Running out the clock and stalling

[Eyada]

Edit: Yikes. I didn't realize how long this thing had become. If you already understand that it is utterly impossible to derive any benefit whatsoever from stalling/running out the Timer while operating under the new Rule Set I proposed earlier, you can skip the second half of this monstrous wall-o-text.

2nd Edit: Here's a summary for people who don't have a week to read this ridiculously long post.

1st Part: The Timer doesn't make matches go any faster. In fact, it encourages players to use up the full time limit because defensive play is so much better than offense in Brawl. It's easier to win by running out the Timer than it is to take all 3 Stocks off your opponent. As such, allowing players to win because of the Timer, for any reason, will result in players running out the clock/stalling/planking/whatever.

2nd Part: Under the new Rule Set I proposed, even if a player is getting wrecked, it does him no good to stall and try to run out the clock. It can never help him do better in the set, but it can make him do worse. So the result will either be what it would have been had a player not run out the clock, or the player who ran out the clock will lose the set because he ran out the clock.

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

I don't believe the Timer, as it currently functions in the SBR Rule Set, is capable of making a match go faster. (Which means I also don't believe that is why it was implemented.) This is strictly in regard to its impact on Brawl --my argument does not apply to Melee or any other game. Let me explain:

In this game, Offense is weaker than Defense. As such, any strategies that depend more exclusively on Offense are less effective than those that depend more exclusively on Defense. So, in any given situation, a player is better off choosing the more Defensive path over the more Offensive path if and only if both paths lead to victory. (That is, if it is possible to win via Timer. As I will show below, choosing a purely Defensive path is only viable if a victory via Timer is possible.)

Note that my arguments below consider Camping wherein you are attempting to inflict damage on your opponent as Offense. I know that Camping is often described as "Defensive", but for the purposes of this argument, I am using "Defensive" to mean any action that directly prevents damage to your character --namely, running away, shielding, spot dodging, and so forth. (Basically, "running out the clock" as described in the OP of this thread. I am using Defensive to mean "purposefully avoiding any and all conflict".) If an action has the potential to injure your opponent, it is Offensive, not Defensive.

Winning via Timer is an essentially Defensive strategy. It requires a minimum of only 1 Offensive action the entire match. (Namely, hitting your opponent with a single attack of any strength.) You can score only 1% of damage on your opponent, and then spend the entire match simply fleeing any and all conflict, and you can potentially emerge victorious. You do not need to attack any more during this time period, and you can still emerge victorious.

In contrast, winning via Stock is an Offensive strategy. You cannot win via Stock if you do not continuously attack or attempt to inflict damage. An infinite period of time could pass in a pure Stock match, but victory will not be attained unless a player takes Offensive action.

With those distinctions in mind, the current SBR Rule Set encourages Defensive play and "running out the clock". As has been noted, victory via running out the Timer is purely Defensive, which means it it strictly superior to victory via Stock (a purely Offensive strategy.) Because the current SBR Rule Set allows for victory via Timer, it is encouraging Defensive play, because it is enabling Purely Defensive play to result in victory. This means that it is directly responsible for even creating the possibility of a player wanting to wait out the Timer. Since running out the Timer is the optimal strategy under the SBR Rule Set (because it is a purely Defensive strategy), it follows that you will see it occur more often under the SBR Rule Set than you will see it occur under an alternative Rule Set that does not reward Defensive Play with victory. In fact, my proposed alternative Rule Set ensures that purely Defensive play can never result in victory under any circumstances whatsoever, without exception, guaranteeing that it will never happen. (After all, why would a player pursue an option that can only lead to his defeat?)

Thus, if you are looking to eliminate purely Defensive behavior from the tournament scene --that is, a player avoiding any and all conflict in order to "run out the clock and stall" as mentioned at the beginning of this thread--, the only option available is to remove victory-via-Timer from the tournament Rule Set. It must be utterly and absolutely impossible to achieve victory through the Timer alone if you wish to guarantee that no player will ever "run out the clock and stall". Period. If it is possible to win via Timer, then stalling out the clock is a legitimate and powerful strategy, and it will be used.

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...

As I displayed in one of my earlier posts, this scenario is still, at worst, the same result that the current Rule Set would cause.

Let me explain why such behavior is fruitless and/or self-destructive under the proposed new Rule Set:

Let's imagine that Player A and Player B are playing a set. Player B is losing in the fashion you described, so he simply runs out the Timer for the round. Let's imagine that he is successful in doing so every time he attempts it. Let's examine the results:

Assume it is during the first round of the set that Player B first decides to run out the Timer. (Thus Player A is 0-0 and Player B is 0-0.) Player B runs out the Timer, and both players are given a loss. Records are A: 0-1, and B: 0-1.

Round 2 would then be played. One of the following will happen, either:
--Player B runs out the Timer again. Both players are eliminated from the tournament. Player B just lost the tourney because he ran out the clock. Thus, it is shown that under this Rule Set running out the clock is self-destructive behavior.
--Player B fights and does not run out the Timer.
----If Player B loses, he is now 0-2. As such, he is eliminated from the tourney. Player B lost the tourney because he ran out the clock. Thus, it is shown that under this Rule Set running out the clock is self-destructive behavior.
--If Player B wins, he is 1-1, and is capable of achieving the 2/3 wins necessary to claim the set. So:

Round 3 would then be played. One of the following will happen, either:
--Player B runs out the Timer again. Both players are eliminated from the tournament. Player B just lost the tourney because he ran out the clock. Thus, it is shown that under this Rule Set running out the clock is self-destructive behavior.
--Player B fights and does not run out the Timer.
----If Player B loses, he is now 1-2. As such, he is eliminated from the tourney. Player B lost the tourney because he ran out the clock. Thus, it is shown that under this Rule Set running out the clock is self-destructive behavior.
--If Player B wins, he is now 2-1, and would have won the set anyway, even had he not run out the clock in the first round. As such, his running out the clock was a waste of everyone's time that had no impact whatsoever on the final outcome of the set. Thus, it is shown that under this Rule Set running out the clock offers no reward whatsoever.

It follows that the results of this examination are the same, regardless of when Player B first decides to run out the Timer.

Thus, it is shown that under the proposed Rule Set there is no possible way to obtain any benefit, advantage, or victory whatsoever through running out the Timer.

As such, no one would do it. Why bother doing something that offers to give you nothing, but to potentially make you lose everything?

 

[pockyD]

Saying that the timer is there to "make a match go faster" is slightly inaccurate

the timer is there to ensure it does not run too slowly

more specifically, an 8-minute timer isn't trying to get the game to finish as soon as possible; it's there to ensure that it doesn't take longer than 8 minutes

anyways, a dual-lose thing sounds interesting on the surface, but in reality it just devolves into a game of chicken

 

[Sky`]

Don't you all forget.

That some characters subsist on having a timer.

 

[WITH]

Yes, but the tactic makes every match she gets even slightly ahead of an auto-win. Not acceptable.


You must have missed the part where I say that Zelda has Din's Fire. Seeing as how I main Zelda, I cannot possibly fail against infinite pounding.


It makes it harder to hit her than if she were stalling by simply jumping around. Also, please enlighten me how every single or even half of the characters in Brawl can even touch Jiggz while she's infinite pounding. I can, Zelda, after all, has Din's Fire.


Yes, but she also has multiple jumps.

Ok, you have got to be kidding me. You are STRONGLY opposed to the banning of DDD's infinite grabs. I am not going to look up the posts, but I remember you giving reasons along the lines of:
"DDD's infinite isn't winning him tournaments; it's not game-breaking"
or
"By choosing a character that DDD infinites, you are choosing to take the risk of being in a disadvantageous match-up"

Don't BOTH of those reasons apply to jiggs? She's like bottom tier for god's sake! If people can't handle her "tactic" then they can choose a character who can avoid the stalling (yes, I know and don't care that you play Zelda). Jiggs isn't dominating the tournament scene with the stall, so why do YOU say it is not acceptable?

 

[pockyD]

Ok, you have got to be kidding me. You are STRONGLY opposed to the banning of DDD's infinite grabs. I am not going to look up the posts, but I remember you giving reasons along the lines of:
"DDD's infinite isn't winning him tournaments; it's not game-breaking"
or
"By choosing a character that DDD infinites, you are choosing to take the risk of being in a disadvantageous match-up"

Don't BOTH of those reasons apply to jiggs? She's like bottom tier for god's sake! If people can't handle her "tactic" then they can choose a character who can avoid the stalling (yes, I know and don't care that you play Zelda). Jiggs isn't dominating the tournament scene with the stall, so why do YOU say it is not acceptable?

if the "stall" is as good as you seem to think it is (it's not), then it would work in every single matchup, and also be independent of any other merit (such as grabbing your opponent) aside from obtaining a % lead at some point in the match

what could player A have done to not get stalled?
-not give up a lead at any point (not super realistic)
-pick a character who can go get her. How many such characters are there?
dedede's "infinite" eliminates what, one or two characters from the matchup with the character? a pound stall as powerful as you describe would eliminate 30+

is this "too" good? still arbitrary of course, but it'd be pretty much near unanimous that a tactic such that % lead = win vs any character is too good

 

[WITH]

if the "stall" is as good as you seem to think it is (it's not), then it would work in every single matchup, and also be independent of any other merit (such as grabbing your opponent) aside from obtaining a % lead at some point in the match

what could player A have done to not get stalled?
-not give up a lead at any point (not super realistic)
-pick a character who can go get her. How many such characters are there?
dedede's "infinite" eliminates what, one or two characters from the matchup with the character? a pound stall as powerful as you describe would eliminate 30+

is this "too" good? still arbitrary of course, but it'd be pretty much near unanimous that a tactic such that % lead = win vs any character is too good

I never said I felt it is too good. In fact, I pointed out that it's not unbeatable as the whole point of my post. I am just saying that it's hypocritical that Yuna would be supporting a ban on Jigglypuff's stall, yet is so opposed to DDD's infinite being banned which takes all the skill away from a match apart from well timed grabs.

 

[ftl]

Thus, it is shown that under the proposed Rule Set there is no possible way to obtain any benefit, advantage, or victory whatsoever through running out the Timer.

As such, no one would do it. Why bother doing something that offers to give you nothing, but to potentially make you lose everything?

Then you have stalemates.

Suppose I'm playing a character with a wall infinite, and my opponent is playing a character with a good projectile.

So naturally, I go to the fin, where I have a chance of pulling off my wall infinite. My opponent goes to the large open space, where his projectile is most effective.

Or, in general, when different characters prefer different areas of the stage. Or when neither character wants to approach. Those situations happen a lot...

We sit there, nobody wants to go to the other person's area.

In current rules, time runs out and whoever's ahead in percent wins. This forces either one player or the other to approach at any given time, whoever's behind. (The only time this doesn't hold is at the very beginning of a match, before anybody's had a chance to get a hit in.) So with a timer, whoever's behind has to approach and make the most of the fight even if he'd rather play defense.

Under no-timer rules? That match is going to last for a really long time, when both players are patient...

There is certainly no benefit to running out the timer when there isn't one. There IS a benefit to making the match go so long that your opponent gets tired or impatient, though.

 

[pockyD]

I never said I felt it is too good. In fact, I pointed out that it's not unbeatable as the whole point of my post. I am just saying that it's hypocritical that Yuna would be supporting a ban on Jigglypuff's stall, yet is so opposed to DDD's infinite being banned which takes all the skill away from a match apart from well timed grabs.

well, my post was intended to show you that jigglypuff's tactic is more powerful and more applicable than ddd's standing infinite by a wide margin

it would only be contradictory (not hypocritical) if they were equally powered tactics, which they pretty clearly are not

 

[MyCurse4Life]

I say have the opponent be the judge of when they think it needs to stop, as long as they're reasonable. I mean there comes a time when it gets out of hand and just plain boring and stupid. If Americans as a whole were honorable, then it could be soft banned as in people just don't do it, but no one would do that. Just have people with the TO walk around and check out matches, and they decide. You plank, you get DQ'ed. Simple as that. Well not simple to enforce.

 

[Veril]

In other words, you think it's not bannable because it only renders 35 characters useless against her?

I very clearly said I felt it should be banned. My point was that it isn't an infinite stall, merely a very good one. Rising pound ≠ autowin.

 

[WITH]

well, my post was intended to show you that jigglypuff's tactic is more powerful and more applicable than ddd's standing infinite by a wide margin

it would only be contradictory (not hypocritical) if they were equally powered tactics, which they pretty clearly are not

But it's the logic and reasoning behind the DDD argument that is contradictory. Yuna has said DDD's shouldn't be banned because it does not over centralize. Jiggs's tactic would not over centralize because not everyone would choose Jiggs and she has more than a few characters who can counter the stall. Probably most character can counter it when she has to return to the ledge to get back jumps.

Another common argument against banning DDD's infinite is that we don't make rules to maximize the amount of characters that will be tourney viable. This again applies. It is NOT play Jigglypuff or win, so why ban it under these guidlines? To make sure Marth doesn't suffer from her stall?

 

[Eyada]

Then you have stalemates.

Suppose I'm playing a character with a wall infinite, and my opponent is playing a character with a good projectile.

So naturally, I go to the fin, where I have a chance of pulling off my wall infinite. My opponent goes to the large open space, where his projectile is most effective.

Or, in general, when different characters prefer different areas of the stage. Or when neither character wants to approach. Those situations happen a lot...

We sit there, nobody wants to go to the other person's area.

In current rules, time runs out and whoever's ahead in percent wins. This forces either one player or the other to approach at any given time, whoever's behind. (The only time this doesn't hold is at the very beginning of a match, before anybody's had a chance to get a hit in.) So with a timer, whoever's behind has to approach and make the most of the fight even if he'd rather play defense.

Under no-timer rules? That match is going to last for a really long time, when both players are patient...

There is certainly no benefit to running out the timer when there isn't one. There IS a benefit to making the match go so long that your opponent gets tired or impatient, though.

If both players are fools, they will stand there and lose the match. If they are intelligent, neither player will want to abandon his seemingly advantageous position, but they will shortly realize that maintaining their "advantageous" position is going to result in them losing the match and possibly being eliminated from the tournament. As such, they will both eventually have to mutually abandon their favorite camping-spot and go engage each other in a place where both players are willing to go. This won't require any sort of verbal negotiation. It will be clear that you are not willing to leave the fin area and rush him while he projectile spams from the front of the ship, and it will be equally clear that your opponent will not come down past the fin to attack you while you are huddled up defensively waiting to hit the Grab button. As such, you will both eventually realize that the only way you can avoid a double-defeat is to meet in a neutral place. Perhaps the middle of the ship, or on top of the fin. Either way, the stalemate will steadily erode until one player is capable of hitting the other player and forcing him to come out and fight, or both players will simply simultaneously leave their safe-havens and move to a neutral site where they can engage one another.

If they both continue to retreat back to this stalemate, they are only hurting themselves and ensuring their defeat.

If they are both so bullheaded and stubborn that they simply refuse to engage one another, both of those players will be eliminated from the tournament. Simple as that. Any players watching the match will be quite happy, as it means that one of them might be the lucky fellow who gets the Bye next round.

Two players gone, some lucky player gets a Bye, and the tournament moves forward.

Edit: Also, it is important to note that if one player simple refuses to approach, but the other player, succumbing to the pressure of the Timer running out, is forced to approach, we are left with a scenario that is, again, no worse than what we currently experience under the present SBR Rule Set.

This is important to note, because so long as a proposed Rule never creates situations worse than those created by the Rule it is replacing, never creates undesirable situations that didn't arise under the previous Rule, and that also provides situations where the results are more favorable than those provided by the old Rule, it is logically sound to support implementation of the new Rule.

I am not suggesting that this new Rule should be implemented. I'm merely establishing that, if it were the case that the majority of players wanted it implemented, there would be valid justification for going through all the effort of changing the present Rule Set to incorporate this new proposal. In other words, I'm establishing that implementing this rule wouldn't result in wasted effort for no real result.

 

[pockyD]

This is important to note, because so long as a proposed Rule never creates situations worse than those created by the Rule it is replacing, never creates undesirable situations that didn't arise under the previous Rule, and that also provides situations where the results are more favorable than those provided by the old Rule, it is logically sound to support implementation of the new Rule.

all smashers should wear colorful hats!

anyways, who are you trying to protect via this rule? i.e., to whom are there "situations where the results are more favorable than those provided by the old Rule"? it seems less favorable if, despite me having a 2stock lead, i'm forced to approach some dude hanging out by the fin so i can get infinited

 

[choice_brawler]

If they are both so bullheaded and stubborn that they simply refuse to engage one another, both of those players will be eliminated from the tournament. Simple as that. Any players watching the match will be quite happy, as it means that one of them might be the lucky fellow who gets the Bye next round.

Two players gone, some lucky player gets a Bye, and the tournament moves forward.

Who's to say who's at fault though? Lets say every time person A approaches he gets pwned. But person B just waits it out. According to your rules person A is screwed no matter what cuz he cant approach and isnt as bullheaded as person B. Person B cruises on by because he knows that his opponent will approach since they dont want to lose, since he's the epidemy of all stubbornness.

 

[Eyada]

all smashers should wear colorful hats!

anyways, who are you trying to protect via this rule? i.e., to whom are there "situations where the results are more favorable than those provided by the old Rule"? it seems less favorable if, despite me having a 2stock lead, i'm forced to approach some dude hanging out by the fin so i can get infinited

You're not (the only one) forced to approach in the least.

He is already losing. If he stands there by the fin, refusing to leave its protection, he makes a bad situation worse. He goes from simply losing, to a guaranteed loss. If you stand on the other side of the ship and refuse to approach, you face the exact same penalty: a guaranteed loss. Thus, loss is mutually assured if he refuses to leave the haven of the fin and you refuse to approach. Eventually, everyone will hopefully realize that you are both under pressure to approach. As such, the stalemate will erode as I described before. Because you both want to have a chance of winning the tourney, it is in your best interest to ensure that the stalemate ends.

However, if you were unfortunate enough to play against someone who isn't really even there to win anyway, but rather, to waste his money (he had to pay the entrance fee too, remember) so that he has the chance to screw some random person (and he cannot possibly predict if he will have the opportunity to face any particular player, so he can't have preplanned this as a way to spite you) out of their chance of winning, well, I suppose you'll have to give in and approach. I imagine, however, that the reaction to some douchebag entering tournaments purely so he can try (it's far from guaranteed to work) to screw someone out of their money by stalling and hoping to run out the Timer (thereby ensuring his own defeat and wasting his own money) would be vastly more pronounced than the reaction we see against planking. At least when someone planks now, they stand to gain something from it as it is a legal, legitimate, and powerful tactic. If some jerk planks under the new Rule Set, he is just throwing away his money in order for a chance to be a **** and ruin some other player's chances in the tourney. I don't imagine such people will be allowed to keep attending tournaments for very long.

 

[illinialex24]

Who's to say who's at fault though? Lets say every time person A approaches he gets pwned. But person B just waits it out. According to your rules person A is screwed no matter what cuz he cant approach and isnt as bullheaded as person B. Person B cruises on by because he knows that his opponent will approach since they dont want to lose, since he's the epidemy of all stubbornness.

Exactly, this is the exact situation with Jigglypuff Olimar. If Jigglypuff approaches, she is screwed. However, her grab range is so long she can avoid anything Olimar can do without going offstage, which is her strong point.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

The current stalling rules already really hurt Jigglypuff's metagame in my opinion.

Imagine how much better Jiggs would be if it were allowed to wait out opponents and fly under stages over and over.

 

[illinialex24]

The current stalling rules already really hurt Jigglypuff's metagame in my opinion.

Imagine how much better Jiggs would be if it were allowed to wait out opponents and fly under stages over and over.

Exactly. Three of her crucially bad matchups would disappear, and a four would become very manageable. This would make her a lot more tournament viable. I am talking about Olimar, Luigi and Wolf for the first 3 and G&W for the last.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Exactly. Three of her crucially bad matchups would disappear, and a four would become very manageable. This would make her a lot more tournament viable. I am talking about Olimar, Luigi and Wolf for the first 3 and G&W for the last.

It occured to me that both Jiggs and MK can go under stages, but Jiggs has a better jump for it. I wonder what legalizing the understage (for that) would do to the MK matchup.

 

[Eyada]

Who's to say who's at fault though? Lets say every time person A approaches he gets pwned. But person B just waits it out. According to your rules person A is screwed no matter what cuz he cant approach and isnt as bullheaded as person B. Person B cruises on by because he knows that his opponent will approach since they dont want to lose, since he's the epidemy of all stubbornness.

Then, Player A will lose. However, in this case Player A would have also lost under the current Rule Set, so the result is not different concerning Player A.

However, Player B, who would have been rewarded under the current Rules with a victory, will instead be punished. Player B will lose, as well. So, as you can see, if Player B actually has any interest whatsoever in winning the tournament, he too will be forced to approach. If Player A keeps approaching and Player B planks him and gets him down to 1 Stock, 250%, and Player A refuses to continue approaching, Player B is then forced to approach to finish the match. (Or he can opt to lose the match and have his near-victory be turned into a defeat simply because he refused to fight.)

This Rule only works if the players both have an interest in winning, and want to avoid losing (ie, if both players are actually playing to win.)

You wouldn't see M2K, Azen, or any of the top players huddle under the fin on Corneria and throw away any chances they have of winning a $2,000 prize just because they are "stubborn". If there truly are idiots so stubborn that they will lose their money and all chances of winning before they will try to approach, then those people won't win any tournaments, they will lose all their money, and thus they will no longer be able to afford to enter tournaments. Unless there is some psychopath who derives joy from wasting their money to inflict suffering on others, in which case they can simply be banned from tournaments when it becomes apparent they are just entering for the chance to be a douche, this won't be a real problem.

Remember, if a player refuses to fight and runs out the Timer, they are ensuring their own defeat as well. They may as well just walk off the side of the stage 3 times, because the result will be the same for them: no money, no advancing in the tourney, and no chance of winning the match. This would also have the added bonus of not hurting their opponent. (Although, it should be noted that even if a player does run out the Timer, that player is helping a future opponent because he has ensured that someone is going to get a Bye.)

 

[illinialex24]

It occured to me that both Jiggs and MK can go under stages, but Jiggs has a better jump for it. I wonder what legalizing the understage (for that) would do to the MK matchup.

It would help it slightly, but MK's moves can have too much knockback so it would be very dangerous for Jigglypuff unless she is very smart.

Then, Player A will lose. However, in this case Player A would have also lost under the current Rule Set, so the result is not different concerning Player A.

However, Player B, who would have been rewarded under the current Rules with a victory, will instead be punished. Player B will lose, as well. So, as you can see, if Player B actually has any interest whatsoever in winning the tournament, he too will be forced to approach. If Player A keeps approaching and Player B planks him and gets him down to 1 Stock, 250%, and Player A refuses to continue approaching, Player B is then forced to approach to finish the match. (Or he can opt to lose the match and have his near-victory be turned into a defeat simply because he refused to fight.)

This Rule only works if the players both have an interest in winning, and want to avoid losing (ie, if both players are actually playing to win.)

No, it will only be harder for Player B to win. The rulesets should favor any non-infinite and interruptible ledgestall. Sonic's homing attack to the bottom of the stage isn't fair for Link or Olimar or very limited recoveries and should be banned, but otherwise, most else should be legal.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It would help it slightly, but MK's moves can have too much knockback so it would be very dangerous for Jigglypuff unless she is very smart.

Good point.

BTW - Sonic's ledgestall is actually a tamer version of the D3 infinite, if you think about it (not that I ever liked the D3 infinite).

 

[illinialex24]

Good point.

BTW - Sonic's ledgestall is actually a tamer version of the D3 infinite, if you think about it (not that I ever liked the D3 infinite).

It is and it is very uneffective against characters with many jumps or very good recoveries (Jigglypuff, Pit, R.O.B., Kirby, Metaknight, King Dedede) because it makes him very vulnerable and you can actually gimp him. But against characters like Falco or Link or very limited recovery characters, its very cheap. Both this, the standing infinite, and MK's cape deserve to be banned. IC's chain-grabs don't because their grab range and gameplay is built around it.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Sonic's HA stall doesn't actually work!

Just spotdodge and he won't lock onto the stage!

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL NOT KNOW THIS!!!

 

[illinialex24]

Sonic's HA stall doesn't actually work!

Just spotdodge and he won't lock onto the stage!

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL NOT KNOW THIS!!!

Wait that is true? If that is true, then that should essentially make him SD because he'll go too low to recover. In which case, allow it.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Yep. Homming attack won't lock on as long as the other player is invincible. And Sonic will just fall too low to recover and die.

 

[Eyada]

It would help it slightly, but MK's moves can have too much knockback so it would be very dangerous for Jigglypuff unless she is very smart.



No, it will only be harder for Player B to win. The rulesets should favor any non-infinite and interruptible ledgestall. Sonic's homing attack to the bottom of the stage isn't fair for Link or Olimar or very limited recoveries and should be banned, but otherwise, most else should be legal.

Very well. The campy, planking player who previously had a very easy time winning will now have a more difficult time winning with that same strategy. I don't see the problem, as this means that my proposal satisfies its purpose; after all, I only proposed it because people were having a discussion in this thread looking for an effective, enforceable, simple, and realistic Rule Set that prevents/discourages planking/running out the clock/etc. If you think the current Rules should be replaced with a Rule Set that favors ledgestalling, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm still just trying to firmly establish that my proposal does, in fact, negate the effects of planking and similar strategies. Whether or not it should be implemented is ultimately up to the SBR.

I should point out that this proposed Rule has no impact whatsoever on things that are currently banned (Sonic's Homing Stall, MK's IDC, and so forth), nor does it have any impact on any other parts of the SBR Rule Set. The only change to the rules I am proposing is an alteration to the Timer-out rule. They currently state that if the clock runs out, the player with a Stock/% advantage wins the match; I propose changing that to "if the clock runs out, both players receive a loss for the match. If this renders both players incapable of achieving the 2/3 wins required to claim a set, both players are considered to have lost the set and are both, therefore, eliminated from the tournament." (Or something to that effect.)

All of the other rules would remain untouched, I suppose. Or they could be altered, if that's what you all desire.

 

[illinialex24]

^^Yep. Homming attack won't lock on as long as the other player is invincible. And Sonic will just fall too low to recover and die.

Ok sounds pretty good. Only ban infinite cape and standing infinite.

 

[bobson]

Sonic's HA stall doesn't actually work!

Just spotdodge and he won't lock onto the stage!

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL NOT KNOW THIS!!!

It's true that Sonic won't lock on if his opponent is invincible, but on stages with non-flat undersides (Pokemon Stadium, Battlefield, etc.) the lock-on isn't needed to keep the stall up indefinitely.

 

[illinialex24]

It's true that Sonic won't lock on if his opponent is invincible, but on stages with non-flat undersides (Pokemon Stadium, Battlefield, etc.) the lock-on isn't needed to keep the stall up indefinitely.

Ok then that's still unfair, maybe only on those stages. I support a blanket ban still though.

 

[Yuna]

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.

What I implied was the fact that SWF is full of Scrubs nowadays. Not all 08-09's are Scrubs, but most Scrubs are new to the scene, hence, most of the Scrubs will be 08-09ers. I'm not saying all or even most 08-09's are Scrubs, I'm saying most Scrubs are 08-09's. And I'd be right in saying it.

There's a big difference between the two.

Don't BOTH of those reasons apply to jiggs? She's like bottom tier for god's sake! If people can't handle her "tactic" then they can choose a character who can avoid the stalling (yes, I know and don't care that you play Zelda). Jiggs isn't dominating the tournament scene with the stall, so why do YOU say it is not acceptable?

OK, what part of "Infinite Pounding makes Jiggz untouchable by, oh, a vast majority of the cast" was too Canadian French pour toi?

This technique is not acceptable because it's a Win Button. It doesn't matter if Jiggz is Bottom Tier. Jiggz sucks in general. But if she ever manages to get a lead, she can just stall the clock out. The second you fall behind and she manages to get away from you, you will have lost the game.

It doesn't matter that Jiggz sucks in general, you will not have a chance to go for a comeback by exploiting those disadvantages of hers, after all. This tactic makes it so that if ever Jiggz should get a lead, she will have won the match. The tactic makes Jiggz unbeatable against a vast majority of the cast if the simple requirement of "1% lead" is fullfilled.

The technique, just like all other stalling tactics that guarantee you a win as long as you don't screw up monumentally or face one of very few characters who stands a chance of breaking up your stall, is banned because it is not acceptable that if you ever fall behind in % (or stocks), you will automatically have lost the match.

I never said I felt it is too good. In fact, I pointed out that it's not unbeatable as the whole point of my post. I am just saying that it's hypocritical that Yuna would be supporting a ban on Jigglypuff's stall, yet is so opposed to DDD's infinite being banned which takes all the skill away from a match apart from well timed grabs.

No, it's not. You're just unable to comprehend three simple things:
1) 2 characters <<<<<<<<<< 30+ characters out of 39
2) Stall which guarantees you the win against the vast majority of the cast >>>>>>>>> Infinite which guarantees you a stock off of two characters
2) "It takes the skill away" - Nobody (credible) cares

I very clearly said I felt it should be banned. My point was that it isn't an infinite stall, merely a very good one. Rising pound ≠ autowin.

You never actually said that. You argued entirely different points.

Like how a very select few characters have ways of combating it, making Infinite Pounding ineffective against them. However, you failed to address how a vast majority of the cast can't effectively combat (or even hope to ever touch Jiggz) the Infinite Pound.

 

[aeghrur]

It works FD though, I think.
Because if we don't cancel it, it rises long enough to work.

What I implied was the fact that SWF is full of Scrubs nowadays. Not all 08-09's are Scrubs, but most Scrubs are new to the scene, hence, most of the Scrubs will be 08-09ers. I'm not saying all or even most 08-09's are Scrubs, I'm saying most Scrubs are 08-09's. And I'd be right in saying it.

There's a big difference between the two.

Hm, since you said most, instead of all 08-09 as your previous post implied, I'll agree with you full-heartily.

 

[Dark Sonic]

It's true that Sonic won't lock on if his opponent is invincible, but on stages with non-flat undersides (Pokemon Stadium, Battlefield, etc.) the lock-on isn't needed to keep the stall up indefinitely.

You (as in the you, the person being stalled) can control the direction that Sonic bounces, and lead him to the ledge manually.

I think people what people fail to realize is that Sonic's homming stall is basically just Sonic locking onto their character...while a wall is in the way. All the player has to do to force Sonic to bounce the other way...is position themselves so that the arc would travel that way.

If you're not close enough to be locked onto (or you're invincible), then Sonic will go with the default "not locked on homming attack", which still bounces off the ceiling (if he's touching it when the HA is released), but always goes in the same direction...except if you hit an angled ceiling (you can do reverse neutral Bs to aim at the stage even if there is none though). Then you'll have to slowly maneuver the Sonic player away from the angled ceiling by changing the distance of his bounces (which can be done by moving further away from him) to make him go past it. This is entirely feasible, because even though Sonic can drift foward or backward after the HA, he can't go far enough without endangering himself (if he drops too low you can spotdodge and he won't bounce off the stage)

Yes, I've done a lot of experimenting with this. Why? I was bored.

 

[pockyD]

Who's to say who's at fault though? Lets say every time person A approaches he gets pwned. But person B just waits it out. According to your rules person A is screwed no matter what cuz he cant approach and isnt as bullheaded as person B. Person B cruises on by because he knows that his opponent will approach since they dont want to lose, since he's the epidemy of all stubbornness.

I don't know how you put my name on that quote, but it wasn't me that said that

that was a confusing moment

You're not (the only one) forced to approach in the least.

He is already losing. If he stands there by the fin, refusing to leave its protection, he makes a bad situation worse. He goes from simply losing, to a guaranteed loss. If you stand on the other side of the ship and refuse to approach, you face the exact same penalty: a guaranteed loss. Thus, loss is mutually assured if he refuses to leave the haven of the fin and you refuse to approach. Eventually, everyone will hopefully realize that you are both under pressure to approach. As such, the stalemate will erode as I described before. Because you both want to have a chance of winning the tourney, it is in your best interest to ensure that the stalemate ends.

That's not exactly true... as the player down by two stock, you know that the other player has much more to lose than you, and is much more likely to give in if you just continue to stand there, because if time runs out, the advantage that he was already holding vanishes.

It's basic game theory

However, if you were unfortunate enough to play against someone who isn't really even there to win anyway, but rather, to waste his money (he had to pay the entrance fee too, remember) so that he has the chance to screw some random person (and he cannot possibly predict if he will have the opportunity to face any particular player, so he can't have preplanned this as a way to spite you) out of their chance of winning, well, I suppose you'll have to give in and approach. I imagine, however, that the reaction to some douchebag entering tournaments purely so he can try (it's far from guaranteed to work) to screw someone out of their money by stalling and hoping to run out the Timer (thereby ensuring his own defeat and wasting his own money) would be vastly more pronounced than the reaction we see against planking. At least when someone planks now, they stand to gain something from it as it is a legal, legitimate, and powerful tactic. If some jerk planks under the new Rule Set, he is just throwing away his money in order for a chance to be a **** and ruin some other player's chances in the tourney. I don't imagine such people will be allowed to keep attending tournaments for very long.

like i said, it devolves into a crappy game of chicken, but instead of real stalling, which forces the loser to approach, this version encourages the winner to approach.

Regardless, you haven't explained in the least how your proposed rule "never creates undesirable situations that didn't arise under the previous Rule, and that also provides situations where the results are more favorable than those provided by the old Rule"... 'results are more favorable' FOR WHOM?

 

[Browny]

lol

Sonics stall is counterable by projectiles, and every character can actually hit him under the stage, they just may not be able to recover. perfect planking gives permanent invincibility frames while damaging anyone who attacks.

Which one is unfair and banned?

hahaha

 

[illinialex24]

lol

Sonics stall is counterable by projectiles, and every character can actually hit him under the stage, they just may not be able to recover. perfect planking gives permanent invincibility frames while damaging anyone who attacks.

Which one is unfair and banned?

hahaha

This is unfair. There is no perfect planking yet I believe.

 

[Browny]

Isnt that by definition putting yourself at an advantageous position? MK is allowed to hang on the edge to put him at an advantage to every character who doesnt have grenades or PKT, but sonic cant go under the stage because thats unfair to characters with ****ty recoveries?

boohoo

 

[GofG]

Ganondorf could remain invulnerable indefinitely in melee. This was fairly easy to do compared to many other strange ATs (like the 0-death desync nair to nair to nair to nair to nair to spike from anywhere on FD against a fox with ic), yet this is never a problem. It never was a problem. It is referenced no-where when people talk about reasons why stalling is banned.

I think in Melee, a player had less to lose by going on the offense when they were ahead, but still, it's pretty strange that no one ever brings this up.

 

[illinialex24]

Isnt that by definition putting yourself at an advantageous position? MK is allowed to hang on the edge to put him at an advantage to every character who doesnt have grenades or PKT, but sonic cant go under the stage because thats unfair to characters with ****ty recoveries?

boohoo

Theres a difference between advantage and unovercomeable advantage. This is unbeatable against some characters if he gets a percent lead.

 

[PK-ow!]

OK, what part of "Infinite Pounding makes Jiggz untouchable by, oh, a vast majority of the cast" was too Canadian French pour toi?

This technique is not acceptable because it's a Win Button. It doesn't matter if Jiggz is Bottom Tier. Jiggz sucks in general. But if she ever manages to get a lead, she can just stall the clock out. The second you fall behind and she manages to get away from you, you will have lost the game.

It doesn't matter that Jiggz sucks in general, you will not have a chance to go for a comeback by exploiting those disadvantages of hers, after all. This tactic makes it so that if ever Jiggz should get a lead, she will have won the match. The tactic makes Jiggz unbeatable against a vast majority of the cast if the simple requirement of "1% lead" is fullfilled.

The technique, just like all other stalling tactics that guarantee you a win as long as you don't screw up monumentally or face one of very few characters who stands a chance of breaking up your stall, is banned because it is not acceptable that if you ever fall behind in % (or stocks), you will automatically have lost the match.

Isn't that how combos work?

Isn't what's really unacceptable here, that Jigglypuff could win without beating the opponent? Beating/KOing/finishing/whatever?
That it becomes a strategy specifically not to play out the match?


I don't get what the problem is of enforcing the stalling criterion as "The player deliberately avoids bringing the match to its conclusion."

You can clarify this as "The player stops seeking to win (removing opponent's stocks), rather trying simply not to lose, or playing the clock."

Eyada brings up apparent cases of no-win stalemates. Cases where either character's initiative is strictly worse than inaction, and thus it is difficult to mandate either one to act. This is tough. However, we can deal with these by looking at a simple case:

Ike vs. Ike. Both are at high damage. Let's say either one begins charging a side-B, and then the other one does. However, the distance between them, is actually greater than the range of Side B, and recognizing this, neither one releases the attack.
By the time both notice where they are, they have both fully charged. At this point, whoever releases, will be KO'd by the other's Side B.

If both Ikes are aware of the stalemate, who should be forced to act (and lose)?