Running out the clock and stalling

[ColinJF]

Clocks are placed in card games like Yu-gi-oh and Magic to keep the tournament going at a reasonable pace.

If we were in the goat control format of Yu-gi-oh, tournaments, would take on until the dawn of the next day. I don't even want to think what nationals and SJC would be like if a clock wasn't there.

Clock's are placed in card games so the tournament ends on time, Self Destruct Button Decks abuse this. If they go first, they will stall the match until over time and side in burn/life gain/no damage cards, to stall. These kinds of decks go against what the game is about and abuse a factor that shouldn't be part of the the game, the clock.

Planking is stoppable along with non infinite stalling tactics due to the game being real time, thus it is acceptable. In yu-gi-oh and Magic, where real time isn't a part of it, a clock is not there as a win method.

The rules I quoted are clearly bad. They don't even define what playing "too slowly" is. If you don't want the clock to be a part of the game you need to do it in a way that doesn't involve vaguely defined terms and arbitrary judgement calls. That's true for the rules of any game, real time or not.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Funny thing is...I posted something similar to this a few pages back explaining how the HA stall works (or rather, how it doesn't work)

It's oh-so-easy to just sit there and force him to stall to his disqualification, feign ignorance and just say "oh referee, he's stalling D: "

If stalling of any form is banned, this should definitely be on the list.

However, you do bring up a good point that it's a very counterable form of stalling XD
[note: The OP made a point that Sonic's HA stall is counterable with certain controllable projectiles and multi jumps, and like any other 'counterpick' situation, can be countered/avoided if the opponent uses a different character]

---------------------------

I just reposted it here because some people don't understand why it works or doesn't work.
+matchupknowledge.

You know, all of these are pretty much reasons why it shouldn't be banned. The opponent has complete control of where Sonic goes, and can simply force him to come back up because of the mechanics of HA.

So how exactly is this different from you just standing on one side of the stage while the opponent does nothing about it? The "stall" has a definite counter even without actually going below the stage to hit Sonic (you simply make him come back up to you), and if they chose to blatantly ignore that counter then there's no reason to penalize you.

Stalls are banned because by definition their only purpose is to break gameplay by rendering the opponent unable to affect you. However, HA "stall" does not fit this, thus it is not a stall and thus it should not be banned.

Now I know that there is no longer any practical application of the HA "stall" (since it is not truly a stall), and it will not see any competitive use, but even if unbanning it has absolutely no effect on tournament play I think it should be unbanned based on the simple principle that you do not ban things that aren't broken.

 

[Natch]

Random: How's your Snake coming along? I remember reading your heartwarming story on the Lucas boards a while ago. I think.

It's coming along well. I've been placing higher at tournaments now-placed 9th/36 in Doubles at Quiznos Brawl this past weekend, and 49th/91 in Singles.

 

[ImpactAR]

PLEASE READ AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS!

Alright, here is my opinion on this. Let me know what you guys think of this situation.

In general, I use planking to stall out the invincibility time my opponent receives when he comes from a new stock. However, I just literally found it planking good positioning strategy. With a solid Up B, a tether, and some quick attacks I have some solid options.

I main TL and I have good general strategy against most character. However, with Snake I have trouble with since overall he hits harder and kills sooner than TL.

My friend picked up Snake as a second in order to have an "easy" round win for my TL in case we meet and he has to counter pick. So playing a friendly match, I decide that it might be more in my favor to be out of his tilt range when I saw that I was at 100% after taking a stock from him. So I ran to the edge and played the planking game. Since he was losing he had to come to me. Being at 100%, he toss out a few Utilts to try to catch me. Seeing that, I was simply punishing if he gets to close to the edge. Getting annoyed that he couldn't get me he backs off to the other side of the stage and tells me "you can stop stalling now." I shrugged it off and got back on the stage to watch and react staying still close to the edge thinking it's a way to stay out of his tilts. When he starts to get to close for comfort for me I retreat back to planking.

Anyways, in the end won that match, which is very seldom in this match up. Since we have a tournament coming up he stated to me that I was stalling and in the tournament if I do that he'll call me out on that. My argument with him is that I wasn't trying to stall, I was positioning myself where it favors me. Just because he backs off to the other side doesn't mean should get up and come to him where he has the advantage and can toss out safe tilts and try to get a KO. I indicated that I wasn't even thinking of stalling, I was thinking to avoid the tilts. I mean to me, this is a friendly and we're preparing for at tournament. And he said he understands, but tournament rules doesn't allow "ledge stalling" so I can't be doing that in the tournament (AKA against him).

Now let me give a few other details on this match up. I didn't plank until I was at 100% or more. So it so happens that I got the first KO and was at 100ish% in the beginning. So the planking begins around 1:30-2:00 leaving 5:00-30 minutes, right. So I overall follow this strategy. Fight him as much as the ledge until he finally gets a KO. Fight him on the stage when I'm at fairly low percentage. But when I get dangerously close to KO range I go back to planking.

My beef with this is that TL has the advantage at the plank while Snake has the advantage directly on the stage. IMO, TL has some difficulties KOing. Snake does not. When I make it difficult for him to KO. He sees the potential problem and complains.

I think there is a thin line between this game play strategy and stalling. I want to know. Is "ledge stalling" offically banned? Also. What do you guys think of this situation.

 

[metaXzero]

Yes they are. They're playing to win. Who would stall to lose? They're just playing to win using everything available to them including legit tactics for running the clock out.


No, your proposal isn't valid. IMO, for example, the parts of your proposal regarding MK dittos.

I'm referring to Eyada's proposal Yuna. In that proposal, both players lose when the timer hits 0. Meaning in that instance, stalling out the clock ISN'T playing to win. It's actually just self-destructive.

Towards MY proposal on IDC, HOW is it invalid not? And did you see the change in rule for MK dittos (IDC is banned in dittos because MK DOES have an unbeatable stall against himself:IDC).

 

[RDK]

Yay for people ignoring perfectly legitimate posts.

 

[BlueTerrorist]

Everyone does know that using the clock to your advantage is a legit strategy in other fighters right? I mean yeah, ban tactics that stop the match.

Take this:

Player 1: Hey is it alright that I camp in the air with Wario?
Player 2: Sure it's legit.

Player 1: Hey can I plank with MK and spam lasers afar with ROB?
Player 2: Sure go ahead it's legal.

Player 1: Hey can I run away from opponents with Sonic?
Player 2: No, that's banned and gay .

I see something wrong here and besides, how do you enforce stalling if there not obviously under the stage all the time and they're always on the stage? I had the same problem the other day, someone disputed me on the AiB ladder because I timed him out with Sonic on Japes against his Marth.

 

[d4bA]

I believe we should state a rule similar to other genres regarding time. Whenever both players go to time, the player with the % lead will have an advantage in the state of "overtime." During this period of play, the player without the % lead is at a disadvantage by means of %.
38% for lightweights, 47% for medium, 57 % for heavies (completely random #'s except for the fact that there are lower %'s for lighter weights etc). 3 minute timer 1 stock. Fight to the death.
This is simply a hypothetical rule created by myself in order to find a solution to stalling. This is going to become a huge problem if it doesn't get taken care of. Not so much as planking, but simply jumping around and running away in order to stall out time.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Pray tell, what is your reason to want it gone? I've at least presented legit reasons. What are yours?

"removes one or more characters from play."

Common mistake. It's not the removal of a character from play, it's the removal of one or both sides. As in something which removes one or both (or more) characters involved in a match from the field, not as in rendering someone unviable but simply removing them from the field (either in a way which makes them untouchable or actually gone from the field, such as Infinite Pounding and the IDC).

The situation posed was that it works against every character.

What situation? This is what you said:
"What if... this may not be a well-formed question, but... what if there's a defensive tactic, which is not in principle unbeatable (it still has plenty of hurtbox frames per cycle, etc.), but it happens that in each case of a character it could be used against, that character has nothing?"

Nowhere in there does it say it works against every character.

And that it was "good enough" to eliminate all aggressive possibilities from the opponent.

No, something has to work against every character to such a degree one cannot stand a reasonable chance of winning unless one plays with the character holding the cards to be banned. Having something really good that works against all characters alone does not make something broken and bannable.

Sure. I was just calling you on one of your careless "I'm arguing with idiots, scrubs, and/or plain lazy *******s" comments.

No, this is you reading my posts and assuming a whole bunch of stuff. Nowhere in this thread have I even implied that all or even the majority of the people I'm arguing against are idiots, Scrubs, plain lazy whatevers.

All I did was imply that SWF is full of Scrubs nowadays and that is the reason why so many threads on how we must ban this and that keep popping up. This doesn't mean I'm implying that everyone who wants to ban things are Scrubs or whatever.

Playing the timer is not what could happen ideally. If we had no tournament limitations, the fact of needing to actually win to, you know, win, would force a player to take an action. Both players, invested in ending the infinity, would go for the other's next stock. They would try to attack.

You still refuse to tell me why it is so unacceptable to win by timeout, to actively seek to win by timeout.

as long as the two characters are engaging each other, then sure, maybe very effective adherence to certain oft-cited ****-avoidance protips will mean long, grueling games, but the games are approaching an end. There is something to watch, there. When the characters are not engaging each other, you question why they have plugged their controllers into the same machine when others could be perhaps using the setup. Playing out tourney experience and getting their matches done.

I'm not quite grasping what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that actively trying to win by timeout and keepaway should be discouraged because it makes for boring matches not only for the players but also for the audience, that we should ban things to cater to the audience?

I find this view, as a whole way of looking at a tourney rule set (an "uberview" or "meta rule"), to be so much more desirable than the alternative, that it is enough to appear all-too-reasonable to put right alongside the PCB as just the way to construct and run a whole environment (and build a whole community) for tourney play.

In other words, you have no actual legit arguments, you only have your opinion. You just think it's plain boring to play and watch matches where people camp excessively and/or cross over into actively trying to run the clock out (using perfectly legit and legal tactics).

The first part is clear, but actually you might have me wrong on the second point. Camping is not running of the clock.

Let me repeat myself for the 29th time, slowly this time:
Not... all... camping... actively... seeks... to... run... the... clock... out. However... some... do!

Or rather, something, which I might have a name for because I don't call it stalling, and could fall with a lot of what you just meant by 'camping', is not running of the clock. Running of the clock is when the only thing you are "doing" is moving the timer down, and avoiding harm.

As opposed to camping? I mean, camping a part of the stage by staying put and hiding behind cover, swatting your opponent away if they try to reach you, such as on the right side of Corneria or various Pokémon Stadium transformations, these camping strats do not run the clock out at all!

And it's not camping if you'er staying put, forcing your opponent to approach!

What about abusing multiple platforms like Dreamland 64, running around in circles, avoiding your opponent and forcing them to approach, sometimes putting them in a disadvantageous situation depend on how well you can intercept their approaches?

But not stalling. You may not be maximizing your possible KO reward, but you are, say, shooting arrows. Or throwing Waddle Doos. And this there can be no problem with that is non-scrubby, for sure.

I'm still waiting for you tell me why it is unacceptable to actively try to win by timeout.

I don't know about anybody else but when the finals of a tournament are : hit someone once to gain a % lead and then stall for 7 or 8 min. for 5 games straight, is less fun to watch than playing a friendly with someone who has never played before. that to me is the most ******** thing in the world.

finals should be enjoyable to watch, not boring stall matches with no action besides jumping to a ledge repeatedly

Competitive Smash does not exist to amuse you. We do not write the rules and ban things to make things as exciting as possible for you to watch.

Any techniques that guarantee you to be able to stall for prolonged periods of time are already banned. All that is left is simply trying to keep away from your opponent using legit means such as simple avoidance and hit-and-run.

I'm referring to Eyada's proposal Yuna. In that proposal, both players lose when the timer hits 0. Meaning in that instance, stalling out the clock ISN'T playing to win. It's actually just self-destructive.

First, prove that it is unacceptable to win by stalling the match out using legit tactics such as simply running away, camping and hit-and-running, all the while staying perfectly vulnerable unless the opposing character sucks for trying to catch up to you.

Towards MY proposal on IDC, HOW is it invalid not? And did you see the change in rule for MK dittos (IDC is banned in dittos because MK DOES have an unbeatable stall against himself:IDC).

That's an idiotic solution. Oh, the IDC is legal against everyone but MK himself! Wheee! No.

 

[metaXzero]

@Yuna

Eyada's proposal works IF running out the clock is an ACTUAL problem in tournaments. If it's not actually a problem and we could actually afford the possibility of every match going over the timer, then yes, their is no reason to change the current percent rule.

To the IDC point: How is it "idiotic"? MK is the only character who defeats the point of my proposal (allowing IDC use while rendering IDC stalling ineffective) because MK himself can stall out the clock with IDC to win should the other MK use IDC. Other characters don't have an unbeatable stall. They would have to resort to just ordinary camping if they want to run out the time. And obviously, that's not unbeatable like IDC stalling.

 

[Yuna]

@Yuna

Eyada's proposal works IF running out the clock is an ACTUAL problem in tournaments. If it's not actually a problem and we could actually afford the possibility of every match going over the timer, then yes, their is no reason to change the current percent rule.

Yes, and my most stressed point has always been:
Fine, prove that it's a problem.

To the IDC point: How is it "idiotic"? MK is the only character who defeats the point of my proposal (allowing IDC use while rendering IDC stalling ineffective) because MK himself can stall out the clock with IDC to win should the other MK use IDC. Other characters don't have an unbeatable stall. They would have to resort to just ordinary camping if they want to run out the time. And obviously, that's not unbeatable like IDC stalling.

Why not just ban IDC stalling, period? And since it's too time consuming to monitor, the IDC, period?

 

[metaXzero]

It's banned period in Dittos only. Outside of dittos, their is no reason to ban IDC due to stalling with it.

 

[petrie911]

If it's not actually a problem and we could actually afford the possibility of every match going over the timer, then yes, their is no reason to change the current percent rule.

There is no reason to change...except for the fact that the game may be better with the change. It doesn't impose any additional rules; it merely changes an existing one. It's easy to enforce objectively. It bans no tactics. It does, however, encourage games to finish more quickly and could actually eliminate some stalling bans, as stalling out the match with something like Jiggs' rising pound is a 100% losing strategy under this system. So the question is, what makes the current system better than this one?

 

[Yuna]

There is no reason to change...except for the fact that the game may be better with the change.

We do not ban things to make the game as good as it can be. For one thing, who the hell decides what is good and what is bad? For another, do you realize how much BS we'd have to ban if that wee true?!

It doesn't impose any additional rules; it merely changes an existing one.

It imposes upon perfectly legit tactics such as camping.

as stalling out the match with something like Jiggs' rising pound is a 100% losing

It already is? Because it's against the rules and will get you disqualified?

 

[petrie911]

We do not ban things to make the game as good as it can be. For one thing, who the hell decides what is good and what is bad? For another, do you realize how much BS we'd have to ban if that wee true?!


It imposes upon perfectly legit tactics such as camping.


It already is? Because it's against the rules and will get you disqualified?

-But this wouldn't actually ban anything. It would change the viability of certain strategies, but nothing is actually banned

-You can still camp. You just have to remember that the clock is ticking. Does it make it less viable? Yes. Does it make it inviable? Not by a long shot.

-But, as you might notice, this doesn't require that additional ban on the Rising Pound/other such things, as it's already built into the time rule. Short ruleset is better, no?

 

[Natch]

PLEASE READ AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOUR OPINION IS!

Alright, here is my opinion on this. Let me know what you guys think of this situation.

In general, I use planking to stall out the invincibility time my opponent receives when he comes from a new stock. However, I just literally found it planking good positioning strategy. With a solid Up B, a tether, and some quick attacks I have some solid options.

I main TL and I have good general strategy against most character. However, with Snake I have trouble with since overall he hits harder and kills sooner than TL.

My friend picked up Snake as a second in order to have an "easy" round win for my TL in case we meet and he has to counter pick. So playing a friendly match, I decide that it might be more in my favor to be out of his tilt range when I saw that I was at 100% after taking a stock from him. So I ran to the edge and played the planking game. Since he was losing he had to come to me. Being at 100%, he toss out a few Utilts to try to catch me. Seeing that, I was simply punishing if he gets to close to the edge. Getting annoyed that he couldn't get me he backs off to the other side of the stage and tells me "you can stop stalling now." I shrugged it off and got back on the stage to watch and react staying still close to the edge thinking it's a way to stay out of his tilts. When he starts to get to close for comfort for me I retreat back to planking.

Anyways, in the end won that match, which is very seldom in this match up. Since we have a tournament coming up he stated to me that I was stalling and in the tournament if I do that he'll call me out on that. My argument with him is that I wasn't trying to stall, I was positioning myself where it favors me. Just because he backs off to the other side doesn't mean should get up and come to him where he has the advantage and can toss out safe tilts and try to get a KO. I indicated that I wasn't even thinking of stalling, I was thinking to avoid the tilts. I mean to me, this is a friendly and we're preparing for at tournament. And he said he understands, but tournament rules doesn't allow "ledge stalling" so I can't be doing that in the tournament (AKA against him).

Now let me give a few other details on this match up. I didn't plank until I was at 100% or more. So it so happens that I got the first KO and was at 100ish% in the beginning. So the planking begins around 1:30-2:00 leaving 5:00-30 minutes, right. So I overall follow this strategy. Fight him as much as the ledge until he finally gets a KO. Fight him on the stage when I'm at fairly low percentage. But when I get dangerously close to KO range I go back to planking.

My beef with this is that TL has the advantage at the plank while Snake has the advantage directly on the stage. IMO, TL has some difficulties KOing. Snake does not. When I make it difficult for him to KO. He sees the potential problem and complains.

I think there is a thin line between this game play strategy and stalling. I want to know. Is "ledge stalling" offically banned? Also. What do you guys think of this situation.

It's completly legal, your friend is just johning. Do it as much as you want.

 

[Aiko]

what if you can only have 1 win by time, per set?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Is stalling a legit, common problem in tournaments?

Or is this an imaginary issue?

 

[Oracle]

Is stalling a legit, common problem in tournaments?

Or is this an imaginary issue?

It is in brawl because it's one of the only viable strategies, such as in that TL story above, in some cases, and even when it's not, its really good. Technically you can plank without "stalling" by camping the ledge, ledgehopping a fair, and then up b back to the ledge (the best are mk and murf

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It is in brawl because it's one of the only viable strategies, such as in that TL story above, in some cases, and even when it's not, its really good. Technically you can plank without "stalling" by camping the ledge, ledgehopping a fair, and then up b back to the ledge (the best are mk and murf

There's a huge difference between a viable tactic and a widely implemented one. The most famous "staller" is Plank, who only claimed to "plank" in two sets in his entire time playing the game.

Is this an actual issue, currently plaguing the tournament scene, or is the problem an imaginary one?

 

[CRASHiC]

CURSE YOU PLANK!!!!!


On a serious note, shouldn't Metaknight's and Falco's take down these stallers?

 

[ImpactAR]

Well, I'm still not sure if I should argue the plank strategy at the tournament . Seems like "ledge stallers" have been using the excuse that they are "planking" when they get called out.

As TL I have strategies against people who play at the ledge. I understand that some characters have weaker options. Hence why I decided to try the planking strategy in that friendly against Snake.

So, would I be playing to my advantage or playing unfair? Is this a problem because people can not deal with this or do they not want to bother to figure out how to deal with this?

A little over have of the board thinks MK should be banned and gave some very good reasons on why. However, he is still not banned because the ones who don't want him banned argued that the game hasn't been played long enough to figure out ways to expose MK. Are we not giving the time for people to figure out how to fight against planking/ledge stalling?

 

[da K.I.D.]

I'm still waiting for you tell me why it is unacceptable to actively try to win by timeout.

im going to say that its unacceptable, because it effect the timing of the tournament, and some venues have to evacuated by certain times and this could make it so that a tourney has to end before its finished simply because people used all the availiable time timing out their matches.

Spoiler

also, i dont bother answering this part yuna because i know what im doing and im doing it intentionally

Smash does not exist to amuse you.

 

[Natch]

im going to say that its unacceptable, because it effect the timing of the tournament, and some venues have to evacuated by certain times and this could make it so that a tourney has to end before its finished simply because people used all the availiable time timing out their matches.

The time limit in stock matches was chosen to prevent people from simply stalling forever. Without a time limit, matches would take even longer. The people that run the clock out would be the same people who would take advantage of having no time limit at all.

In fact, 7/8 minutes was chosen because it wasn't an unreasonably long period of time. That time is agreed upon by TOs and the players that attend. It's the tournament standard, and has been for a long period of time. People are used to it. When a TO goes about making a tournament, they look at how many players will probably attend, weather it's pools or just the standard double-elimination bracket, how many set ups are going to be there, etc. Essentially, what are the variables and do they matter? The time limit for matches is already accounted for. Those 3 factors that I listed are the ones that every TO must account for.

Running the clock is not one of these. And honestly, Smash tournaments have this habit of almost always running over their allotted time. TO's prepare for this, and have already decided on the "other" venue in the case the tournament runs too long. Every tournament I've been that to runs over it's time limit finishes somewhere.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think the reason why win by timeout is unacceptable should be obvious.

A timeout indicates one of two things - either the time limit is too small for the completion of matches, or the tactics used in the match make the game unplayable. Timeout is not an element that was intended for any purpose other than to limit the viablility of stalling, by forcing a losing player to eventually do some form of action or face defeat by clock. Once the clock becomes the cause of stalling, it has gone beyond it's intended purpose to intensify the problem it was created to stop. Not only that, but the clock is a gameplay element created by the competitive scene for the competitive scene, so unlike normal bans, it is fully subject to any arbitrary metagame rules that would make Smash more playable.

In other words, trying to actively win by timeout is abusing a fully adjustable factor and forcing it to change so that that option is no longer available.

 

[MBreeto]

CURSE YOU PLANK!!!!!


On a serious note, shouldn't Metaknight's and Falco's take down these stallers?

mmmm.... buttered toast....

anyways, I figure, if you can do it in the game, then **** it, let them. If they want to play that way, then that could mean they're afraid of you. or not

 

[Natch]

I think the reason why win by timeout is unacceptable should be obvious.

A timeout indicates one of two things - either the time limit is too small for the completion of matches, or the tactics used in the match make the game unplayable. Timeout is not an element that was intended for any purpose other than to limit the viablility of stalling, by forcing a losing player to eventually do some form of action or face defeat by clock. Once the clock becomes the cause of stalling, it has gone beyond it's intended purpose to intensify the problem it was created to stop. Not only that, but the clock is a gameplay element created by the competitive scene for the competitive scene, so unlike normal bans, it is fully subject to any arbitrary metagame rules that would make Smash more playable.

In other words, trying to actively win by timeout is abusing a fully adjustable factor and forcing it to change so that that option is no longer available.

So having a time limit creates a problem? Let's get rid of it then. If that's not the solution, we can make it shorter, or we can make it longer.

Take your pick.

 

[ImpactAR]

You're right about time, but I disagree that timeout indicates that tactics used in the match makes the game unplayable. Two players may just be good at avoiding being KOed in that particular match up. Timeout could be an indication of purposely stalling, though, which is just bad because there is time. If there was no time planking, HR stalling, and MK infinite wouldn't be a problem. But people don't have time to sit at a tournament all night.

 

[metaXzero]

Wait? So tournaments CAN'T afford the possibility of all matches going over the timer? Why was 8 minutes chosen?

 

[Dekillsage]

From what i have read the timer was put to keep the schedule of the tournaments working. I guess 8 minutes worked best.

 

[metaXzero]

From what i have read the timer was put to keep the schedule of the tournaments working. I guess 8 minutes worked best.

And yet, it seems like even if ONE match goes to 8 minutes, the tourny ends up taking longer than it is suppossed too. Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting...

 

[MBreeto]

I've only seen one match that went to 8 minutes and it was M2K vs someone, I forget who.

 

[Tenki]

I'd like to second the notion asking for an answer to whether or not this is an actual perceived problem in tournaments overall.

I'll admit I haven't watched any recent tourney vids, but the last finals/grand finals rounds I watched were all done in under 6-7 minutes (each).

Take this:

Player 1: Hey is it alright that I camp in the air with Wario?
Player 2: Sure it's legit.

Player 1: Hey can I plank with MK and spam lasers afar with ROB?
Player 2: Sure go ahead it's legal.

Player 1: Hey can I run away from opponents with Sonic?
Player 2: No, that's banned and gay .

I see something wrong here

Aaaahahahahaha

 

[CHOMPY]

Simple use Sonic and do the crazy hit and run tactic the entire time. Such as stages like Luigis Mansion, Norfair, and Corneria.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Real men run out the clock b*tches.

 

[petrie911]

Hmm...I just noticed something about the double forfeit time rule. How would you handle counterpicks after the double forfeit? I would say that since neither player won the match, counterpicks would be handled as if it were the beginning of the match, but this isn't the only way, of course. Any ideas?

 

[Titanium Dragon]

So is Brawl. I suggest you try banning it. We do not ban anything remotely anti-Competitive. And who the hell are you to call it anti-Competitive?

You know what else is?

Melee. What a piece of trash.

Seriously folks. No.

On some level, virtually every game is degenerate. A game is, in the end, a system of equations, and there is some solution (or multiple solutions). While its degeneracy may be limited in practice, it is in the end degenerate, and eventually pretty much every game will experience this degeneracy.

Chess and Go are probably good examples of games which are probably ultimately degenerate, but which in practice work out fine because they're too complicated to be degenerate. Someday they will be solvable, but it is likely the equations will be too complex for a human player to use (though it is possible they won't be, and thus chess/go will become degenerate games because the perfect game is quite achievable). Melee suffers from all sorts of degeneracy issues, as does brawl, and its very hard to say "Well, Brawl is more degenerate" when Melee has arguably worse things in it (ICs are easier to do really abusive stuff with, for instance, and there's a lot of degenerate stuff like Fox's waveshine, Shiek's chaingrabs, ect.).

Its not a really big deal. What matters is whether the game is playable on a competitive level or not.

D3's infinite forces you to counterpick. Counterpicking is a staple in Competitive fighting games. Not everything is black and white.

D3's infinite really only hurts DK; his infinites on Mario, Samus, Luigi, and Wolf are limited, whereas his infinite on himself is simply a dangerous feature of the mirror match.

Obviously, I disagree. A combo is a combo because it involves decision making. Read up on Sirlin's article about Failsafes in games. He also alludes to this in some of his rationales in balancing SSF2THDR in that the actual inputs aren't as important as the decisions behind them. An infinite, but its VERY DEFINITION, can not be a combo. There is only one decision: when to end it. I'll continue after the next quotation.

Someone didn't read Sirlin's articles. Sorry, you fail. An infinite is, in fact, a type of combo, and he actually mentions that infinites can be and often are perfectly acceptable in games. For example, T. Hawk's infinite in SSF2T is perfectly fine.

Please stop throwing out garbage and hoping people won't fact check you. I know you have no viable argument, but seriously... lying? That just makes you look like a troll.

Oh, wait.

A combo (even a 0-D combo) has marked decision making.

No, it doesn't. Sorry, you're wrong. A combo doesn't have decision making. This isn't a necessary part of a combo. Indeed, a combo is nothing more than something wherein once you hit with one move, you can hit with another move. If you can always hit with another move, regardless of what they do, that doesn't change anything but the length of the combo.

Your definition of a combo is incorrect and unsupported by any sort of reality. Your distinction is both meaningless and arbitrary. Say I can always follow up my jab with a forward b projectile, and my opponent has no means of evading it. Is there any decision making there? No. Is it escapable? No. It is a combo, of course. The only difference between it and an infinite is that you used a different move for the second move; there's no difference between grabbing someone, throwing them, and grabbing them again and grabbing someone and then hitting them with some other inescapable followup move save the length of the combo.

Who are YOU to put the arbitrary limit on it that it HAS to be the match?

Someone with reasoning capabilities, something you apparently lack.

We added a scrubby 300% rule in there (also arbitrary, why 300% and not 250% or 350% or 301%?) because of STALLING.

Its not a scrubby rule, scrub. Its what is known as a "necessary tournament rule" because of the nature of tournaments. If there was no timer, there'd be no benefit to using an infinite indefinitely, and indeed it'd hurt you because your opponent doesn't have to pay attention until you screw it up; the amount of effort they have to spend is very small compared to yours, and you'll exhaust yourself.

If tournaments didn't have to run on time, stalling couldn't exist and any stalling strategy would be pointless.

1) Magic the Gathering is not a Competitive fighting game. It's not even a video game.

On the other hand, its a game. And the reality is that the timer exists in its tournaments ONLY to make them run on time. That's the only reason that the timer exists. Its well worth noting that in Magic finals, there aren't timers; the T8s are run timerless.

Am I to infer from this that winning by timeout is impossible in MtG? Or that any action to deliberately run the clock out is against the rules? Or simply that there exist rigorous rules to prevent certain strategies of running the clock out from being used?

Stalling is illegal in MtG tournaments, and is a very serious offense. If you deliberately act to abuse the clock, you are cheating. There's no "certain actions are illegal", its "if you're doing something with the intent of doing this, you're cheating".

Its really just that simple, and its very necessary as a rule, as timers are very degenerate devices unless they act in a manner such as to punish stalling players, such as chess clocks.

Look at how many problems exist in this one rule. Not only does it bring in a loose characterisation of what stalling is ("reasonably required"), it rests on intention to play slowly, and penalises players for taking advantage of one aspect of the rules. It's a horrible rule.

Actually, its a great example of a necessary rule. Now, to be fair, there's a better way of handling it than is currently used - that is chess clocks. But WotC decided that it would be too expensive and annoying to require all players who wanted to play in Magic tournaments to purchase chess clocks, because it lowers the accessibility of the tournaments.

Stalling is the result of timer rules which promote NOT playing the game. In chess, the timer rules promote playing the game quickly, because stalling hurts the player who stalls, not their opponent.

Any argument to the contrary is complete garbage and exposes a lack of comprehension of stalling and game degeneracy. Timers are always degenerate when they act to punish the opponent, not the staller.

Chess clocks are not the only means of preventing stalling. In Counterstrike, one team always wins and one team always loses when the clock runs out, but the team which always loses when the clock runs out also has an objective they can complete which wins them the game. So each team has two possible win routes, either killing the other team entirely or completing an objective, the objective for one team to do something while the other team's objective is to prevent that for five minutes. This is why protect the hostage maps in CS are inherently degenerate, because the terrorists can kill all the hostages and hide, thus allowing them to stall out the match. In a bomb mission, you cannot do this, as hiding doesn't prevent them from achieving their objective; to win, you must play the game.

This is the fundamental reason why many games have anti-stalling rules. It is well worth noting that, with items on, stalling is much less valuable because the staller has reduced access to items. So if you stall by going under the stage continually, your opponent will eventually get god item X and pwn you with it, or a bomb will fall on your head and kill the both of you, ect. But we remove items, and add in a degenerate timer without any counteraction in-game. Thus we must erect a meta-rule due to the meta-rules we use which enable stalling in the first place. The timer rewards players for not playing the game in Smash and in Magic, so the meta-rules must exist to counteract the metarules which promote not playing the game by severely punishing it (with DQs, or in chess, game losses).

If I had designed smash, I'd probably make it so that repeatedly becoming invincible would prevent you from becoming invincible at all for a time. I'd also probably have made supers function differently, and if the game detected your opponent doing something which the game interprets as stalling, it'd give you your final smash instantly (a very strong disincentive to stall, and I'd probably design the final smashes with anti-stalling properties in mind).

The real scrub rule here is not anti-stalling rules, but timer rules in the first place. But that scrub rule is necessary to make tournaments function on time.

Reality is that stalling is a result of a poorly designed ruleset. The reality is that both Melee and Brawl are degenerate because stalling is possible, and there's really no good ruleset which prevents it (though items on in Brawl at least mitigates it somewhat, the very best anti-stalling items unfortunately are banned due to being far too swingy otherwise, even if they'd have the desirable effect of making stalling non-viable). Its not bad to ban stalling, its entirely necessary to ban stalling, as otherwise we simply could not run tournaments with timers, which is not a viable option. Timers are degenerate but necessary for running tournaments, and as such we have to enact rules to make timers less degenerate. Timers are meant to make tournaments run on time, not to change their outcome overall.