Official BBR Tier List v6

[Ripple]

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?

use down-b as MK while on the stage and mash up on the c-stick. it results in him staying intangible as long as you mash up constantly.

 

[Metakill]

use down-b as MK while on the stage and mash up on the c-stick. it results in him staying intangible as long as you mash up constantly.

i already know the glitch and that..
my question is legal to extend maybe a seconds in tourneys? some like "go away to the other side of the stage"

 

[Life]

Gheb: If timeouts are illegitimate, it would make sense not to have timeouts, right? And timing out is possible if and only if we have a timer. Therefore, when you say "Timing out is an illegitimate tactic", I read "The timer is illegitimate". And what do we do with illegitimate elements? Get rid of them. Hence, "You're arguing to get rid of the timer"--hence my post. Does that make more sense?

We have to have a timer, therefore we have to consider timing out a legitimate tactic. Otherwise, it's impossible to play this game in a tournament setting.

As for the percent rule: We have to have a method to determine the winner in a timeout scenario. The game gives us stock victories, and it works and makes sense. For stock ties, the game gives us Super Sudden Death, which would be okay-ish if it weren't for the randomly dropping Bob-ombs. Since we have to excise this anticompetitive element, but we still need a method to resolve stock ties, we give victory to the person with a percent lead, as it's the most accurate way to determine who's leading. Is Snake at 110% versus Jiggs at 109% going to fall through the cracks? Yeah. Are there going to be far fewer things that fall through the percent rule's cracks than through any other rule's cracks? Also yeah. So we use the least flawed rule.

(And thanks John#)

 

[Exdeath]

Why not keep the % rule and use KB resistance as a modifier for who should win in the event of a time out?

 

[Life]

Actually, Xdeath, I had considered mentioning something about a formula... but it's kinda inconvenient to have to keep all that data and a calculator on hand, no? And horrible inconvenience tends to keep the new players away, no? And the formula itself would be pretty arbitrary, and it couldn't count for things like momentum canceling ability (MK, for one, can live much longer than his weight would suggest)...

 

[Ripple]

i already know the glitch and that..
my question is legal to extend maybe a seconds in tourneys? some like "go away to the other side of the stage"

no, extending the cape any distance is banned

 

[Exdeath]

Actually, Xdeath, I had considered mentioning something about a formula... but it's kinda inconvenient to have to keep all that data and a calculator on hand, no? And horrible inconvenience tends to keep the new players away, no? And the formula itself would be pretty arbitrary, and it couldn't count for things like momentum canceling ability (MK, for one, can live much longer than his weight would suggest)...

It would be inconvenient if you have to use it, but how many new players do you see taking their matches to time? How many matches do you see going to time, period?

Considering that I hear plenty of "What is the stage list?" at virtually every tournament that I go to, I don't see it alienating anyone if you have to ask a TO to come examine a match because it went to time unless you have a lot of them, which simply isn't the case.

It also just so happens that all but one major planking character (DK) is a light-weight (e.g. MK/G&W) or barely a mid-weight (e.g. Pit/Marth), and as such would tend toward having to deal with a larger modifier.

I'm purely guessing, but Snake seems to resist knock back about 1.5 times as much as MK (probably more), which would basically put Snake at 150% and MK at 100% as being even. Naturally, that won't help as much in a MU like G&W vs. Diddy either, but at least it would be more accurate toward which player was closer to winning.

 

[NO-IDea]

Why not keep the % rule and use KB resistance as a modifier for who should win in the event of a time out?

Too many variables involved. Not only would you have to consider the KB resistance of a character, you'd also have to consider recovery, momentum canceling, killpower of the opponent, etc.

Hence why the %rule was wrong to begin with. It just isn't accurate enough to portray who was the better player.

 

[Kirby is GOD]

Um, you guys put a Rosalina icon where a Peach icon should be.

 

[Chuee]

Oh we did?
Whoops, sorry.
Will fix soon!

 

[Ripple]

Um, you guys put a Rosalina icon where a Peach icon should be.

its a running joke around here that peach isn't a character. we put rosalina in her stead

 

[ShadowLink84]

lmao sounds like you're the one with down syndrome bro.

only if I face roll my laptop.

It's not about what I want as an end result, It's about what's actually competitively fair.

Okay, how is it unfair?

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.

It is not a problem with timeouts Chuee, it is an inherent issue with the game itself.
In any game where characters are not merely skin swaps, this will occur.
There will always be favoritism.

You dislike how the system favors a character? Blame the designers not the actual rule itself.
It is not an issue with timeouts in themselves period.
Play the original Street Fighter if you have such an issue with the system.

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

Considering you went "who give sa damn abut percent! blah blah blah"
There was little other than QQing about how things SHOULD have gone.
HOw it SHOULD be this, and unfortunately, that isn't how things work out.

The timer's function is to force the approach, it did its job, why cry about it doing its exact function?

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.

I ceased being kind enough to entertain every tear that people shed over the game.
Still get my point across though.

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.

you see, there is a difference between being able to participate, and being unable to participate.
My case is the latter, for one who wishes to speak so poorly about myself, you are very quick to do the same and make assumptions.
Congrats.

Now as for myself, pompous? Arrogant? Hardly, I spea blntly, and I've grown rather tired of the community and its overall *****iness.
I care little about what you value, I would care more if you address the argument, rather than run in circles shrieking about a system being flawed that is a result of the core gameplay.

I have no qualms discrediting an individual who does not at all care about proving his argument, so much as getting what he wants.

I obviously agree withwhat 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.

Naturally, the issue however is that there is no method by which to account for all of such things.
It is such a problem that even Street Fighter 4 relies to it.
Zangief has 1200.
DHalsim as 900.
They run by percent so it the same issue with their timeout rule when relying on percent.
Far too many factors and doing so would surely upset the competitive scene

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.

That is primarily because our aim is different. With football, ther eis a clear cut method of determining who is the winner.
With this game, one cannot continue playing the match over and over.
Tournaments already tend to run overtime for varius reasons, as such running a 1 stock sudden death wouldn't work because player's will naturally play defensively and in the event it ends with no death, who would win?

Therefore, the secondary condition is used, that of stock and percentage.
Other games involving fighting use this as well including SF4 in which characters have different amounts of health.

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?

Sakurai gave us tripping dude. Never look to him for fun.

I started playing competitively with Guilty Gear, so for me it is the BEST method for the competitive format. It is because smash is so different in its gameplay that it becomes far too difficult to try and etch out something for its own.
There are the implications of stock, so while it may be distasteful, percent is the best and most objection based and is most readily available to players.

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?

Hardly, because the method by which one wins and loses is different in timer from stock.
One cannot suicide to maintain a point lead, and the condition of removing stocks exists so that the timer need not be used to the full extent of its time.

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.

The issue is showing that stalling on the ledge in itself is an issue which it has not proven to be for any character.
A global change would mean there is a global issue at hand, there is no need to limit a character's gameplay if there ledge game is not a problem.

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.

Stages are different, they tend to overcentralize gameplay.
For example, circle camping or back camping walk ways.
They tend to favor a certain strategy to the extreme and thus is not competitively viable.

Planking is not the same because only one character can truly abuse it.

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

I do not care about looking good so much as I care about the argument.
Considering that you said it yourself you can see NO counter argument, it means you've decided your position and will not change it.

I dislike debating with anyone who is so quick to make such statements.
Furthermore for one who questioned my usage of ad hominems, you are doing the same.

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.

Percent is made available INSTANTLY.
The number of ledge grabs is not.
Furthermore, ledge grabs needs to be determined on an entire subjective basis.

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.

Prove that playing on the ledge is broken outside of MK. There is frame data to show only MK is the issue currently and no one else.
A timer is needed as well because without the timer, LGL loses its purpose.
It is also not feasible for large events as you would need a referee for every set being played,

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.

Both Pit and G&W can be edgehogged/struck while they are ledge stalling.
Your argument fails in that you are attempting to place a global LGL for something that affects only MK.

You can force both of those characters both on the stage.
The game was meant for the ledge to be used, who are you to say we should not make use of something that is part of core gameplay?

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

The issues with the faults are a result in differences between characters, not an issue with the ruleset in itself.
It is too subjective to custom tailor it to account for every character, and using an LGL has its obvious issues.

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?

Percentage is indeed so important. You may dislike it but it is needed to ensure that as much of a objective decision is made.

As for stamina mode, yes you can indeed gimp them and if they SD that is it for them as well.

I honestly cannot remember why stamina mode is not used. I think there were some implications with it for some reason.

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.

If I remember correctly it goes to sudden death. The Wii is currently in New York and has yet to be brought down *le sigh*

I do not believe they programmed it to read the percent.
We do indeed go by stock, but when stocks are the same at the end, what is to determine the win in a fair manner?
After all if we do 1 stock 3 minute, it rewards the losing player.

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

The timer is something that is necessary and it affects characters GLOBALLY.

 

[NO-IDea]

Just going to shortly review some points:

In SF, they go by percentage of health. In Smash, we can't directly use percents because unlike SF, our percent does not account for how much more percent is typically needed to end the match. One could argue Ryu wins with his 9% health left over Sagat's 7%, but who is to argue that MK wins with his 89% to Snake's 100%?

The percentage in Smash that is so objectively and blatantly provided does not account for character traits like SF's and most figher games' health bars do. Hence why we need something better. Smash isn't like those kind of fighter games. It deserves a more unique ruleset.

Finally, I want to ask why you think timer is such a necessity. It has been everyone's experience that a TO typically does not start the events on schedule, and at larger tournaments, often be several hours late. Are we really creating a timer rule to alleviate that issue? Why aren't we expecting our TOs to essentially "TO Better?" Perhaps why Smash is so unprofessional and immature is due to our lack of responsibility and authority. The community barely manages itself as it is.

 

[Kantrip]

The truth is, with Brawl, the timer isn't just to keep things moving. It's also used to force somebody to approach. Brawl rewards camping more than 64 and Melee combined because of the nature of its gameplay. Relying on reads and spacing is a lot easier to do on the defensive than on the aggressive. This is why approaching is actually putting yourself at a disadvantage. Without a timer, Brawl would become a snooze camping test-of-patience fest. That is, at top levels of play at least.

 

[NO-IDea]

The truth is, with Brawl, the timer isn't just to keep things moving. It's also used to force somebody to approach. Brawl rewards camping more than 64 and Melee combined because of the nature of its gameplay. Relying on reads and spacing is a lot easier to do on the defensive than on the aggressive. This is why approaching is actually putting yourself at a disadvantage. Without a timer, Brawl would become a snooze camping test-of-patience fest. That is, at top levels of play at least.

Camping and poking are two separate things.

Yes, being overly aggressive is heavily punished in Brawl due to lack of shield stun. But poking is where the metagame is now, not camping (exclude the ledge for now). You can poke with projectiles or poke with aerials and jabs, but regardless it's forcing a response.

Poking progresses the match. Camping may or may not. I hope you understand the difference.

A good recent example would be ADHD vs DEHF. DEHF could camp with lasers, but in this scenario it would force ADHD to respond or allow DEHF to rack up free damage.

However, there are other forms of camping that don't progress the match. Planking/camping the ledge where all your opponent is doing is waiting to punish you to get on does not progress the match. Either someone has to go down there or someone has to come up. Typically, it should be that a player does not give up the superior position (on stage, because you have the most options.) Why wouldn't the character on the ledge not want to go up?

Win by percent. Ergo the problem. In this example, yes we find the timer forcing an approach. But we find that a player is approaching even though they have a superior position? That defies what stock-mode in Brawl is about. Without a timer, the opposite would occur. The player in the losing position should be approaching. They should have to fight to regain what they lost. Because no player actually would want to spawn on the ledge with less options. You don't see players on Battlefield at the beginning of the match going straight for the ledge. They typically get off the platform in order to have more options.

I dunno how else to explain it.

 

[Kantrip]

I was responding to the post you said just above mine that was asking why a timer is such a necessity. It's a necessity because there is no "Win by percent" without a timer. A falco can camp with lasers, sure, but they aren't going to kill. They may get some free percent, but without approaching the match will never end. We need a timer to force that approach.

 

[NO-IDea]

Well, is win by percent a necessity?

I've seen DEHF camp until killing someone with f-tilt at like 200%. It still progresses the match. If his opponent does nothing but receive damage, it will come to a point where the Falco can safely throw out his usual pokes, but instead they kill.

And bear in mind, I've seen this happen in games that end in less than 8 minutes.

So again, is a timer even necessary? The arguments for a timer it seems is to progress the match. And yet without a timer, the match progresses on its own. The other argument of a timer is to "ensure" tournaments run on time. And yet, if TOs did a better job instead of starting pools hours late, or forming the bracket 30 minutes before it's supposed to be announced, it would save more time than implementing a timer would...

 

[Kantrip]

Ganondorf VS Olimar. Ganondorf seriously just can't approach without getting wrecked. He sets himself up as a wall and just stays out of Pikmin range. Olimar tosses Pikmin at his leisure, knowing the match is his if Ganondorf approaches. With a timer, Ganondorf eventually has to get aggressive or lose by time-out. In 9/10 cases, he loses anyways.

Without a timer, Ganondorf feels no pressure to put himself at the disadvantage of approaching. Olimar doesn't want or need to approach because he's perfectly fine with camping that Ganondorf (and possibly getting some free % in), and Ganondorf still doesn't want to approach because he will get punished. Neither player is going to put themself at a disadvantage unless forced to by another circumstance (such as a timer).

 

[NO-IDea]

Ganondorf VS Olimar. Ganondorf seriously just can't approach without getting wrecked. He sets himself up as a wall and just stays out of Pikmin range. Olimar tosses Pikmin at his leisure, knowing the match is his if Ganondorf approaches. With a timer, Ganondorf eventually has to get aggressive or lose by time-out. In 9/10 cases, he loses anyways.

Without a timer, Ganondorf feels no pressure to put himself at the disadvantage of approaching. Olimar doesn't want or need to approach because he's perfectly fine with camping that Ganondorf (and possibly getting some free % in), and Ganondorf still doesn't want to approach because he will get punished. Neither player is going to put themself at a disadvantage unless forced to by another circumstance (such as a timer).

Well no. Olimar can force an approach in that scenario. What is Ganon going to do as Olimar safely racks up damage by throwing pikmin? The shield is going to diminish, Ganon's aerials are going to stale and not be able to remove the pikmin, purple pikmin are going to be plucked and thrown, etc.

Even without a timer, Ganondorf is forced to approach. If he doesn't, the damage will rack and it will get to a point where Olimar's safest pokes are going to be capable of killing him.

 

[Kantrip]

But why? Ganondorf isn't going to die by Olimar's damage racking alone. Olimar still needs to approach so he can land a kill move. Which brings me back to the dilemna: why approach?

A timer of some sort is necessary.

 

[Chuee]

Time to dissect you

only if I face roll my laptop.

Okay, how is it unfair?

because a timeout isn't letting the players finish the game

It is not a problem with timeouts Chuee, it is an inherent issue with the game itself.
In any game where characters are not merely skin swaps, this will occur.
There will always be favoritism.

Except
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FAVORITISM WHEN THERE AREN'T TIMEOUTS!
EVERYONE WINS!

You dislike how the system favors a character? Blame the designers not the actual rule itself.
It is not an issue with timeouts in themselves period.
Play the original Street Fighter if you have such an issue with the system.

No, I have an issue with the timer forcing players to do extremely risky things because they fear a timeout.

Considering you went "who give sa damn abut percent! blah blah blah"
There was little other than QQing about how things SHOULD have gone.
HOw it SHOULD be this, and unfortunately, that isn't how things work out.

Yup exactly what I said.
Oh wait, my post was quoting San saying to increase the timer to 10.
Nice call bro.

The timer's function is to force the approach, it did its job, why cry about it doing its exact function?

because it forces people to do stupid **** or lose the match

I ceased being kind enough to entertain every tear that people shed over the game.
Still get my point across though.

Nope

you see, there is a difference between being able to participate, and being unable to participate.
My case is the latter, for one who wishes to speak so poorly about myself, you are very quick to do the same and make assumptions.
Congrats.

Now as for myself, pompous? Arrogant? Hardly, I spea blntly, and I've grown rather tired of the community and its overall *****iness.
I care little about what you value, I would care more if you address the argument, rather than run in circles shrieking about a system being flawed that is a result of the core gameplay.

I have no qualms discrediting an individual who does not at all care about proving his argument, so much as getting what he wants.

So know you're saying we don't address your argument?
Get out lmfao

Naturally, the issue however is that there is no method by which to account for all of such things.
It is such a problem that even Street Fighter 4 relies to it.
Zangief has 1200.
DHalsim as 900.
They run by percent so it the same issue with their timeout rule when relying on percent.
Far too many factors and doing so would surely upset the competitive scene

Comparing timeouts between Street Fighter and Smash?
Street Fighter has a health bar system, Smash doesn't.
Bad example

That is primarily because our aim is different. With football, ther eis a clear cut method of determining who is the winner.
With this game, one cannot continue playing the match over and over.
Tournaments already tend to run overtime for varius reasons, as such running a 1 stock sudden death wouldn't work because player's will naturally play defensively and in the event it ends with no death, who would win?

Football?
Brool Story Co

There are the implications of stock, so while it may be distasteful, percent is the best and most objection based and is most readily available to players.

Exactly, timeouts are distasteful.
Increasing the timer gets rid of timeouts.

I do not care about looking good so much as I care about the argument.
Considering that you said it yourself you can see NO counter argument, it means you've decided your position and will not change it.

I like how you talk about us not making counter arguments when your entire post was about me having down syndrome.

I dislike debating with anyone who is so quick to make such statements.
Furthermore for one who questioned my usage of ad hominems, you are doing the same.

You have no room to accuse someone of using ad hominems too much lmfao.

Prove that playing on the ledge is broken outside of MK. There is frame data to show only MK is the issue currently and no one else.

This is the problem. You can't determine the extent of a character's ledge play solely based on frame data. Frame data says Olimar can fsmash DK out of his up-b while planking. Frame data doesn't say that DK can beat that by dropping lower to avoid the fsmash or using <100 getup attack? No

A timer is needed as well because without the timer, LGL loses its purpose.
It is also not feasible for large events as you would need a referee for every set being played,

First thing intelligent you've said.
grats

Both Pit and G&W can be edgehogged/struck while they are ledge stalling.
Your argument fails in that you are attempting to place a global LGL for something that affects only MK.

Already addressed this.

You can force both of those characters both on the stage.

So?
You can force Pikachu to QA onstage while planking, but he can run to the other ledge easily.

The game was meant for the ledge to be used, who are you to say we should not make use of something that is part of core gameplay?

because it's broken...........
If we allowed planking this game would die so fast.

Percentage is indeed so important. You may dislike it but it is needed to ensure that as much of a objective decision is made.

It's needed, but you can do things to make it to where it doesn't need to be used.
Like increasing the timer *cough* *cough*

I honestly cannot remember why stamina mode is not used. I think there were some implications with it for some reason.

Stamina mode is god awful.
I experimented with it once.
Knockback increases a lot slower in stamina mode.
Falco says hi.

The timer is something that is necessary and it affects characters GLOBALLY.

Of course it's necessary, however increasing it by 2 minutes isn't going to hurt anything...........

edit: Red font is ugly.

 

[NO-IDea]

It'll come to the point where Olimar's risk/reward on his poke game will allow him to approach. If the risk is receiving damage but the reward is a stock on a move such as grab, every Olimar would take the risk.

 

[Kantrip]

What determined how many stocks were used for competitive play, by the way? I'm assuming it was the pace of the game and how often kills were scored. For example, in Smash 64, there are plenty of zero-death combos and stocks are taken very quickly. There is no timer, but there are five stocks. In Melee, zero-deaths were no longer the pinnacle of gameplay and it became a game of spacing and sound combos. They changed to four stocks. Brawl became even slower, combos even rarer, and camping even more beneficial. The initial response, naturally, was to change the stock count to three. Since this rule was set in place, Brawl has turned out to be slower and more campy than we even expected. What's stopping us from playing TWO stock matches at best of five (best of seven LF, WF, and GF)?

EDIT:@above: But at the same time, why risk yourself at all when you can just continue to camp until Ganondorf becomes bored and approaches?

Let's think of it this way: Olimar puts himself at very little risk for a huge reward. Out of five, we can call the risk a 1 and the reward a 5.
If Olimar just continues to wait, his risk becomes 0 but his reward also drops.

At the same time, when Olimar approaches Ganondorf, Ganon's risk becomes around a 3 while his reward becomes a 1.
If Olimar doesn't approach, Ganon's reward becomes a 0.

AKA, if Olimar doesn't approach Ganondorf has a 0% reward rate and a 100% risk rate, while Olimar has a 100% reward rate and a 0% risk rate. If he does approach, he still has an advantage over Ganondorf, but not a 100:0 one.

 

[NO-IDea]

Interesting analysis. I just want to point out that purple pikmin exists and would certainly force Ganondorf to approach due to the high reward of landing a purple pikmin at high percent.

So let's change to Falco, who's camping game has no knockback (at first glance.)

Falco lasers, correct? No risk involved. Falco can also slowly approach with lasers while having no risk, spacing himself right outside of Ganondorf's dash attack. Could he not then continue to poke with lasers until he is close enough for a follow-up for no risk at all? A dash attack or phantasm follow-up on a laser at a decent percent would put Ganondorf in a negative position.

In short, I can't think of a camper who would not be able to zone until they could safely follow-up with a move that has knockback with no risk. Even Falco, who's projectile has no knockback, has safe follow-ups against a player who chooses not to approach. The scenario differs if the player chooses to approach. But then we've fixed the problem, haven't we?

 

[Kantrip]

Even then, there is still the chance that Ganondorf perfect shields a laser and gets a punish off. The falco would still be slightly (only slightly) safer staying out of range of anything Ganon can do.

 

[NO-IDea]

Well, if Ganondorf perfect shields the laser and Falco is outside of dash attack range, how is he to punish?

Falco can continually laser until Ganon's shield diminishes, Ganon messes up his PSing, or Ganon does something silly like roll or spot dodge. There is no risk to Falco at all if Ganon does not try to approach and get into dash attack range.

In short, projectile campers always force a response.

 

[Kantrip]

And how long could such a match last? Without a timer, even if the match would come to an end, it would be due to mistakes from recklessness because the match just took forever. We could be looking at matches going to double what our current timer is set at, just because one player is playing super campy and waiting for 100% guaranteed punishes for 0-risk 5-reward kills. A timer just ensures that campy matchups don't become this ridiculous.

 

[NO-IDea]

But ask yourself this: would you let that happen? Would you let your opponent get to the point where it is a 0-risk/reward kill? Or would you take action?

It naturally solves itself. It wouldn't become that ridiculous because a player playing to win would act when the risk/reward is best in his favor. Players camp when the risk/reward is as favorable as possible. Players also approach when the risk/reward is as favorable as possible.

This isn't to say the risk/reward will be in the player's favor. I mean come on, Ganondorf is a bad character. But 30-70 is a better time to act than 0-100.

So to reiterate, projectile campers tend to force a response. But let's also add... a player playing to win will respond in the best possible fashion. Passive play, standing in one spot does not improve position. The game will naturally progress the match until a victor remains.

Here's an interesting example. Let's bring forth MK v. Olimar. If not for the win by percent rule, a MK would always approach an Olimar. If MK remains stationary, Olimar has 0 risk but a reward for landing pikmin. MK has to approach, regardless of percentage, because the only way he's going to win is by taking Olimar's stock.

That sounds like how the game was designed. Not MK running away with a 1% lead with Olimar chasing for 5 minutes. The risk/reward of MK approaching Olimar isn't skewed. MK has really good pokes. And once he lands a poke, it's not hard to imagine an MK to take a stock from Olimar through proper reads and follow-ups. Watch M2K vs Dabuz, I think on Yoshi's Island where he 0-deaths Dabuz. But the risk/reward of MK not approaching at all is horrible, given no timer.

Now, let's compare Samus v Olimar. Olimar has to approach or else Samus with her long range poke (z-air) that has knockback will progressively move herself into a better risk/reward scenario as the percent racks up. An Olimar camping Samus the entire match loses simply because Samus has the better camp game and Olimar's risk/reward on his camp game gets worse as damage exchanges. However, an Olimar approaching Samus wins, simply because the risk/reward for Olimar approaching is slightly in Olimar's favor in comparison to Samus, and is definitely more favorable than trying to camp the entire match.

So yet again, based upon MUs and no timer, the game tends to progress itself. Of course, if we assume the players in the match are playing to win. And that in order to win, you have to take stocks and not just have a percent lead.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

John#s, you got the point correctly but I expected a more thorough argument from you. Saying you "disagree" is like saying you disagree with MK being the best character in the game despite it being fact. *What* point do you disagree with any why?

Gheb: If timeouts are illegitimate, it would make sense not to have timeouts, right? And timing out is possible if and only if we have a timer. Therefore, when you say "Timing out is an illegitimate tactic", I read "The timer is illegitimate". And what do we do with illegitimate elements? Get rid of them. Hence, "You're arguing to get rid of the timer"--hence my post. Does that make more sense?

No, it doesn't. I have made clear that the problem with timing out is *not* the timer itself but the fact that we have no rule to adequately deal with a situation in which the timer runs out. Furthermore I have not said that timing out principally is an illegitimate tactic but that *it doesn't necessarily have to be legitimate* - contrary to a lot of tools who will just spout out their usual "timing out is a legit tactic ololol". Well, not always.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Waste of space

No worth entertaining. I'll respond to idea in the afternoon. I need sleep

 

[Kantrip]

The problem is, "acting" means approaching. And approaching puts you at a disadvantage, as has been established. If I were the Ganondorf, I would give up on "acting" altogether and let the Olimar (or Falco) approach on his own. He will be putting himself at a disadvantage by approaching, and I will have more of a chance at this moment than if I myself approached.

I just don't see either player actually approaching if there is no timer and neither can kill each other at range. That is, unless they get reckless or bored.

I'm not saying at any point that the projectile camper is at a disadvantage, but rather that they are at more of an advantage just waiting it out. Always.

It's unfortunate that this is the way Brawl is, but your safest option will always be staying outside your opponent's threat range and the least safe will be approaching.

 

[NO-IDea]

Except if Ganondorf gives up on acting altogether, it's 0-100 risk/reward automatically.

Like I said earlier, Olimar can throw pikmin until he plucks a purple one and then Ganon has to do something or else risk getting put into a worse scenario.

Falco can diminish Ganondorf's shield (takes no more than 10 seconds, if Ganon PS's, Falco can easily switch his tempo) so that Falco's follow-ups are 0-100 risk/reward.

Every camper has a knockback move or can lead their pokes into knockback moves, thus improving their position by worsening their opponents. An opponent choosing to not respond loses automatically.

So... If you were Ganon and gave up on "acting" altogether, it would take me no more than 10 seconds until I could put myself into a 0-100 risk/reward situation. It is not hard to penetrate the options you have standing still.

You are never at an advantage by waiting it out. You are only at an advantage when you approach to put yourself in a position where you can respond and punish. But the key here is that you have to approach in the first place. Not with an attack, but you have to move forward.

 

[John12346]

Gheb I did respond to my tl;dr'ing of your statement... -___-;

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

It's pretty much just the same stuff everyone else has been saying. I can go further into detail if you want me to, because I didn't really say too much there.

I am pro-9-or-more-minutes-on-the-timer, btw.

 

[Kantrip]

He's not giving up on acting, he's staying outside of the Pikmin throw range AKA putting himself in the best position he can. Getting purples thrown at you is still better than approaching.

Anyways, I'm off for the night.

 

[NO-IDea]

But getting purple pikmin thrown on you is still a terrible position... your shield diminishes and what, you spot dodge? You roll? You get hit out of neutral position?

I don't think you understand zoning. Olimar is going to get into Pikmin throw range and out of Ganon's punishment range. From there, it's 0/100 for Olimar. And at that point, Ganon has to act. He has to move forward or move back. Then, it comes to a point where Ganon is pressured to the edge of the stage, or Ganon approaches....

And all of this happens in the span of seconds. The problem is solved.

Standing still does not ever work in this game. Being stationary allows you to be outspaced. If you're the character who has greater range, then there's absolutely no reason for you to not get into range to utilize your spacing tools because there's no risk involved.

Moving back and forward does work. Spacing/Walking/Foxtrotting does work. But these all also progress the match. There is no instance where a player would want to stall for time unless a timer and a secondary win condition were involved.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

For the 12346th time, John - I do not ask for the removal of the timer. I'm not even making an argument [yet]. If you say that % is the most viable solution [which is still a blanket statement because you don't show how it's viable in the first place] then all you say is that the rule used in case of a timeout is inadequate at solving that issue - unless you can objectively and logically explain it as the "best" or even a "good" solution. Even if you could do that it doesn't necessarily call for the removal of the timer. In response to RedHalberd I was merely attacking the "root" of the problem, nothing more. It was only the first step - find the flaw and point it out as such. Where we go from here and how we solve it is a different matter.

 

[Coney]

For the 12346th time, John

i lol'dthis argument is running in circles

 

[BSP]

So until we find some way to ban/limit scrooging on SV

Wouldn't Sonic HA stalling under SV be similar? You can stop him, just like with MK, but you're putting yourself at an insane risk to do so.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Wouldn't Sonic HA stalling under SV be similar? You can stop him, just like with MK, but you're putting yourself at an insane risk to do so.

Yes, I'd say it's very similar if not practically equivalent. It can be done only on particular stages and these stages are the same in cases of both HA stall and scrooging [not just SV fyi]. Both serve no other purpose than to stall out the battle because neither tactic offers any other option in the first place. Neither is technically invincible which allows for the argument that it doesn't actually fall under the "stalling" rule.
I would still argue that it does though because it's the only purpose the tactic offers and the definition of stalling being equivalent to "being permanently unattackable" is questionable anyway. The same also hold true for the planking of certain characters [including MK] - while it doesn't match the current definition of stalling it still serves no other purpose and should be banned, limited or strongly discouraged by the rules.

 

[PKNintendo]

No worth entertaining. I'll respond to idea in the afternoon. I need sleep

Get over yourself.

I don't care about your argument, but please dignify his response instead of having that disgusting "holier than thou" attitude.