Running out the clock and stalling

[Yuna]

Yuna, we almost always agree on everything, but I really feel DDD's infinite SHOULD be banned. I'm sure you have legitimate points because you are intelligent, but I feel that a tactic that takes complete control away from the opponents character for an indefinite amount of time to be determined by the player executing the tactic and ending in guaranteed death should not be legal. This applied to wobbling in melee, ddd's infinite, and ic's throw infinite.

I do not support banning Wobbling or the Brawl IC infinites either. We're making an arbitrary decision to ban something for taking away an entire stock from a single grab, yet we're telling Fox it's OK for him to lose 4/5ths of a stock from a single grab with the justification that one guarantees death while the other just takes you very close to it.

So, you're agreeing with me Yuna?

No, obviously I don't.

 

[choice_brawler]

at AXIS right? He took 3rd. So it is beatable. I got nothing for taunting IRL, um, they should get together and apologize to each other and make up.

 

[Sky`]

Ahaha. Hypocrisy at it's finest. L2Read Yuna.
We do agree. No Jons, just read.

 

[Eyada]

If the Timer was introduced into the competitive standard only as a means to ensure that tournaments would always be able to remain on schedule, the current Rule Set does not reflect that. The current Rule Set encourages running out the Timer as a valid method of victory --simply because running out the Timer potentially results in victory. The problem (well, if you believe this should be considered a problem) lies in the fact that running out the Timer has the potential to be rewarding. Remove the potential reward, remove the potential behavior.

So, the easiest fix: If the Timer runs out, both players lose the match. Period. This could result in both players being eliminated from the tournament. (This results in the possibility of a scenario where some other lucky person in the tournament will get a Bye next round. This is explained below.)

If you are playing a best of 3, the round wherein the Timer was run out counts as a loss for both players. If this would create a scenario where neither player can acquire the mandatory 2/3 wins required to take the set without more than 3 rounds being played, both players are considered to have lost the set, and are thus eliminated from the tourney. (This is the scenario where some fortunate player in the tournament would receive a Bye next round.)


That might seem a bit overly harsh, but it will ensure that the Timer serves its intended (?) purpose --namely, ensuring that the tournament stays on schedule-- while not also encouraging drawing out the match.

 

[Yuna]

Ahaha. Hypocrisy at it's finest. L2Read Yuna.
We do agree. No Jons, just read.

What part(s) of posts are you hallucinating today? What do you believe we agree on?

 

[choice_brawler]

If the Timer was introduced into the competitive standard only as a means to ensure that tournaments would always be able to remain on schedule, the current Rule Set does not reflect that. The current Rule Set encourages running out the Timer as a valid method of victory --simply because running out the Timer potentially results in victory. The problem (well, if you believe this should be considered a problem) lies in the fact that running out the Timer has the potential to be rewarding. Remove the potential reward, remove the potential behavior.

So, the easiest fix: If the Timer runs out, both players lose the match. Period. This could result in both players being eliminated from the tournament. (This results in the possibility of a scenario where some other lucky person in the tournament will get a Bye next round. This is explained below.)

If you are playing a best of 3, the round wherein the Timer was run out counts as a loss for both players. If this would create a scenario where neither player can acquire the mandatory 2/3 wins required to take the set without more than 3 rounds being played, both players are considered to have lost the set, and are thus eliminated from the tourney. (This is the scenario where some fortunate player in the tournament would receive a Bye next round.)


That might seem a bit overly harsh, but it will ensure that the Timer serve its intended (?) purpose --namely, ensuring that the tournament stays on schedule-- while not also encouraging drawing out the match.

I dont mind this, there is no reason why i would see the timer running out if both people are seriously trying to kill each other. Your DI aint that great. It would make tourneys go by faster for those that are camping hardcore. I could see it being a strat to win too though. Like beat them the first match, plank the 2nd. But if it works it works. Cant beat it then you should lose.

 

[Sky`]

What part(s) of posts are you hallucinating today? What do you believe we agree on?

What is your stance on this matter, Yuna?

 

[Yuna]

If you are playing a best of 3, the round wherein the Timer was run out counts as a loss for both players. If this would create a scenario where neither player can acquire the mandatory 2/3 wins required to take the set without more than 3 rounds being played, both players are considered to have lost the set, and are thus eliminated from the tourney. (This is the scenario where some fortunate player in the tournament would receive a Bye next round.)

Brilliant. Watch me take Azen out of a tournament by running the timer out! This is a brilliant rule! No innocents will ever have to lose to obviously inferior people who know they are going to lose but don't wish to go down alone at all!

That might seem a bit overly harsh, but it will ensure that the Timer serve its intended (?) purpose --namely, ensuring that the tournament stays on schedule-- while not also encouraging drawing out the match.

So will someone winning by a timeout.

 

[Yuna]

What is your stance on this matter, Yuna?

This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the post I replied to you with and the posts I'm assuming you replied to me with. Because otherwise, it'd just be you ignoring my post completely, yet post a post directed at me for umphantomable reasons.

You: Something
Me: Reply to that something
You: *ignores the reply* Posts random and irrelevant post ("Do you agree with me?")

So you weren't replying to me at all but were asking if I agreed with you on an issue you did not name, at all. I did the logical thing in interpreting as you asking whether or not I agreed with you on the matter I had just replied to you on, not some other matter entirely.

 

[1048576]

If the Timer was introduced into the competitive standard only as a means to ensure that tournaments would always be able to remain on schedule, the current Rule Set does not reflect that. The current Rule Set encourages running out the Timer as a valid method of victory --simply because running out the Timer potentially results in victory. The problem (well, if you believe this should be considered a problem) lies in the fact that running out the Timer has the potential to be rewarding. Remove the potential reward, remove the potential behavior.

So, the easiest fix: If the Timer runs out, both players lose the match. Period. This could result in both players being eliminated from the tournament. (This results in the possibility of a scenario where some other lucky person in the tournament will get a Bye next round. This is explained below.)

If you are playing a best of 3, the round wherein the Timer was run out counts as a loss for both players. If this would create a scenario where neither player can acquire the mandatory 2/3 wins required to take the set without more than 3 rounds being played, both players are considered to have lost the set, and are thus eliminated from the tourney. (This is the scenario where some fortunate player in the tournament would receive a Bye next round.)


That might seem a bit overly harsh, but it will ensure that the Timer serves its intended (?) purpose --namely, ensuring that the tournament stays on schedule-- while not also encouraging drawing out the match.

Am I missing something, or is this a really good idea? 2:40 per stock is plenty.

 

[Crizthakidd]

atlantic north tournies make ddds do a dashgrab inbetween grabs thus ending gay infinites but u can still do a shield grab for more grabs

as for planking people always are watching matches so anyone ledge camping for 2 mins is Dq'ed

like people just play normally and dont plank and if they want to try a new gay tactic its at their own risk. i tried to plank for about a min and a half left and the co host just said dont do that its kinda banned lol. nothing i said here is concrete because its not super necessary. i guess if some guy were to take it to the extream it would pose a much larger problem but we havnt seen that yet

 

[Sky`]

This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the post I replied to you with and the posts I'm assuming you replied to me with. Because otherwise, it'd just be you ignoring my post completely, yet post a post directed at me for umphantomable reasons.

You: Something
Me: Reply to that something
You: *ignores the reply* Posts random and irrelevant post ("Do you agree with me?")

So you weren't replying to me at all but were asking if I agreed with you on an issue you did not name, at all. I did the logical thing in interpreting as you asking whether or not I agreed with you on the matter I had just replied to you on, not some other matter entirely.

I'm asking what your stance is on the matter, because clearly, either you:
A. Lack the ability to comprehend satire.
B. Didn't read that post to it's entirety. (The one that you replied to first.)
C. Lack the ability to read.
D. All of the Above.

I'm guessing B and A. But D would be quite fitting Yuny.

Go ahead and read it again, and if you still are having trouble, I'll spell it out for you.
I'm not going to hand an answer to you on a silver platter, when it's clearly there for you to read. I said it once, I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@Eyada:

That's... actually not too terrible an idea. It's not ideal by any means, but it does accomplish keeping in the match timer while simultaneously removing any incentive to actually run down the clock (for either party).

I want to pose a legit question about this notion of why we ban things and not banning for "arbitrary" reasons. I always hear people saying (and I'll use DDD's infinites as the example because it was recently brought up) that we can't ban DDD's infinites because then we'll be banning something arbitrarily. After all, Yuna's right: it doesn't over-centralize, it only works on a few characters, and we don't ban just because something it's abusive (and whether or not you agree that they should be banned, the infinites ARE abusive: they can stall AND they remove control from one player indefinitely, one of the unspoken cardinal offenses of game design).

But... why is that the case? I mean, when you think about it, ANY decision we make is an arbitrary one, even the decision on what are ban criteria are. Why NOT ban things that don't over-centralize, if it's abusive? Because the ban is scrubby? That's not really an answer, because what is or isn't scrubby is just as arbitrary as anything else (it's scrubby because you SAY it's scrubby? Who decided what scrub meant? And why does ANYONE have to accept that definition?) If something is abusive, does it REALLY matter if it doesn't over-centralize? Isn't abuse abuse? Ultimately, even the decision to play Brawl (or Smash in general) at ALL is arbitrary; there are much better games, much better COMPETITIVE games, much more balanced games, much faster games, much less campy games, much more tech heavy games... the list goes on.

So, I guess the question I'm asking is... why should anyone accept this "it doesn't overcentralize" business as one of the criteria for banning? Why not just prove that something is abusive (and that it CAN be banned, which is kind of important)?

EDIT @Sky: Hey now, Yuna's the only one here who's earned the right to be condescending over the internet...

 

[adumbrodeus]

@Eyada:

That's... actually not too terrible an idea. It's not ideal by any means, but it does accomplish keeping in the match timer while simultaneously removing any incentive to actually run down the clock (for either party).

I want to pose a legit question about this notion of why we ban things and not banning for "arbitrary" reasons. I always hear people saying (and I'll use DDD's infinites as the example because it was recently brought up) that we can't ban DDD's infinites because then we'll be banning something arbitrarily. After all, Yuna's right: it doesn't over-centralize, it only works on a few characters, and we don't ban just because something it's abusive (and whether or not you agree that they should be banned, the infinites ARE abusive: they can stall AND they remove control from one player indefinitely, one of the unspoken cardinal offenses of game design).

But... why is that the case? I mean, when you think about it, ANY decision we make is an arbitrary one, even the decision on what are ban criteria are. Why NOT ban things that don't over-centralize, if it's abusive? Because the ban is scrubby? That's not really an answer, because what is or isn't scrubby is just as arbitrary as anything else (it's scrubby because you SAY it's scrubby? Who decided what scrub meant? And why does ANYONE have to accept that definition?) If something is abusive, does it REALLY matter if it doesn't over-centralize? Isn't abuse abuse? Ultimately, even the decision to play Brawl (or Smash in general) at ALL is arbitrary; there are much better games, much better COMPETITIVE games, much more balanced games, much faster games, much less campy games, much more tech heavy games... the list goes on.

So, I guess the question I'm asking is... why should anyone accept this "it doesn't overcentralize" business as one of the criteria for banning? Why not just prove that something is abusive (and that it CAN be banned, which is kind of important)?

EDIT @Sky: Hey now, Yuna's the only one here who's earned the right to be condescending over the internet...

Why is that such an important criteria?

It's actually pretty simple, because if we ban minor things, not only does it clutter the rule list, but it actually prevents the game from developing.

The idea is if a tactic is powerful even abusive, unless it totally overcentralizes the metagame, leave it.

Why? Because then people can figure out counters for it. Then people figure out counters for the counter. The end result is by leaving it unbanned you create additional depth.

Basically the overcentralization criteria is there because there's almost always an answer for anything, whether it's switching characters, using a new tactic with the character, or something more esoteric. And if there isn't an answer after we've searched for a long long time, then we ban it, because then it deserves a ban.

 

[pockyD]

Brilliant. Watch me take Azen out of a tournament by running the timer out! This is a brilliant rule! No innocents will ever have to lose to obviously inferior people who know they are going to lose but don't wish to go down alone at all!

...but under a no-stall-ban setup, wouldn't the same thing happen? only difference being "you" advance?



anyways, banning stalling is dumb, for reasons already stated over 30x in this thread. i can't wait to see someone challenge this "rule" by stalling anyway, then have some bumbling T.O. try to kick a guy out who spent $20 to enter, just because he grabbed the edge one too many times. I wish someone had challenged the wobbling rule too, because it's just as arbitrary and stupid

 

[Eyada]

I dont mind this, there is no reason why i would see the timer running out if both people are seriously trying to kill each other. Your DI aint that great. It would make tourneys go by faster for those that are camping hardcore. I could see it being a strat to win too though. Like beat them the first match, plank the 2nd. But if it works it works. Cant beat it then you should lose.

This rule would never, in and of itself, result in a win for anyone. It is impossible.

Using your example, let's imagine that a set is being played where Player A is 1-0 (he won the first round) and Player B is obviously 0-1. Player A planks the 2nd round, resulting a loss for both players. Their records would now be: Player A 1-1, Player B 0-2. Player B can no longer acquire the necessary 2 wins, so he cannot carry the set. Player A still can, however. As such, the 3rd round would be played.

It's here that a few different things could potentially happen:
(1)- Player A defeats Player B, thus ending the set 2-1. This result means that Player A didn't really need to plank in round 2 anyway, and it was a waste of everyone's time as it had no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the set.

(2)-Player B defeats Player A. At this point, all 3 rounds have been played, but neither player would have the requisite 2/3 wins to claim the set. As such, both players would eliminated from the tourney. In this scenario, Player A cost himself the tournament by planking in round 2. As such, it is demonstrated that under this new rule planking is a self-destructive behavior, and hopefully he will learn his lesson and avoid it in the future.

(3)-Player B, presumably filled with anger over Player A planking earlier, planks out round 3, resulting in a loss for both players and elimination from the tournament for them both. Both players have planked, and both players have gained nothing while losing everything. Thus, it is shown that planking is a self-destructive behavior under this rule and both players will hopefully learn their lesson and avoid it in the future.

Brilliant. Watch me take Azen out of a tournament by running the timer out! This is a brilliant rule! No innocents will ever have to lose to obviously inferior people who know they are going to lose but don't wish to go down alone at all!

At the very worst, this scenario is no different than the results of the current Rule Set. Assuming that you successfully plank Azen, you would have been rewarded with a victory under the current Rule Set; under the new rule, you would receive no direct reward, but rather a direct punishment (elimination from the tourney) and whatever sort of sick satisfaction you derive from incurring the hatred of another person. (Namely, Azen.)

So will someone winning by a timeout.

Wrong. Someone winning by timeout encourages the perfectly legitimate --if a victory Timer is part of the Rule Set, then running out said Timer is perfectly legitimate-- tactic of purposefully avoiding any and all conflict so as to gain victory through timeout.

On the other hand, if you cannot stand to gain anything from running out the Timer, you have no real incentive to do so. (It is a self-destructive behavior.)

 

[Yuna]

I'm asking what your stance is on the matter, because clearly, either you:
A. Lack the ability to comprehend satire.
B. Didn't read that post to it's entirety. (The one that you replied to first.)
C. Lack the ability to read.
D. All of the Above.

I'm guessing B and A. But D would be quite fitting Yuny.

Or:
E. You did not make it entirely clear that it was "satire" and I your track record of posting as of late has not been very good. There is absolutely nothing in your post to indicate that it was "satire" besides the fact that the things you say are ludicrous...

And you've said plenty of (IMO) ludicrous things in the past few days. So I just assumed that maybe you really meant it. If you didn't then, whatever.

At the very worst, this scenario is no different than the results of the current Rule Set. Assuming that you successfully plank Azen, you would have been rewarded with a victory under the current Rule Set; under the new rule, you would receive no direct reward, but rather a direct punishment (elimination from the tourney) and whatever sort of sick satisfaction you derive from incurring the hatred of another person. (Namely, Azen.)

...but under a no-stall-ban setup, wouldn't the same thing happen? only difference being "you" advance?

I'm operating under the assumption that with this new rule in place, the old "No excessive stalling" rule would be thrown out, thus allowing us to do a lot of stalls that are now illegal.

If not, then I'll revise my argument:
If Planking is so unbeatable and guarantees victory (or just makes MK so **** good it over-centralizes the game), then ban it. If it's not, there's no reason to punish people for Planking merely because their opponents are just not good enough to beat it (since it can, apparently, be beaten).

Also, why can't I camp using perfectly legit tactics without fearing losing if the clock runs out? Some characters rely heavily on camping. Why should they have to have their metagame damaged by this? Some matches even end on time with neither side trying to stall. I've had several Melee matches between myself (Peach) and Samuses or Jigglypuffs end on time because both sides were camping using perfectly legit tactics, refusing to die 'til the 170%'s and just being really good at not getting hit.

Ban specific stalling tactics, not running the clock out. Because there are many perfectly legit tactics that have the potential to run the clock out.

 

[Yuna]

*accidental double post*

 

[Jack Kieser]

Why is that such an important criteria?

It's actually pretty simple, because if we ban minor things, not only does it clutter the rule list, but it actually prevents the game from developing.

The idea is if a tactic is powerful even abusive, unless it totally overcentralizes the metagame, leave it.

Why? Because then people can figure out counters for it. Then people figure out counters for the counter. The end result is by leaving it unbanned you create additional depth.

Basically the overcentralization criteria is there because there's almost always an answer for anything, whether it's switching characters, using a new tactic with the character, or something more esoteric. And if there isn't an answer after we've searched for a long long time, then we ban it, because then it deserves a ban.

Wait, minor? I'd wager that completely removing control from one player and potentially stalling for indefinite periods of time is NOT minor. You may say it depends on the number of characters it affects... but isn't that arbitrary, too? What exact number of characters must be rendered unviable before something is over-centralizing? And why isn't that number an arbitrary decision?

The main point is that even the concept of "over-centralizing" is arbitrary, but I've never heard anyone admit that. Is anyone willing to?

Not to mention, adding more rules to the ruleset is NOT a big deal; competitive Smash already has the largest and most expansive ruleset of ANY competitive fighter. Hell, by the measuring rod of "scrubs like to ban things", Smash is the scrubbiest fighter in existence, and we're all scrubs for playing it. We already have a large ruleset, so no johns if your memory isn't good enough to remember all the rules. If you can't remember them all, play a game with less rules to remember, scrub. See? Having a small ruleset is an arbitrary distinction, too.

So, again, why should anyone care about "over-centralization"? Why ISN'T it arbitrary?

@Yuna: I'd agree that the addition of knocking both players out of the tournament is a bad idea, because you could "take one for the team" and purposefully eliminate a good player so that others don't have to play him/her. Personally, I'd change it to "No one can win in a match that ends by timer. First to two wins advances.", that way, no one is knocked out, but you can't advance either. You can stall if that's what your character needs to win, but you better get good enough at landing that killing blow before the clock runs out. I don't care WHAT character you play, no character relies on ONLY stalling to win; every character needs to get the kill (and is capable of getting the kill).

 

[pockyD]

So, again, why should anyone care about "over-centralization"? Why ISN'T it arbitrary?

yes it's arbtirary...

but it's something subjective the tournament community can view as a whole and make decisions about - if 75% of players are using MK, for example. Is 75% too much? That's pretty arbitrary, sure, but the number itself is legitimate information, and any decision would be based on it

on the other hand, if someone decides to "stall" in a tournament set, you are giving all of the power to one person to make a one-shot decision on something he probably wasn't even watching to begin with, and can only rule based on hearsay

 

[Eyada]

Or:
<removed text>

I'm operating under the assumption that with this new rule in place, the old "No excessive stalling" rule would be thrown out, thus allowing us to do a lot of stalls that are now illegal.

If not, then I'll revise my argument:
If Planking is so unbeatable and guarantees victory (or just makes MK so **** good it over-centralizes the game), then ban it. If it's not, there's no reason to punish people for Planking merely because their opponents are just not good enough to beat it (since it can, apparently, be beaten).

Also, why can't I camp using perfectly legit tactics without fearing losing if the clock runs out? Some characters rely heavily on camping. Why should they have to have their metagame damaged by this? Some matches even end on time with neither side trying to stall. I've had several Melee matches between myself (Peach) and Samuses or Jigglypuffs end on time because both sides were camping using perfectly legit tactics, refusing to die 'til the 170%'s and just being really good at not getting hit.

Ban specific stalling tactics, not running the clock out. Because there are many perfectly legit tactics that have the potential to run the clock out.

This is why I (attempted, at least) to make it clear in my original post that I was unsure why the Timer had been included in the Standard Rule Set to begin with. Was it intended to allow victory via Timer, or was it purely an imperfectly-implemented attempt at managing tournament time schedules?

If the Timer was included to allow for victory-via-Timer, I completely agree with you and see no reason why anyone has the right to complain about any form of potentially fallible (ie, not completely unstoppable or uncounterable, such as, for example, abusing MK's IDC would be) form of stalling/running out the clock/planking/whathaveyou. If the community insists on having the Timer potentially give victory to a player, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice.

On the other hand, if the Timer is intended purely to help keep tourneys on schedule, the Timer should not allow for victory under any circumstances whatsoever. This will hurt certain strategies, without question. Those strategies were only developed because Smash had adopted a victory-via-Timer condition into the Standard Rule Set, and, obviously, the removal of that victory-via-Timer condition will result in them no longer being viable.

Now, the question you are asking, "Which function should the Timer serve?" is beyond the scope of my original argument. I wasn't arguing for either side, I was simply presenting a description of what a viable, simple, non-victory-via-Timer Rule Set would look like, since this thread seemed to be discussing the possibility of developing such a Rule Set. (Without much success.)

Whether or not a non-victory-via-Timer Rule Set should be implemented is up to everyone else to decide.

 

[Jack Kieser]

yes it's arbtirary...

but it's something subjective the tournament community can view as a whole and make decisions about - if 75% of players are using MK, for example. Is 75% too much? That's pretty arbitrary, sure, but the number itself is legitimate information, and any decision would be based on it

on the other hand, if someone decides to "stall" in a tournament set, you are giving all of the power to one person to make a one-shot decision on something he probably wasn't even watching to begin with, and can only rule based on hearsay

Ok, so we have an admission that even the "over-centralization" criteria, the most cited criteria I've ever seen (though I could have missed a lot, admittedly ), is JUST as arbitrary as anything else. So, now I don't think that anyone, in good conscience, should be able to use "but it's arbitrary!" as an excuse to dismiss an idea. If everything, even "over-centralization", is arbitrary, then it is rendered meaningless.

Now, onto the idea of "legitimate" numbers... Again, why? In terms of my example (DDD's infinites), why should I trust ANY number you come up with? You already admitted any number you use is arbitrary, too, so why can't DDD's infinites be banned, even though they only affect so many characters? Over-centralization can't be a good enough answer, because the limit for what is "over-centralization" is entirely arbitrary and totally depends on the opinion of whoever is arguing. Yuna may say that the entire metagame must revolve around one character (at least, that's what I gathered you believe; correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll edit away), but you may think that 2 or 3 viable characters is still too much. Someone else may think that 25% is a good number, but why not 26% or 24%?

This is the basic argument used for making a time-based definition of "stalling", because if you choose 30 seconds as too long, well, why not 29 seconds (which will then be the de-facto stall amount)? Why not a minute? Why not anything else?

Any rule that we make for stalling, ideally, would be devoid of numbers or numerics because any number we choose is TOTALLY arbitrary anyway, and wouldn't really remove the problem, only change it a little. An ideal ban for something would be without arbitrary limits, which is why I thought that the "no wins allowed by the clock" rule MIGHT work, because it's all or nothing: if the timer hits, no one wins, simple as that. Yuna says that some characters NEED to stall out the clock, but isn't that rule johns? I mean, how many characters (total) need to stall out the clock to win? Why are we concerned about them? We aren't concerned about the people DDD infinites. I'm sure just as few people need to stall to win as DDD can infinite to death. Even if there were 10 people, why use that as a measure? Why not 11 characters need to stall for stalling to be legit?

 

[ftl]

Personally, I'd change it to "No one can win in a match that ends by timer. First to two wins advances.", that way, no one is knocked out, but you can't advance either. You can stall if that's what your character needs to win, but you better get good enough at landing that killing blow before the clock runs out. I don't care WHAT character you play, no character relies on ONLY stalling to win; every character needs to get the kill (and is capable of getting the kill).

This would defeat the whole point of a timer though - to make matches go faster.

I guarantee you that in this ruleset, if somebody gets down by 2 stocks to 1 (say, his opponent is at 50% or so on his second stock when he has just died for the second time) that person is going to spend the entirety of that last stock trying to play the most defensive game possible to run out the clock... remember, if he runs out time, he gets another chance to get a better start! So in a match between two characters who aren't very good at approaching a desperately-camping opponent, we'd get multiple matches running out on time and having to be replayed...

 

[aeghrur]

This is Brawl. This is SWF. This is tons of 2008+2009 people.

They want everything banned. If they can't handle it, they immediately assume it's broken and needs to be banned. And they ignore all logic and valid arguments against their position. They think that if something is impeding on their chances of winning/enjoying themselves, it needs to be banned.

They are simply Scrubs.

Good generalization.
I mean, it's completely true. Just read my first post in this thread.
Yeah, this is 100% true. Oh no, this isn't sarcasm at all!

 

[Yuna]

This is why I (attempted, at least) to make it clear in my original post that I was unsure why the Timer had been included in the Standard Rule Set to begin with. Was it intended to allow victory via Timer, or was it purely an imperfectly-implemented attempt at managing tournament time schedules?

If the Timer was included to allow for victory-via-Timer, I completely agree with you and see no reason why anyone has the right to complain about any form of potentially fallible (ie, not completely unstoppable or uncounterable, such as, for example, abusing MK's IDC would be) form of stalling/running out the clock/planking/whathaveyou. If the community insists on having the Timer potentially give victory to a player, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice.

I was not here when the rule that mandates a timer be set was created, but I can only assume it's for both preventing tourneys to go on forever and allow for victory via time.

Whether or not it was its intended purpose from the start, it has now, years and years later, become perfectly acceptable to win by timeout (even if such wins are rare).

Good generalization.
I mean, it's completely true. Just read my first post in this thread.
Yeah, this is 100% true. Oh no, this isn't sarcasm at all!

And the generalization of how Scrubs behave was off where exactly? I never specified who "they" were.

 

[pockyD]

Ok, so we have an admission that even the "over-centralization" criteria, the most cited criteria I've ever seen (though I could have missed a lot, admittedly ), is JUST as arbitrary as anything else. So, now I don't think that anyone, in good conscience, should be able to use "but it's arbitrary!" as an excuse to dismiss an idea. If everything, even "over-centralization", is arbitrary, then it is rendered meaningless.

feels like you're throwing a parade about nothing, because you got me to say a word that you wanted

*applauds*

Now, onto the idea of "legitimate" numbers... Again, why? In terms of my example (DDD's infinites), why should I trust ANY number you come up with? You already admitted any number you use is arbitrary, too, so why can't DDD's infinites be banned, even though they only affect so many characters? Over-centralization can't be a good enough answer, because the limit for what is "over-centralization" is entirely arbitrary and totally depends on the opinion of whoever is arguing. Yuna may say that the entire metagame must revolve around one character (at least, that's what I gathered you believe; correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll edit away), but you may think that 2 or 3 viable characters is still too much. Someone else may think that 25% is a good number, but why not 26% or 24%?

it's really hard to tell what you're saying, but i'm not for banning ddd's infinite. in my own post, i even referenced being pro-wobbling

i don't really see why you WOULD ban dedede's infinite though? is it because of the potential for stalling? or the fact that it means you can't use bowser vs dedede?

This is the basic argument used for making a time-based definition of "stalling", because if you choose 30 seconds as too long, well, why not 29 seconds (which will then be the de-facto stall amount)? Why not a minute? Why not anything else?

i don't see how this followed from anything you said earlier, but even if there was some widely accepted standard of 30 seconds, how would it be enforced? would judges be standing at every setup with stopwatches, starting them every time someone grabs the edge, and resetting it every time they touch the stage?

Any rule that we make for stalling, ideally, would be devoid of numbers or numerics because any number we choose is TOTALLY arbitrary anyway, and wouldn't really remove the problem, only change it a little.

I'd relax on the "totally" and "entirely" since nobody said that, but I agree that slapping a number on it is pretty pointless

An ideal ban for something would be without arbitrary limits, which is why I thought that the "no wins allowed by the clock" rule MIGHT work, because it's all or nothing: if the timer hits, no one wins, simple as that. Yuna says that some characters NEED to stall out the clock, but isn't that rule johns? I mean, how many characters (total) need to stall out the clock to win? Why are we concerned about them? We aren't concerned about the people DDD infinites. I'm sure just as few people need to stall to win as DDD can infinite to death. Even if there were 10 people, why use that as a measure? Why not 11 characters need to stall for stalling to be legit?

Sure, it's "fair", but it also removes elements from the game. Should these elements be removed to begin with? Who knows... if we only allow falcon dittos on smashville, that's a "fair" game, too. How much gameplay do you sacrifice in the interest of "fairness?"

Anyways, is the argument here "CAN" we ban stalling? or is it "SHOULD" we ban stalling? i'm finding it hard to follow because people keep flipping back and forth, and my "response" probably reflects that I am unable to decipher what the subject at hand is

 

[Jack Kieser]

This would defeat the whole point of a timer though - to make matches go faster.

I guarantee you that in this ruleset, if somebody gets down by 2 stocks to 1 (say, his opponent is at 50% or so on his second stock when he has just died for the second time) that person is going to spend the entirety of that last stock trying to play the most defensive game possible to run out the clock... remember, if he runs out time, he gets another chance to get a better start! So in a match between two characters who aren't very good at approaching a desperately-camping opponent, we'd get multiple matches running out on time and having to be replayed...

Exactly. Really, because of the nature of the problem, there's no perfect solution (I assure you, were there, someone would have already thought of it). We're only trading problems for new (potentially lesser, potentially greater) ones. You can drastically reduce stalling by DQ'ing both players after time is reached, but you'll be shafting a few characters (but DDD's infinites already proved that sometimes we dno't care about a few characters). We can make stalls stalemates, but we run the chance of having long, drawn-out tournaments. We can keep stalling (by calling it "camping") and allow what a lot of people think are degenerate tactics. It all depends on how big a deal we think stalling is, ultimately.

@pockyD: I'll respond when I won't be double posting. lol

 

[Liex Link]

Pretty much everyone knows this and no one plays with time limit.

 

[choice_brawler]

Brilliant. Watch me take Azen out of a tournament by running the timer out! This is a brilliant rule! No innocents will ever have to lose to obviously inferior people who know they are going to lose but don't wish to go down alone at all!

Yea the problem with this goin down is gonna be what happens after both people get a loss i think. Like who gets the CP? what if both people were planking? If thats all arranged properly then having a time out result in losses for both parties could work out.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, now to respond to you, pockyD:

I'm not throwing a parade, just noting that this often (almost overused) argument is obviously a logical fallacy. A lot of people debating topics like this claim to be intellectually honest and logical people, and I don't see how that could be the case if you're using an obviously meaningless argument like "it's arbitrary!" I'll concede that some people may not have realized that "it's arbitrary!" is a fallacy, but I know that someone in the near future is going to use this as a legit argument, and I'd like to see fallacies like this cracked down on like we crack down on scrubs or stupids.

I know you aren't for banning either DDD's infinites or wobbling. I usually wouldn't care, but after reading up on Sirlin, I can't honestly say that I agree with allowing them, either. One of the biggest things he argues against is wrestling control completely and indefinitely from a player, and that's what infinites and wobbling do. It's my opinion that taking control away from a player like that is bad design and should be combated. Besides, what are we losing by adding a "no standing infinites/wobbling" rule? It's not like DDD/IC's revolve entirely around it. That's another discussion, though. (For the record, yes, the fact that you can use it to stall also worries me.)

About the judges watching every match thing, I agree. That's why I noted that, though. I wasn't refuting it, I was illustrating the other side to be fair.

And finally, yes, the decision on how much to remove is arbitrary, too... But I doubt you could, in all intellectual honesty, argue that as against me when we ban such a HUGE amount of the game, anyway (if you include game modes, stages, items... we ban a LOT). Yes, the argument is essentially "should" we ban stalling, and though stalling sucks, both players have to actively engage in stalling (either one not attacking), so unless one player is unable to react to another (a la Rising Pound or, IMO, infinites), there isn't much we can do. It sucks, but that's life.

 

[Problem2]

Time Limit on Stock matches are enforced in most tournaments.

Also, people are complaining that stalling isn't true to the game. Isn't the true form of this game 2 min time with items? In it's most natural and primitive state, stalling is perfectly legit, so saying that stalling is against the goal of smash bros would be wrong.

But then again, debating on playing the way it was meant to be played shouldn't even matter because as a community, we have altered the rules. We don't even carry out Sudden Death unless the %s are the same. So as a community, we have decided to meld the rules to fit what we deem as fun AND more importantly, fair. The reason we don't ban "stalling as defined by a judge" is because a judge can be inconsistent based on mood or the people he is monitoring. This would be against the community's goal of being fair. You have to understand that we want the game to be fun, but as a group, we have decided that keeping things fair is more important (thus, we have removed items for example) than making the rules favor entertaining fights.

 

[pockyD]

Ok, now to respond to you, pockyD:

I'm not throwing a parade, just noting that this often (almost overused) argument is obviously a logical fallacy. A lot of people debating topics like this claim to be intellectually honest and logical people, and I don't see how that could be the case if you're using an obviously meaningless argument like "it's arbitrary!" I'll concede that some people may not have realized that "it's arbitrary!" is a fallacy, but I know that someone in the near future is going to use this as a legit argument, and I'd like to see fallacies like this cracked down on like we crack down on scrubs or stupids.

but "it's arbitrary" isn't the end of the argument; it's merely a preface to either claiming that your "arbitrary" boundary does not truly solve the problem, or that it treads onto more legitimate tactics that nobody wants to see banned

the point of the arbitrary argument is that you can't cleanly ban the one questionable tactic without affecting the way other parts of the game play out

I know you aren't for banning either DDD's infinites or wobbling. I usually wouldn't care, but after reading up on Sirlin, I can't honestly say that I agree with allowing them, either. One of the biggest things he argues against is wrestling control completely and indefinitely from a player, and that's what infinites and wobbling do. It's my opinion that taking control away from a player like that is bad design and should be combated. Besides, what are we losing by adding a "no standing infinites/wobbling" rule? It's not like DDD/IC's revolve entirely around it. That's another discussion, though. (For the record, yes, the fact that you can use it to stall also worries me.)

infinites in traditional 2D fighters? for or against banning those? I don't know (I don't really play any other games 'seriously' except for smash), but I don't think sirlin was for banning those, and they take the entire game away, not just a 'stock'

stalling has to be the main issue here

on a largely unrelated note, if wobbling was for some reason inexplicably broken (i.e. you could do it with only one ice climber), then i would be for just banning the character straight up instead of an ill-fated attempt to ban the tactic. that's just my personal stuff though

About the judges watching every match thing, I agree. That's why I noted that, though. I wasn't refuting it, I was illustrating the other side to be fair.

And finally, yes, the decision on how much to remove is arbitrary, too... But I doubt you could, in all intellectual honesty, argue that as against me when we ban such a HUGE amount of the game, anyway (if you include game modes, stages, items... we ban a LOT). Yes, the argument is essentially "should" we ban stalling, and though stalling sucks, both players have to actively engage in stalling (either one not attacking), so unless one player is unable to react to another (a la Rising Pound or, IMO, infinites), there isn't much we can do. It sucks, but that's life.

so from what i gather, you're against banning stalling?

ok i guess, though it feels like you just dumped your brain on the page, so it's really hard to follow your thought process

 

[DanGR]

I'm glad someone brought this up.

Essentially, camping and stalling are the same thing. Until you ban me from running away and throwing pikmin the entire match, you can't DQ me for sitting on the ledge with MK or jumping around with Wario to force a direct approach as well.

Banning planking as opposed to camping with projectiles is just stupid, and I'm surprised that this is even debatable. This is competitive gaming, and if you don't like it because it's "gay", "hard to beat", or "not fun" then you can leave.

 

[aeghrur]

And the generalization of how Scrubs behave was off where exactly? I never specified who "they" were.

Your generalization of how scrubs behave wasn't off in the least.
Your didn't explicitly specify who "they" were.
However, you did
A. Imply that they were 08-09ers.
B. Imply that all 08-09ers were scrubs.

This is Brawl. This is SWF. This is tons of 2008+2009 people.

Note the obvious implications.

 

[Jack Kieser]

but "it's arbitrary" isn't the end of the argument; it's merely a preface to either claiming that your "arbitrary" boundary does not truly solve the problem, or that it treads onto more legitimate tactics that nobody wants to see banned

the point of the arbitrary argument is that you can't cleanly ban the one questionable tactic without affecting the way other parts of the game play out

Yes, that's true, so instead of allowing people to use arbitrary as though it WAS a winning argument (and it DOES happen; it's happened to me before, but I hadn't studied enough of Socrates yet to realize that I should have called them out on it ), we should all just assume that every idea we have will have at least one arbitrary element and leave it at that. No idea is automatically terrible because something in it is arbitrary, because almost ALL of our rules are arbitrary. Basically, saying something is arbitrary is strawmanning (of COURSE it is), and only serves to stall the debate (LOL).

infinites in traditional 2D fighters? for or against banning those? I don't know (I don't really play any other games 'seriously' except for smash), but I don't think sirlin was for banning those, and they take the entire game away, not just a 'stock'

stalling has to be the main issue here

on a largely unrelated note, if wobbling was for some reason inexplicably broken (i.e. you could do it with only one ice climber), then i would be for just banning the character straight up instead of an ill-fated attempt to ban the tactic. that's just my personal stuff though

I searched through all of Sirlin's writings, and I couldn't find anything saying that he was FOR infinites; in fact, he praised (and dedicated an article to) fighters that did all they could to reduce or eliminate infinites, like GGXX. I'm personally against them, but I'd have to ask Sirlin himself to know for certain what he thinks.

so from what i gather, you're against banning stalling?

ok i guess, though it feels like you just dumped your brain on the page, so it's really hard to follow your thought process

I just don't think we will ever come up with anything cut and dry enough to be workable in a tournament. If we COULD, I'd be all for banning stalling. I doubt it will happen, though.

 

[choice_brawler]

I'm glad someone brought this up.

Essentially, camping and stalling are the same thing. Until you ban me from running away and throwing pikmin the entire match, you can't DQ me for sitting on the ledge with MK or jumping around with Wario to force a direct approach as well.

Banning planking as opposed to camping with projectiles is just stupid, and I'm surprised that this is even debatable. This is competitive gaming, and if you don't like it because it's "gay", "hard to beat", or "not fun" then you can leave.

Yea you said it DanGR, if you cant beat someone, then you should lose. There really isnt a difference between planking and camping while shooting projectiles. In both cases the person is camping because they believe it will allow them to win. Either by timing out or because you'll soon have enough dmg from all dem projectiles to be KO'd.

 

[Milky]

stalling isnt a good way to win a match. a player who wins tournaments from killing their opponent will have more respect than someone who stalls. stalling should be banned and people should be honest about whether they are stalling or spacing. but thats just my opinion

 

[Electric Eel]

As long as the majority of brawlers don't stall to win every match, It should not be banned.

 

[pockyD]

stalling isnt a good way to win a match.

if you win, you win

if it proves over time that it's not an effective way to win, people will naturally not do it

a player who wins tournaments from killing their opponent will have more respect than someone who stalls.

and the theory is that someone who stalls will actually win that tournament, while the player who "kills their opponent" will have more respect, but a second place finish and $500 less than the other guy

stalling should be banned and people should be honest about whether they are stalling or spacing. but thats just my opinion

whoops, i stalled. self-dq

come on, i don't think anyone legitimately believes that this could happen

 

[Jack Kieser]

stalling isnt a good way to win a match. a player who wins tournaments from killing their opponent will have more respect than someone who stalls. stalling should be banned and people should be honest about whether they are stalling or spacing. but thats just my opinion

Man, this is competitive gaming. NO ONE here is honest or honorable. If I could, I'd stall my *** off and when a TO came, lie like hell that I was spacing. I'm playing for money; I couldn't care less what you think of me.

Now, friendlies are a different story. I'll never stall you out in a friendly. That's just being an ***hole.

EDIT: pockyD, foiled again!