The_Altrox
Smash Lord
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...
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I didn't used to be that way :3Because 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.
Ban the character then.I'm just saying, it's something that can be potentially game breaking, and imo, should be stopped...
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.Ban the character then.
We shouldn't surgically nerf/buff characters.
Because you can't ban the tactic, you have to limit it.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.
Question one. "Is Metaknight's planking broken?"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)
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?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)
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.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.
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".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)
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.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.
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.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.
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...but "broken" is a qualitative value, so it's subjective either way
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) .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.
This. LGLs on anyone beyond metaknight is nerfing a beatable, stoppable tactic that has no reason to be banned.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