MetaKnight Infinite Dimensional Cape - hope you enjoy

[metaXzero]

I'm really beginning to believe he just wants it unbanned so that, if it is, he can go around SWF claiming to be the one that brought it to the attention of Smashboards.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=182478


I don't see any other reason.

Wat

I don't get what you are saying. I can't claim any fame from IDC's discovery (I had no part in it). All I did was make a thread showing it (which eventually was made to redirect to Seth's thread here) -__-

My reasons for wanting IDC unbanned are simply this; If something is banned, it shouldn't be banned with faulty reasoning. Meaning, I SHOULDN'T be able to make a case for it. But here I am.

 

[Lancer3000]

Can you use Meta Knight's Infinite Cape with Numchuks and Wii Remote???

 

[metaXzero]

Can you use Meta Knight's Infinite Cape with Numchuks and Wii Remote???

Yes. Wiimote+Nunchuk can IDC (If you set D-pad to Smashes).

lol. How many times has this been asked?

 

[Jumpi 95]

Alot. Thats actualy how I do it.XD
I made that setting onto my name. Thats why I always have to use Jumpi when I brawl.

 

[metaXzero]

Alot. Thats actualy how I do it.XD
I made that setting onto my name. Thats why I always have to use Jumpi when I brawl.

Oh yeah! IDC is much easier with Wiimote+Nunchuck then anything else. I simply thought you were really good with mashing Up-C-stick rhythmitcally when we fought.

 

[Jumpi 95]

NOPE! Thats why I cant short hop though. I use C to jump.

 

[metaXzero]

NOPE! Thats why I cant short hop though. I use C to jump.

Eeeh. That's a problem. You sure you can't short-hop?

I wonder, what's the longest this has been held on GC or VC controller...

 

[Jumpi 95]

I have no clue. And I can short hop, but only on some characters. Like MK I cant short hop but Falco I can.

 

[Tornadith]

..but you can't do this in tournaments because of delay of match.

 

[metaXzero]

..but you can't do this in tournaments because of delay of match.

I've made a thread in Tournament Discussion to try and unban IDC (again).

 

[Jumpi 95]

META!!! I JUST REMEMBERED SOMETHING! For one of the hacks in Brawl, I can make it so it simulates MKs IDC Perfectly at max. I can see how long it will take and report back here. What ya think!

 

[metaXzero]

META!!! I JUST REMEMBERED SOMETHING! For one of the hacks in Brawl, I can make it so it simulates MKs IDC Perfectly at max. I can see how long it will take and report back here. What ya think!

Basically, a Perfect Control-esque vid of IDC where they always come out exactly when they want and can hold it out for minutes on end? Uh sure?

Well guys, IDC might as well be unbanned. I posted my proposal in Tournament Discussion and the keep-ban side failed to make a good case to keep it banned. So yeah....TO's have no real reason to ban it and SBR has no real reason too keep this banned besides being stubborn with their rules.

So........Yay! \^o^/

 

[CrayZ]

awsome gimping mindgames, i use this when i smash some one from corner to corner then INF cape to the ledge and gimp.

 

[Paingel]

Now, first off, as a MK main I am fully in favor of banning this move unless it turns out to be counterable or interruptable. As a MK main I will still probably use this in friendlies for kicks. I fully agree with most of Yuna's and MookieRah's points EXCEPT for this:

Also, 5 seconds left on the match clock, your whatever vs. my Meta-Knight. I'm 2% ahead, I perform it. What now? Another arbitrary rule? "No use of this technique while there's only 5 seconds left on the clock"? What if I do it with only 10 seconds left, do it for 5 seconds, grab the ledge and then proceed to jump off the stage and use my jumps to stall the rest of the match away?

This point is completely absurd. 5 seconds is stalling in your book? Wow. If the match lasted for 7 minutes and 55 seconds then it was dragging on to begin with. 5 seconds doesn't make a difference. Hitting someone within the FIRST five seconds a game and running around Temple with your faster character so that you never lose your 10% damage lead for the whole game is stalling. Fighting it out until the last 5 seconds and then becoming untouchable is not.

Let me put it this way. Let's say there's X frames in a match. If I do my spot dodge, it will make me untouchable for X frames. So I spot dodge in the last split second of the match. Is that stalling? How is that ANY different than actually fighting?

Let's say there's X seconds left on the clock. Both I and my opponent have the same stock count, but I have a 5% damage lead on him. It doesn't really matter what X is, but let's just say it's a single digit number. I know if I hit my opponent away with Y move, it'll take him X+1 seconds to get back within range to hit me. So I hit him with Y and solidify my lead in the match. Is that stalling? How is that ANY different than actually fighting?

Granted, in an 8 minute match, 5 seconds is ~1.04% of the total time. It's not huge, but I can see someone squabbling over that in a close money match.

I had to post this in a hurry so I haven't had time to fully consider my points, but I'm just throwing this out there.

 

[metaXzero]

Paingel. That post was from nearly 6 months ago. lol Don't think Yuna's going to come back since he hasn't been back when I destroyed the stalling problem of IDC.

Again, with the stalling problem addressed and taken care of (and the keep-ban side failing to make a good case why IDC should remain banned anyway), IDC might as we be unbanned ^_^

 

[DMG]

Paingel. That post was from nearly 6 months ago. lol Don't think Yuna's going to come back since he hasn't been back when I destroyed the stalling problem of IDC.

Again, with the stalling problem addressed and taken care of (and the keep-ban side failing to make a good case why IDC should remain banned anyway), IDC might as we be unbanned ^_^

Maybe you think the stalling issue was solved and we disagree? I don't think the stalling issue with it can ever be reasonably solved, at least not with written rules.

 

[Jumpi 95]

Hey wait a munite... Can Pits Wings move MK in this?

 

[TheM]

Now, first off, as a MK main I am fully in favor of banning this move unless it turns out to be counterable or interruptable. As a MK main I will still probably use this in friendlies for kicks. I fully agree with most of Yuna's and MookieRah's points EXCEPT for this:



This point is completely absurd. 5 seconds is stalling in your book? Wow. If the match lasted for 7 minutes and 55 seconds then it was dragging on to begin with. 5 seconds doesn't make a difference. Hitting someone within the FIRST five seconds a game and running around Temple with your faster character so that you never lose your 10% damage lead for the whole game is stalling. Fighting it out until the last 5 seconds and then becoming untouchable is not.

Let me put it this way. Let's say there's X frames in a match. If I do my spot dodge, it will make me untouchable for X frames. So I spot dodge in the last split second of the match. Is that stalling? How is that ANY different than actually fighting?

Let's say there's X seconds left on the clock. Both I and my opponent have the same stock count, but I have a 5% damage lead on him. It doesn't really matter what X is, but let's just say it's a single digit number. I know if I hit my opponent away with Y move, it'll take him X+1 seconds to get back within range to hit me. So I hit him with Y and solidify my lead in the match. Is that stalling? How is that ANY different than actually fighting?

Granted, in an 8 minute match, 5 seconds is ~1.04% of the total time. It's not huge, but I can see someone squabbling over that in a close money match.

I had to post this in a hurry so I haven't had time to fully consider my points, but I'm just throwing this out there.

man, you missed Yuna's point completely. he said that the only way to stop the stalling use of IDC is to make an arbitrary rule which won't make sense. I agree with that. In your post, you say a whole bunch of stuff about why 5 seconds isn't stalling. Then what is considered stalling? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? 2 minutes? Anyways, let's say you set this arbitrary "barrier" to prevent stalling at ....1 minute. Okay, then 59 seconds of IDC will become the next best strategy for MK's. If we can agree that IDC can be humanly performed for stalling, then this should be banned. However, I have not seen any proof of that, so for now I am neutral. Also I think that if this does become unbanned and in tournies it was shown to be broken or to have an over-centralizing effect on the metagame, then it should be banned again.

 

[metaXzero]

Maybe you think the stalling issue was solved and we disagree? I don't think the stalling issue with it can ever be reasonably solved, at least not with written rules.

We assume people "play to win". Under my current rule, holding out IDC for minutes upon minutes will bring you closer and closer to defeat if that timer hits zero. Why would anyone drag matches out for minutes straight with IDC if it can make them lose the match?

 

[DMG]

We assume people "play to win". Under my current rule, holding out IDC for minutes upon minutes will bring you closer and closer to defeat if that timer hits zero. Why would anyone drag matches out for minutes straight with IDC if it can make them lose the match?

Lol I understand very well that people normally play to win. I am a competitive player :/

There are problems with that rule. Players would get into arguments with you over even slight things.

What if a player uses the IDC on accident and his opponent camps him the entire match so that the MK player loses under your rule? What if he does it for only 5 seconds, gains nothing positionally, and is now forced to beat his opponent without time running out? Even if his opponent had only 1 stock left and MK had 3 left, he would lose under your rule.

When you suggested that MK would lose on time if he does IDC, what makes it unfair is if he does it for a very brief amount of time or just to prevent his opponent from hitting him while his opponent is invincible. He could get a huge lead and he would lose the entire match just because your rule thinks it would be unfair for him to do it very shortly if he gains nothing significant from it.

There's no way to improve on your rule without complex in depth writing explaining situations that would make MK lose or win depending on if he fit the situation. Not only that, but you would need someone to watch the TV to make sure no one is falsely accusing a player of breaking the rule.

This is why your rule does not work. It is hard to enforce, it is very judgmental and controversial, a majority of the community does not agree that it is fair/easy to enforce/or they flat out do not think it should be unbanned. Your rule would not be implemented for a number of reasons, some of them not even involving issues with enforcing it.

 

[metaXzero]

Lol I understand very well that people normally play to win. I am a competitive player :/

There are problems with that rule. Players would get into arguments with you over even slight things.

What if a player uses the IDC on accident and his opponent camps him the entire match so that the MK player loses under your rule? What if he does it for only 5 seconds, gains nothing positionally, and is now forced to beat his opponent without time running out? Even if his opponent had only 1 stock left and MK had 3 left, he would lose under your rule.

When you suggested that MK would lose on time if he does IDC, what makes it unfair is if he does it for a very brief amount of time or just to prevent his opponent from hitting him while his opponent is invincible. He could get a huge lead and he would lose the entire match just because your rule thinks it would be unfair for him to do it very shortly if he gains nothing significant from it.

There's no way to improve on your rule without complex in depth writing explaining situations that would make MK lose or win depending on if he fit the situation. Not only that, but you would need someone to watch the TV to make sure no one is falsely accusing a player of breaking the rule.

This is why your rule does not work. It is hard to enforce, it is very judgmental and controversial, a majority of the community does not agree that it is fair/easy to enforce/or they flat out do not think it should be unbanned. Your rule would not be implemented for a number of reasons, some of them not even involving issues with enforcing it.

I have a thread in Tournament Discussion about the further discussion of my rule. But I'll answer some questions here.

How do you use IDC on accident? How does that even work? If that even can happen, lots of people would be disqualified under the current ban of IDC.

Excluding MK, NO ONE has the perfect way of holding off MK (an anti-camp character) for an ENTIRE MATCH. Kudos if you can though. If you don't think the benefits of IDC are worth the possibility of the match time running out, well you don't use it.

Can we continue this in Tournament Discussion? I have a thread there. Please read it over before bringing up points though...

 

[Paingel]

Paingel. That post was from nearly 6 months ago. lol Don't think Yuna's going to come back since he hasn't been back when I destroyed the stalling problem of IDC.

Again, with the stalling problem addressed and taken care of (and the keep-ban side failing to make a good case why IDC should remain banned anyway), IDC might as we be unbanned ^_^

Wow... um... how did I not notice the dates? I swear, that 7 looked just like a 1 on the other monitor I was using. I thought all of that was posted just today.

Haha, very well then. I guess I won't be getting a response from him.

man, you missed Yuna's point completely. he said that the only way to stop the stalling use of IDC is to make an arbitrary rule which won't make sense. I agree with that. In your post, you say a whole bunch of stuff about why 5 seconds isn't stalling. Then what is considered stalling? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? 2 minutes? Anyways, let's say you set this arbitrary "barrier" to prevent stalling at ....1 minute. Okay, then 59 seconds of IDC will become the next best strategy for MK's. If we can agree that IDC can be humanly performed for stalling, then this should be banned. However, I have not seen any proof of that, so for now I am neutral. Also I think that if this does become unbanned and in tournies it was shown to be broken or to have an over-centralizing effect on the metagame, then it should be banned again.

No, I didn't miss his point. YOU missed MY point. If you need to set an arbitrary limit for stalling in general, 5 seconds is NOT it. In other words, I should NOT be forced to confront my opponent every 5 seconds. It just breaks too much of the game to make a rule like that. Players need a reasonable amount of room to maneuver.

If you're going to set a time limit on stalling in general, you have to take a moment to consider what x amount of time really means. 1 second is about enough time to perform most moves. 3 seconds would be ample time to recover safely. 1 second is also ample time to KO someone at a high enough percentage. 2 seconds would be about as much time as it would take to successfully escape a combo. Mindgaming an opponent into making a bad move and then punishing them for their unfortunate folly may even take as long as 7 seconds, and it can look an awful lot like stalling despite the fact that it might be a necessary tactic for some characters. It might take a total of 6 seconds to "catch your breath" mentally and figure out WTF your opponent is doing. A combo might take 5 seconds. These numbers are slightly exaggerated, but it's a rough estimate. And they clearly illustrate that 5 seconds is NOT stalling.

Stalling isn't a given amount of time. It's a type of TACTIC for WASTING time. A LOT of time. 25% of the match is a lot of time. 99% of the match is a lot of time. 1% of the match, when ANY BASIC TACTIC takes about that long, is NOT a lot of time.

Unless you're wise in the way of mindgames and can accurately tell if a person is stalling on purpose, instead of just waiting for an opportune moment to strike, then you aren't really qualified to say if a person is stalling or not. Granted, there's no mindgame IQ test for TOs that I'm aware of, so I realize that this fact makes it difficult to enforce a rule based on mindgames. It might be easier to make a rule based upon the amount of time that has passed, but easier isn't always better.

Also, the point about Tournies being understaffed, while I'm sure is perfectly truthful, has one basic flaw in it: If you can't have enough people to enforce the rules, then why even bother having rules?

Here's an idea: Record each match onto a VHS tape or some other media to review it later. Yes, it would take a lot of time to review EACH and EVERY match... BUT!! You don't have to review every match... just the ones that the losing player complains about. If neither player has any complaints about the match, you can just record over it. (Unless of course you wanted to keep it for some reason.) No big deal, really. Granted, this does add some overhead to the cost of running the tournament. You'd probably need 1 VCR for each TV you have, but it could still be done. This solves the problem of the TO not being there to see the "cheating" which may or may not have taken place, at a hopefully low additional cost.

The ability to watch a replay of the match allows for better, more suitable rules. For example, you won't have to worry about Meta Knight "Stalling for 59 seconds, reappearing and then stalling for another 59 seconds". Instead, you can think about "How much time has this player spent on X stalling tactic?" If we only allow Meta Knight about 2 minutes of total "invisible time", and we have a reviewer TO with a stopwatch keeping track of the amount of time MK spends in his DC move, then we have a reasonable way of telling if MK is stalling or not. There could be a little more to it than that, but that's a general idea that one can come up with.

If you wanted to set an arbitrary time? Well... I wouldn't set an ARBITRARY time. I would set a reasonable time that was the result of several calculations which erred on the side of the honest player.

I would set it at 2 minutes. If TOs think that's too long, I'd advise them to set it at 1 minute. I would never advise anyone to go less than 1 minute however. And I don't care about people who spend 59 seconds running around invisible because quite frankly it's NOT the best tactic as people seem to claim. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be the best. Quite frankly TOs are going to see stuff like that and if people don't trust the TOs to be able to make judgement then they shouldn't go to tournies. TOs should be given rules to go by, and these rules should be clear and simple enough to be followed, but the rules should also allow for TOs to make judgement calls in cases where things cannot be clearly defined, such as stalling.

And on that note, even "big name" sports like American Football have people complaining about "bad calls". It's naive to think that Smash would be any different in that regard. But life, and the game, go on anyways.

Now that I really think about it, Yuna's arguements had quite a few flaws in it. But I'm not trying to get IDC unbanned because frankly idc about IDC. I'm just pointing out that several points are really... not good points at all.

 

[gantrain05]

its not going to be unbanned, get over it, even if it was unbanned, that would just make MK himself closer to being banned than he already is.

 

[metaXzero]

its not going to be unbanned, get over it, even if it was unbanned, that would just make MK himself closer to being banned than he already is.

In my Tournament Discussion thread, no one (including the SBR) has brought an uncounterable reason why IDC should remain banned even with the "inability to stall" reason gone. If the SBR fails to give good reason for keeping it banned, they are just potraying themselves as stubborn, thick-headed fools who can't accept being wrong on previous judgements. And that's kinda a dash to their credibility...

 

[Paingel]

its not going to be unbanned, get over it, even if it was unbanned, that would just make MK himself closer to being banned than he already is.

Except that it would be better to just ban this move than to ban the whole character, if it was really going to come to that.

Not arguing for either side, just playing Devil's Advocate.

 

[gantrain05]

In my Tournament Discussion thread, no one (including the SBR) has brought an uncounterable reason why IDC should remain banned even with the "inability to stall" reason gone. If the SBR fails to give good reason for keeping it banned, they are just potraying themselves as stubborn, thick-headed fools who can't accept being wrong on previous judgements. And that's kinda a dash to their credibility...

except for the fact that your "inability to stall" reason is ********, IT STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO STALL, you can't have a judge at every match with a MK, its not enforcable.

 

[metaXzero]

except for the fact that your "inability to stall" reason is ********, IT STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO STALL, you can't have a judge at every match with a MK, its not enforcable.

Ooops. I meant "inability to TELL if one is stalling or not". SBR's reason for banning. Large failure on my part.

Simple rule. If IDC is used in a match, MK loses the match if the timer hits 0.

Go to Tournament Discussion to further discuss my proposal.

 

[Nic64]

most ridiculous crusade ever

 

[metaXzero]

most ridiculous crusade ever

Well SBR shouldn't have banned it with such a faulty case. ^_^

 

[DMG]

Well SBR shouldn't have banned it with such a faulty case. ^_^

One day... You will understand why they banned it instead of trying to come up with a rule set limiting it like you are proposing...

 

[metaXzero]

One day... You will understand why they banned it instead of trying to come up with a rule set limiting it like you are proposing...

Or I learn nothing and the SBR learns that in the future, when banning something, to make a case that can't be toppled like this one is

 

[TheM]

@Paingel.

wow. just wow.....maybe if you actually read my post then you would understand that I didn't just try to say that 5 seconds is considered stalling to me, but rather to say that there is no absolute line on what is stalling and what is not. Therefore, if we were to make a rule that said you can't stall for more than 25% of the match, then that "barrier" would be entire arbitrary...not to mention stupid and meaningless, as stalling for 24% of the match would become the next best strategy. Sure, all tournies usually have a rule that says "No stalling" but it's totally unenforceable without setting arbitrary rules.

 

[Jumpi 95]

=/ I still think it will be obvious if someone stalls. Like... If I did it for 1 minute, thats obvious...
If I did it for 5 seconds, then its a way to attack or to dodge. Realy there is no way to attack with this. It might as well be unbanned and only able to use for 2-10 seconds. BUT if it is at the end of the match, then thats banned. What ya think?

 

[metaXzero]

=/ I still think it will be obvious if someone stalls. Like... If I did it for 1 minute, thats obvious...
If I did it for 5 seconds, then its a way to attack or to dodge. Realy there is no way to attack with this. It might as well be unbanned and only able to use for 2-10 seconds. BUT if it is at the end of the match, then thats banned. What ya think?

We can't have arbitrary time limits on IDC. Not only is it hard to enforce, but people could abuse that rule to the "end of the match". What is the end of the match? 1 minute till? 30 seconds till? People would just (potentially) get a percent lead, hold IDC (every 10 seconds) until "the end of the match". Then they would camp until the timer hits 0.

Time limits on IDC won't work. That's why my proposal doesn't deal with time limits on IDC.

 

[Maniclysane]

In my Tournament Discussion thread, no one (including the SBR) has brought an uncounterable reason why IDC should remain banned even with the "inability to stall" reason gone. If the SBR fails to give good reason for keeping it banned, they are just potraying themselves as stubborn, thick-headed fools who can't accept being wrong on previous judgements. And that's kinda a dash to their credibility...

No, you just won't listen to anyone. It's been countered numerous times.

 

[metaXzero]

No, you just won't listen to anyone. It's been countered numerous times.

No. No it hasn't. Saying "it's broken because it's an unbeatable offense/defense" with NO EVIDENCE is just theorycrafting. And theory is not going to counter my proposal.

 

[DMG]

You still haven't answered us about other characters camping MK.

We've proven that your idea doesn't work AT THIS CURRENT STATE, now maybe if you tweak it it can work and we can implement it. But right now, no, we can't.

 

[metaXzero]

You still haven't answered us about other characters camping MK.

We've proven that your idea doesn't work AT THIS CURRENT STATE, now maybe if you tweak it it can work and we can implement it. But right now, no, we can't.

As I said in the other thread, you say it's unfair that if a MK uses IDC, they have to defeat their opponent by stock or they lose. YET, you don't think that it's unfair that MKs who want to use IDC can't because they will be accussed of attempted stalling and DQed?

And YOU still haven't shown a perfect way to keep Mr. anti-camp away for an entire match...

 

[Jumpi 95]

Even if the MK camps for the rest of the match, its obvious... Its REALY OBVIOUS... Plus, with MKs awsome moveset, why would you even need to camp? ALSO MK has a lot of lag time(as you and me know) after the attack. Its realy not even worth enforcing the bane... Its not even as effective as Infi grabs, but they are still here.

 

[Affinity]

Give me a vid showing IDC as broken BESIDES stalling SBR. GIVE IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReZSN1P9gls

0:49-0:51

Hylian uses the IDC to escape being attacked in a corner. It shows how Meta Knight can use the IDC to escape any disadvantageous situation.


FIN