Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[sunshade]

Banning metaknights Pplanking is like saying the gun was responsible for the sniper attacks.

Its not the tactic its the character.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Yes, HA is not explicity banned.

It is not banned period.
Oh but I forget, people are stupid and need everything spelled out for them.

But any TO can DQ a player for using this tactic simply by thinking it is stalling. In that same tournament another player can plank for 8 minutes in every single match and get through the tournament without a care in the world. All he has to do is say 'im in an advantageous position, you cant ban the ledge' etc. It MUST be clear cut. Stalling is banned. So list every single possible stalling option. Theres only TWO in the entire game which are already explicitly banned (IDC and CG'ing past 300) so why is it so hard to add the supposed 3rd option there?

If it isn't mentioned under stalling, then the BBR did not find it ban worthy.
Seriously, one cannot be more simple.
Do you honestly realize how long it would take to discuss every single gay tactic and how its perfectly legal?
The ruleset would be MASSIVE.

If it isn't mentioned under stalling, then it isn't considered ban worthy by the BBR period.

There is no reason AT ALL why the BBR cant add half a sentence to the rule and clear this mess up. Stop giving TO's this ruleset which is missing important information and leaves far too much room for interpretation.

You do realize the BBR cannot control the TO's and that there is a reason why the east coast has a stagelist thats starkly different fromt he BBR's.
you also realize the BBR cannot control TO's nor does it have any direct influence.
you do realize you're just arguing for the sake of being a major pain in the *** right?

Honestly read half your arguments, it isn't anything constructive but looks as to who too blame, rather than attempting to solve th eproblem.

If they ban the HA in your region, speak to TO's get things organized, but don't waste my time trying to have me answer for things that the BBR has said, repeatedly, they cannot control at all.

Got it? Good


@Vocal: It isn't such a case, it basically means the BBR cant force TO's to abide by the BBR ruleset. If something can be prevented by other character or be avoided, there is no reason to ban it. Otherwise we'd ban DDD's CG for ****** so many characters.

 

[Browny]

Is it so difficult to ammed this rule? rofl you dont need to list every allowable tactic when you can simply list the banned few.

The current facts: HA under the stage is not broken, it does not render the game unplayable and it is not banned.

Stalling is banned.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while using an infinite to run out the timer rather than to score a KO is. As such, any infinite chain-grabs, locks, etc. cannot exceed 300%.

HA does not fit this description yet any player could be DQ'd over the first criteria, left to the discretion of a TO.

Why cant this simply read as follows

Stalling is banned.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while using an infinite to run out the timer rather than to score a KO is.

Tactics currently considered stalling are;
Infinite chain grabs and locks past 300%
Freezing the opponents character
Infinite caping (covered in the specific IDC rule)

All other techniques (stalling or otherwise) are legal.

If you truly want to show that you agree it is legal... Of course allowing such a tactic to be used seems pretty ridiculous to me still, I mean it IS stalling, but not by your definition (implying it is the same type of stalling as planking in general, not just perfect)

 

[sunshade]

Is it so difficult to ammed this rule? rofl you dont need to list every allowable tactic when you can simply list the banned few.

The current facts: HA under the stage is not broken, it does not render the game unplayable and it is not banned.

HA does not fit this description yet any player could be DQ'd over the first criteria, left to the discretion of a TO.

When you say this you are either directing this statement at the BBR or at TO's. If you are directing the statement at the BBR then you are right and it is not banned. If you are directing it at the TO's then you need to deal with this on a case by case basis because TO's ban a crapton of stuff not banned by the BBR (just look at the eastcoast stage list).

Why cant this simply read as follows

Stalling is banned.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while using an infinite to run out the timer rather than to score a KO is.

Tactics currently considered stalling are;
Infinite chain grabs and locks past 300%
Freezing the opponents character
Infinite caping (covered in the specific IDC rule)

All other techniques (stalling or otherwise) are legal.

If you truly want to show that you agree it is legal... Of course allowing such a tactic to be used seems pretty ridiculous to me still, I mean it IS stalling, but not by your definition (implying it is the same type of stalling as planking in general, not just perfect)

Those are not the only instances of stalling. Those examples are given special mention in the ruleset because they are stalling based on length of usage. If you chaingrab someone infinity it would meet all 3 BBR stalling criteria but if you only chaingrab someone till kill percentage you only meet 2/3rds. IDC is in the same boat.

The two fall into gray area and as a result are given special note. Nothing else banned or otherwise is given special note because it is up to the to's discretion. If the TO happens to be making an illogical choice, that sucks, but there is nothing the BBR can do about it.

btw your rule also happens to make no sense.

Stalling is banned.

All other techniques (stalling or otherwise) are legal.

 

[Raziek]

What you need to realize, Browny, is that there IS NO NEED to amend a rule to include all the things that AREN'T STALLING.

If you want to use the aforementioned technique, it's up to you to convince YOUR local TO to make it clear that it isn't.

If he thinks it is, tough ****, deal with it.

 

[Browny]

so what is another instance of stalling then?

and that disclaimer would be to use against a TO who may penalise someone for using ha as stalling, despite no mention of it in the rules.

 

[sunshade]

If halberd were to consist of only the phase on the ship then entering into the ship and sitting inside it would be stalling. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xthYf13oro)

You are intentionally preforming the action, you are avoiding any and all combat, and the game is being made unplayable as a result.

If a TO wanted they could DQ someone for entering into the ship and not exiting in a timely manner and it would be justifiable under the stalling rule.

 

[Raziek]

Look, we already said that the BBR DOES NOT CONSIDER IT STALLING. There is no need to amend the rule to explicitly include the technique, when it's already IMPLICITLY included.

If your TO isn't willing to read one of numerous posts that say, "Yes, this tactic is fine and is not restricted under BBR official policy", your local TO is DOING IT WRONG, and chances are, if you can't convince them through showing them said posts, altering the rule is NOT going to help, and as ShadowLink said, gets into a slippery slope of including ALL KINDS of dubious tactics.

 

[Kewkky]

It'd be a good idea to have a collapse list full of stuff that's considered stalling. Everything that's not in there wouldn't be considered stalling. That way, there would be no more discussions about these things, except moving something into the list or outside of the list... Everything would be much more organized, but hey, that's just me.

 

[sunshade]

It would be alot easier and far more effective to just use our already very well crafted rule for stalling.

If anything what we need to do is change the name of the rule from stalling to "game preventing techniques" to clear up confusion. People hear stalling and think "oh so you mean like when you dodge a question the teacher asked you waiting for the class bell to ring?" when really what stalling means is "The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable".

 

[Raziek]

I'm more for Sunshade's suggestion, personally.

If only because, when I have to draw up our rulesets, I rarely have the luxury of HTML, and that list could get very big in a very big hurry.

 

[Kewkky]

I'm more for Sunshade's suggestion, personally.

If only because, when I have to draw up our rulesets, I rarely have the luxury of HTML, and that list could get very big in a very big hurry.

Well hey, it solves the problem of people whining about "MK's ledgeplay is covered by the stalling rules" "No it's not, it's completely fair!"... And similar scenarios.

 

[Raziek]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it'd be a bit of a hassle, IMO.

 

[-Vocal-]

Banning metaknights Pplanking is like saying the gun was responsible for the sniper attacks.

Its not the tactic its the character.

I'd only support banning it if it could be agreed that it is indeed stalling, much like IDC is, although IDC is much easier to regulate.

 

[sunshade]

For something to be stalling you must "avoid any and all conflict". Metaknight is not avoiding any conflict he is just trumping it in every scenario.

Until being a man and holding your ground becomes running away I don't see how planking could be described as stalling BBR definition.

 

[Browny]

Look, we already said that the BBR DOES NOT CONSIDER IT STALLING. There is no need to amend the rule to explicitly include the technique, when it's already IMPLICITLY included.

4 words

4 words is all it takes to end this confusion. they have rules for the other types of stalling remember.

 

[Raziek]

4 words

4 words is all it takes to end this confusion. they have rules for the other types of stalling remember.

What confusion? EDUCATE YOUR TO. We shouldn't have to spell everything out for everyone.

 

[DMG]

For something to be stalling you must "avoid any and all conflict". Metaknight is not avoiding any conflict he is just trumping it in every scenario.

Until being a man and holding your ground becomes running away I don't see how planking could be described as stalling BBR definition.

What happens when something doesn't completely negate/avoid conflict, but is so strong that it breaks the game anyways?

 

[Raziek]

Degenerate tactic, bannable for over-centralization.

 

[sunshade]

What happens when something doesn't completely negate/avoid conflict, but is so strong that it breaks the game anyways?

You ban it. We made the same choice with IDC. Even when not used for the purpose of stalling IDC broke the game. We decided that due to the technique being an easily recognizable, glitch, that it was acceptable to be banned. Metaknight's planking is not a glitch, its just proper use of the tools at his disposal and as a technique is not bannable.

 

[-Vocal-]

For something to be stalling you must "avoid any and all conflict". Metaknight is not avoiding any conflict he is just trumping it in every scenario.

Until being a man and holding your ground becomes running away I don't see how planking could be described as stalling BBR definition.

You know what, after hearing you throw that definition around so many times I think it's high time that stalling be redefined. If PPlanking doesn't count as stalling, then it's a bad, bad definition because it's not stopping something that it should. If any of us saw MK PPlanking, we would immediately think of it as stalling, and that's because it obviously is. A new definition to suit this common sense is needed.

People will probably call me out on the "obvious" part, but I'll just post more later ^_^

edit: Here's a proposal for a new definition. I'm sure it needs tweaking, but I'd like to get some discussion started.

Stalling is excessively performing an action that would allow the opponent no opportunity under any circumstance to cause damage to a player.

I feel like this covers all types of stalling (IDC, PPlanking, Rising Pound [in this game?], sitting inside the Halberd) while not affecting things that are not stalling or are only situationally stalling (a la Homing Attack Stall).

Objections?

 

[Raziek]

But you can't define PPlanking discretely, so the only solution is to ban MK, BAWWWWW.

 

[-Vocal-]

But you can't define PPlanking discretely, so the only solution is to ban MK, BAWWWWW.

I know, don't remind me >.<

No one will ban him and it's impossible to effectively ban PPlanking. Something's gotta give eventually >.>

You know, there was actually an MK banned tourney a week or too ago in (I think) Arizona. I heard it was fun. *pines for the day*

 

[sunshade]

You know what, after hearing you throw that definition around so many times I think it's high time that stalling be redefined. If PPlanking doesn't count as stalling, then it's a bad, bad definition because it's not stopping something that it should. If any of us saw MK PPlanking, we would immediately think of it as stalling, and that's because it obviously is. A new definition to suit this common sense is needed.

People will probably call me out on the "obvious" part, but I'll just post more later ^_^

edit: Here's a proposal for a new definition. I'm sure it needs tweaking, but I'd like to get some discussion started.

Stalling is excessively performing an action that would allow the opponent no opportunity under any circumstance to cause damage to a player.

I feel like this covers all types of stalling (IDC, PPlanking, Rising Pound [in this game?], sitting inside the Halberd) while not affecting things that are not stalling or are only situationally stalling (a la Homing Attack Stall).

Objections?

There is stalling (to prolong an event for the longest time possible) and then there is Stalling (The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable).

Your rule would make stalling and Stalling illegal in a tournament setting. This is a bad idea. stalling is a perfectly acceptable method of play and to discriminate against it because it is boring (or in smashes chase particularly effective) is illogical.

We ban Stalling because Stalling makes it impossible for the game to proceed. It is the equivilent of using a freezing glitch but it does not freeze the game. If you add in a timer then Stalling very often results in the match being over and decided in the person who initiates the Stallings favor.

Pplanking is stalling but it is not Stalling. Our ruleset makes special note of IDC and infinites because they can be Stalling but only if used for prolonged periods of time.

No definitions need to be changed. If anything Stalling needs to be renamed to something which does not share such a similar meaning. In my opinion Stalling should be called "intentionally preventing the game from occurring" its a bit of a mouthful but it is far clearer than stalling.

 

[-Vocal-]

There is stalling (to prolong an event for the longest time possible) and then there is Stalling (The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable).

Your rule would make stalling and Stalling illegal in a tournament setting. This is a bad idea. stalling is a perfectly acceptable method of play and to discriminate against it because it is boring (or in smashes chase particularly effective) is illogical.

We ban Stalling because Stalling makes it impossible for the game to proceed. It is the equivilent of using a freezing glitch but it does not freeze the game. If you add in a timer then Stalling very often results in the match being over and decided in the person who initiates the Stallings favor.

Pplanking is stalling but it is not Stalling. Our ruleset makes special note of IDC and infinites because they can be Stalling but only if used for prolonged periods of time.

No definitions need to be changed. If anything Stalling needs to be renamed to something which does not share such a similar meaning. In my opinion Stalling should be called "intentionally preventing the game from occurring" its a bit of a mouthful but it is far clearer than stalling.

But the fact of the matter is that if MK PPlanks for five minutes straight until the timer runs out there's nothing the opponent can do to win. This whole "deliberately avoiding conflict" is a load of hogwash in my opinion - it should be changed to "deliberately avoiding fair conflict," fair in this context meaning conflict in which either player has an opportunity to deal damage to or KO the opponent. There is also the qualifier "excessively," meaning that it would be ok for a Falco to sit in a box on Picto and fire lasers until the transformation changes but it would not be ok for an MK to PPlank for too long, and as there is no way to determine how long is too long (a la IDC) then the technique should just be banned altogether.

Why am I still discussing PPlanking though? It's nearly impossible to ban...well there's ONE way :D

 

[Sanji Himura]

You also have to look at it this way, if some one is planking, something that is very hard to do in execution to begin with, would you call it Stalling if he has a one stock lead and doesn't attack to make it go to time?

I agree that the definition shouldn't change, but planking could fall under Stalling under certain conditions.

It all really boils down as to what a judge considers stalling. I personally would consider planking stalling if the player doing the stalling has a clear advantage over the other player.

 

[sunshade]

But the fact of the matter is that if MK PPlanks for five minutes straight until the timer runs out there's nothing the opponent can do to win.

I know, whats your point? Its called playing to win in my book and I don't see anything wrong with abusing absolutely every advantage possible to obtain victory.

This whole "deliberately avoiding conflict" is a load of hogwash in my opinion - it should be changed to "deliberately avoiding fair conflict," fair in this context meaning conflict in which either player has an opportunity to deal damage to or KO the opponent.

Why?

You also have to look at it this way, if some one is planking, something that is very hard to do in execution to begin with, would you call it Stalling if he has a one stock lead and doesn't attack to make it go to time?

I would call it stalling but not Stalling. It is the burden of the losing player to approach not the leading player. This is a basic part of every fighting game.

I agree that the definition shouldn't change, but planking could fall under Stalling under certain conditions.

Name such conditions since I cannot think of any.

It all really boils down as to what a judge considers stalling. I personally would consider planking stalling if the player doing the stalling has a clear advantage over the other player.

I would tell the losing player to hurry up and attack. A timer is added to force conflict. It tells the losing player "you have to make a come back in X amount of time or you lose". The player hears that and then is burdened with the need to approach.

Being allowed to not approach is the reward of being in the lead and spurs conflict so that defensive games are able be played in a timely manner.

 

[Browny]

OK fine lets see if I can get any agreement on this before I take the next step and make a whole new thread about it.

My argument: Whilst HA under the stage is not explicitly banned and is legal for all intents and purposes, any player may be disqualified for using it under the general 'stalling' rule. This rule is open to interpretation by all people involved. There is no other tactic in the game which can result in a DQ which is NOT explicitly stated. The only other tactics which can result in a DQ are;

Chain-grabbing or locking past 300%
Using IDC
Any freeze/crash glitches
Pausing (? not sure where it is written)

All of these tactics have a separate rule for them. The point being, if any TO chooses to run their tournament by 3.1 ruleset and DOES NOT make any mention of any other tactic being bannable, all tactics are therefore assumed legal.

So I ask, what is the point of the stalling rule being very vague "Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling". If using homing attack under the stage is legal, the rule regarding stalling should be removed and replced with a separate rule covering the halberd glitch and one for CG'ing past 300 seeing as there is no other way to illegally stall. That way there is no room for interpretation and everyone is well aware of the BBR's view on the matter. Any TO could still ban HA themselves but at least if they do so, they would be required to add their own rule (EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BANNING CERTAIN CHAINGRABS) because it would be grossly unfair to anyone who got DQ'd over a rule which is not written. Remember that HA does not fit the current description of stalling.

 

[Raziek]

My argument: Whilst HA under the stage is not explicitly banned and is legal for all intents and purposes, any player may be disqualified for using it under the general 'stalling' rule.

Only if your TO is a derp?

So I ask, what is the point of the stalling rule being very vague "Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling".

Its whole point IS to be vague, because it covers the very vague concept of retreating to gain better position, not "Going where you can't hit me neener neener neener."

 

[Browny]

my god do you even think?

WHY IS IT VAGUE, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM IT?

we are talking about rules which are the difference between a DQ and not. Its a pretty serious issue if it happens in game.

Have you ever thought of a reason as to why rules dont say 'you cant chaingrab people until really high %', 'Using metaknights downb for too long is illegal' and 'winning a match on final stocks with with a suicide grab is ok sometimes' ? Its the same deal here.

Its pretty clear the BBR is obviously of the opinion that HA under the stage is legal so all I want to see is a simple change to the rules. Either list every single tactic which is banned (which it currently does) and then add a disclaimer that any and all tactics which are not EXPLICITLY BANNED are therefore legal. should add the halberd glitch to this btw.

OR

a short statement saying that using HA under the stage is legal.

As per usual, it is up to TO's to change the rules as they see fit but only once they know this.

Is that so much to ask?

rwtgfedsghfjgfs

 

[-Vocal-]

Why?

Because a game in which one competitor has a 0% chance of winning if they lose the lead cannot be played competitively. We are making a competitive ruleset; if one player is unable to compete i.e. have an opportunity to win then the rule needs to be changed so that does not happen.

OK fine lets see if I can get any agreement on this before I take the next step and make a whole new thread about it.

My argument: Whilst HA under the stage is not explicitly banned and is legal for all intents and purposes, any player may be disqualified for using it under the general 'stalling' rule. This rule is open to interpretation by all people involved. There is no other tactic in the game which can result in a DQ which is NOT explicitly stated. The only other tactics which can result in a DQ are;

Chain-grabbing or locking past 300%
Using IDC
Any freeze/crash glitches
Pausing (? not sure where it is written)

All of these tactics have a separate rule for them. The point being, if any TO chooses to run their tournament by 3.1 ruleset and DOES NOT make any mention of any other tactic being bannable, all tactics are therefore assumed legal.

So I ask, what is the point of the stalling rule being very vague "Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling". If using homing attack under the stage is legal, the rule regarding stalling should be removed and replced with a separate rule covering the halberd glitch and one for CG'ing past 300 seeing as there is no other way to illegally stall. That way there is no room for interpretation and everyone is well aware of the BBR's view on the matter. Any TO could still ban HA themselves but at least if they do so, they would be required to add their own rule (EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BANNING CERTAIN CHAINGRABS) because it would be grossly unfair to anyone who got DQ'd over a rule which is not written. Remember that HA does not fit the current description of stalling.

my god do you even think?

WHY IS IT VAGUE, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM IT?

we are talking about rules which are the difference between a DQ and not. Its a pretty serious issue if it happens in game.

Have you ever thought of a reason as to why rules dont say 'you cant chaingrab people until really high %', 'Using metaknights downb for too long is illegal' and 'winning a match on final stocks with with a suicide grab is ok sometimes' ? Its the same deal here.

Its pretty clear the BBR is obviously of the opinion that HA under the stage is legal so all I want to see is a simple change to the rules. Either list every single tactic which is banned (which it currently does) and then add a disclaimer that any and all tactics which are not EXPLICITLY BANNED are therefore legal. should add the halberd glitch to this btw.

OR

a short statement saying that using HA under the stage is legal.

As per usual, it is up to TO's to change the rules as they see fit but only once they know this.

Is that so much to ask?

rwtgfedsghfjgfs

I think the point with HA stall is that sometimes it's stalling, sometimes it isn't. Against Pit, no. Against Ganon, most definitely. For the other tactics you listed, they are stalling in each instance in which they occur - such is not the case with HAS, and that is why it does not deserve its own rule.

 

[Raziek]

my god do you even think?

WHY IS IT VAGUE, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM IT?

I already told you. It's to cover the situation of someone repeatedly retreating, which is NOT stalling. Hence the "Running away from your opponent to reach a better position is NOT stalling, blah blah blah IS."

It's what allows circle camping as a tactic to exist, because you CANNOT penalize someone merely for retreating.

 

[Browny]

Now that I dont disagree with...

Unfortunately (as I made too obvious) that leaves the door wide open to suggesting that planking is stalling, which indeed matches your current description. Whilst you can call out a sonic player for repeatedly running away and reneweing the HA stall, should you not also be allowed to call out the mk player who repeatedly hides on the ledge with the sole intention to time the enemy out?

Would you be quick to DQ a sonic who sets up a HA stall once, but allow an MK to begin planking 20 times a match? Not an unrealistic number btw.

 

[-Vocal-]

Now that I dont disagree with...

Unfortunately (as I made too obvious) that leaves the door wide open to suggesting that planking is stalling, which indeed matches your current description. Whilst you can call out a sonic player for repeatedly running away and reneweing the HA stall, should you not also be allowed to call out the mk player who repeatedly hides on the ledge with the sole intention to time the enemy out?

Would you be quick to DQ a sonic who sets up a HA stall once, but allow an MK to begin planking 20 times a match? Not an unrealistic number btw.

I'm not sure if you just think my arugment is invalid, but I'll say it once more for good measure: homing attack stall will not be stalling in all matches whereas PPlanking will. Earlier in this thread we reviewed which characters would be able to stop HAS, and the most important thing is that they can stop it at all. In those matchups, against characters who are able to do something against it, it would not be stalling; rather, it would just be an advantageous (or disadvantageous?) position for Sonic to hold. However, there are also characters that will never be able to do anything about HAS (your Ganons, Bowsers, Sheiks, etc.), and therefore in those matchups it would be declared stalling.

Plug: my proposed redefinition of stalling (which hasn't really gotten a reply from anyone except Sunshade) covers this very neatly. "Stalling is excessively performing an action that would allow the opponent no opportunity under any circumstance to cause damage to a player." The characters who can stop HAS can do damage to Sonic; the ones can't stop it can't deal damage. Voila, a rule that reflects the nature of the move, banning it as stalling but allowing it as a tactic.

As for PPlanking, it is stalling against any character, as the opponent will have a 0% chance of dealing damage to MK; this would make it stalling across the board.

And there's, of course, the necessary qualifier "excessively." We can't (or haven't) found a way to ban PPlanking entirely, but we can ban excessive usage of it.

 

[sunshade]

HA stall is beatable by everyone and neither it nor Pplanking are Stalling in any match ups.

Because a game in which one competitor has a 0% chance of winning if they lose the lead cannot be played competitively. We are making a competitive ruleset; if one player is unable to compete i.e. have an opportunity to win then the rule needs to be changed so that does not happen.

The Stalling rule is not intended to prevent things which are unbeatable. It is intended to stop tactics which prevent the game from being played.

Lets say in street fighter it was possible to get on command get off the screen and just stay there for as long as you wanted. This would be an example of Stalling. Pplanking, HA stall, and running away are not.

You are right that something needs to be done about Metaknight's ability to beat every character in the entire game without any risk. The Stalling rule however is not the correct method of dealing with said issue.

I'm not sure if you just think my arugment is invalid, but I'll say it once more for good measure: homing attack stall will not be stalling in all matches whereas PPlanking will. Earlier in this thread we reviewed which characters would be able to stop HAS, and the most important thing is that they can stop it at all. In those matchups, against characters who are able to do something against it, it would not be stalling; rather, it would just be an advantageous (or disadvantageous?) position for Sonic to hold. However, there are also characters that will never be able to do anything about HAS (your Ganons, Bowsers, Sheiks, etc.), and therefore in those matchups it would be declared stalling.

Every character can beat HA stall. The only exception is when playing on Final destination.

Plug: my proposed redefinition of stalling (which hasn't really gotten a reply from anyone except Sunshade) covers this very neatly. "Stalling is excessively performing an action that would allow the opponent no opportunity under any circumstance to cause damage to a player." The characters who can stop HAS can do damage to Sonic; the ones can't stop it can't deal damage. Voila, a rule that reflects the nature of the move, banning it as stalling but allowing it as a tactic.

If My younger brother were to fight M2K, your rule would have to disqualify M2K for stalling. Playing smart and minimizing risk is not bannable and is infact encouragable. If a character happens to be broken then we need to analyze if the character is bannable or if the tactic is justifiably removable (IDC was, planking is not).

 

[sunshade]

ignore this post.

 

[-Vocal-]

HA stall is beatable by everyone and neither it nor Pplanking are Stalling in any match ups.



The Stalling rule is not intended to prevent things which are unbeatable. It is intended to stop tactics which prevent the game from being played.

Lets say in street fighter it was possible to get on command get off the screen and just stay there for as long as you wanted. This would be an example of Stalling. Pplanking, HA stall, and running away are not.

You are right that something needs to be done about Metaknight's ability to beat every character in the entire game without any risk. The Stalling rule however is not the correct method of dealing with said issue.



Every character can beat HA stall. The only exception is when playing on Final destination.



If My younger brother were to fight M2K, your rule would have to disqualify M2K for stalling. Playing smart and minimizing risk is not bannable and is infact encouragable. If a character happens to be broken then we need to analyze if the character is bannable for if the tactic is justifiably removable (IDC was, planking is not).

I see an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. I propose that we take advantage of said opportunity.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Because a game in which one competitor has a 0% chance of winning if they lose the lead cannot be played competitively. We are making a competitive ruleset; if one player is unable to compete i.e. have an opportunity to win then the rule needs to be changed so that does not happen.

Unfortunately people do not work that way, most of them will do whatever it takes to win, they want to play gheyly, they want to win. So that's how the rules are set up, I know it sucks, but that's just reality.
EDIT: By "that's how the rules are set up", I meant to fight that a bit, sorry if it wasn't clear, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't. ._.

I would call it stalling but not Stalling. It is the burden of the losing player to approach not the leading player. This is a basic part of every fighting game.

Lol then I'm doing it wrong, I know I am but oh well.
When I win I either keep being manly or I run them into the ground. My playstyle is rather unorthodox, but it works.

 

[-Vocal-]

Unfortunately people do not work that way, most of them will do whatever it takes to win, they want to play gheyly, they want to win. So that's how the rules are set up, I know it sucks, but that's just reality.


Lol then I'm doing it wrong, I know I am but oh well.
When I win I either keep being manly or I run them into the ground. My playstyle is rather unorthodox, but it works.

So. Um. Dude.

You realize the community makes the rules, right? We can't do anything about gay gameplay, but unwinnable gameplay is something we can attack.

Btw, this thread died big time

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Indeed.

So how about that rule NJ tournaments are using, that you need a 50% lead to be declared the victor in case of tied stocks?

I support it because it goes closer to, well, what the game says (% lead does not matter when time runs out(.