Official BBR Tier List v6

[Ripple]

The double character rule got dropped remember?

I've seen it before.

This tier list was very unexpected and also very surprizing. (hyrule tier LOL).

no need to quote the entire first page

 

[-Jumpman-]

Namesearch <3. Gheb underestimating the lack of practice.

 

[OverLade]

If you're not gonna ban MK, the first step is to ban Cruise and Brinstar. I bet I could time people out on both stages with less than 10 ledgegrabs consistently. After that's done, THEN you can worry about scrooging on Smashville. MK getting free wins due to CPs is definitely one of the biggest problems with the system right now. But we're not gonna ban SV, and we're not gonna incorporate stupid air time rules etc etc. Start with the worst part of the problem if you're not man enough to attack the root.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If you're not gonna ban MK, the first step is to ban Cruise and Brinstar. I bet I could time people out on both stages with less than 10 ledgegrabs consistently. After that's done, THEN you can worry about scrooging on Smashville. MK getting free wins due to CPs is definitely one of the biggest problems with the system right now. But we're not gonna ban SV, and we're not gonna incorporate stupid air time rules etc etc. Start with the worst part of the problem if you're not man enough to attack the root.

If MK was really the problem, you would see nothing but MK mains (not secondaries) on the top ten of all tournaments. Most players that I know have a pocket MK just for stages like Brinstar and RC.

 

[DMG]

What's stopping people from picking other characters? MK could be god in 1 package, and my neighbor pot filler down the street will still pick Mario and Peach.

 

[Luigi player]

What's stopping people from picking other characters? MK could be god in 1 package, and my neighbor pot filler down the street will still pick Mario and Peach.

he might get red carded for it :/

 

[~ Gheb ~]

If you're not gonna ban MK, the first step is to ban Cruise and Brinstar. I bet I could time people out on both stages with less than 10 ledgegrabs consistently. After that's done, THEN you can worry about scrooging on Smashville. MK getting free wins due to CPs is definitely one of the biggest problems with the system right now. But we're not gonna ban SV, and we're not gonna incorporate stupid air time rules etc etc. Start with the worst part of the problem if you're not man enough to attack the root.

Alright, why don't we just attack the root then?

The most fundamental issue that the US-metagame has with MK is his stalling abilities via planking and scrooging. If we look at the concrete purpose of these tactics we'll quickly see that forcing a time-out situation is what it's all about. Since planking and scrooging give MK no other options other than to stall out the battle is quite obviously a correct conclusion. It's pretty evident by now that a time-out situation is generally desirable for MK. Why is that? The primary win-condition in the USA is to remove 3 stocks of the opponent within 8 minutes, the secondary is to have either more stocks or more percent than the opponent by the time said 8 minutes are over. That would mean that the secondary time-out rule generally supports an "alternate" playstyle for MK more than for the other characters [not debating whether this is "good" or warranted or whatever].

Now if - in contrast - we look at this game under the assumption that we played without a timer would planking and scrooging bring MK any closer to victory? No, let's not even use MK ... let's just use theoretical character XY that has the ability to plank and scrooge like MK does, would he gain any benefit from stalling the battle? Quite clearly, the answer is no. Since we have no secondary win condition to the removal of the opponent's stock these tactics have no inherent purpose without a timer.
This leads to the question why this game needs a timer in the first place - typically the answer is to prevent tourneys from taking too long [whether this is actually the case is a different question...]. But that means that by timing the opponent out the player doesn't actually fulfill a "requirement" for the win but simply abuses a grey zone of the rule-set - a necessity that is not imposed for the game itself but for the tournament environment. I think it's quite feasible that - following this logic - timing out can be considered an illegitimate tactic to win.

OK but what if we don't use the timer for the tourney itself only but also to offer the option of a secondary win condition? Then those people who make that claim still have to justify the logic by which they've chosen stock/percent as the secondary win condition. Why should the ability to deal and to resist knockback be completely ignored for the secondary win condition when it's a major factor for the primary win condition? What logic allows one to say that only percent matter in case of a time-out? Is this not an arbitrary buff to all those characters whose ability to deal damage is more emphasized than their dealing and resistance of knockback, such as MK?

You can say that we use the timer only for the convenience of the tournament - if that's the case then you also give your agreement to the idea that timing the opponent out is not a legitimate tactic because it's not part of the game's rules but only of the tournament's rules [which chronologically and by priority are a level higher than the game's rules].
If you say that we use the timer not only for the convenience of the tournament then a justification is needed as to why we use stock/percent as the secondary win condition [percent in particular]. If the answer is that we lack a better solution then wouldn't that mean you actually agree that a time-out isn't legitimate?
The only way to show that it's *not* the ruleset that makes MK such an overly powerful character [which is already implied through the lack of the MK issue in regions with different rules such as Japan and Europe] is if you can give a logically 100% sound and objective explanation on why the status-quo in North America reflects the way the game is played at its most competitive.

Fixing rules in regards to MK isn't "artificially or arbitrarily nerving" him - it's merely counteracting the artificial and arbitrary buffs that you guys choose to give him through the rules.

tl;dr it's the rules, not MK

 

[ShadowLink84]

We want to prevent broken/excessive stalling. This isn't MK exclusive. Whoever thinks it is isn't up to date with the metagame. A universal LGL fixes this issue altogether (except scrooging.) For those who think it punishes players with subpar recovery options, well too bad. This is a fighting game where recovery is an essential aspect. To create a ruleset to help out characters that don't have strong recovery options to get back on stage with is stupid.

Proof? your information?
all you're doing is saying "ledge stalling is an issue and anyone disagreeign isn't up to date with the metagame"
Really? Where is your information? Your data that proves that ledge stalling in itself is an issue?
The fact that you are at all demanding players to play a different way, and in a manner that does NOT make the ledgegrab information made readily available DURING gameplay alone dictates this as a BAD BAD rule.

You said it yourself, recovery is an essential aspect of the game, so why are you trying to make this aspect even more important by hampering character recovery further? It just makes little sense.

Don't forget that this rule doesn't even come to effect unless the match goes to time out.

Which is even worse!
The player has no method of seeing how many ledgegrabs they made DURING gameplay and thus cannot change their strategy effectively.
The rule is in constant effect, don't try to say otherwise just because it relies on the game timing out.

Which is LOL worthy since then that makes timing out seem bad in itself too!

To bring forth a previous example, if Snake v. DK results in a time-out but DK has over 50 ledge grabs, that is an extremely strong indication of excessive stalling behavior that occurred during the game. The DK obviously did not want to leave the ledge even though it would be the only way to deal more damage to the opponent. But likely, it was a match where the DK had over 50 ledge grabs but the match ended in 5 minutes. Yes, DK grabbed the ledge 5-6 times in succession, but it wasn't excessive stalling obviously because he must have gotten back on or died, otherwise done something to keep the match in progression.

No. It really isn't, perhaps the DK player did not feel being on stage would be safe enough and so he was bidg his time and trying to garner a moment.

The number of ledge grabs is just that, a number. It falls down to interpretation, and in your case, you are looking to deal with ledge grab stalling and thusly, a high number to you means they must have been stalling, where as a high number to me, was them simply waiting for a moment in which they were safe and were not at risk.

Furthermore, you would need to prove that all characters, all 37 of them before you should make any global rule.

The LGL doesn't punish characters with ****ty recovery options unless they proactively choose to stay on the ledge for an excessive amount of time.

You're right, it punishes EVERYONE for even bothering to touch the ledge.

I imagine that being told "you may only grab the ledge a certain amount of times and anymore than that and I'll simply time you out for the win" is definitely punishing characters with poor recoveries who cannot land on stage with ease.
Again, what is the problem with using the ledge excessively?
What is broken about the ledge itself?

Thus, it's not really how many more ledge grabs they have (DK may have more the Pit, which may have more than Samus), but that they all at some point exceeded a limit and the game ended in time-out because of the time they spent on the ledge. Since we can't really measure "time spent on the ledge," we instead implement a reasonable limit for every character to follow.

Okay and so what is the problem with spending excessive amounts of time ont he ledge?
All you are sayig is "We don't want you on the ledge." okay and why is that?
You can spout all the nonsense you wish since the at the very core of your argument, you have nothing to substantiate such a ridiculous rule.

Furthermore it is an entirely subjective rule. How is 35 reasonable? 25? 10? 45? 50?
Show me the data that shows that any of those numbers is perfectly reasonable.
In fact, show me as to how a universal ledge grab rule at all makes sense since all 37 characters have different recoveries.

I am still waiting for that data that shows the ledge broken.

Holy ****, is this really that hard to understand?

Considering how stupid this rule is, I do indeed have an incredibly hard time understanding the notions of one's mind.

Of course this is a case of "OH MY GOD THIS SUCKS GET RID OF IT!"

And finally, scrooging was just a method to go around the LGL as a method to stall. But it's not different from circular camping, reasons why we ban Temple and Luigi's Mansion. Again, is it really hard to say "no scrooging more than 'x' amount of times or you lose if timer goes out?" It's just literally creating an quantitative way of measuring STALLING, something that the ruleset does not accurately prohibit right now.

Did you honestly compare this to circle camping?
Really? Seriously?
Okay here is the difference between circle camping and scrooging.
YOU MUST GET BACK TO THE STAGE OR YOU WILL DIE ALLOWING YOUR OPPONENT TO INTERCEPT YOU UNLESS YOUR METAKNIGHT WHO HAS THAT 2 FRAME UAIR AND 5 JUMPS!

With circle camping, you can constantly ensure that the stage is between you and your opponent, ensuring that you are safe and that your opponent cannot merely change direction to intercept you.

Stalling is the issue. Not MK. Outside of scrooging and planking, which may I remind everyone is not MK-exclusive, there hasn't been any other incident that would call for an MK ban. Not here. Not in EU. Not in Japan.

Stalling in itself is the act of placing yourself in a position in which your opponent cannot harm you for an extended amount of time, as to which it would hinder the competitive nature of the game.

In short, if I am Sonic, and I am dropping from the ledge and then performing a Uair and then snapping back onto the ledge, that is not stalling. You cannot attack me, you can grab the ledge, you have many options to stop me and if I attempt to scrooge, you can intercept me as well since my Up B cannot ledge snap.

On the other hand, if i am performing the Infinite Dimensional Cape? That is stalling.

It is correct to say that scroging and planking are not MK exclusive.
It is incorrect to say that scrooging and planking are stalling techniques.
The only time they become an issue is with Metaknight, which has been proven with frame data.

Air time rule is stupid.

LGL is not because of just MK. It's because of any character capable of abusing the ledge doing so in tournament.

K.
Name them.

Stalling is never a problem. Broken stalling is. Excessive stalling is. This is the case of every fighting game. MK isn't the only one that can do it.

"Stop performing hadokens, its excessive stalling because I can't approach you safely".
That's what you are saying.

MK is the only one shown capable of stalling using the ledge. He is also the only character capable of making use of scrooging to such a great degree as to loophole around any rule.
In fact, you're changing the gameplay on a global scale because of one character who you are then saying "Is not the issue".

RC/Brinstar... get over it dude. I literally have no counter-argument because that's a preposterous statement to defend banning MK in the first place. Because he has a strong advantage on those two stages? Really? That's a reason?

I agree.
Though in truth, it might be because of the fact that we are attempting to place global rules to try and flat out lie about MK being an issue.

EU and Japan don't have as much of an issue with MK, but yo have to keep in mind that the situation is also different, the culture, the players and everything else is different.
One can say that maybe Japan and EU are onto something, on the other hand, it could also be that their MK's just do not abuse the ledge as much or to the same degree.

 

[BSP]

Doesn't the game decide that remaining stock is the determining factor in a timeout?

Percent rule is flawed, we all know, but what else are we going to do?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Percent rule is flawed, we all know, but what else are we going to do?

If you say that we use the timer not only for the convenience of the tournament then a justification is needed as to why we use stock/percent as the secondary win condition [percent in particular]. If the answer is that we lack a better solution then wouldn't that mean you actually agree that a time-out isn't legitimate?

Not a rhetorical question. How can you claim it's legit to time somebody out if you think the very rule used to deal with that is flawed?

 

[Kantrip]

IMO, time-outs should be dealt with by stock. If both players have the same number of stocks remaining, a tiebreaker game (1 stock, 3 minutes) will be played on the same stage. Percents should not be taken into account.

 

[Life]

Stock+Time = more win conditions = more viable strategies to win = more depth.

Since adding a timer adds depth to the game, timing out is legit, and your argument is invalid.

Try harder.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

IMO, time-outs should be dealt with by stock. If both players have the same number of stocks remaining, a tiebreaker game (1 stock, 3 minutes) will be played on the same stage. Percents should not be taken into account.

What if the tiebreaker ends in a time-out? I know it's far-fetched but I heard that idea before and it seems to be the most accepted alternative to what we have atm. But I think there are holes in it that need to be taken care of first.

Stock+Time = more win conditions = more viable strategies to win = more depth.

Since adding a timer adds depth to the game, timing out is legit, and your argument is invalid.

Try harder.

You're ought to explain why *this particular* win condition is the the most viable competitively. Troll posts like this should be infracted.

 

[san.]

IMO, time-outs should be dealt with by stock. If both players have the same number of stocks remaining, a tiebreaker game (1 stock, 3 minutes) will be played on the same stage. Percents should not be taken into account.

That ruins the condition that required a timer in the first place. Matches will take way too long with this in place.

Just increase the timer to 10 minutes, at least 9. It makes stalling each second less valuable.

Many campy matches go very close to the timer, and that's without any stalling at all. Some are difficult to even end before time (those involving a mixture of Jigglypuff, Sonic, TL, maybe Wario)

 

[Kantrip]

Matches taking a maximum of 13 minutes is better than not having a timer at all. I would suggest the tiebreaker match be played with no timer and one stock, but I'm not sure if this could end in taking forever. I know smash 64 gets by with no timer on stock matches.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You're ought to explain why *this particular* win condition is the the most viable competitively. Troll posts like this should be infracted.

So he is trolling you because you did not like the argument he provided?
In anycase, timing out is legitimiate.
While stock removal is the primary, timing out is no less legitimate.
It is created out of necessity, and it determines winner in the event the match goes to time which is also necessary.
Legitimate winning conditions aren't only dictated by the game.

 

[Yikarur]

ignoring % for a timeout is so flawed, % is the best indicator, everything else is far more (or at least as much) abusable.
but topics like that have already been discussed hundreds of times :/

 

[BSP]

Not a rhetorical question. How can you claim it's legit to time somebody out if you think the very rule used to deal with that is flawed?

I meant flawed as in favoring some characters like MK, the fast % rackers.

I don't think using % is wrong though. The reason is because doing damage is what you have to do to, eventually, take stocks, the main objective. I see % as how much you're being outplayed pretty much. If time runs out and A is at 200%, and B is at 50%, I'm going to think B outplayed A and deserves the win.

The only problem is with like...10% leads, cause that's just one hit away from most characters. Then, I'd be fine with a tiebreak. Yeah, 10% is arbitrary, but it's negotiable in my case.

IMO, time-outs should be dealt with by stock. If both players have the same number of stocks remaining, a tiebreaker game (1 stock, 3 minutes) will be played on the same stage. Percents should not be taken into account.

The problem with this is if I have 180% as snake, with 4 seconds left. I kill you and even the stocks, but by this rule, we're set back on even ground, even though, IMO, you outplayed me since I'm at 180% at that point, and I just got you to your last stock.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

ignoring % for a timeout is so flawed

So is using % only.

% is the best indicator

I showed why it's not. Burden of proof is on you.

everything else is far more (or at least as much) abusable.

Vague. What contains "everything else"? How is it abusable and how do you know? Have you tested "everything else". Show proof for all statements

I meant flawed as in favoring some characters like MK, the fast % rackers.

I don't think using % is wrong though. The reason is because doing damage is what you have to do to, eventually, take stocks, the main objective. I see % as how much you're being outplayed pretty much. If time runs out and A is at 200%, and B is at 50%, I'm going to think B outplayed A and deserves the win.

But what if it's MK at 110% timing out Snake at 109%? MK can't kill Snake within the next hit but Snake can kill MK within the next hit. Is it possible to objectively define who is closer to fulfilling his primary win condition in this case? Why is it OK to ignore Snakes vast advantage in his ability to inflict knockback and only take the % into account for the secondary win conditiont?

The only problem is with like...10% leads, cause that's just one hit away from most characters. Then, I'd be fine with a tiebreak. Yeah, 10% is arbitrary, but it's negotiable in my case.

But where's the line between negotiable and not negotiable? A 10% difference might be negotiable between 700% and 710% but not between 100% and 110%. Why is a 10% negotiable but a 11% lead isn't?

 

[Life]

You're ought to explain why *this particular* win condition is the the most viable competitively.

First, you should be the one explaining why having a timer reduces depth. Burden of proof, remember? Right now you're just calling it illegitimate on the basis that it isn't necessary to the game but is necessary to the tournament. Guess what: Final Destination is neither necessary to the game nor necessary to the tournament, it must be worse than the timer! Am I missing something? You appear to be arguing to remove the timer on the basis that it's a tournament necessity. What crap is that? "Hey guys, a timer is totally necessary to have a tournament running on time, therefore having a timer is illegitimate!"

Second, why are you complaining about the rules here and not in the BRC thread? You know, where many more people are right now (because of the M2K thing), where far better debaters than me could whip up a post much better than this one in about five minutes, and where this would actually be an on-topic conversation?

That said, I'll bite anyway:

Stock only: nobody has incentive to approach. If we weren't impatient human beings, games could hypothetically last forever. To put it another way: the best strategy becomes not fighting your opponent. Approaching is more likely to get you burned than it is to benefit you, so why approach?

Timer only: Has all the same problems as Stock+Time (how to resolve timeouts) with no apparent benefits, but is pretty much guaranteed to take longer unless you use a shorter timer (which has its own problems). There are probably actual reasons I can't think of, sorry, but this isn't what you argued for anyway. Anyone?

Coin: ...do I have to explain this?

Troll posts like this should be infracted.

I'm not trolling, but if I hypothetically were, you just admitted to taking troll bait, no? If you truly thought I was trolling, the sensible action would have been to report the post and not dignify it with a response. (Though that route tends to be boring.)

 

[~ Gheb ~]

First, you should be the one explaining why having a timer reduces depth.

What's the point of this dummy argument? Depth has nothing to do with it and I never said that "having a timer reduces depth". I've never even made an argument about the timer [other than that i think it should be 10 minutes but that's a different thread I made that statement in] - I simply described it as a circumstance that affects the issue. I made no judging statement on it.

Right now you're just calling it illegitimate on the basis that it isn't necessary to the game but is necessary to the tournament. Guess what: Final Destination is neither necessary to the game nor necessary to the tournament, it must be worse than the timer! Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. I'm not calling it illegitimate on the account that it's not necessary - in fact, I'm not calling the timer illegitimate at all.

You appear to be arguing to remove the timer on the basis that it's a tournament necessity. What crap is that? "Hey guys, a timer is totally necessary to have a tournament running on time, therefore having a timer is illegitimate!"

Once again, I've never argued the removal of the timer. Read my post carefully before you try to make yourself look smart but end up achieving the opposite.

Second, why are you complaining about the rules here and not in the BRC thread?

I am not complaining, I am explaining. What motivation would I have to complain about a ruleset that's not used at the tournaments I attend? I'm pointing out flaws and bring attention to things that are often overlooked or swept under the rug by pro-ban scrubs. And if the legality of MK doesn't affect the tier list then I don't know what does so I don't see why an argument on it is necessarily out of place [even though it's looked down upon].

 

[Chuee]

Just increase the timer to 10 minutes, at least 9. It makes stalling each second less valuable.

this
this
this
this
this

 

[ShadowLink84]

So is using % only.

Both % and stock is used.

I showed why it's not. Burden of proof is on you.

Burden of proof is in the event one is arguing against something already established.

All you said was "the percent/timer/stock/timeout buffs some characters".
Okay so what?
The rule unintentionally buffs them because it is necessary to determine a winner in the event there is a time ot as well as to ensure the tournament ends and players interact.

I you are going to say burden of proof, you would need to establish that percent/stock is a poor way of determining winner in the event of timeout and establish a new method!

Timeouts are legitimate mode of winning because that is what the rules established. Simply because the game did not create such a thing does not make it any less legitimate.

Vague. What contains "everything else"? How is it abusable and how do you know? Have you tested "everything else". Show proof for all statements

He does not need to because the current established mode of winning is either stock loss, or time out with percent/stock

But what if it's MK at 110% timing out Snake at 109%? MK can't kill Snake within the next hit but Snake can kill MK within the next hit. Is it possible to objectively define who is closer to fulfilling his primary win condition in this case? Why is it OK to ignore Snakes vast advantage in his ability to inflict knockback and only take the % into account for the secondary win conditiont?

This is a PURELY subjective argument and is FILLED with what if scenarios.
What is MK suddenly obliterates Snake? Why ignore MK's ability to space and edge guard?
If at any point you try arguing for or against a character, then you are already trying to surgically buff/nerf a character which is wrong.
Global changes should be made for global issues because they address the competitiveness of the game as a whole.

this
this
this
this
this

Prove that timeouts are an issue.
Seriously, quit whining about something that makes up less than 1% of all matches.

It is scrubby as hell.

 

[NO-IDea]

I started to create a reply to Shadowlink, but then read Gheb's post and thought otherwise.

In short, timer's should not create a win condition based on "health" since this game is not based on "health." It's based on stocks. That is what differentiates Smash from Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, nearly every other fighting game. For them, health is a constant measure. For Brawl, we can SD at 0% or live to 200% before dying.

Win by percent should not exist. Our current ruleset isn't even a hybridization of time mode and stock mode of Smash. Even in time mode, it's whoever takes the most stocks becomes the victor once time is over. If the stocks taken are the same, it goes to sudden death.

Our current problem is a product of our ruleset. It needs to more accurately reflect the win conditions of the game, not create it's own.

I cannot fathom anybody trying to make a counterargument to this. I'm literally saying, "play the game the way it was meant to be played." For anyone who believes that I'm trying to add rules to surgically change the game, they don't understand that I'm trying to revert back to how the game was designed.

I would honestly rather remove the timer than include a LGL and scrooging rule, just to eliminate the percentage win condition altogether. However, if that can't be done, then other measures need to take place to at least discourage players from abusing this gaping hole in the ruleset.

 

[BSP]

Ok, what was deemed wrong with looking at hit percentage?

Nvm, I remembered

btw, i do see Gheb's point, but I'm not sure if we can find a way to solve timeout that doesn't particular favor one character style

 

[Nidtendofreak]

I cannot fathom anybody trying to make a counterargument to this. I'm literally saying, "play the game the way it was meant to be played." For anyone who believes that I'm trying to add rules to surgically change the game, they don't understand that I'm trying to revert back to how the game was designed.

There is no set way the game was meant to be play. If you can choose the settings without hacking, it's "a way the game was meant to be played".

How is a timer on stocks "not how the game was meant to be played", if it's an option in the menu?

 

[ShadowLink84]

I started to create a reply to Shadowlink, but then read Gheb's post and thought otherwise.

Interesting.
Might I ask why?

In short, timer's should not create a win condition based on "health" since this game is not based on "health." It's based on stocks. That is what differentiates Smash from Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, nearly every other fighting game. For them, health is a constant measure. For Brawl, we can SD at 0% or live to 200% before dying.

Have you ever played Stamina mode?
Have you also not noticed that as your percent goes p, so does your ability to get knocked the **** out the area?
That is a good representation of health since the higher your percent, the more easily it is to knock you out of the arena.

Sure, it is not the exact same as SF,MK or other modes, but the relation is there in that th ehigher your percent, the easier it is to land a "kill" on your opponent.
Furthermore, the percent is a requirement because going by stock makes it impossible to differentiate a winner in the event the game is close.

So if both opponent's have 1 stock, what is to determine a winner?
Sudden death?
Sudden death sticks both of them at 300% and starts raining bombs on everyone if it takes too long.
Do you truly think that is a competitive method?

Win by percent should not exist. Our current ruleset isn't even a hybridization of time mode and stock mode of Smash. Even in time mode, it's whoever takes the most stocks becomes the victor once time is over. If the stocks taken are the same, it goes to sudden death.

Win by percent/stock is a necessity in determining the winner in as little a subjective manner as possible.
Time mode determines victor according to points, not necessarily stocks.
So if I jab you and you then run off the ledge, I get points and you lose points.
If suicide, I lose points but you gain none.
EVERYONE SUICIDE!

We could modify the pointless to be greater than points gained from a kill, but then no one would ever approach and since we have no stocks to measure, we would be forced to rely on... wait a second... PERCENT!
Or would you like to play SD mode?

Our current problem is a product of our ruleset. It needs to more accurately reflect the win conditions of the game, not create it's own.

Remove counterpicking. That was not naturally in the game.

I cannot fathom anybody trying to make a counterargument to this.

Then you are incredibly narrow minded and I have little desire to continue any argument with you any further.

I'm literally saying, "play the game the way it was meant to be played." For anyone who believes that I'm trying to add rules to surgically change the game, they don't understand that I'm trying to revert back to how the game was designed.

Which is why you are arguing for an LGL which does NOT exist within the game.
You are contradicting yourself hard core and making changes simply because you want change, not because those changes are competitively sound or healthy.

You may dislike stock/percent but it is an objective method of determining winner in the event of time out.

LGL is not the way to go because it is entirely subjective.

I would honestly rather remove the timer than include a LGL and scrooging rule, just to eliminate the percentage win condition altogether. However, if that can't be done, then other measures need to take place to at least discourage players from abusing this gaping hole in the ruleset.

I'll make sure to ask for my money back in the event I get DQ'ed for grabbing the ledge too much as Sonic.

Cause...you know...Sonic on the ledge is stalling.
You totally can't hit me or anything.

 

[NO-IDea]

There is no set way the game was meant to be play. If you can choose the settings without hacking, it's "a way the game was meant to be played".

How is a timer on stocks "not how the game was meant to be played", if it's an option in the menu?

Fine then. So when the game goes to time, then let the game decide the winner.

Without hacking the game and only changing the settings, who are we to also DETERMINE THE WINNER when the game does it for us?

When stock mode on 8 min goes to time and both players are on the same stock, it goes to SUDDEN DEATH, not LOW PERCENT WINS.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

We can use % when stocks are tied without hacking the game. We're ignoring the sudden death just like how we ignore stages like Hyrule in our stage selection.

You're not going to get % victory removed in favor of anything dude.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Fine then. So when the game goes to time, then let the game decide the winner.

The game has no method of doing so, hence why stock/percent is used.
The only time it decides is with suicide moves based on several factors with Ganondorf being random.

Without hacking the game and only changing the settings, who are we to also DETERMINE THE WINNER when the game does it for us?

The game goes to SD and starts raining bombs on you.
Truly competitive

When stock mode on 8 min goes to time and both players are on the same stock, it goes to SUDDEN DEATH, not LOW PERCENT WINS.

Cause b-ombs raining from the sky =competitive

 

[John12346]

Gheb, the problem is you're not making your arguments concise enough, lol. I'm pretty good at tl;dr'ing things, so let me give it a shot.

Inferiority, Gheb's argument is that, since the timer is in place to make sure tournaments end on time, rather than to satisfy the end of some in-game mechanic, he believes timeouts are not a legitimate form of victory, because the timer itself concerns the tournament, rather than the game itself.

In the next part, Gheb basically says if that if we still accept timeouts as a legitimate form of victory despite the above reasoning, then having a percent/stock lead is flawed because it doesn't actually take into account which character was closer to death(because of weight, fallspeeds, etc).

And then something about MK being broken because our timeout rules are set up the way they are right now, rather than the character himself.

I don't exactly agree with this reasoning, but I think that's the point Gheb was trying to get across, so have at it. Gheb if I missed something, go ahead and speak up.

 

[Chuee]

Prove that timeouts are an issue.
Seriously, quit whining about something that makes up less than 1% of all matches.

It is scrubby as hell.

Who gives a **** of only 1% actually go to time.
There's plenty more that could have gone to time or didn't because one player was forced to do something risky as hell to try and win/gain % lead before the time ran out.
I could pull up plenty of matches where dumb **** happened because of the threat of a time out.

 

[BSP]

The game does establish stock as the primary win condition.

Put on a timer, kill yourself, and let it run out. The opponent wins.

But same stock? Yeah, SDs. We're throwing the % in there.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Who gives a **** of only 1% actually go to time.

People whose I.Q. is above that of an individual with down syndrome.
In short, anyone with a working brain.

No offense to those suffering down syndrome as the insult was meant purely for the sake of pointing out Chuee's foolishness rather than a shot at those who are mentally inhibited.

There's plenty more that could have gone to time or didn't because one player was forced to do something risky as hell to try and win/gain % lead before the time ran out.

So?

I could pull up plenty of matches where dumb **** happened because of the threat of a time out.

So?
QQ moar because you didn't see the end result you wanted.
No one cares about what you WANT, what is important is what is NEEDED.
Maybe if the community wasn't so scrubby and illustrated such moronic behavior, we would be half respected by other communities and may even have had another shot with MLG.

On the other hand, considering the community in itself acts like a newborn infant that can do little more than cry and **** itself when left alone... yeah you get where I am going with this reasoning.

 

[John12346]

Assuming my tl;dr of Gheb's argument is spot on

The reason we use percent as our secondary win condition is due to the fact we really don't have any better way to determine a victor in case of timeout. And considering the existing threat of tournaments going on for too long without some kind of limitation, I would say that adding a timer and timeout rules are a good idea.

And that MK's just broken

 

[ShadowLink84]

And that MK's just broken on the ledge

I added a wee bit more.

 

[John12346]

Maybe super duper broken on the ledge...

Off the ledge, just broken...

 

[Chuee]

People whose I.Q. is above that of an individual with down syndrome.
In short, anyone with a working brain.

No offense to those suffering down syndrome as the insult was meant purely for the sake of pointing out Chuee's foolishness rather than a shot at those who are mentally inhibited.

So?


So?
QQ moar because you didn't see the end result you wanted.
No one cares about what you WANT, what is important is what is NEEDED.
Maybe if the community wasn't so scrubby and illustrated such moronic behavior, we would be half respected by other communities and may even have had another shot with MLG.

On the other hand, considering the community in itself acts like a newborn infant that can do little more than cry and **** itself when left alone... yeah you get where I am going with this reasoning.

lmao sounds like you're the one with down syndrome bro.
It's not about what I want as an end result, It's about what's actually competitively fair. The way you win in this game is by knocking your opponent out of the blast zone 3 times before they do it to you. When a timeout occurs, you suddenly stop the match where it is and decide a winner. Let's take for example snake vs sheik. Sheik's biggest problem in the MU is that she can't kill snake. Let's say the match goes to time and Sheik is at around 100% while snake is at 105%. Just looking at the match snake would seem to have the advantage since he can kill sheik at that percent reliably with his utilt, while Sheik still has quite a bit of damage she has to do to snake before she can reliably kill him. This is the problem with timeouts. Percent advantage does NOT mean you have the advantage. Increasing the timer only 2 minutes would get rid of almost all timeouts.

btw good job on not actually doing anything besides calling me mentally ******** in your post.

 

[NO-IDea]

Shadowlink is terrible at argumentation and results to ad hominem in nearly EVERY post I read. Honestly? Attacking people's intelligence? On the internet?! Way to go bro.

Interesting.
Might I ask why?

Because you're pompous, arrogant and barely participate in this community's tournament scene as it is. I honestly don't value the opinion of those who so easily discredit others without earning any themselves.

Have you ever played Stamina mode?
Have you also not noticed that as your percent goes p, so does your ability to get knocked the **** out the area?
That is a good representation of health since the higher your percent, the more easily it is to knock you out of the arena.

I obviously agree with what you're trying to imply in the first two sentences. However, to state that it's a good representation of health is faulty since as I said before, percentage certainly effects your ability to stay on the arena but it isn't the dominating factor. Don't forget character weight, recovery, kill power, etc.

Sure, it is not the exact same as SF,MK or other modes, but the relation is there in that th ehigher your percent, the easier it is to land a "kill" on your opponent.
Furthermore, the percent is a requirement because going by stock makes it impossible to differentiate a winner in the event the game is close.

So? In a football game, the closer you are to the touchdown line, the easier it is to land a touchdown. When that goes to time, they don't go by closer yards or who's in possession. They go by TDs, then they go into overtime. Likewise in every other competitive sport or video game that has such a primary, objective, quantitative method of victory. If victory is not declared because stocks are even, then maybe we need to either remove the timer or increase it. Or do a 1-stock rematch (there are obviously a lot of issues with this particular idea, don't ****ing try to go off topic to attack this to boost your ego because it's no better than the win by percent condition.) Not assume a different win condition.

The difference is that in other fighting games, health IS the primary, objective, quantitative method. When time runs out, they go by that. We aren't judging by our primary win condition and no one is giving a good reason why.

So if both opponent's have 1 stock, what is to determine a winner?
Sudden death?
Sudden death sticks both of them at 300% and starts raining bombs on everyone if it takes too long.
Do you truly think that is a competitive method?

No. Sakurai made it fun by setting the percents to 300% each and raining bombs. But do you really think percentage is a competitive method based upon how different Smash is relative to other fighting games?

Win by percent/stock is a necessity in determining the winner in as little a subjective manner as possible.
Time mode determines victor according to points, not necessarily stocks.
So if I jab you and you then run off the ledge, I get points and you lose points.
If suicide, I lose points but you gain none.
EVERYONE SUICIDE!

We could modify the pointless to be greater than points gained from a kill, but then no one would ever approach and since we have no stocks to measure, we would be forced to rely on... wait a second... PERCENT!
Or would you like to play SD mode?

Hence why we don't use time mode, or else someone will abuse that mechanic. But we are also finding people abusing the **** out of the time limit in stock mode and you don't find that equally as offensive? Hypocrite much?

We obviously need to find a balance or a way to prevent such abusive stalling behavior. Literally, removing the time limit fixes it. The only concern is how long tournaments may run if we remove it.

Remove counterpicking. That was not naturally in the game.

Multiple stages are. And we generally adjust the stage list so people can't abuse mechanics of certain stages. You need to chill bro and stop going to such extremities.

Then you are incredibly narrow minded and I have little desire to continue any argument with you any further.

ROFL. You're a joke. Statements like this don't make yourself look good.

Which is why you are arguing for an LGL which does NOT exist within the game.
You are contradicting yourself hard core and making changes simply because you want change, not because those changes are competitively sound or healthy.

You may dislike stock/percent but it is an objective method of determining winner in the event of time out.

LGL is not the way to go because it is entirely subjective.

So is percent. They're both numbers, aren't they? Percent shows how much damage you've dealt/received. More ledges grabbed tend to indicate you were not in the dominant position for the majority of the match.

I argue for a LGL if we cannot remove the timer. If you're going to have something so subjective as percent, because health in other fighting games (Tekken, MvC3, SF, etc.) is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT than how percentage works in smash, it wouldn't hurt to also include a LGL so we have a way to determine the victor in a time-out WHILE discouraging broken, excessive stall play.

I'll make sure to ask for my money back in the event I get DQ'ed for grabbing the ledge too much as Sonic.

Cause...you know...Sonic on the ledge is stalling.
You totally can't hit me or anything.

LOL at your terrible examples. Let's change it to something else, say Pit or GW. I would ****ing hope we DQ or give a penalty to a player who camped the ledge all day after landing one bacon or one arrow and winning the match. That's not how stock mode was supposed to be played. The difference between Sonic camping the ledge and Pit/GW and Sonic stalling by running around on stage is that this is a 2-D game, and at some point you can force Sonic to have to run through or over you, meaning you can punish the landing lag. Unlike Pit/GW/any planker who sits stationary on the ledge and waits for time to end. I shouldn't have to force the planker to come up onto the stage when the whole point of the game is to knock him off the stage and keep him off.

The only reason people are playing that way is because our faulty ruleset allows it. Hence the need for change.

Based on your logic, why not we just play by stamina mode instead of stock mode? Percentage is SOOO important. Wait... can't you win stamina mode without even dealing damage if they SD? Or win without dealing 150% just by gimping them?

EVEN IN STAMINA MODE FOR THAT MATTER, if there's a timer, doesn't it go to sudden death? Not lower percent wins? I don't even know honestly, but regardless of the answer we don't use stamina mode. We use stock mode. We should play by stocks. Not percents.

You complain about surgical changes to the game when you're defending one of the biggest surgical changes ever made in our ruleset.

 

[Metakill]

i was reading amm page 148 and 149 and something like "you can extend cape... X seconds or something"
can extend cape for a few seconds or something?