using both thumbs to alternate between hitting the C-stick" from two different people was too hard for you to comprehend?

Ban pinkies?

(Personally I would just ban it for the reasons Yuna has stated, but I am trying to play Devil's Advocate and find a way for it to be legal)

Even as a Devil's Advocate, as an Advocate, one should read up before speaking up. You can already do this using a GC controller. I guess we should ban those.

I disagree. Ban short term useage. If you can keep that up for 8 mins u deserve to win.

We have already have one person who can do this after only two days. Another one has been able to do it for 2-3 minutes at a time, but that was yesterday and who knows how far they've come by now? Would you like to wait 10 days and see how many they (or "we" if I feel like mastering this for BS:ing purposes) number by then?

 

[Fogo]

you solve everything yuna <3

 

[waks]

Holy ****.. Too good.

 

[Marth & Ike]

On the subject of allowing its use, but not allowing it as a stall tactic...

If the US Supreme Court can decide to judge what pornography is/isn't based on judgement, I fail to see why tournament organizers can't use judgement calls on this issue. Tournament organizers should have bylaws in place to protect the decisions they made. It's the competitors choice to compete in that tournament, so they have to play by their rules from the beginning.

Competent gaming organizations such as the United States Chess Federation have no problem making judgement calls concerning rules through their tournament directors, and bylaws exist to protect the tournament director in their decisions. As a rule the competitor will err on the side of caution concerning rule violation, knowing full well that a judgement could nail them if they don't. They can't complain, as tournament director's have the final say - period. I'd say the USCF doesn't exactly struggle, either, even with its 416 page rule book.

I use the USCF as an example as I was both a competitive player, and TD at varying points.

 

[Yuna]

If the US Supreme Court can decide to judge what pornography is/isn't based on judgement, I fail to see why tournament organizers can't use judgement calls on this issue.

This is this and that is that.

There's also a reason why the Supreme Court doesn't allow just any case in. Manpower and time.

Competent gaming organizations such as the United States Chess Federation have no problem making judgement calls concerning rules through their tournament directors, and bylaws exist to protect the tournament director in their decisions. As a rule the competitor will err on the side of caution concerning rule violation, knowing full well that a judgement could nail them if they don't. They can't complain, as tournament director's have the final say - period. I'd say the USCF doesn't exactly struggle, either, even with its 416 page rule book.

This is this and that is that. Smash is not Chess. It's not OK to tackle in Handball, so I guess it shouldn't be allowed in any other sport, right?

Time, manpower and difficulty to enforce. The Chess federation also has pretty clear rules in place. Judgment calls are almost never called in. There's a reason why the rules of Competitive Chess keeps changing, the many loopholes one can create using the current rules.

 

[Marth & Ike]

This is this and that is that. Smash is not Chess. It's not OK to tackle in Handball, so I guess it shouldn't be allowed in any other sport, right?

Irrelevant. The topic here is judgement calls, not different laws within different organizations. The point that different gaming institutions can competently handle judgement calls is significant concerning the game (Brawl) under scrutiny. There is nothing substantial that sets SSBB apart from other games whatsoever concerning the topic of judgement calls and rule enforcement.

Time, manpower and difficulty to enforce.

Time - judgement calls do not require copious amounts of time, and claims can be handled in succession. C'mon, you've put on tournaments, you know this just as well as I do.

Manpower - irrelevant, many gaming institutions are even more substantially outnumbered on the ratio of competitors to directors/organizers, and have little issue dealing with problems more complicated than this while using judgement calls.

Difficulty to enforce - judgement calls aren't difficult to enforce. This goes back to simply needing bylaws to protect the decisions that are made by the tournament organizer/director. Their word should be final, regardless of if the competitor likes it, or not.

The Chess federation also has pretty clear rules in place. Judgment calls are almost never called in. There's a reason why the rules of Competitive Chess keeps changing, the many loopholes one can create using the current rules.

Almost never called in? The most commonly recurring issue a tournament director has to deal with is this:

Two players (regardless of rating) are playing. Player A is claiming a draw based on lack of demonstrable winning chances because he is low on time, arguing he could force the draw if he had enough time.

The tournament director has to use the critieria of "Could a C Level player draw against a Master in this position"?

Everyone that has played chess knows this is a fantastically vague criteria. In chess "making progress" often appears as not making progress, especially in master level games. which makes this rule a complete judgement call. I had to deal with this at least twice per tournament, and twice only if I was lucky.

Hell - even the "You touch it you move it." rule resorts in judgement calls, and it is pretty clear cut in terms of writing.

The bottomline is judgement calls can be made, and if the competitor doesn't like it - tough. They chose to play in that organization's tournament, and has to play by their rules, even if the competitor doesn't like the way in which they're enforced.

You're the TO, you have complete authority. What you say goes, whether the competitors like it, or not.

 

[Yuna]

Irrelevant. The topic here is judgement calls, not different laws within different organizations. The point that different gaming institutions can competently handle judgement calls is significant concerning the game (Brawl) under scrutiny. There is nothing substantial that sets SSBB apart from other games whatsoever.

No it's not. Smash is Chess is one huge distinction. Because just because judgment calls work for Chess doesn't mean it works for Smash. Chess is not even in the same genre as Smash.

Wow, so something works for baseball. Since soccer is also a sport, it should work for soccer, too, right? Wrong.

Besides, how often are judgment calls used in Competitive Chess?! Almost never and almost always only in cases of ties where ties are discouraged against and even against the rules and even then, it's BS since people will contest it and it's still an arbitrary subjective judgment call!

Time - judgement calls do not require copious amounts of time, and claims can be handled in succession. C'mon, you've put on tournaments, you know this just as well as I do.

How do they not require copious amounts of time? You have to station a TO to watch each Meta-Knight match where you think they'll try to push the limits of the tehc.

Manpower - irrelevant, many gaming institutions are even more substantially outnumbered on the ratio of competitors to directors/organizers, and have little issue dealing with problems more complicated than this while using judgement calls.

We are not some kind of huge gaming organization with countless TOs. Most tournaments are held by amateurs TOs, not huge organizations!

Difficulty to enforce - judgement calls aren't difficult to enforce. This goes back to simply needing bylaws to protect the decisions that are made by the tournament organizer/director. Their word should be final, regardless of if the competitor likes it, or not.

Pray tell, what would these rules be?

"If the TO says it's so, then it's so!"? What kind of BS rules would these be?! No Competitive fighting game has rules like this when a TO can just subjectively go "You just lost!". Difficulty to enforce because we'd need stopwatches.

You can't just have a TO look at a match and by subjectively timing go "You've breached the time limit!"!

Almost never called in? The most commonly recurring issue a tournament director has to deal with is this:

Two players (regardless of rating) are playing. Player A is claiming a draw based on lack of demonstrable winning chances because he is low on time, arguing he could force the draw if he had enough time.

The tournament director has to use the critieria of "Could a C Level player draw against a Master in this position"?

Everyone that has played chess knows this is a fantastically vague criteria. In chess "making progress" often appears as not making progress, especially in master level games. which makes this rule a complete judgement call. I had to deal with this at least twice per tournament, and twice only if I was lucky.

You can actually look at the game to read if you can force a draw in that situation. Yes, it's a judgment call, but it's not something as arbitrary as "Oh, he used it for 3.02 seconds instead of 2.99!".

Hell - even the "You touch it you move it." rule resorts in judgement calls, and it is pretty clear cut in terms of writing.

I'm sorry, but "You touch it, you move it!" is as hard to spot (if you're keeping an eye on the players' hands) as "3.03 instead of 2.99 seconds" since when now?

And that has nothing to do with Smash! It's just some random Chess rules with absolutely no parallel to Smash! Just because judgment calls work for Chess doesn't mean it will for Smash!

This is this and that is that. God I'm getting so fed off with "Chess analogy!" people. Why, hello thar. I play Go. In Go, there are no judgment calls. There are clear rules for everything. Guess what, I can just go "Go rules trumph Chess rules. Since Go has no judgment calls, we shouldn't have them in Smash either!".

This is this and that is that. Go > Chess.

And guess what, Competitive sports try to avoid judgment calls as much as possible. In games with umpires, there are very often bad calls either through the umpire just not seeing the foul or just a blatantly bad judgment call. Someone will be unjustly robbed of a victory and a lot of people will be upset and what can you do?

Nothing. Except something totally unfair just happened and a lot of people are left pissed. If it can be avoided, then we avoid it.

The bottomline is judgement calls can be made, and if the competitor doesn't like it - tough. They chose to play in that organization's tournament, and has to play by their rules, even if the competitor doesn't like the way in which they're enforced.

You're the TO, you have complete authority. What you say goes, whether the competitors like it, or not.

The TO basically just decided who wins or loses a tournament. And that is highly discouraged against in Competitive play (unless it's specifically a contest with judges). Guess what, just because it kinda works for Chess means bupkis.

 

[Marth & Ike]

No it's not. Smash is Chess is one huge distinction. Because just because judgment calls work for Chess doesn't mean it works for Smash. Chess is not even in the same genre as Smash.

Wow, so something works for baseball. Since soccer is also a sport, it should work for soccer, too, right? Wrong.

Again, you keep throwing out rules within games applying to other rules within games.

The topic is judgement calls. I've been extremely clear on this. Anything beyond that is a strawman that I have no need to address.

Besides, how often are judgment calls used in Competitive Chess?! Almost never and almost always only in cases of ties where ties are discouraged against and even against the rules and even then, it's BS since people will contest it and it's still an arbitrary subjective judgment call!

Judgement calls are the norm - the primary issue being the claimed draw. If you want, I will elucidate on 2 more easy/common examples that have nothing to do with draws. I was originally going to include, but have snipped them both for brevity (they're saved to MS Word if you want them).

Or I can take this to more commercially known sports/games - football/baseball/basketball/hockey, etc.

A game has to be extremely linear to not require judgement calls.

How do they not require copious amounts of time? You have to station a TO to watch each Meta-Knight match where you think they'll try to push the limits of the tehc.

It's not time limit that's an issue. It is deciding if it has been used as a stalling tactic, therefore it is a judgement call, and not a big deal. If you think the person was doing it, and you had a reason to believe it, you get to make the call.

The competitor will either err on the side of caution and not risk getting kicked out, or he has to deal with the reality of what he's doing.

You are the authority as the organizer, and you make the rules. I've said this before, because it is completely true no matter how much competitors dislike it. If they don't like it, they can run their own tournaments.

We are not some kind of huge gaming organization with countless TOs. Most tournaments are held by amateurs TOs, not huge organizations!

If amateurs are holding a tournament, then they are in fact the organization (as they are the organizing body)- their rule is law. They just need to make sure they have a document drawn up detailing the rules, and have everyone sign it. It isn't a big deal. If the participants understand this, then they have no right to complain.

Pray tell, what would these rules be?

"If the TO says it's so, then it's so!"? What kind of BS rules would these be?! No Competitive fighting game has rules like this when a TO can just subjectively go "You just lost!". Difficulty to enforce because we'd need stopwatches.

Anything reasonably perceived by the tournament organizer(s) to be stalling without the intent of advancing the match is a bannable offense.

Was that so hard? There's a reason laws can have ambiguous language - to leave it up to the authorities to flexibly enforce them based on the event at hand.

As a prophylactic measure - if someone is complaining a lot they can be banned for stalling. Ambiguous language is easily applicable.

You can't just have a TO look at a match and by subjectively timing go "You've breached the time limit!"!

Time limit isn't necessary - it is entirely irrelevant. You only wish to have one in order to not have to deal with judgement calls.

The bottom line is you simply don't like judgement calls and aren't comfortable with them. That's fine, and you can reflect it in your tournaments. It doesn't change the fact that those that are comfortable with judgement calls can enforce them accordingly. It isn't hard, and it certainly isn't impractical.

You can actually look at the game to read if you can force a draw in that situation. Yes, it's a judgment call, but it's not something as arbitrary as "Oh, he used it for 3.02 seconds instead of 2.99!".

The rule isn't based on a forced demonstrable draw [that's why it uses the criteria of C class player against master (a low E class player could easily perform a forced draw on the best player in the world)]. It is based on the idea of the opponent not being able to capably advance his winning chances, which is an entirely subjective call made by the tournament organizer.

I'm sorry, but "You touch it, you move it!" is as hard to spot (if you're keeping an eye on the players' hands) as "3.03 instead of 2.99 seconds" since when now?

The intricacies stem more from the close quarters of the pieces, and how easy it is to have your fingers touch a piece you in no way intend to move. There's also the issue of adjusting pieces on to their squares, and saying "j'adoube". If your opponent doesn't hear you, the TD has to be called over, and make judgement based on the information given to him.

And that has nothing to do with Smash! It's just some random Chess rules with absolutely no parallel to Smash! Just because judgment calls work for Chess doesn't mean it will for Smash!

Smash is not that **** special. Judgement calls work in all sports/games. Period.

People may not like the outcome, but that doesn't change the reality.

This is this and that is that. God I'm getting so fed off with "Chess analogy!" people. Why, hello thar. I play Go. In Go, there are no judgment calls. There are clear rules for everything. Guess what, I can just go "Go rules trumph Chess rules. Since Go has no judgment calls, we shouldn't have them in Smash either!".

This is this and that is that. Go > Chess.

Any gaming done at a competitive level has rules requiring judgement calls. Pick a game/sport - it has them. There's a reason for it, as well.

How about the stalling done without Metaknight's broken move? Unless you see it (much like MK's), you have to pass judgement on whether it happened or not.

And guess what, Competitive sports try to avoid judgment calls as much as possible. In games with umpires, there are very often bad calls either through the umpire just not seeing the foul or just a blatantly bad judgment call. Someone will be unjustly robbed of a victory and a lot of people will be upset and what can you do?

There's not a **** thing you can do. There's also the pragmatism behind realizing you will never, ever, avoid the existance of judgement calls in a game that is not linear.

Attempting to avoid them in no way deals with the fact that they will always be there to some extent. Hell, even instant replay forces judgement calls, and they have more evidence as to what happened!

Nothing. Except something totally unfair just happened and a lot of people are left pissed. If it can be avoided, then we avoid it.

Unfair things happen in competitions even when you try to avoid them. It's the reality of competitive anything.

The TO basically just decided who wins or loses a tournament. And that is highly discouraged against in Competitive play (unless it's specifically a contest with judges). Guess what, just because it kinda works for Chess means bupkis.

As if a TO/referree/umpire/official/TD has never decided who won/lost a game...

Chess doesn't claim that right to itself, rendering your assertion erroneous.

 

[Yuna]

For the love of... how the hell do you decide if something is used as excessive stalling if there's no time limit on it? How is using it for 2 seconds at a time more severe stalling than shooting people with the laser and running away as Fox?

We don't have EVO rules that say "If the TO thinks you're stalling excessively, you lose", we have clear rules that define what constitutes excessive stalling.

You cannot just have TOs randomly going "Well, I personally think you've stalled so much now, you lose.". The only way for us to regulate this if with a time limit! The rules of Competitive fighting games are written to avoid judgment calls as much as possible.

 

[Marth & Ike]

For the love of... how the hell do you decide if something is used as excessive stalling if there's no time limit on it? How is using it for 2 seconds at a time more severe stalling than shooting people with the laser and running away as Fox?

It's not any less severe, and that's what the judgement of the tournament organizer is for.

Also, a rule written in such a way would pre-empt possibly as of now unknown methods of stalling.

However, all it ultimately comes back down to is that judgement calls could handle this just as well as an outright ban while maintaining practicality.

(The 2nd sentence reminds me of the US Constitution's language)

We don't have EVO rules that say "If the TO thinks you're stalling excessively, you lose", we have clear rules that define what constitutes excessive stalling.

Right.

You cannot just have TOs randomly going "Well, I personally think you've stalled so much now, you lose.". The only way for us to regulate this if with a time limit! The rules of Competitive fighting games are written to avoid judgment calls as much as possible.

I would hope the TO isn't randomly doing anything. I would hope he is exercising his judgement as best he can - hence judgement calls.

I'm well aware rules are generally written to avoid judgement calls - it doesn't change the fact that they will occur.

However, you are the tournament organizer, so you banning it is law anyways, and all of this is just conjecture.

 

[Yuna]

I said: "For the love of... how the hell do you decide if something is used as excessive stalling if there's no time limit on it? How is using it for 2 seconds at a time more severe stalling than shooting people with the laser and running away as Fox?"

You said: It's not any less severe, and that's what the judgement of the tournament organizer is for.

What? Lasering someone as Fox and then running away is severe and should be grounds for disqualification upon the subjective judgment call of TOs? Yeah... I stopped reading after that.

Also, we cannot have TOs using judgment calls to decide what is and what isn't stalling. One TO's stalling is another's camping. To allow for TO's to arbitrarily and subjectively decide who wins and who forfeits is ludicrous.

In Competitive gaming, we try to avoid judgement calls as much as possible. Can this be avoided? Yes. Ban the technique altogether. The loss of the technique does not render the game unplayable or somehow make Meta-Knight suck (in fact, not banning it would make him so good we'd have to ban it anyway or ban Meta-Knight entirely). Banning it is easy and removes the problem of judgment calls. It makes the lives of TOs easier and tournaments run smoother.

 

[Marth & Ike]

I said: "For the love of... how the hell do you decide if something is used as excessive stalling if there's no time limit on it? How is using it for 2 seconds at a time more severe stalling than shooting people with the laser and running away as Fox?"

You said: It's not any less severe, and that's what the judgement of the tournament organizer is for.

What? Lasering someone as Fox and then running away is severe and should be grounds for disqualification upon the subjective judgment call of TOs? Yeah... I stopped reading after that.

If Fox is incessantly lasering, running away, and it is entirely impossible to catch him, what is it if not stalling? It's not much different from Metaknight suddenly emerging from Dimensional Cape, getting a hit in, and then repeating the process. A tournament organizer would be fully able to use his judgement to recognize the intent of both. It's obvious that both are stalling.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Pragmatism wins the day.

Also, we cannot have TOs using judgment calls to decide what is and what isn't stalling. One TO's stalling is another's camping. To allow for TO's to arbitrarily and subjectively decide who wins and who forfeits is ludicrous.

If it is a potential issue then define camping and stalling in the bylaws.

In Competitive gaming, we try to avoid judgement calls as much as possible. Can this be avoided? Yes. Ban the technique altogether. The loss of the technique does not render the game unplayable or somehow make Meta-Knight suck (in fact, not banning it would make him so good we'd have to ban it anyway or ban Meta-Knight entirely). Banning it is easy and removes the problem of judgment calls. It makes the lives of TOs easier and tournaments run smoother.

The complete ban works, as would just dealing with a ban on stalling in general.

All competitive games/sports generally seek to reduce judgement calls where they can, and leave them open-ended when necessary.

 

[Scissors Sir]

Why is it so farfetched to have TOs decide certain things? There are rules set in major league sports but there's still a ref to enforce (or not enforce) them

Sometimes refs miss certain calls and sometimes they're dead on and get the calls right.

How about we all just stop playing brawl and play othello/reversi?

*runs off to play brawl*

 

[IrArby]

Why is it so farfetched to have TOs decide certain things? There are rules set in major league sports but there's still a ref to enforce (or not enforce) them

Sometimes refs miss certain calls and sometimes they're dead on and get the calls right.QUOTE]

OK. Lets take Baseball for instance. But, instead of having the umpire make one call at a time on who's safe or out, we'll have both teams break up into pairs and thumbwrestle each other. Then, the umpires gotta decide who's cheating or not (actually using the technique wrongly to stall), and who's held the other guys thumb down for a full three seconds (if we do put a time limit on it), and if he gets complaints from one player that another player cheated, he didn't see so he can't make the call fairly.

Thats similar to what running a tournament with this technique would look like.

 

[OldSchool]

Just ban the move, have some people QQ about it for a little bit, and move on. If this doesn't get banned in tourney play, everyone and their mama is gonna pick MK and use it. Then you have to hope that you can stall better than your opponent. Maybe if it wasn't just one character as is the case with jab/laser locks, which are legal.

 

[Marth & Ike]

OK. Lets take Baseball for instance. But, instead of having the umpire make one call at a time on who's safe or out, we'll have both teams break up into pairs and thumbwrestle each other. Then, the umpires gotta decide who's cheating or not (actually using the technique wrongly to stall), and who's held the other guys thumb down for a full three seconds (if we do put a time limit on it), and if he gets complaints from one player that another player cheated, he didn't see so he can't make the call fairly.

Thats similar to what running a tournament with this technique would look like.

Considering arguments from the teams (usually managers) themselves are utterly irrelevant in baseball since the umpire has final say based on his judgement, your analogy is bad. That was funny as hell, though!

 

[grandmaster192]

Wow... Just wow.

Banning this move altogether is just lame. Outside of stalling, which should be irrelivent, the move has not proven itself broken. Banning usage of a move makes no sense at all. It's only because it's metaknight that people want it banned. If shiek did this, people would say nothing. Instead, they would just see her as a new higher tiered characer.

Seriously, why play the **** game is you are going to ban any advance tech that gets discovered? And before it's even proved broken in a tourney? If it does break the game to where it's mk vs mk, you ban metaknight altogether like any other fighting game would. Don't try and put a limit on how far a character grow.

 

[Yuna]

Wow... Just wow.

Banning this move altogether is just lame. Outside of stalling, which should be irrelivent, the move has not proven itself broken. Banning usage of a move makes no sense at all. It's only because it's metaknight that people want it banned. If shiek did this, people would say nothing. Instead, they would just see her as a new higher tiered characer.

Seriously, why play the **** game is you are going to ban any advance tech that gets discovered? And before it's even proved broken in a tourney? If it does break the game to where it's mk vs mk, you ban metaknight altogether like any other fighting game would. Don't try and put a limit on how far a character grow.

I believe I have personally said that we need to do extensive testing on this before banning it at least three times in this thread already. And so have others.

No one (credible) is saying "Ban it now, this very second!". We're just saying "Based on the evidence that exists, we believe it should be banned. Also, we think your reasons for not banning them are bad.".

Just because we don't say "but only after extensive testing" inbetween each paragraph doesn't mean we think it should be banned now.

No, it is not banned yet (except for maybe in New Mexico for reasons I do not know), no it will not be banned tomorrow, the day after or next week. There will be extensive testing and SBR deliberations and more debates and then it'll be banned or remain unbanned (for non-stalling).

 

[IrArby]

Considering arguments from the teams (usually managers) themselves are utterly irrelevant in baseball since the umpire has final say based on his judgement, your analogy is bad. That was funny as hell, though!

Its not bad since the point is the umpire won't see half of whats going on and won't be able to make good judement calls. And like thumbwrestling, banning this tech for stalling leaves you a lot of gray area and a lot of lee way (or possibly leighway if Witchking of Angmar is watching this thread too).

I'm glad someone enjoyed it though.

 

[Overswarm]

This doesn't require as much tournament testing as you think because this isn't an offensive based attack.

This is a stalling option that literally has no counter save for "I hope he messes up" or a vague ban on stalling, in which case a TO would need to be present at every match with a Metaknight.

 

[Pierce7d]

Wow... Just wow.

Banning this move altogether is just lame. Outside of stalling, which should be irrelivent, the move has not proven itself broken. Banning usage of a move makes no sense at all. It's only because it's metaknight that people want it banned. If shiek did this, people would say nothing. Instead, they would just see her as a new higher tiered characer.

Seriously, why play the **** game is you are going to ban any advance tech that gets discovered? And before it's even proved broken in a tourney? If it does break the game to where it's mk vs mk, you ban metaknight altogether like any other fighting game would. Don't try and put a limit on how far a character grow.

Very wrong. Even if C. Falcon or Ganondorf could do this, it would still warrent a ban.

It's not any less severe, and that's what the judgement of the tournament organizer is for.

Also, a rule written in such a way would pre-empt possibly as of now unknown methods of stalling.

However, all it ultimately comes back down to is that judgement calls could handle this just as well as an outright ban while maintaining practicality.

(The 2nd sentence reminds me of the US Constitution's language)



Right.

Have you ever been to a smash tournament?

I would hope the TO isn't randomly doing anything. I would hope he is exercising his judgment as best he can - hence judgment calls.

I'm well aware rules are generally written to avoid judgment calls - it doesn't change the fact that they will occur.

However, you are the tournament organizer, so you banning it is law anyways, and all of this is just conjecture.

You argue soundly, but I must disagree. To put it quite simply, most Smash matches remain unmonitored, because the only reason someone would need to monitor a game of Smash and to make a judgment call is if someone is suspected of cheating. Since we like drawing on examples, I'll bring up baseball again. We need an umpire to determine if a pitch was a 'strike' or a 'ball'. This is subjective, because we need someone to determine whether or not the ball was inside the "box" which results in a strike.

Now, this is a real-life sport. The difference is that in a video game, the game monitors and keeps score and track of a great many things for us. In fact, if there were no banned techniques in brawl, and no time limit, the ONLY type of judgment calls a TO would have to make is if a physical attempt of disruption outside the game. That's the awesomeness of video games.

Since we have decided to ban certain techniques within the game, NOW we have a need for judgment calls. We created this need ourselves. However, in the essence of fairness (because if you aren't objectively aimed at creating a rule-set that is fair, then you definitely shouldn't input in creating the rules) and also practicality, we need rules that are easily enforceable and practically applicable (with reasonable consequences for breaking the rules.)

As previously pointed out by Yuna, all other techniques that weren't banned were created in confidence that they could be reasonably monitored. I think it's been the consensus of people on both sides of the argument that this cannot be reasonably monitored, since people that seemingly don't want the technique banned are now arguing that we should subject ourselves to the judgment of the TO.

So now we are forced to look at which is the better solution: trust in the TO to make good judgment calls, or simply ban the problematic technique?

To me, the solution of banning the technique is ridiculously obvious.

If Fox is incessantly lasering, running away, and it is entirely impossible to catch him, what is it if not stalling? It's not much different from Metaknight suddenly emerging from Dimensional Cape, getting a hit in, and then repeating the process. A tournament organizer would be fully able to use his judgement to recognize the intent of both. It's obvious that both are stalling.

The Fox situation is not stalling unless he continues to do whatever he's doing far after foe is practically K.O.able. He is successfully evading his opponent and camping at long range. Let's say the foe is Ganondorf, and the offender is Pit. Let's say they are fighting on Final Destination. Pit remains airborne the entire match, firing arrows at Ganondorf from off stage, and whenever Ganon tries to get close, Pit flies under the stage and resumes fire. Since Pit can decide to turn around with WoI, and Ganondorf is pretty slow, it's relatively possible to actually assume Ganon cannot catch up. However, this is camping, not stalling, and is perfectly a viable solution. It is the consequence of a bad match-up, on a disadvantaged stage. So long as Pit K.O.ed Ganondorf reasonably, he would not be stalling. There would be no legit reason for continuing this tactic past a certain damage percentage. This is where a T.O. would be called to pass judgment, and cap the percentage which a Pit could do this to (easily monitored, a T.O. would merely have to look at the percentage, and wouldn't have to witness the whole match). It's decided that at about 201% that Pit can easily K.O. Ganondorf, so Pit must stop firing arrows from afar at this percentage, since more damage would not really assist him in K.O.ing Ganon.

Now, that's different that this situation with Dimension Cape in a number of ways.
A) This can be activated and stopped almost anywhere at almost any time. It is very circumstantial which makes it much more difficult to monitor.

B) This technique grants outright invincibility, and cannot be counter picked by any non-banned stage, or more importantly, any character in the roster.

C) This technique grants invisibility and invincibility, while allowing you to move almost anywhere, relatively quickly, being extremely potent for stalling.

D) This technique is subjective in it's use by the sheer nature of activating a move that enables literal invincibility while you move, for an extended period of time.

This doesn't require as much tournament testing as you think because this isn't an offensive based attack.

This is a stalling option that literally has no counter save for "I hope he messes up" or a vague ban on stalling, in which case a TO would need to be present at every match with a Metaknight.

Actually, this can also be used as a BROKEN offensive tactic, also deserving banning in that department imo. Trust me, I am not one to cry "zomg, that's way to broken, and since I'm a punk player, ban it now" but everyone must agree there are limits. If Sonic could execute his Final Smash once a minute through some AT, we wouldn't say "Oh, well since it's not for the whole match, don't ban it. A good player will avoid the Sonic while he's invincible and super fast, and then fight him while they can," and we wouldn't ban Sonic, we'd just ban whatever AT allows him to go Super Sonic during the match. Same here.

Wow... Just wow.

Banning this move altogether is just lame. Outside of stalling, which should be irrelivent, the move has not proven itself broken. Banning usage of a move makes no sense at all. It's only because it's metaknight that people want it banned. If shiek did this, people would say nothing. Instead, they would just see her as a new higher tiered characer.

Seriously, why play the **** game is you are going to ban any advance tech that gets discovered? And before it's even proved broken in a tourney? If it does break the game to where it's mk vs mk, you ban metaknight altogether like any other fighting game would. Don't try and put a limit on how far a character grow.

We don't wait for a move to prove itself broken. We are not blind, and can clearly see when a move is broken. Take above Sonic final smash instance. Are we going to wait for a few Sonic mains and everyone who's smash enough to hop on the Sonic bandwagon to abuse this at tourneys before banning it? It's not even stalling (unless you just use it once a minute, run out the clock, and evade with Sonic's speed).

We haven't banned ANY advance technique in Brawl. This is the first one of a caliber that needs to have a ban considered that we've discovered. Of COURSE we're going to limit the growth of a character if they grow outside the REASONABLE playing boundaries. You would decide not to ban a Super Sonic AT because it's limiting Sonic's growth? WTF?

Furthermore, no character in this game is not so broken that they are uncontested so long as we don't take broken ATs into account. This being said, we would never ban Metaknight, over simply banning a technique that makes him godly.

Seriously, if this doesn't get banned, I'm considering quitting competitive Smash. While Metaknight is my third (I don't usually use him in tournaments but I am well versed in how to play him.) I have NO desire to learn how to abuse this move better than the next guy on a competitive level. That is not what SSB is all about.

And unlike Yuna, we have already seen a bit of what this technique can do, and can reasonably assume how it will affect the metagame if unchecked. I would ban it now, and unban it after extensive testing has been done and a reasonable counter has been found.

 

[grandmaster192]

I believe I have personally said that we need to do extensive testing on this before banning it at least three times in this thread already. And so have others.

No one (credible) is saying "Ban it now, this very second!". We're just saying "Based on the evidence that exists, we believe it should be banned. Also, we think your reasons for not banning them are bad.".

Just because we don't say "but only after extensive testing" inbetween each paragraph doesn't mean we think it should be banned now.

No, it is not banned yet (except for maybe in New Mexico for reasons I do not know), no it will not be banned tomorrow, the day after or next week. There will be extensive testing and SBR deliberations and more debates and then it'll be banned or remain unbanned (for non-stalling).

Ah, ok. I understand; however, there's one more thing I would address.

If this move is proven to be broken -- and Metaknight joins Akuma and Gill in the god tier -- why doesn't MetaKnight just get banned altogether? You relieze that by banning this, you are cherry-picking an obviously broken character, right? You're pretty much saying, "MetaKnight we can not allow you to grow as character because of how good you are". Are you going to ban every advanced tech disovered for Metaknight? But, on the other hand, you're going to allow other characters to grow and use new AT's when they're discovered? I've said it before and I will say again: If this breaks the game, you have to ban MetaKnight. Furthermore, it need to be proven broken in a competive scene before we can deem it as such. A move is not game breaking until it breaks the game.

Extensive testing simply isn't enough, as you can never emulate a tourney situation accurately. This is banned as stalling no matter what, though. I would hope we can all agree on that. Stalling is banned no matter what move is being used, so that should be irrelivent. The real issue is if this move, as an appraoch option and spacing tool, put Metaknight into god tier.

You simply ban Metaknight if it does.

 

[Overswarm]

If this move is proven to be broken -- and Metaknight joins Akuma and Gill in the god tier -- why doesn't MetaKnight just get banned altogether? You relieze that by banning this, you are cherry-picking an obviously broken character, right?

Metaknight will not be banned altogether because he hasn't proven himself to be broken and he still fits within the realm of a fighting game. So he wins on the EC, so what? Snake is winning on the west and ROB is winning in the midwest. MK isn't dominating 100% anywhere.

Besides, I recall a similar situation with Sheik in Melee, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Yuna]

If Akuma had been broken only through using a specific (or several specific) glitches that were impossible to do by accident, they would've just banned the technique instead of the character itself. A character ban is always the last resort.

 

[Pierce7d]

Ah, ok. I understand; however, there's one more thing I would address.

If this move is proven to be broken -- and Metaknight joins Akuma and Gill in the god tier -- why doesn't MetaKnight just get banned altogether? You relieze that by banning this, you are cherry-picking an obviously broken character, right? You're pretty much saying, "MetaKnight we can not allow you to grow as character because of how good you are". Are you going to ban every advanced tech disovered for Metaknight? But, on the other hand, you're going to allow other characters to grow and use new AT's when they're discovered? I've said it before and I will say again: If this breaks the game, you have to ban MetaKnight. Furthermore, it need to be proven broken in a competive scene before we can deem it as such. A move is not game breaking until it breaks the game.

Extensive testing simply isn't enough, as you can never emulate a tourney situation accurately. This is banned as stalling no matter what, though. I would hope we can all agree on that. Stalling is banned no matter what move is being used, so that should be irrelivent. The real issue is if this move, as an appraoch option and spacing tool, put Metaknight into god tier.

You simply ban Metaknight if it does.

So if I could turn Super Sonic by hitting L, L, L, R, L, Y, X, Y, X, A, B, L on my controller in under 4 seconds, while playing Sonic, and I could do this three times a match, any time I wanted, we should ban Sonic, instead of just banning the technique, because it's cherry-picking on Sonic and limits his growth? That's ********, no matter what character you apply this to.

 

[IrArby]

Besides, I recall a similar situation with Sheik in Melee, and we all know how that turned out.

Yea but techs were developed that made many more characters more playable. Shiek was already on top. Its not like Shiek was on top beating almost everyone then we discovered something else that made her much better.

There are no AT to dislodge MK or Snake and probably never will be.

 

[ADHD]

Yea but techs were developed that made many more characters more playable. Shiek was already on top. Its not like Shiek was on top beating almost everyone then we discovered something else that made her much better.

There are no AT to dislodge MK or Snake and probably never will be.

That's barlw for you!

 

[Pierce7d]

Yea but techs were developed that made many more characters more playable. Shiek was already on top. Its not like Shiek was on top beating almost everyone then we discovered something else that made her much better.

There are no AT to dislodge MK or Snake and probably never will be.

A) We don't know that.

B) As it stands now, NONE of these characters are impossible to beat if you have enough skill (the advanced tech in topic aside). Allowing Metaknight to use this tech may very well push him to that level.

 

[Overswarm]

Yea but techs were developed that made many more characters more playable. Shiek was already on top. Its not like Shiek was on top beating almost everyone then we discovered something else that made her much better.

There are no AT to dislodge MK or Snake and probably never will be.

ATs weren't what beat Sheik; Fox beat Sheik. People simply theorized that Fox would own Sheik, and the problem was there were no good foxes. Then a few people picked him up, then good players picked him up, and then Sheik had a counter. The metagame progressed from there.

I would bet money that MK won't stay in the minds of other's to be in the #1 spot. It will be heavily debated in the future, I can assure you.

 

[grandmaster192]

Akuma's most broken move back in the day was his air fire ball. You could have put a limit on that to tone him down. But that would be bull. Akuma was just broken and it was, unlike this move, PROVEN in tourneys. I think you should limit a characters options like that when it's a move of theirs.