Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[da K.I.D.]

Ok, but my rule makes it so that if MK is using the ledges to stall, he will end up losing because the player with the most ledge grabs at the end of the match that goes to time out, loses.

Ok, BUT.

Why do we need a rule like that in place?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Because any character that plays against another character is put at a great advantage when holding on to the ledge as the only way to attack them is to jump off the stage which puts you at risk of getting gimped.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Because any character that plays against another character is put at a great advantage when holding on to the ledge as the only way to attack them is to jump off the stage which puts you at risk of getting gimped.

untrue sir.

pikachu can shoot jolts over the ledge.
sonic can drop springs over the ledge.
both links can drop boomeranges and bombs to hit people on the ledge.
samus has missles bombs, and charge shots which can all hit someone hanging on the ledge.
pit can curver his arrows around.
snake can chuk grenades.
if hes not fighting another mk, MK can just tornado at the ledge and pick most people up and bring them on stage.
ROB can use his Gyro.
Diddy has peanuts
peach has turnips

and most of the characters that I didnt mention have a tilt or smash that can hit below the ledge.

many characters can attack somebody thats on the ledge with almost complete safety.

not to mention that the character holding the ledge is only in an advataged positions DEFENSIVELY. You cant mount any kind of offensive combo game from the ledge. (again, unless ur mk.)

So, I ask you once again, why do we need a rule like the one you suggest?

 

[Justblaze647]

1. Since MK is broken I would ask you to find timeout matches that dont include him.

o_O

Also, SF4 is a dumb game

 

[da K.I.D.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Te-Uq_asc

you can decide if that counts or not.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Te-Uq_asc

you can decide if that counts or not.

no. I want it to be a time out. Other wise I would have almost unlimited material. I would also like to point out that all of the options you mentioned above can be stopped by adjusting the distance you move away from the ledge or by using your jump at the right time

 

[da K.I.D.]

you still havent answered my original question satisfactorily

 

[SaveMeJebus]

you still havent answered my original question satisfactorily

you still haven't given me a real time out. I will tell you that since I main diddy, shooting peanuts to someone that is on the ledge does not solve anything since they are easily broken and can also be caught and thrown back at you. turnips might actually have this same problem

 

[Justblaze647]

Upon closely reviewing that video, I would like to revisit my previous statement that, and I quote, "SF4 is a dumb game."

How the **** were *****s getting hype over that ****?

 

[John12346]

Jebus, just answer this question.

Assume MK suddenly got nailed with the banhammer. Is the rule your proposing warranted anymore??

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, just answer this question.

Assume MK suddenly got nailed with the banhammer. Is the rule your proposing warranted anymore??

I think it should be used even if they do ban mk. Although it is not as overpowering for other characters as it is for MK, there are still some characters that have no real safe options for dealing with this.I still feel that this tactic is vary overpowering when used with characters like pit where the best situation to deal with a ledge camping pit would be to go and grab a ledge yourself.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I think it should be used even if they do ban mk. Although it is not as overpowering for other characters as it is for MK, there are still some characters that have no real safe options for dealing with this.I still feel that this tactic is vary overpowering when used with characters like pit where the best situation to deal with a ledge camping pit would be to go and grab a ledge yourself.

thats called a bad matchup son.

we dont ban things because it gives certain characters a few bad matchups.

and blaze, its the same reason we get hyped over lame garbage like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0cZ-Y3yRA8

and for jebus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yBcEUpvstQ

GDI I only found this one because I favd it for being so good, but like I said I dont knwo the names of the actual matches so theres no way im doing that again.
also note how it was 15 secs from a time out in half the rounds.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64j61Pwk8FI

and here you go

 

[John12346]

I think it should be used even if they do ban mk. Although it is not as overpowering for other characters as it is for MK, there are still some characters that have no real safe options for dealing with this.I still feel that this tactic is vary overpowering when used with characters like pit where the best situation to deal with a ledge camping pit would be to go and grab a ledge yourself.

Okay, so that's simply your problem if you can't handle other people's ledge tricks. MK and MK alone is in possession of unpunishable planking; no one else.

There is no recorded match where a non-MK character successfully planked a match to the timer.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Hold on

yes it does. If you chase after MK when you lose the lead you are going to get beat because he can just wait on a platform and if he sees you approach in the air, then he can just tornado because no air attacks can go through it

how did this go unchecked? lol, this is AWFUL theorycrafting.

he can wait on a platform, okay, assuming all stages have platforms. but giving the benefit of the doubt and considering all stages with platforms, you're assuming you must approach from the air on all of these stages. Clearly this is not the case on stages like:
Smashville
Yoshi's
Lylat
PS1
Most of BF
Most of Delfino
Frigate
and more I can't think of.

Not only that, but the platforms where you do have to approach through the air, you have the option of approaching UNDER MK, which is generally a very good spot. It's a much better spot for Marth to space a fast falled U-air under MK when he's on the top platform than it is for MK to be receiving this.

but ignoring all of that, let's assume for some reason that you A) always have to approach MK through the air and B) he never has to land and he can tornado on reaction every time

One, projectiles go through tornado. You know which characters have projectiles? Characters with good MUs vs. MK. Diddy, Falco, Snake, IC's (blizzard), others. Some aerials go through tornado at certain points of it (like through the top or at the very beginning of the move). Besides that, Tornado has like 13 (IIRC) frames of start-up so you can be able to hit it before it starts up.

BUT BESIDES ALL THAT, you can just get in range of the tornado, bait it, and punish the end lag when he's falling to the ground. Tornado is not a "LOL YOU CAN"T APPROACH ME NOW" move and it never has been.

AND BESIDES EVEN THAT, if what you were saying was true, then no match-ups vs. MK would be close because he would 100% win all the time whenever he gets the % lead. If it's as extraordinarily easy as you say, NO MKs of any skill level should be losing to people because they have an "easy-win" tactic and can never get hit when they have the lead. There would obviously not be a plethora of matches in which MK gains the lead at one point or another and still loses because that's silly, tornado stops all approaches and stalling is easy MK never loses.

>___>

edit:

There is no recorded match where a non-MK character successfully planked a match to the timer.

Bold, I guarantee untrue statement. Even if there are no recorded matches of him (and there probably are, I haven't checked yet):
UTD Zac.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And you might want to look at Vex's Pit, I saw him planking an ICs main.

EDIT: @AP: Yeah, I saw that and decided, "**** it, this is just not worth my time". That's how stupid it was.

Jebus, give up. It's clear to anyone here that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're like me, except way less knowledgeable about how the game actually works and bad at debating. And when your cred is worse than mine, you're doing something VERY wrong.

EDIT: Also, I really like that idea that we play 1-stock games (obviously more of them per set) with food on. Food is random, but it doesn't influence "normal" gameplay that much, it makes camping/runaway tactics far less effective, it makes IDC and MK's defensive planking completely useless (removing the need for rules against either! In fact, you don't need rules against stalling with this rule beyond infinites!). It's not banning anything because, well, it's merely messing with a setting...

Holy ****.

Add that to AA's "Strike from all stages" system. Then you need to ban...
-Infinite chaingrab stalling

EDIT2: You don't even have to ban that. There's only one stock, if they have you in an infinite, then the game's over anyways.

That's it. I've seen much better competitive games that ban more. Holy ****. Originalistgasm.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

explain your reasons why you think I know nothing of this game.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

explain your reasons why you think I know nothing of this game.

yes it does. If you chase after MK when you lose the lead you are going to get beat because he can just wait on a platform and if he sees you approach in the air, then he can just tornado because no air attacks can go through it

Stuff like this. And rules that make absolutely no sense, competitively. Someone else cover this more in detail.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Stuff like this. And rules that make absolutely no sense, competitively.

that was just a small portion of what I had written before and was too tired to search for because you guys have me repeating myself over and over again. this is what I posted first.

MK has the tools to approach and has the tools to time people out. He has 5 mid air jumps, a great D-air to attack people below him and a glide attack that makes up for his poor aerial mobility. This is a really dangerous combination when you reward a player for timing another player out. In order for an MK to win, all he has to do is get the lead and either stand near the ledge or stand on a platform and jump around. Using this strategy, the opponent is forced to approach because if he doesn't, he will get timed out. If he tries to approach in the air, the MK can just tornado because no air attacks can go though the tornado from the sides. If a player is waiting for him next to one ledge to punish his landing, he can just land in another platform. Rewarding the player that times the other player out makes it so that an MK that plays this way is almost unbeatable(I am not even going to mention the planking).

How many of you are actually going to tell me that what I just told you right now takes skill? It is not stalling since the player is not doing anything that makes it so you can't hit him(if you have an attack that goes through tornado). The player is just putting himself in a situation were if you approach you're skrewed and if you don't approach you're still skrewed. There is nothing wrong with the stage list and there is nothing wrong with MK. MK is just broken with the rule set that you are using.

I would also like to say to avaricepanda that there are those stages that are to big to punish MK's tornado(unless you have a projectile or are a really fast character) or have platforms in places that certain characters can not reach in time.

 

[-Vocal-]

The saddest part here is that everyone is pointing out exactly why Jebus is wrong (in various ways), but he just won't listen. As far as I can tell Jebus, this is a big part of why people hate me.

I think we should just ignore him for now. The fact that he claims that as soon as MK lands on a platform with the lead tornado beats everything is just... ugh. Seriously. Again, if it's so broken, go win tournaments with it.

You're not working with the tools the game gives you. You're saying "this is how I want the game to be played and it had better **** well be played that way". You're not dealing with tactics that are actually broken, and even then, if they were, they're character-specific, so you don't ban the tactic (which would be indiscreet and unenforceable), you ban the character that abuses them.

We don't HATE you.

Well at least I don't

Hold on



how did this go unchecked? lol, this is AWFUL theorycrafting.

Oh it didn't

>.>

Hi Diddy Kong main. My name is Olimar main and I have this awesome move called tether. I can understand why you don't think of it - who ever heard of a Diddy Kong with a tether? That's just downright silly

meaning: STFU and stop living inside that cave of Diddy - there's a whole world of Brawl waiting to be discovered.

I just gave one example, but I didn't feel a need to explain everything


And I was gonna mutli-quote a bunch of stuff after reading this garbage but it just honestly is not worth the time. I've already said all I can say; there isn't anything else to be said.

I severely hope that Jebus is just hard trolling all of us; even that would be better than actually believing this garbage nonsense.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So what do you suggest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUQj9ma-s

how do you win MK when he uses a strategy like this? He always has an advantage because you have to approach him and every time you approach him and try to fight him head to head you are going to get beat because your characters were built differently. I would also like to mention the fact that almost all of his aerials have transcendent priority meaning you are going to get beat if you try fighting him in the air

I really do not see a reason for naming a winner after the match goes to time other than to make tournaments end in time. Adding this to the game gives an advantage to players that specialize in head to head combat or characters with mutiple jumps and great aerial mobility.

Our current rule set is not even stopping this from happening in tournament http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRs10GVwvg

I hate when you post up things and expect me to give you answers(which I eventually do) and you guys ignore my posts when it is very clear that you guys can not answer my questions. You guys never even gave me a real answer to these questions.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right Jebus. Sum it up as best you can in one post, and I will answer them.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

All right Jebus. Sum it up as best you can in one post, and I will answer them.

Why should a FIGHTING game be played for more than 60% of a match by grabbing the ledges? If you guys do not consider this a fighting game, then why do you guys use rules that are primarily used for fighting games. Why do you guys use %s to determine the winner after a time out when the real game actually calls for a sudden death(meaning %s were never intended to be used to determine a winner)not to mention the fact that certain characters are built differently and will not always rack up the same amount of damage as other characters at any given amount of time? Can you tell me why a Falco should ever have to approach an MK even though it is clear that these characters were built for two entirely different styles of play?

 

[AvaricePanda]

Why should a FIGHTING game be played for more than 60% of a match by grabbing the ledges? If you guys do not consider this a fighting game, then why do you guys use rules that are primarily used for fighting games. Why do you guys use %s to determine the winner after a time out when certain characters are built differently and will not always rack up the same amount of damage as other characters at any given amount of time?

ugh.

THIS IS A FIGHTING GAME.

TIMING PEOPLE OUT IS A VIABLE STRATEGY THAT DOES NOT OVERCENTRALIZE WITH THE CURRENT RULESET AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WITH RESULTS AND VIDEOS FROM TOURNAMENTS. YOU HAVE TO PRESENT A BETTER ARGUMENT THAN, "RUNNING AWAY ISN'T FIGHTING THIS IS A FIGHTING GAME," IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO CONSIDER YOUR RULE CHANGE SERIOUSLY.

MANY PEOPLE HAVE PLAYED GAMES AGAINST MK AND WON. THIS INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT THAT TIMING PEOPLE OUT TAKES NO SKILL OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD BE WINNING TOURNAMENTS USING ONLY THIS STRATEGY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE PLAYED GAMES AGAINST A HIGH-LEVEL MK TRYING TO TIME THEM OUT AND STILL WON. THIS INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT THAT TIMING PEOPLE OUT TAKES NO SKILL OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD BE WINNING TOURNAMENTS USING ONLY THIS STRATEGY.

SHOWING A FEW MATCHES WHERE PEOPLE TIMED OUT THE OPPONENT AND WON DOES NOT PROVE THE STRATEGY IS BROKEN. TO PROVE THE STRATEGY IS BROKEN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT EITHER A) ANYONE WHO PLAYS AGAINST A CHARACTER CAPABLE OF STALLING SHOULD LOSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE, OR B) THE ONLY STRATEGY THAT WINS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME FOR THESE CHARACTERS IS STALLING, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.

sorry for the caps

 

[SaveMeJebus]

ugh.

THIS IS A FIGHTING GAME.

TIMING PEOPLE OUT IS A VIABLE STRATEGY THAT DOES NOT OVERCENTRALIZE WITH THE CURRENT RULESET AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WITH RESULTS AND VIDEOS FROM TOURNAMENTS. YOU HAVE TO PRESENT A BETTER ARGUMENT THAN, "RUNNING AWAY ISN'T FIGHTING THIS IS A FIGHTING GAME," IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO CONSIDER YOUR RULE CHANGE SERIOUSLY.

MANY PEOPLE HAVE PLAYED GAMES AGAINST MK AND WON. THIS INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT THAT TIMING PEOPLE OUT TAKES NO SKILL OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD BE WINNING TOURNAMENTS USING ONLY THIS STRATEGY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE PLAYED GAMES AGAINST A HIGH-LEVEL MK TRYING TO TIME THEM OUT AND STILL WON. THIS INVALIDATES YOUR ARGUMENT THAT TIMING PEOPLE OUT TAKES NO SKILL OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD BE WINNING TOURNAMENTS USING ONLY THIS STRATEGY.

SHOWING A FEW MATCHES WHERE PEOPLE TIMED OUT THE OPPONENT AND WON DOES NOT PROVE THE STRATEGY IS BROKEN. TO PROVE THE STRATEGY IS BROKEN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT EITHER A) ANYONE WHO PLAYS AGAINST A CHARACTER CAPABLE OF STALLING SHOULD LOSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE, OR B) THE ONLY STRATEGY THAT WINS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME FOR THESE CHARACTERS IS STALLING, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.

sorry for the caps

you didn't answer anything except the fact that this is a fighting game. you just went around all of my questions and made it about timing out as a viable strategy. I was looking for individual answers to the questions.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

you didn't answer anything except the fact that this is a fighting game. you just went around all of my questions and made it about timing out as a viable strategy

This proves that you didn't even read past the 1st line.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

This proves that you didn't even read past the 1st line.

you didn't either on my post. At avaricepanda, if I were to get the lead with Sonic and the just stall under the stage with his neutral b, would that take any skill? This strategy could be used to win matches against most of the cast and it only requires you to press one button at a time.

 

[AvaricePanda]

It's unfair for you to demand that I answer your specific questions when you ignore like all of mine and other people's, but okay.

Why should a FIGHTING game be played for more than 60% of a match by grabbing the ledges?

I don't know; blame the developers and the metagame. However, this question is untrue regardless, as this only happens for a small number of match-ups compared to the total amount in this game. What would your suggestion be for changing this? A ruleset change to target this would bring in more problems for the entire cast, as well as potentially more problems in general.

I If you guys do not consider this a fighting game, then why do you guys use rules that are primarily used for fighting games.

Irrelevant because we assume this is a fighting game.

Why do you guys use %s to determine the winner after a time out when the real game actually calls for a sudden death(meaning %s were never intended to be used to determine a winner)

1) This game wasn't designed competitively, so at least in my opinion to take its every word isn't the best idea if we're trying to make it competitive (part of why I don't understand why people think Ganon winning ganoncides is so absurd if we already do this).

However, a ruleset without percents winning by time out creates its own set of problems. Namely, this means the "loser" can time the opponent out instead of the "winner." Your opponent is at 120% last stock, you're at 130% 2nd stock and you die with a minute left, and now your opponent just runs away. The only difference between this and our current ruleset is that following the ideals of most all other fighting games, the person winning is at the disadvantage and the person losing can tie back up the game.

not to mention the fact that certain characters are built differently and will not always rack up the same amount of damage as other characters at any given amount of time?

this happens in every fighting game.

ever.

show me a fighting game where every single character is exactly the same. you won't (or at least people won't play it competitively). Every character in any fighting game has different damage outputs, so bringing that up was pointless.

Can you tell me why a Falco should ever have to approach an MK even though it is clear that these characters were built for two entirely different styles of play?

The developers weren't building characters around competitive 1v1 play, and even if they were, it doesn't matter because what actually happens in the metagame can change. Example: from what I gather, the developers of Starcraft II thought Protoss's Hallucination spell would be a lot more viable, but it's barely used in real games due to its money cost, energy cost, and time.

You can't randomly say, "well Falco wasn't designed to approach characters it's unfair for him to do so." Any charcater can approach or run away, just some options are more viable than others with certain characters.

edit: Sonic's HA stall is exactly that: stalling. It not only avoids conflict, it eliminates it. It is clear cut stalling, you can not hit him without suiciding.

MK running away is not clear cut stalling. It's not stalling by any regards, it's just him running away. Yes he has the advantage against a lot of characters, but it's not much different from him approaching and having the advantage against a lot of characters.

tl;dr: You can do something about MK or anyone running away. It's not stalling. It's not as easy as you say it is otherwise everyone would be winning locals, regionals, and nationals with it. You can't do anything about Sonic's HA stall, therefore, it's actually stalling.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It's unfair for you to demand that I answer your specific questions when you ignore like all of mine and other people's, but okay.



I don't know; blame the developers and the metagame. However, this question is untrue regardless, as this only happens for a small number of match-ups compared to the total amount in this game. What would your suggestion be for changing this? A ruleset change to target this would bring in more problems for the entire cast, as well as potentially more problems in general.



Irrelevant because we assume this is a fighting game.



1) This game wasn't designed competitively, so at least in my opinion to take its every word isn't the best idea if we're trying to make it competitive (part of why I don't understand why people think Ganon winning ganoncides is so absurd if we already do this).

However, a ruleset without percents winning by time out creates its own set of problems. Namely, this means the "loser" can time the opponent out instead of the "winner." Your opponent is at 120% last stock, you're at 130% 2nd stock and you die with a minute left, and now your opponent just runs away. The only difference between this and our current ruleset is that following the ideals of most all other fighting games, the person winning is at the disadvantage and the person losing can tie back up the game.



this happens in every fighting game.

ever.

show me a fighting game where every single character is exactly the same. you won't (or at least people won't play it competitively). Every character in any fighting game has different damage outputs, so bringing that up was pointless.



The developers weren't building characters around competitive 1v1 play, and even if they were, it doesn't matter because what actually happens in the metagame can change. Example: from what I gather, the developers of Starcraft II thought Protoss's Hallucination spell would be a lot more viable, but it's barely used in real games due to its money cost, energy cost, and time.

You can't randomly say, "well Falco wasn't designed to approach characters it's unfair for him to do so." Any charcater can approach or run away, just some options are more viable than others with certain characters.

edit: Sonic's HA stall is exactly that: stalling. It not only avoids conflict, it eliminates it. It is clear cut stalling, you can not hit him without suiciding.

MK running away is not clear cut stalling. It's not stalling by any regards, it's just him running away. Yes he has the advantage against a lot of characters, but it's not much different from him approaching and having the advantage against a lot of characters.

tl;dr: You can do something about MK or anyone running away. It's not stalling. It's not as easy as you say it is otherwise everyone would be winning locals, regionals, and nationals with it. You can't do anything about Sonic's HA stall, therefore, it's actually stalling.

Why is it that for that situation, you blame the developer yet instead of blaming the developers for creating a dumb way to settle a time out(Sudden death) you guys go and create a rule that states that a winner will be determined by time. How about instead of blaming someone about it, you do something about it like you did with the time out rule.

This game does not have to be built in a competitive way to see that Falco was not built to approach. Just look at his attacks. His fair is horrible. His F-smash has a lot start up and ending lag. His aerial mobility is not anywhere near the best in the game. Then you have a character like marth. He has one of the best F-airs in the game, good aerial mobility, and a great F-smash when spaced properly. Falco going head to head with a marth is a recipe for disaster since falco clearly does not have the tools to fight him head on. But with this rule set, If falco loses the lead, he is forced to approach.

to answer what you said after quote #4, this game's % was built different than a typical fighting games meter. in every other fighting game, once your meter goes all the way down, there goes your first game. In brawl, different characters have different weights, breaks and other factors that determine how long they can live before they get KOed. So hight percentage doe snot equal lower life bar.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why should a FIGHTING game be played for more than 60% of a match by grabbing the ledges?

Why should it be spent in hand to hand contact? Why should it be spent barraging each other with projectiles? Stupid question. If the ledge is the strongest position, then the competitive option is to abuse it. Doesn't matter if the game is a fighting game, or a puzzle platformer, or a racing game.

If you guys do not consider this a fighting game, then why do you guys use rules that are primarily used for fighting games.

Because they have proven to be the most competitively valid while remaining true to the game.

Why do you guys use %s to determine the winner after a time out when the real game actually calls for a sudden death(meaning %s were never intended to be used to determine a winner)

Because Sudden Death is not a competitively viable mode of play. Put simply, it's just not possible to hold competition in sudden death. So we are forced to deal with it somehow in order to maintain the competitive validity of gameplay.

not to mention the fact that certain characters are built differently and will not always rack up the same amount of damage as other characters at any given amount of time?

You remember how we said you didn't know what you were talking about? This is a good example of why. It shows fascinating lack of competence.

Every fighting game has this. Think about, say, Talim and Astaroth in Soul Calibur, or Chip and Potemkin in Guilty Gear. In fact, the game clearly has different characters that excel in different aspects, just like every fighting game ever. The fact is that the game itself rewards certain aspects. Certain chars are great at quick damage racking. Some characters have amazing range. Some characters have really fast attacks. Etc.

Can you tell me why a Falco should ever have to approach an MK even though it is clear that these characters were built for two entirely different styles of play?

Err... What? This is just... bad. Ganon probably wasn't built for "eat **** and die" gameplay. Oh well.

Falco has to approach an MK sometimes because his projectile is not enough to ensure that he will always have a stock lead. That's why.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Why is it that for that situation, you blame the developer yet instead of blaming the developers for creating a dumb way to settle a time out(Sudden death) you guys go and create a rule that states that a winner will be determined by time. How about instead of blaming someone about it, you do something about it like you did with the time out rule.

This game does not have to be built in a competitive way to see that Falco was not built to approach. Just look at his attacks. His fair is horrible. His F-smash has a lot start up and ending lag. His aerial mobility is not anywhere near the best in the game. Then you have a character like marth. He has one of the best F-airs in the game, good aerial mobility, and a great F-smash when spaced properly. Falco going head to head with a marth is a recipe for disaster since falco clearly does not have the tools to fight him head on. But with this rule set, If falco loses the lead, he is forced to approach.

Falco wasn't made to approach? Oh darn.
Snake wasn't made to approach either.
Ganondorf wasn't made to camp.
Diddy Kong wasn't made to kill early.
Olimar wasn't made to have a great recovery.

Not every character has every good trait and you have to get over that. You can't say, "It's not fair that Falco has to approach sometimes, we should make a ruleset so he doesn't have to approach," because that's silly. Not only does that ruleset create tons of more problems, but it'd sound silly if I said something like, "It's not fair that Diddy kills at 150% and Snake kills at 100%! We should set handicaps based on match-ups."

If Falco has to approach in the current ruleset, that's not a problem with the ruleset. You're going to have to think of a better, more encompassing argument if you want to actually change the ruleset.

It's also very hard to have arguments with you when you disregard 90% of what I post.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why is it that for that situation, you blame the developer yet instead of blaming the developers for creating a dumb way to settle a time out(Sudden death) you guys go and create a rule that states that a winner will be determined by time. How about instead of blaming someone about it, you do something about it like you did with the time out rule.

Because:
1. It's not really possible to make falco never have to approach
2. It's not really NECESSARY. Who cares if falco has to approach? Every character does eventually. Why should falco be exempt? Just because you think he should never be forced to? Because you think he was built not to?

This game does not have to be built in a competitive way to see that Falco was not built to approach. Just look at his attacks. His fair is horrible. His F-smash has a lot start up and ending lag. His aerial mobility is not anywhere near the best in the game. Then you have a character like marth. He has one of the best F-airs in the game, good aerial mobility, and a great F-smash when spaced properly. Falco going head to head with a marth is a recipe for disaster since falco clearly does not have the tools to fight him head on. But with this rule set, If falco loses the lead, he is forced to approach.

This is just stupid. Just because a character is given poor tools for something doesn't mean that character should never be forced to do that something. Look at olimar. He can't deal with edgeguarding, let's make sure that he never ends up offstage. ****ty logic.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

this game's % was built different than a typical fighting games meter. in every other fighting game, once your meter goes all the way down, there goes your first game. In that situation I would agree that the player with less heath should lose because everyone has the same size life bar. In brawl however, different characters have different weights, breaks and other factors that determine how long they can live before they get KOed. So high percentage doe snot equal lower life bar; also 100% to one character could mean something else completely to another. In theory, a snake with 101% should win a Jigglypuff at 100% when there is a time out and both characters have the same amount of stocks because jiggly puff dies a lot earlier than snake.

 

[BBQTV]

just to be clear

if i do this im not stalling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRs10GVwvg

 

[SaveMeJebus]

just to be clear

if i do this im not stalling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRs10GVwvg

nothing is currently stopping you from doing that.

 

[BBQTV]

so i can grab the ledge the whole match non stop?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

so i can grab the ledge the whole match non stop?

yes you can my friend

 

[da K.I.D.]

I give a lot of credit to the 5 people that are consistently answer this kids questions.

I also give madd kudos to BPC for realising how stupid he acts sometimes lol.

 

[BBQTV]

sweet!

10 sweet!

 

[SaveMeJebus]

this game's % was built different than a typical fighting games meter. in every other fighting game, once your meter goes all the way down, there goes your first game. In that situation I would agree that the player with less heath should lose because everyone has the same size life bar. In brawl however, different characters have different weights, breaks and other factors that determine how long they can live before they get KOed. So high percentage doe snot equal lower life bar; also 100% to one character could mean something else completely to another. In theory, a snake with 101% should win a Jigglypuff at 100% when there is a time out and both characters have the same amount of stocks because jiggly puff dies a lot earlier than snake.

I like how no one responded to this