Planking Info (G&W Added)

[-Vocal-]

No its making the game unwinnable not unplayable.

Lets say we have Olimar fighting Ganondorf on final destination. The Olimar is being played by a robot which makes frame perfect responses to every situation. The computer however will not play offensively for whatever reason. The computer instead has Olimar stand there and wait for ganon to attack so that it can make a perfect counter to whatever ganon does. In this situation no matter what ganon does it results in him taking damage with zero damage to Olimar.

In this situation Olimar is untouchable by ganon. No matter what ganon does it results in him getting hurt and chances are the ganon player will catch on and wont be throwing himself at the super computers Olimar. The match will go to time unless the ganon throws himself at the Olimars impenetrable defense.

But the real question is, is Olimar stalling?

The answer is of course not! He is winning not stalling.

The same goes for Metaknights planking. If we are going to say that Metaknight planking is stalling then guess what? Olimar standing on Final destination is also stalling.

This thread is nothing but objective and mathematical proof that metaknight is broken.

Which then prompts the question, do we put in arbitrary rules to keep metaknight in the game so that he can continue to dominate or do we ban him?

Not to butt in, but we are not talking about a situation or method that require frame perfect timing. DMG pointed out that there are a few frames of extra available time. I also have a problem with your example in that although the Olimar in your example is made untouchable (and, I suppose under your example, invicible) is that he avoids damage by making good decisions and reads, whereas MK can avoid damage because of the workings of the game. A ban would be too drastic at this precise moment, and though it may be a good idea in the future a more immediate solution would be preferable. The rule paraphrased rule "No planking on the part of MK" enforced by a TO seems to be the only viable solution we have to this problem. If we all can identify when a MK is planking, I would hope that a TO could, and so I don't think "hey that's subjective" is an adequate objection to this rule. Unless someone can think of a better solution (it hasn't happened yet so I'm not expecting it to) this seems to be the best path.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[sunshade]

You're saying that MK's planking = Olimar standing on Final Destination.

There are two huge differences/problems with your example.

1) One is character specific. One is not. Even if I take what you say to be true about Olimar, it only works on Ganondorf and Ganondorf is a really bad character. MK's planking works on everyone.

I only said Olimar vs Ganon because I did not feel like searching through the frame data of Olimar vs [actually good character here]. By saying Ganon vs Olimar it was understood that the situation of actually possible assuming we had a super computer to play brawl.

If you want you can change my example to be Metaknight vs Anyone instead of Olimar vs Ganon.

The point still remains unbeatable =/= unplayable and maintaining a constant state of unbeatability is not stalling.

2) With MK's planking, you're inputting set commands which makes it so you are untouchable, and you have good amounts of time to react to those special things like grenades very feasibly. With Olimar vs. Ganondorf on FD, Olimar is constantly in a good position, but like every character in this game he can only choose one option at a time. His reaction window for punishing EVERYTHING isn't as lenient or as realistic for a human, IIRC.

MK can repeatedly do an input and you CAN NOT HIT HIM.

Olimar can stand on FD to zone and use a few options to beat all of Ganondorf's. He still can only do one thing at a time, and everybody not named Ganondorf can easily hit him.

Masky summed up the problem best IMO.

Umm so what?

That just means that Metaknight is really really really good. So good in fact that he can become completely unbeatable at a human level unlike all other characters.

1. "No Stalling" is already a rule. No rule additions are necessary, just the enforcement of one that's already been there.

Stalling in the traditional sense is not banned (trying to wait someone out) making the game unplayable is.

Dont see the phrase "No Stalling" and think it means the first.

2. Designing tournament rules with a 0-frame-reaction-time robot in mind is flawed. If someone had frame perfect reactions with any character, they could space perfectly and powershield every move in the game and spotdodge/jab grabs during their startup and never get hit by any character ever. So then by that logic we'd have to ban every single character in the game, because they all potentially can stall.

In reality, until hyper-intelligent aliens visit Earth or the Singularity occurs, we don't have to worry about inhuman reaction times, so the ruleset is made with the assumption of human reaction time.

I know! Thats the point!

Your definition for stalling (unbeatable = unplayable) makes it so that standing still with any character is stalling and should be banned.

Thats why the BBR rule says "unplayable" instead of "unbeatable.

3. What is your definition of unplayable? If it's that the player literally can't control their character, that is not consistent with the BBR ruleset, which has a separate rule which bans disappearing characters, freezing the game, etc, implying that stalling is different. There is a strong history of interpreting "deliberately avoiding any and all conflict" as making it so that it is 100% impossible to have the opponent attack you or engage you at all (ie: Peach's infinite wall bomb, Jigglypuff's rising pound). If planking perfectly really make MK invincible/untouchable the whole time, it would obviously be the perfect example of stalling.

The anti-stalling rule and the anti-glitch/freeze rules of the BBR are designed to stop the same thing.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[sunshade]

What? I don't understand your post, please clearly rephrase what you are trying to say.

(And no, you used Olimar/Ganon because you just copied someone else's faulty example)

what I meant was that any character is capable of being unbeatable assuming they are played frame perfect (just like you said).

So I was saying you can go ahead and substitute whoever you want for whoever you want in my example because the point still remains.

The point being that the BBR's stalling rules does not ban being unbeatable it bans make the game unplayable. Metaknight's planking is unbeatable but it does not make the game unplayable

btw I edited into my last post a reply to your last post

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[gallax]

the sbr will not ban planking for mk only for a few reasons:

1) its impractical since its too hard to determine if they are truly planking to stall or gain an advantageous spot.

example- lets say a mk is facing an opponent and they are fighting for almost 8 minutes. if there is 15 seconds left on the timer the mk runs over to the edge and planks for the remaining time because his opponent(lets say snake) has grenades all of the stage and a c4 somewhere and he doesnt want to lose his percent lead. he also has grabbed the edge less than 20 times. is this stalling? is this gaining an advantageous position? was it truly perfect planking?

now lets say it wasnt mk and it was marth instead and he ran away for the last 15 seconds and planked? if it was gaw? pit? rob? ddd? why should mk be punished for running away the last 15 seconds and not anyone else?

2) if mk is that broken that we need to surgically change the game to nerf him so that he can be beaten than he should be banned instead of surgically changing the game to fit what people think is fair.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Spelt]

also, how do you explain the "MK's infinite cape glitch is banned" rule in the official BBR ruleset? it's a separate rule that applies to only MK, but MK is not banned in that ruleset.

lol how many times do you keep making this stupid comparison.



META KNIGHT IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN USE THE INFINITE DIMENSIONAL CAPE GLITCH.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Spelt]

idc is an obvious glitch and planking is a intended system of the game? they programed it so you were able to drop off the ledge with inv. frames intact.




btw, meta knight regrabbing the ledge ONCE would be him taking advantage of an unpunishable technique. so is him grabbing the ledge twice in a row stalling? how about 3 times? what if he intentionally makes it so there's at least 1-2 frames for someone to punish him? How would we/a judge call this? technically it's not "unpunishable" but nobody would ever notice the difference. There's way too many variables for one rule to hinder it all.
it's unfair to say MK can't even regrab the ledge ONCE without it being stalling even though what you're saying makes it seem like it is.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[rathy Aro]

2) if mk is that broken that we need to surgically change the game to nerf him so that he can be beaten than he should be banned instead of surgically changing the game to fit what people think is fair.

Wouldn't banning MK be a surgical change to the game to fit what people think is fair? Don't we do this all the time?

 

[gallax]

Stalling for 15 seconds is still stalling, since you are still deliberately avoiding any and all conflict in order to make the game unplayable. Notice that the BBR ruleset makes a specific distinction between running away and stalling. In other words, running away to gain a better position is not stalling, but stalling in order to gain a better position is still stalling (according to the BBR's definition of stalling).

ur assuming that the intention is to stall. u can never prove intentions.

the argument for anyone who is running away or staying on the edge to counter someone saying that they were stalling is that they ran away to gain an advantageous spot because there were being pressured. u as a wario player who runs all day long cannot argue the fact that sometimes u need to run to avoid taking damage. one could argue that the only safe place at any time is the edge. if the opponent was near the edge pressuring then u cannot say its stalling since hes being pressured and it isnt safe to get up and off the edge. it the opponent is nowhere near mk and going to the other side and stays there then whos to say that the opponent isnt stalling?

So why is a new rule necessary if DMG's info is correct?

new rule? what new rule did i say? i said that if mk is truly unbeatable then he needs to be banned. i specifically said no new rule will be made that says mk cant plank. pay more attention and use more sense when reading my posts please.

also, how do you explain the "MK's infinite cape glitch is banned" rule in the official BBR ruleset? it's a separate rule that applies to only MK, but MK is not banned in that ruleset.

r u really question why the IDC is banned? im gonna let u figure this one out.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Throwback]

the issue with banning MK's planking by a 'stalling' rule is that it's extremely hard to define if MK is playing near the edge OR if he's doing the unbeatable stuff. All other forms of stall, including melee stalls, require a specific, unambiguous set of actions that can't possibly be confused or argued as something else.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Throwback]

yeah I understand that argument & was aware of it when I wrote my post. In the case of a CG you can see the character being grabbed repeatedly.

In the case of MK abusing ledge invincibility, you can't see it happen - if the opponent attacks and is beaten off, was it the invincibility or just uair priority?

I guess you could say'MK cannot uair twice in a row off the ledge'.

edit: after typing this & thinking it through, I agree with you. Ban it & it won't be a problem.

 

[gallax]

The BBR definition of stalling is: "the act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable". It also states, "Stalling is banned." Does it say "Stalling is okay if you're pressured" or "If you're losing or in trouble, stalling is okay"? No.

You're right. Stalling is always banned, no matter what the reason. If you are being pressured then one simply cannot prove its stalling though. You can say hes planking with the intent to get back on stage, but he has yet to find a way to get on stage safely(one example of how you could disprove stalling in certain situations). Some chars, like rob vs ddd for example, need to stay on the edge and use their edge game to get ddd away in order to get back safely.

An originalist would argue that the game was made to be played on the edge so why should we inhibit some characters from using their fantastic edge game?

You just cannot ban planking by using the stalling rule. There are just too many variables and factors.

As a side note, simply playing around on the edge is not stalling, which I'm bringing up you used them interchangeably. Doing the true planking which DMG showed is mathematically unstoppable is stalling.

We would need a strict definition of when planking is stalling then since its hard to tell the difference.

You said: "if mk is that broken that we need to surgically change the game to nerf him so that he can be beaten than he should be banned instead of surgically changing the game to fit what people think is fair." I interpreted that by "surgical change" you meant a new rule.

Ooooh no it wasnt. Let me clarify just in case others misunderstood too. What I was implying was that most of the SBR, and many others including myself, are against surgically changing the game(I am talking about Meta-Knights gameplay here) so that it would make it easier to beat him. the only way we would make a rule against Meta-Knight due to him being overpowered would be because he is truly unbeatable and therefore an infection to competition.

Are you saying that any character that can stall needs to be banned?

No not at all. I said if he is truly unbeatable. Stalling =/= Unbeatable

I understand that you said that. My point was, if MK's perfect planking can be classified under "stalling", since according to the data DMG provided it's completely unbeatable, then no new rule is necessary because the "Stalling is banned." rule will simply take care of it (as it is intended to).

It a good theory but probably not the best solution. What if the mk wasn't planking perfectly? What if he planked perfectly using just one edge grab then got back to fighting? Why should we inhibit his edge game and not others then? Answer these questions without throwing out opinions and by using facts and the sbr, including myself, would more than be willing to consider it.

I was not asking why the IDC is banned. Sorry if I did not make it clear why I brought the IDC up. The reason I brought the IDC rule up is because you said
the BBR will never add a character-specific rule that nerfs a character, and it would always instead opt to just outright ban the character.

The IDC was banned specifically since it would be impossible to prove whether or not the opponent meant to stall or use it to get out of whatever trouble they were in. Use of the IDC is easily proven too therefore making the ban of that strategy easier.

We are trying to keep as much of the original gameplay intact. If we decide to ban certain Meta strategies then what to stop future decision like banning the use of too many grenades from snake or too many tjolts from pika or too much air time with wario?




What everyone needs to realize is that if we keep trying to put restrains
on mk then he will never be banned. Many of you want him to be banned or nerfed. What you need to realize is that putting limits on what mk can do will only make things worse. If we let mk play his normal game then we can prove once and for all is mk is truly unbeatable and ONLY then will mk be banned.

If i missed anything or someones post im sorry. Just say it again so i can read it!!!

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[gallax]

Ok I think I finally understand what you are saying. Tell me if we finally get each other lol:

If the MK is using the edge drop>two uairs>autosnap edge during second uair>regrab edge then its considered a form of stalling and excessive use of this tactic should be banned and if used warrant a punishment.

The main point that you could argue to get this accepted is that its perfect against the ENTIRE cast and cannot be beaten and should therefore be banned since it guarantees victory if used properly. I know everyone has been saying it pretty much but you need to stress how it affects the entire cast more than being perfect.

 

[theunabletable]

Wait a second, if MKs planking literally makes the game unplayable, but defining it in-game is near impossible, wouldn't an MK specific LGL be justified? No other character has a technique on the ledge that can be defined as stalling, so no other character should have their non-stalling techniques on the ledge limited.

The LGL would just be there to make the no-stalling rule enforceable.

But the real question is, is Olimar stalling?

The answer is of course not! He is winning not stalling.

The same goes for Metaknights planking. If we are going to say that Metaknight planking is stalling then guess what? Olimar standing on Final destination is also stalling.

That’s a little different; because that’s matchup specific. You can’t touch Olimar with Ganon, but you can with every single other character, including Olimar himself.

MKs planking is different, as you can’t counterpick it since no character in the entire game can approach it.

lol how many times do you keep making this stupid comparison.



META KNIGHT IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN USE THE INFINITE DIMENSIONAL CAPE GLITCH.

Meta Knight is the only one who is completely untouchable on the ledge by the ENTIRE cast.

 

[DMG]

Why a LGL? That won't solve the problem completely. I say you completely eradicate any possibility of it happening, by either prohibiting MK from grabbing any edge, or in the event that he does grab it he has to do a ledge specific action every time.

 

[-Ran]

You'll never be able to limit MK enough to where he falls in line with the other characters and the expectation of what players want Brawl to be. Don't change the game because of one character. Either you ban the character, or you stop being constant rules in a futile attempt to keep Meta Knight legal.

 

[theunabletable]

Why a LGL? That won't solve the problem completely. I say you completely eradicate any possibility of it happening, by either prohibiting MK from grabbing any edge, or in the event that he does grab it he has to do a ledge specific action every time.

With a 25 LGL MK can’t perfect plank for long enough for it to really be a problem at all. But banning him from grabbing the ledge solves it completely, it just seems unnecessary as with 20-25 LGLs he really can’t plank for long anyways.

So that works, it just seem unnecessary to me to ban him from grabbing the ledge when 20-25 is less extreme, and makes it pretty much impossible to plank for more than, what, 30 seconds?

You'll never be able to limit MK enough to where he falls in line with the other characters and the expectation of what players want Brawl to be. Don't change the game because of one character. Either you ban the character, or you stop being constant rules in a futile attempt to keep Meta Knight legal.

Except this rule wouldn’t be for the purpose of limiting MKs options, it’d be for the purpose of making sure the rules we already have are enforceable.

 

[DMG]

Well I think 25 is too much.

Make him not able to do it ever. Ban IDC under any circumstance, ban grabbing the edge for MK under any circumstance.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[-Vocal-]

I've been lurking and leaving the hard debate to the rest of you, but I would like to interject for a moment. I like the way that things are heading, and that people are finally beginning to agree that invincible planking can be defined as stalling and must be prohibited. However, this would mean that it would only be prohibited if used excessively, as the rule states "no excessive stalling." Hypothetically, then, a MK player could perform invincible planking several times within a match as along as it did not continue for an excessive amount of time. Would it even be right to allow this? Whenever he or she grabs the ledge, he or she gains the ability to be invincible; it wouldn't matter if his/her opponent was the reader on Earth, he/she would not be able to do anything about it. Granted, this could only last for maybe 5 seconds before the no stalling rule would come into play, but even in that short span of time, and with the ability to use it over and over again, doesn't this seem like too great of a tactic to remain in the game?

*The Section Where I Push My Agenda*
Honestly, I think a character that is capable of making himself invincible and is allowed to do so repeatedly without fear of consequence (as long as he doesn't do it for too long) deserves to be banned.

 

[Ussi]

Pro MKs time out with only 12 ledge grabs

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[-Vocal-]

Are you saying here that any character that can stall should be banned..? The BBR and almost a decade of smash history disagree with you here, because a "Stalling is banned" rule has been around forever instead of just banning the character. And it's always worked in the past.

No, I was saying that a character that can make himself automatically invincible each and every time he grabs the ledge should be banned. Thinking over it again, perhaps I spoke to hastily, and my desire to have MK banned got the better of me; maybe this could be seen as just a form of temporary stalling. However, most forms of stalling have a way of stopping them, wheras if a Metaknight decides to invicible ledge stall for 5 seconds you have no option but to wait until he stops, regardless of which character you are playing.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[theunabletable]

Pro MKs time out with only 12 ledge grabs

Then they clearly weren't perfect planking for very long at all, which isn't a problem.

Well if you can find a good way to define MKs perfect planking during a tournament match, and find a way to enforce a rule made to stop it, then that’s what matters, really.

I think that banning him completely from grabbing the ledge is, like Masky said, like banning Jiggs from using Side B in the air in Melee. And it’s unnecessary, I think, if less dramatic rules can accomplish the same thing.

But it works, too. Just as long as something is done.

@Masky: I know what the stalling rule intends to do, but it’d be really difficult to enforce in a match by itself.

 

[iRJi]

Why a LGL? That won't solve the problem completely. I say you completely eradicate any possibility of it happening, by either prohibiting MK from grabbing any edge, or in the event that he does grab it he has to do a ledge specific action every time.

Well I think 25 is too much.

Make him not able to do it ever. Ban IDC under any circumstance, ban grabbing the edge for MK under any circumstance.

That's not possible. As much as he can abuse the ledge, eliminating him from grabbing the ledge completely is also not the way to go about it. The best thing you can do is just limit it, because by doing so it becomes a valid tactic to use, and can't do it for long. The real question is how you go about limiting it properly, and as we all know that is not easily solved. We are using a LGL, but 50 as the standard is way to high. If you go to AN section, you can see that I am doing a whole new ruleset for NJ, with a 35 LGL. If done perfectly, metaknight can only plank for about 2 min. If you cut below 30, you then go into other character areas and limit them too much as well. However, if you just make a LGL for metaknight, the question comes to mind of why we allow him in the first place. Since we do, the only real option is just a universal LGL.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[DMG]

Actually I disagree. I believe there is little reason for a universal LGL unless your mindset is to make things funner or more appealing to watch. In that case, you could apply that to a lot of things and you approach the dangerous slippery slope arguments.

If there is only a problem with 1 character doing a tactic too well, just limit him from doing it (if your approach is not banning). There is no need to harm the metagame of other characters by forcing them to abide by a rule not even intended for them/clearly for MK specifically.

If people want MK in the game, at this point you just swallow your pride and nerf him to bits and pieces. Like HARD Nerf, hard clear consistent nerf that stops the thing in question. LGL's will always be discussed on how effective they are or not. There will never be agreement on how effective it is. At least with a rule like what I suggested, you can only disagree with whether you like the premise or not.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's not that hard to understand:

The IDC is a stalling tactic and thus banned. Even if you don't execute it perfectly but only for limited amount of time it's still an attempt to stall. Therefore it's breaking a rule and will result in forfeiting a match or a DQ.
The same holds true for planking: backed up by frame data, MK remains unattackable while planking. Therefore he's stalling. It doesn't matter if it's done perfectly or not - he is attempting to stall which is a DQable offense.

We don't need extra rules for these things. Stalling has been banned in every smash game so far regardless of who could do it, on which stage and in what fashion. You don't add an extra rule to limit MK from planking, you use the rules we already have and that's more than enough to deal with this "problem".

tl;dr: We don't have to ban / limit planking. Planking IS already banned and has always been banned via the stalling rule.

 

[DMG]

Banned, but not well defined. What would constitute planking/attempting to plank? 1 edge grab? more than 1 Uair per edge grab?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Planking and "keeping a better position" are only interchangeable if you keep your opponent pressured towards the ledge. As long as that happens it's not actually stalling. If you want your opponent to stop camping the ledge then you should just let him get back on the stage. If he keeps camping the ledge he's de facto stalling.

 

[Browny]

Heres one for ya.

Fox sits at the end of the stage, spamming lasers. You IDC from one edge all the way behind him to attack. Is that still stalling? Its not that simple to define.