Playing to Win Vs. Banning Tactics

[Browny]

Link to original post: [drupal=909]Playing to Win Vs. Banning Tactics[/drupal]

Please read the following posts in this thread for further clarification on my points. I would integrate them into my essay, but that would only make it bigger for no reason.

 

[kr3wman]

Stalling is not banned because you can't realistically enforce the ban, at least that's what I think.

Ban stalling for 9 seconds? 8 seconds becomes the best strategy.

It's like camping in shooters or playing keepaway in Street fighter in those last seconds to run the clock.

 

[Browny]

But why is it banned in the first place? Because it creates an advantageous situation for one player? By my many comparisons, that clearly is not the case. Again, if playing to win at all costs involves me infinite chaingrabbing in a 0:100 matchup, why cant I play to win in a different heavily advantaged matchup? We condone the use of a clearly broken game mechanic to help us in our mission to play to win, while at the same time ban another broken game mechanic which has a lesser effect over the course of a set?

 

[Jam Stunna]

I read your entire post, and you make a great deal of assumptions in order to make your point, which is your first mistake. This paragraph says it all:

But the limits of countering the tactic don’t end there, for stalling to even work in the first place; the faster character has to first establish a % lead. The better player should always be in the % lead. If they allow themselves to fall behind and lose a match because of it, they should be punished rightfully so. Such is the case with MK, DeDeDe and the Ice Climbers’ infinite. Good players can literally ‘not get grabbed’ and can win, by the same reasoning good players should be able to not fall behind in %. If they make a mistake, they will get punished. Whether the degree of punishment is 1 stock or the entire match I can not see the difference. Can the ‘play to win’ mindset only exist for 1 stock in any given match? I do not see any other matchup-altering tactics only being allowed once per match. We are playing this game to win, not to make an interesting match for bystanders to watch.

Let's just focus on those two highlighted sentences. I can't fathom that you would actually believe that such a statement is true. There are an infinite number of examples where the better player may find themselves behind in stock and/or percentage and then go on to win the match. So either

1) You believe this statement is true. Therefore, you have shown your understanding of competitive Smash to be extremely lacking, making your argument pointless.

or

2) You believe this statement is not true. Therefore, you have placed an erroneous statement purposefully in your essay simply to make a point, making your argument pointless.

Either way, you've pretty much destroyed your credibility with those two lines.

Besides, stalling does NOT fall under "play-to-win" tactics. Stalling is inherently anti-competitive and game-breaking. Counterpicking doesn't change that fact. That's why

- There's a shot clock and backcourt violation rules in basketball
- There's a play clock in football
- There's a timer in chess
- There's a no-balk rule in baseball

Every sport worth playing has rules against stalling, because it is axiomatic to competition: a game MUST end, and the opposing sides MUST each have a chance at victory. Stalling is not a legitimate tactic no matter how you slice it, so the rest of your argument is pointless.

 

[Browny]

Im not the one who said that.

In the ban ledgestalling threads that used to pop up often, a very common rebuttal was that the other player should not have let Metaknight get the % lead. I dont believe that is a valid argument, but apparently the rest of the smash community does. If we must play to win at all costs, why shouldnt the player who obtains a % advantage be able to abuse his advantage in order to help win?

Here we go, We acknowledge that Metaknights ledge stalling is indeed stalling as determined by the SBR, yet it is a perfectly legitimate tactic

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6004576&highlight=Metaknight+gain+lead#post6004576

and this from a different thread;

[Sirlin]

No johns, scrub. Just get good enough that they can't ever have a % lead over you in the first place.

[/Sirlin]

Remember as I stated at least 3 times in my post, I am NOT condoning stalling as a legitimate tactic. I just can't comprehend how we are told we must play to win at all costs, while stalling is banned and ledgecamping/infinite chaingrabbing is allowed.

So what if it is anti-competitive? Like i said with my BF2 example, the tactic is clearly game breaking. At the highest level of play, You CAN NOT win if the enemy gains an air dominance within the first few moments of a match. That is what playing to win is all about.

Are you suggesting that infinite chain grabbing and ledge stalling is pro-competitive? Giving the other player absolutely no chance to escape or win doesnt sound very different from stalling to me. How is not fighting anti-competitive? last time i checked, if this technique helps me win, I should abuse it at every given opportunity. Theres no such thing as anti competitive, only the difference between people that win and people who make excuses about losing. Maybe Sirlin's article shouldnt be taken word for word.

The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. The game knows no rules of "honor" or of "cheapness." The game only knows winning and losing.

Even Sirlin acknowledges the limits as to when the play to win mentality can not be applied

not allowed in tournaments simply because both players don't have equal access to the trick--not because the tricks are too powerful.

Both players have equal access to this. Both players can choose DDD for a 0:100 matchup, both players can choose to ledgestall with MK if the other player chooses a character that can not. Both players can choose to stall on a large stage. The difference is, stalling can only be done once per set. The effect it has is no larger than any of those other cases. Each tactic can successfully be counterpicked against

Also finally you have to understand what im getting at here... Im not trying to say stalling should be allowed, or that ledgestalling with Metaknight or Infinite chaingrabbing needs to be banned, Im just trying to point out a flaw with the 'Play to win' mentality and the extent in to which it applies to Smash Bros. Im sick and tired of having people tell me I must only care about playing to win while at the same time they enforce rules which prevent certain characters from being able to play to win, while others can. The point is, Smash Bros. is different. We can play competitively without having the play to win mentality shoved down our throats all the time. We need to acknowledge that certain techniques do need to be banned in order to make Smash Bros competitive, just because it was put in the game does not mean we should abuse it. Whether this is infinite chaingrabbing or stalling, whats the difference? The final result is the same

 

[Jam Stunna]

I just can't comprehend how we are told we must play to win at all costs, while stalling is banned and ledgecamping/infinite chaingrabbing is allowed.

Well, then you're problem is with the schizophrenic nature of Melee and Brawl rules, which is a
valid concern and one that I agree with. Perhaps you should try to re-write your essay to frame it in those terms, because that point doesn't come through very clearly.

Part of the problem with Melee/Brawl is that they're not competitive in the first place. The very fact that stalling exists in such prevalent forms attests to that, and we have to make the rules that allow the game to be played competitively. It's extremely difficult to have uniform policy across such a large and diverse community.

 

[Da Shuffla]

Ummm... not that I play Brawl, but chain-grabbing is used to get the opponent to a high enough percentage so that they can be taken out with a finishing blow. Stalling doesn't add any damage, nor does it progress the match. It is done to simply be annoying. Very different tactics.

 

[Browny]

Part of the problem with Melee/Brawl is that they're not competitive in the first place. The very fact that stalling exists in such prevalent forms attests to that, and we have to make the rules that allow the game to be played competitively. It's extremely difficult to have uniform policy across such a large and diverse community.

This sums up my essay.

In short, Smash. Bros is different. You can not apply the same logic that exists in other competitive games to Smash Bros, it clearly can not work.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree with you that everyone treats God Sirlin like he's infallible. But I don't understand what you're getting at. If Smash is different, then how should it be played?

 

[Zephramrill]

I really enjoyed reading that. Good points but I dunno how valid they are.

 

[Browny]

I agree with you that everyone treats God Sirlin like he's infallible. But I don't understand what you're getting at. If Smash is different, then how should it be played?

It should not be played as a true competitive fighter. We have to understand there truly are broken techniques. Whether they are cheap or not is irrelevant, but a deeper consideration should be taken into determining whether they are ban worthy. At the moment, it seems smash is currently played with a mindset of playing to win at all costs, no technique (that isnt IDC) should be banned. I merely think we should look infinite chaingrabbing and ledgestalling more. Just because other competitive fighters allow any technique that doesnt break the game, doesnt mean that Smash bros should allow any technique also, which is obvious with the current banning of stalling.

... All in my opinion, of course

BTW agains thanks to people who read it all, I really wasnt expecting many people to do it lol

 

[Mith_]

Isn't Smash the only fighting game with banned things? Except for Akuma.

 

[Teran]

Isn't Smash the only fighting game with banned things? Except for Akuma.

Probably, because it's not a competitive fighter at core and was never meant to be. We need to streamline the rules to create the illusion of one.

 

[Vyse]

I am going to read this when I'm not still recovering from new years/the bout of influenza I've somehow gained from it.
[/SuscribePost]

 

[Pierce7d]

Good stuff. Djbrowny radar level +1

The reason stalling is different is because WE put the clock in the game to prevent people from forcing endless games.

The point of stalling is to run out the clock.
The point of the clock is to prevent players from endlessly evading their opponents to avoid the inevitable

Picture this: I am at last stock, 10%. My opponent is at last stock, 130%. OBVIOUSLY I have the advantage here. However, my opponent could theoretically grab the edge with MK, and begin stalling. With no clock, this becomes a highly conflicting situation, both inside and OUTSIDE of the game.

It's like in baseball, you're at the top of the 9th, and down by 7, so your pitcher decides not to pitch. "If I never pitch, the game will never finish, and therefore, I cannot lose, even if I cannot win."

This is the mentality behind the clock, and this is WHY we have a timer in the match. So, to get to your point, banning stalling isn't limiting a tactic within the boundaries of the game; it is limiting a tactic that abuses a limit we put on the game to make it more competative.

No one wants a set to go onto midnight because a MK refuses to lose grand finals, and won't come off that ledge and finish taking his beating like a man. Therefore we need a clock. Since we HAVE to put in a clock, the stalling tactic is generated, but not intended, and not a mandatory part of the original game design.

Also, the game is designed to test character's combat skill against one another. Unlike Street Fighter, smash has MANY more options which leads to more dynamic play, but unfortunately opens up other undesired options (like stalling). These options are can be abused, but I think many of them do detract from the competition (like D3's infinite). Those that don't realize this, and think every little thing should be taken advantage of, are the real scrubs in my eyes. I don't know why they aren't playing without banning anything.

EDIT: I'm aware that you're aware that stalling is banned for good reason.

 

[Browny]

^__^ thanks

Like I said in the first paragraph
"limits set in place but the reasons are not so clear, at least to me"

During my essay I was referring, subconsciously even, to this quote

Fox can shoot a laser at the start of the match and run away for the remainder, uncatchable by almost every other character

Which to me, made it sound like it was primarily banned because this tactic gives one (multiple in Brawl) character an incredible stage advantage.

 

[da K.I.D.]

id just like to point out to pierce (not that hes wrong just pointing it out.) that despite having timers in most sports, most sports still have stalling as a legit technique.

not only that, but those stalling techniques are employed throughout the entire game.

In football, have you ever noticed that the last 7 minutes of the 2nd and 4th quarters go by slower than the rest of the game put together. because as soon as a team scores they get the ball back and try to waste as much time as possible via running plays and being tackled inbounds.

In basketball, when teams have a sizable lead, you will notice that they start to run down the shot clock on every posession. they do this to stall the timer and give their opponents less time to catch up with them.

but that doesnt have much to do with the essay. im just stating that stalling is usually a viable means of competition.

@ the essay
DEE

JAY

BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

you are awesome and the essay was amazing. I loved and read everyword of it.
this concept has been bugging me for some time as well.

I think im going to put you in my sig for this.

 

[Teran]

AND in Football/Soccer, they'll just waste time by keeping the ball completely safe, but not by doing anything productive with it. Infuriating for the opposition and boring as hell to watch, but perfectly legit. Of course there is technically a risk of them still losing the ball, but once MK grabs that ledge, some characters are basically completely screwed and it doesn't actually take much work for MK to get in the lead like you would in a soccer match.
People like to win, and until you ban certain practices, they will happen. If I were a MK, and I though it might be a difficult match that I could skank by ledgestalling, I'd do it if there was money on the line. I'd rather have it banned though.

 

[Browny]

shameless bump coz hopefully vyse did really subscribe + see this >_>

I gotta re-write the last few paragraphs though. I initially didnt want this to end up as a comparison to ban infinites but the more I think about it, thats what it was about all along. An essay about why stalling is compartiviely legal while saying it should be banned doesnt really get anything done in the end lol. the last page of posts really needs to be put into the essay, I think they would help the essay make a lot more sense

 

[XxBlackxX]

okay, first of all i did not randomly bump this because i felt like it, but because djbrowny brought it to my attention when i was posting in another thread about why CG's and D3's infinites should be legal.
so here are a few points i want to point out:

However what annoys me is the obsession with Sirlin’s ‘Play to win’ article and the effect it has had on the Brawl community.

you know, yes, many people here on SWF treat sirlin's words as if he is some absolute god and is always right or something, which is an appeal to authority fallacy and just isn't true, however, more importantly, there are many others that quote sirlin not because he's just sirlin, but because they really believe in what he wrote. i don't see anything wrong with that, though i do think posts like "lol scrub go read sirlin and stop being a scrub" are kinda pointless.

One of the most common mindsets on SWF is the notion of playing to win at all costs. We are always reminded that we shall forever be scrubs unless we too, believe this. If there is a tactic in the game that can be used to give us an advantage, we should abuse it at every given opportunity.

this is just false. i know there have been people saying this, but i'll just tell everyone now that i don't agree with it one bit. my thoughts on this statement: there's nothing wrong whatsoever with playing the game however the **** you want to play the game. playing without the "play to win" mentality doesn't make you a scrub, BUT what does make someone a scrub is if they don't "play to win" and they complain that others are doing so.
No one is asking you to play MK and ledgecamp all day or whatever, the decision is yours and nobody else's. However, asking other players to forget "play to win" just because you happen to think (insert something here) is cheap, ********, banworthy, gay, not fun, or whatever DOES make you a scrub.
tl;dr of this section-the "play to win" players aren't asking to abuse "cheap tactics" and whatnot, but just don't complain when you get infinite-ed by D3, because the other player has every right to follow the "play to win" mentality.


EDIT: other than that, most of what you wrote were legit and interesting points, however, i want to know what's your stance on all this? by that i mean what's the main purpose of your essay? was it because you don't like the "play to win" mentality, because you think stalling and big stages should be unbanned? because you think tactics like infinites and ledgecamping should be banned?

 

[Browny]

Yeah my stance/whatever was explained in all the following posts but there are a fair few.

My point was that 'breaking the game' such as what stalling is claimed to do, is very limited. MK infinite cape is clearly breaking the game in the sense it cannot be counterpicked against by any stage (ban RC then what?) or character. not including stalling, the next two viable bannable techniques are MK ledgestalling and DDD standing infinite. They are clearly broken game mechanics. But how much more broken is stalling on a large stage? MK ledgestalling has the same effect, once a % lead has increased, he can simply run down the timer against many of the cast who simply can not hurt him while he does this. DDD standing infinite is broken in the sense it generates unwinnable matchups.

Stalling is similar to both cases. it does not 'break' the game any more than DDD standing infinite and MK ledgestalling, and to top it off it only generates the advantage for 1 match, only requiring a single counterpick.

of course stalling is banned because it is inherently anti-competitive. The current ruleset allowing MK ledgestalling and DDD infinite clearly implies broken tactics are allowable. But are these pro-competitive tactics? 0-100 matchups and unwinnable situations once a % lead has been gained through abusing clearly broken tactics are healthy for the game? If stalling is bannable, the reasons behind its ban seem to not apply to those two techniques. Whether stalling only makes 2-4 characters tourney viable (ON A COUNTERPICK ONCE PER SET ONLY) is irrelevant, techniques are not banned because it makes certain characters viable.

now i think about it, stalling is pretty much banned for the exact same reasons bridge of eldin and other walk-off stages are banned. but the point is, the advantage generated by CP'ing such a stage with DDD is the exact same as CP'ing a DK with DDD, or ledgestalling for 2/3 matches a set.

 

[XxBlackxX]

My point was that 'breaking the game' such as what stalling is claimed to do, is very limited. MK infinite cape is clearly breaking the game in the sense it cannot be counterpicked against by any stage (ban RC then what?) or character.

if IDC were allowed, it would make MK the ONLY viable character, and IDC the ONLY viable tactic, thus it would be over-centralizing.

They are clearly broken game mechanics. But how much more broken is stalling on a large stage? MK ledgestalling has the same effect, once a % lead has increased, he can simply run down the timer against many of the cast who simply can not hurt him while he does this. DDD standing infinite is broken in the sense it generates unwinnable matchups.

well in the regard to MK ledgecamping, all it really is camping. MK is putting himself in an advantageous situation, to make approaching very difficult and risky for the opponent. sure, it's annoying and tough to beat, but it at least should be allowed, after all, he has to have a % lead in order do it. as for whether or not the better player will win, it doesn't matter. the better player doesn't always win every single match. mistakes happen, and if the "better" player makes a mistake and MK gets the % lead, it is by all means a viable tactic.
as for D3 infinites....well, to be honest im quite tired of this topic after debating it to death in the other thread so ill just...
tl;dr-the shouldn't be banned because it doesn't fit the critieria for a ban.
it doesn't over-centralize or break the game in anyway, and it doesn't add randomness or prevent competition in anyway(by prevent, i mean prevent competition altogether, i.e. freezing glitch, invincibility). this criteria was used in almost all competitive fighting games, neither of the tactics you mentioned fit the criteria for banning.
of course, my opinion on ledgecamping is based purely off the fact that's it's beatable. hard to beat, but beatable, IF it was somehow tested and discovered that it was impossible for a majority of the characters to hit MK while ledgecamping, then i concede it is banworthy as invincibility falls under the ban criteria for preventing competition altogether.
now, onto stalling....

Stalling is similar to both cases. it does not 'break' the game any more than DDD standing infinite and MK ledgestalling, and to top it off it only generates the advantage for 1 match, only requiring a single counterpick.

stalling is unlike the other two cases because it over-centralizes the game as a WHOLE whereas ledgecamping and D3 infinites are only exploiting character specific weaknesses, quite the same as exploiting DK's inability to deal with projectiles, albeit to a larger effect.
you see, stalling is a universal tactic, it works on a majority of the cast, therefore, it would over-centralize a part of the game around stalling. however, like you said, stalling isn't really feasible on most of the legal stages. banning stages in which really encourage stalling or circle camping prevent the game from being over-centralized around stalling.

off-topic:
another thing worth pointing out: you say "stalling" is banned, but if you think about it, how banned is it really?
there really isn't a clear line that we use to judge what is really "stalling" and what isn't. is running away from tornado for 5 seconds stalling? is waiting out a unfavorable transformation in PS1 for 30 seconds stalling? is doing retreating shls for the rest of the match after falco gains an % advantage stalling? or is always running away for 5 minutes stalling?
you see, this whole "stalling" issue isn't clear cut. what you think is stalling isn't stalling to some others. it's all very subjective and totally unenforceable. sure, all tournies have a "no stalling" rule in their ruleset, but "no stalling", as i've just explained, is totally unenforceable and a meaningless rule imo. also, i don't recommend actually making a random and totally arbitrary line for what is stalling and what is not either. because for example, say a TO decides to add you cannot "stall" for more than 2 minutes in any given match. what's to stop someone who's really "playing to win" from stalling for 1 minute and 59 seconds then?
tl;dr-stalling is supposed banned and frowned upon, but if you really want to go for it, i highly doubt you would get DQ'ed for "stalling" unless you were literally running away for the whole match, which, as you pointed out, is impossible on most legal stages
/end rant

of course stalling is banned because it is inherently anti-competitive. The current ruleset allowing MK ledgestalling and DDD infinite clearly implies broken tactics are allowable. But are these pro-competitive tactics? 0-100 matchups and unwinnable situations once a % lead has been gained through abusing clearly broken tactics are healthy for the game? If stalling is bannable, the reasons behind its ban seem to not apply to those two techniques.

0-100 matchups is NOT in any way anti-competitive. some characters just beat others...hard. at the highest levels of play, i HIGHLY doubt a fox will EVER beat a pika of relative skill, and i HIGHLY doubt a Falcon main will ever beat a MK main.....at the highest levels of play, of course. this is NOT anti-competitive at all, unviable characters and ****ty matchups exist in almost all fighting games, but guess what? people deal with it. by doing what? either forgetting about that specific character who gets screwed and main someone rlse or by CP'ing.

now i think about it, stalling is pretty much banned for the exact same reasons bridge of eldin and other walk-off stages are banned. but the point is, the advantage generated by CP'ing such a stage with DDD is the exact same as CP'ing a DK with DDD, or ledgestalling for 2/3 matches a set.

walkoffs are universal. therefore, D3 can do it to a majority of the cast and CP'ing would be over-centralized around this. infinites work on only 2 characters, so it is a different thing.

 

[Browny]

well in the regard to MK ledgecamping, all it really is camping. MK is putting himself in an advantageous situation, to make approaching very difficult and risky for the opponent. sure, it's annoying and tough to beat, but it at least should be allowed, after all, he has to have a % lead in order do it.

In essense (as i said in the essay), all stalling is is camping. The faster played is putting themselves at an advantageous position the entire match, and approaching with the opponent is extremely difficult (ie, impossible). But you need a % lead to even begin to circle camp. See? Stalling by circle camping isnt that much different, and slow characters have the same chance of successfully damaging a circle camping opponent as characters without projectiles that can be lobbed from above at the edge have of stopping an MK ledgecamping without taking more damage in the process when he abuses invinciblity frames upb etc.

0-100 matchups is NOT in any way anti-competitive. some characters just beat others...hard. at the highest levels of play, i HIGHLY doubt a fox will EVER beat a pika of relative skill, and i HIGHLY doubt a Falcon main will ever beat a MK main.....at the highest levels of play, of course. this is NOT anti-competitive at all, unviable characters and ****ty matchups exist in almost all fighting games, but guess what? people deal with it. by doing what? either forgetting about that specific character who gets screwed and main someone rlse or by CP'ing.

Fox on hyrule temple beats most other characters... hard. It just so happens that the majority of characters have ****ty matchups vs him on that stage. ****ty matchups exist in fighting games but people deal with it, by CPing a character or stage.

Once again you can see, stalling doesnt break the game any more than those two tactics. The advantage they give in each 3 situations is the exact same, and they are all counter-able by the same use of counterpicking, yet only 1 is banned? Remember, whether this technique only renders 2-4 characters viable is irrelevant, that has NEVER been a consideration in fighting games. maybe if it was 1 single character, you might have a point.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Fox on hyrule temple beats most other characters... hard. It just so happens that the majority of characters have ****ty matchups vs him on that stage. ****ty matchups exist in fighting games but people deal with it, by CPing a character or stage.

Once again you can see, stalling doesnt break the game any more than those two tactics. The advantage they give in each 3 situations is the exact same, and they are all counter-able by the same use of counterpicking, yet only 1 is banned? Remember, whether this technique only renders 2-4 characters viable is irrelevant, that has NEVER been a consideration in fighting games. maybe if it was 1 single character, you might have a point.

huh? over-centralization has never been a consideration in fighting games? which fighting games have you been playing. of course, i understand that "over-centralization" isn't completely objective and cleat-cut, either, however, a technique that renders 33/37 characters unviable isn't over-centralizing to you?

 

[Browny]

i dont know what game it is specifically, but people often like to bring up tourney results threads that look like this

1.Chun-li
2.Chun-li
""
8.Chun-li

yet that is perfectly fine?

Even if though stalling on hyrule with fox is just about unbeatable, you have to remember by no means does this guarantee a fox user would even make it out of last place, since you can easily countpick the large stage with a small stage and maybe... pikachu? Someone who only knows how to stall with fox will never beat a better player, since they will lose the other 2 matches in the set. it only over-centralises the metagame for 1/3 matches per set. Or really, it could do it 0 matches if the other player is using a character who an counter stalling anyway

 

[XxBlackxX]

i dont know what game it is specifically, but people often like to bring up tourney results threads that look like this

1.Chun-li
2.Chun-li
""
8.Chun-li

yet that is perfectly fine?

Even if though stalling on hyrule with fox is just about unbeatable, you have to remember by no means does this guarantee a fox user would even make it out of last place, since you can easily countpick the large stage with a small stage and maybe... pikachu? Someone who only knows how to stall with fox will never beat a better player, since they will lose the other 2 matches in the set. it only over-centralises the metagame for 1/3 matches per set. Or really, it could do it 0 matches if the other player is using a character who an counter stalling anyway

lol you don't know your street fighter, it's a great game lol. but ontopic....
good tourney results=/=over-centralization. just because a lot of people win with her doesn't mean she is the only viable character. like people pointed out in the char rankings thread, tourney results can be skewed because of many different things, such as maybe more people just like chun-li as a character. i don't remember playing a sf game where chun li was over-powered, but eh *shrugs*

as for your second point, i agree that someone who only knows how to stall with fox isn't gonna get anywhere, but i'll bring up another relevant point: stage bans don't follow quite as a strict of a criteria as character/tactic bans, so stages like hyrule, hanenbow, and spear pillar are banned because they encourage circle camping and the sort.
however, in the larger picture, stalling isn't banworthy, no. and as i have stated, stalling isn't actually "banned" imo, even though most if not all tournies stick a "no stalling" rule in their ruleset.

 

[ftl]

Playing to win means doing whatever you can within the rules to win.

We make the rules of the game. If stalling is against the rules, then obviously 'playing to win' wouldn't involve stalling, 'playing to win' does not involve cheating.


I've always interpreted the 'no stalling' rule to be much more strictly applicable than stuff like planking - it would be something like glitching yourself to a part of the stage unreachable for the other character, or keeping an infinite going forever instead of ending it once you can get the kill, or doing something like jigglypuff's rising pound forever while being higher than the opponent can physically reach.

To quote sirlin - bans have to be discrete, enforceable, and warranted.

Banning stages that are conducive to circle camping fits that. It's warranted - something which would overcentralize the game to only a few characters that could do it. (Though that is debatable.)

However, the most important bits are that it's discrete and enforecable - it's *easy*, from a rules perspective, to say you can't pick a particular stage. You're not micromanaging the game, we've made up the rules for stage choice and counterpicking anyway.

Likewise, something like IDC - it's *easy* to tell whether an MK has used IDC, as long as there's a "no IDC at all" rule rather than a "no more than X seconds" rule (which would be a pain to monitor and enforce, since if there was X seconds allowed then play to win would indicate that repeating it just to the X-second limit is the best option...)

Planking or running away - not so much. Running away to reset spacing and to get a positional advantage is pretty integral to the game. And there's virtually no way to draw the line between "I try hit him and then I run away so I don't get hit" and "I'm running away forever to kill the clock."

 

[Rain(ame)]

Simply put, Stalling to an excessive point is what's banned.

I'll bring up a match. Neo vs. Isai. Isai literally STOOD there for 2 minutes. While Neo was just being all techy and what not. Now I can understand for...20 seconds, but that was like...2 minutes of Neo trying to bait Isai and Isai just standing there. That my friend is excessive stalling. It would have been a different story if it was like one of those Japanese matches where they were in the fray and trying to bait each other into mistakes, but they just stood there.

That'd be just as bad as a Ken vs. Ryu match where all they did was throw Hadoukens at each other for most of the match. You know it's gonna cancel out. However, what is too long to wait? Excessive stalling. Notice how in some sections of PK stadium people came and try to bait each other into making a mistake. I've done it myself after seeing how utterly stupid it is to try and rush head on. I saw a match between Teh Spamerer and Vidjo on Poke' floats. The WHOLE match went by, and they both still had two stocks. Spam won due to a % difference. My goodness...talk about stalling, right? Noooot quite. They spent the match baiting each other, and tried to get the other to make mistakes. That's camping because SOMETHING was actually happening. Ledge stalling is only legit for a few seconds to try and stop a person's momentum or throw them off.

People that endlessly ledge stall are just stalling to run the clock out. That's what the rules are for, my friend. Yes, it's a viable tactic, but in moderation. Hyrule temple is banned for keeping an unbalanced use of that tactic of shooting a laser or two and running away. That would just be abuse of a tactic. Then what would happen? "Well...you could just strike the stage" one might reason. WRONG, because then that'd leave Fox open to use other stages he'd normally have a huge advantage over in the first place.

Suppose I, a Peach player, was known for being good, but also for abusing my amazing stalling abilities on....Princess Peach's castle (Seeing as how that's one of the stages that are banned for stalling). You ban or strike the stage from the set. However, that still leaves Dreamland open for me to use. I also have FoD to use to my advantage as well. That's TWO stages right there as opposed to one. Why is that? It's because we didn't completely ban a stage that encourages abuse of certain skills. Why is Yoshi's Island banned? Walk off Edges. It doesn't take much for a Fox to Wave shine you off the stage. Worst yet...nowadays a good enough Peach could Pillar you off the stage. DK could just grab you walk to the limits and throw you off stage. Ness could just camp the side and use his stupidly powerful throw to do the same. I would Imagine G & W can do just about the same thing. o_o Walk off edges...not just for Fox. The shoot one laser and run strategy isn't either. other characters can do it. Falco can just spam SHL and run. Sheik could throw a needle and Run. Ness just nees to spam PK fire and make a wall between you and himself. They use it as an example. It's not centered around a SINGLE character.

There is a difference between playing to win and having a tactic that's banned. If it wasn't a MAJOR issue that can easily be overcome, then they wouldn't have just banned it. SF3 has Gil that's banned. He's just broken....too broken for competitive play.

 

[Browny]

Hmmm it appears people are missing my point. I know exactly why stalling is banned and it should be, but can you honestly say that MK ledgestalling is not broken? Ive heard plenty of people say that stalling breaks the game, which it does. but somehow ledgestalling with MK and CP'ing a DK with DDD and final destination is not game breaking? what is the definition of game breaking. all three tactics serve one single purpose, to give a player and advantage in the matchup. Whether they break the game in terms of 0:100 matchups, 7 minutes without attacking or rendering yourself practically invincible whats the difference? they do not make any difference in the outcome of a match, a small or infinite advantage gained by any of these tactics is never considered. Stalling breaks the game no more than those 2 tactics, and by my set examples, you can see it actually has less of an effect on the outcome of any set.

Stalling can NOT banned because it gives certain characters unfair matchups. If that was the case, so should those other 2 tactics.

 

[cj.Shark]

wow
im glad you think the way i do about "play to win"
but atleast the people in smashboards are complete jerks when they hear someone talk about it

rant-
uh i made a blog on aib on why i thought the wombo combo was stupid from a competive standpoint as they could have easily done alternate infinite release grabs. and all that the people there did was flame me and try to discredit me as a player instead of addressing my points

 

[Rain(ame)]

Okay, so let's address these two tactics:

Ledgestalling with MK- If I'm not mistaken, EXCESSIVE ledge stalling is banned, right? (I'm not 100% accurate on Brawl's ruleset, but I believe that it, along with Peach's Wall Bomb, Jigg's rising pound, etc. are banned.) So...excessive ledge stalling is banned. That problem is solved. If they're doing it for more than a few seconds, it's excessive.

Counterpicking D3 against DK with FD. Well...let's be real about this. If you play DK, and you hear "Final Destination" you've GOT to be thinking something bad. So one of two things: 1.) you make sure that FD is banned from the outset. 2.) You go with a secondary that WON'T get gayed on FD.

I'm not saying that what you bring up isn't valid in some way, but those two options are easily, and i mean EASILY taken care of. It's why people have secondaries in games. CP rules are there for a reason. DK hears FD...and they think about this, what do they say? "crap...better switch my character."

No, I'm not calling you a scrub, noob, or the like but that's a VERY easily solved issue. It'll limit a person's options when you go with a secondary. This is why some people in Brawl say they "have no main". There are characters they use a lot, aka their "main", but they also have characters to protect against Gayness. If you want to prove your mettle by ONLY using one character, that's your fault. Make sure that your stage ban/strike and Counter Picks are on point. Otherwise...you're going to lose.

Note that what I'm about to say does not have anything to do with Melee vs. Brawl discussions:

This, my friend, is the difference between the two games, however. In Melee, you can overcome your weakness by getting good practice on the stage vs. the character and using tech skill and mind games to overwhelm your opponent. Inui is great with Sheik on stage you'd counter pick against her. (Mute City...GOD that's gay how good he is with Sheik on that stage) Another situation is how I, playing Alexander Triad, picked Mute City as a CP. Normally, for Peach vs. Samus...it's a good idea. Most Samus players can't use the grapple for the edge, and have a bit of a disadvantage on the stage. Triad, however, had plenty of practice on the stage, and beat me soundly on my CP. Easily learned and compensated for in this game. Or you could just use a secondary.

My friends, Brawl is a game that relies moreso on the mind games and that in sole. This makes it more difficult for someone to win on a stage against a character that has the advantage on it. Brawl players have to overcome this by knowing their character inside out, and knowing the matchup inside and out. They also need to know the stage and think of all the possibilities of situations. This requires a LOT of practice against someone using this character. It can be overcome, but with a SEVERE amount of perseverance. Sonic Mains have this to deal with quite a bit. However, the simpler, and more along the lines of "Play to Win" is to have a solid secondary or two to handle situations your main can't.


So your points....are addressed. If you feel I'm wrong in some way, please let me know. We can handle this like civilized people without any type of savage intent.


Edit: AGAIN, this is NOT to say either game is better. So don't bring the nonsense in here. (You know who you are.) It's simply a situation into which people have to "play to win"

Also...back to Spam vs. Vidjo. That stage was Poke' Floats and Fox vs. Peach. Which Fox is at a CLEAR disadvantage on that stage. He won by playing gay and camping. He played to win when the odds were stacked against him.

 

[gantrain05]

Simply put, Stalling to an excessive point is what's banned.

I'll bring up a match. Neo vs. Isai. Isai literally STOOD there for 2 minutes. While Neo was just being all techy and what not. Now I can understand for...20 seconds, but that was like...2 minutes of Neo trying to bait Isai and Isai just standing there. That my friend is excessive stalling. It would have been a different story if it was like one of those Japanese matches where they were in the fray and trying to bait each other into mistakes, but they just stood there.

im confused, are you saying isai is stalling because he's just standing still? because thats not really stalling, the other guy didn't approach either, so what? isai was playing defensive. neo decided to try and bait isai into attacking which obviously didn't work, he should have approached.

 

[rehab]

1.Chun-li
2.Chun-li
""
8.Chun-li

If you are referring to Third Strike I don't see the problem