Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 Official Rule Discussion Thread

[The_Altrox]

looking at the edge grab rule and how there are MK players out there that abuse planking, why exactly didn't they put such a rule into the BBR set? other than the reducing of planking, it doesn't effect the game that much...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because it's a subjective nerf and the BBR does not support that. Don't quite agree with it, but hey, w/e. BBR ruleset is about dead anyways.

 

[Steam]

Because it's a subjective nerf and the BBR does not support that. Don't quite agree with it, but hey, w/e. BBR ruleset is about dead anyways.

I didn't used to be that way :3

dat staaaageliiiiist

 

[The_Altrox]

I'm just saying, it's something that can be potentially game breaking, and imo, should be stopped...

 

[Life]

But the key is that it has not been proven so. For example, OS reportedly tried to plank his way through a tournament a while back and ended with a lower placing than he did by playing normally.

Not gonna worry until someone actually breaks it, at which time instead of a LGL being applied MK would probably get banned since LGL hurts several characters that aren't overpowered.

Spoiler

Kindly don't start an MK ban discussion.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I'm just saying, it's something that can be potentially game breaking, and imo, should be stopped...

Ban the character then.
We shouldn't surgically nerf/buff characters.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ban the character then.
We shouldn't surgically nerf/buff characters.

Justification, please. Why is banning metaknight better than banning the broken tactic he has? Please recall my thread, "The Appeal to Results" and either refute that effectively, or explain around it.

 

[Ghostbone]

Justification, please. Why is banning metaknight better than banning the broken tactic he has? Please recall my thread, "The Appeal to Results" and either refute that effectively, or explain around it.

Because you can't ban the tactic, you have to limit it.
Which means he can still do the tactic for a certain amount of time, and what justification do you have for letting him do it for that amount of time? Should he be allowed to do it for 1 minute? 2 minutes? 5 seconds? The only way to truly ban it would make MK lose if he grabs the ledge at all :/. (or maybe twice? lol)

It's also a double standard to put in a LGL just on Meta Knight when you could just ban every stage with a permanent ledge, since you could just put a drought time limit on the faster character to save Circle Camping stages. (and probably some other subjective rules to save other stages)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because you can't ban the tactic, you have to limit it.
Which means he can still do the tactic for a certain amount of time, and what justification do you have for letting him do it for that amount of time? Should he be allowed to do it for 1 minute? 2 minutes? 5 seconds? The only way to truly ban it would make MK lose if he grabs the ledge at all :/. (or maybe twice? lol)

Question one. "Is Metaknight's planking broken?"
Answer: yes.
Question two. "Is Metaknight's planking broken if he can grab the ledge X number of times before he automatically loses if time runs out?"
Answer: depending on X either yes or no.

We have to limit it, but is MK's planking with 35 ledgegrabs a broken tactic? Nope.

It's also a double standard to put in a LGL just on Meta Knight when you could just ban every stage with a permanent ledge, since you could just put a drought time limit on the faster character to save Circle Camping stages. (and probably some other subjective rules to save other stages)

First of all, drought time doesn't work. Second of all, how many circle camp stages don't have tons of other issues beyond the elephant in the room?

 

[-LzR-]

It would be really dumb to ban a character because he is so strong in the ledge. Limiting it is pretty much the best choice. This brings some cool problems. Rob, Samus, Pit, G&W and more get nerfed for because of this one character who is strong at the ledge.
This could be fixed by giving the LGL to MK only. This gives even more problems. Now it feels very surgical. Think of it like Snake's util is a really good finisher so he can only use it 3 times per stock.
Or IC can only do 10 regrabs and then have to drop the grab. If we make such surgical rules as LGL, what stops are from adding those?

And MK doesn't really care about LGL.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It would be really dumb to ban a character because he is so strong in the ledge. Limiting it is pretty much the best choice. This brings some cool problems. Rob, Samus, Pit, G&W and more get nerfed for because of this one character who is strong at the ledge.
This could be fixed by giving the LGL to MK only. This gives even more problems. Now it feels very surgical. Think of it like Snake's util is a really good finisher so he can only use it 3 times per stock.
Or IC can only do 10 regrabs and then have to drop the grab. If we make such surgical rules as LGL, what stops are from adding those?

And MK doesn't really care about LGL.

Global LGLs are ********. Samus, Pit, G&W, ROB... Those chars do NOT need the nerf. However, using a surgical rule that nerfs a broken tactic is very different from using a surgical rule that nerfs a valid, non-broken tactic. What stops us is both common sense, and the appeal to results-the game is not clearly more deep with nerfs on the ICs CGs, or on Snake's utilt. It is when there isn't a character who goes 70-30 or better with literally the entire cast.

(this is, of course, assuming that planking is broken in practice)

 

[Life]

BPC: Is 35 or 40 a better LGL for MK? (assuming planking is broke)

(and now you know why I don't think the LGL on MK only is a good idea either)

(Nice blog BTW)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC: Is 35 or 40 a better LGL for MK? (assuming planking is broke)

(and now you know why I don't think the LGL on MK only is a good idea either)

(Nice blog BTW)

Does it matter? Just find a point where you can be sure that planking is no longer a severely broken tactic (anywhere between 30 and 50 is a good starting point IMO) and if that doesn't work, move from there. The trick is that the number exactly doesn't matter-it's simply how much you think planking is legitimate before it becomes "broken".

 

[Ghostbone]

Planking is still broken for as long as you're able to do it.
Which means MK can effectively 'win' before the game is finished, if he has a lead.
Put simply
After a certain amount of time (say, around 7:00 with a LGL of 50) if MK gets the lead at all he wins.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Planking is still broken for as long as you're able to do it.
Which means MK can effectively 'win' before the game is finished, if he has a lead.
Put simply
After a certain amount of time (say, around 7:00 with a LGL of 50) if MK gets the lead at all he wins.

So what? Is planking still broken if you can only do it for X amount of time? No, of course not-you got the lead after time point X, and your opponent knows he cannot get the lead back from you between point X and when time runs out. Oh, and guess what-this is empty theorycraft which simply has not been proven in practice. Plus most people use closer to 35.

 

[Ghostbone]

I know it's empty theorycraft, there's no reason to have a LGL yet anyway.
But if planking is proven broken, then that problem arises.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That much I'll agree with. However, when planking is proven broken and/or overcentralizing, then banning MK is a far worse choice than simply applying a LGL to him.

 

[Ghostbone]

That's mostly subjective though, I would rather ban the character then have every match that goes to a time out involving him (that he wins) involve perfect planking. And I really dislike changing the win criteria of the game like a LGL does. (the percentage rule is ok as it doesn't take precedence over the stock lead, but if someone goes over a LGL, then even if the game declares them the victor they still lose...)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's subjective as long as you're not attempting to make the most competitively deep game (tip: banning a character that isn't retardedly broken hurts the depth a LOT). If you're not, then the entire argument is moot and the majority rules.

 

[Steam]

but "broken" is a qualitative value, so it's subjective either way

 

[sunshade]

It's subjective as long as you're not attempting to make the most competitively deep game (tip: banning a character that isn't retardedly broken hurts the depth a LOT). If you're not, then the entire argument is moot and the majority rules.

The number of viable characters has no relation to game competitiveness. We only give a d*mn about character viability because when there are multiple viable characters there is often multiple viable play styles.

If banning a character brings rise to many additional elements of play then the game is arguably more competitive even if the banned character is not broken. Its scrubby but not necessarily anti competitive.

Look at MvC2 where there are 4 pillar characters who you will see on every single team, but then look at the play style of each of the 15 or so viable teams and you will understand why the game has stood the test of time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

but "broken" is a qualitative value, so it's subjective either way

God I hate semantics. By "broken" I'm essentially shortening "degenerate to gameplay to the extent that game depth would be heavily raised by removing the element, and the element cannot effectively be weakened by removing subelements that are effectively bannable". And believe me, that is quantifiable and objective. It's irritating as **** to actually figure out in borderline cases, but in some cases, very easy...
Imagine if MK was totally in line with the rest of the cast to the extent that he's probably B tier (say, his already low weight was lowered drastically, or his tornado didn't move him at high speed, or his dash speed was more in line with mario or DK, or or or or....), but his planking made him completely unbeatable. In such a situation, it's 100% obvious that keeping MK in the game by adding some rule against planking is the better choice to gain a more competitively deep game.

The number of viable characters has no relation to game competitiveness. We only give a d*mn about character viability because when there are multiple viable characters there is often multiple viable play styles.

If banning a character brings rise to many additional elements of play then the game is arguably more competitive even if the banned character is not broken. Its scrubby but not necessarily anti competitive.

Technically true. Now try proving that. If it's not completely and totally obvious, you're not going to get far. This is, depending on your viewpoint, one of the greatest shortcomings (ideologically, because you will not really find the most competitive ruleset in a game like brawl that has so much depth) of this whole argument, or one of its greatest virtues (pragmatical, because you can deal with the blatantly obvious items, and ignore the rest and just play the damn game) .

Now MK may not be 100% like in the above example, but he's certainly not that far off. Certainly not into the realm of "the game would obviously be better off with MK legal".

 

[Enzo]

I think there should be a LGL but i think it should only apply to Meta Knight since he is the only character that has a frame-perfect planking ability.

I personally think that LGL should not be applied to characters like Pit for example since it is stoppable.
IMO even if a LGL were to be applied to other chars i dnt think the number should be as severe as it is with metaknight

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think there should be a LGL but i think it should only apply to Meta Knight since he is the only character that has a frame-perfect planking ability.

I personally think that LGL should not be applied to characters like Pit for example since it is stoppable.
IMO even if a LGL were to be applied to other chars i dnt think the number should be as severe as it is with metaknight

This. LGLs on anyone beyond metaknight is nerfing a beatable, stoppable tactic that has no reason to be banned.