Running out the clock and stalling

[ExCeL 52]

I hate this rule... its stupid.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm sorry, please point out where in his articles he says that infinites are not combos.

There is an implication that there is a difference. If they were 100% the same, then there's no problem. They obviously have an important difference (lack of need for decision making). Sirlin notes that decision making (in his article about SSF2THDR) is the basis of competitive gaming. The logical conclusion is that something that is against decision making is also against competitive gaming. QED.

This is not the point. You claimed it ended the match. I was merely refuting your claim.

It effectively does. How long does it take for a grab to reach 300% (from 0%) under the infinites? Taking into account that D3's will take MUCH more time than the IC's, it still (even under the non-stalling rules we put in place) can easily run the match to the timer.

Stalling tactics are banned because of the pillar of "It prevents the match from continuing". Combos do not prevent matches from continuing, the match continues, the combo eventually ends. This gives you the victory the second you get ahead not through actually killing your opponent but by removing yourself from the field.

That's right. But WHY does "removing yourself from the field" matter? Because by doing so, the opponent has NO SAY in the outcome. No matter what decision the opponent makes, he's still screwed. Now, what does that sound like? Infinites. Again, combos will end, maybe in death, maybe not. Infinites will not end, but if they do, it WILL be in death and there is NOTHING anyone can do about that.

Why 300%? Because all of the infinites are guaranteed KO at 300% against pretty much everyone on pretty much any stage at that %. If you think it should be lower, argue that.

Just illustrating that the number is arbitrary. Also, that shows that one move = death. Not good. Might as well just play RPS or flip a coin. (Or better yet, any other better fighting game )

This is very lovely. Please point out to me where he says they should be banned. Yes, Sirlin doesn't like infinites and wishes games were designed without them. Incidentally, I agree with this. Neither of us, however, want all infinites banned.

We only want them banned if they are actually "too good".

Infinites are inherently "too good". They always end in death. How is that NOT too good? Even if the infinites are RIDICULOUSLY hard to set up (they aren't), someone will end up doing it and will contest tournament results because of it. Why take the chance when its REALLY EASY to just say "no infinites"? It's not hard. Jab locks are banned (here in TX, at least, and no TX jokes, please), and they are WAY harder to set up than a grab.

No, I'm not. I agree with Sirlin. You, however, are inferring "I wish they weren't in fighting games" to mean "I want them all banned" beause unlike, oh, you, we don't run around and crusade for every little thing we dislike to be banned, we only want to create bans if they are warranted. You, as usual, fail at comprehending plain English.

A ) Yay for more irrelevant attacks.
B ) If we can easily (and painlessly) do it (without losing anything, which we don't), then why not?
C ) If the reason was "I don't like it!", you'd be right. It's not.
D ) That's like saying "I really wish there wasn't torture" and then not bringing a case of torture to the War Crimes tribunal because the guy wasn't "waterboarded enough".

No, I'm just one person debating. I have that right. And people have the right to disagree with me. And I have the right to debate them if I disagree with them.

Debate all you want. I just don't think you've ever been through a debate without insulting someone. Honestly don't think you can. I'd love to see you try that in a university Debate course.

But they all end. Why? Because we have rules that force them to end. Nobody cares if they could go on for all eternity if said rules did not exist. Because said rules exist, thus, they cannot possibly go on for all eternity in Competitive Brawl.

Again, they always end the same way: death. Who cares exactly when they end? What matters is that they always can go on long enough to end in death, and there is NO action that the opponent can take to change that. It removes a player from the game, indefinitely (or close enough to indefinitely so that no choice the opponent makes has a difference. It's like a limit; once you get close enough to 0, you can just call it 0).

Again, ignoring anything past this point. I've already said I won't respond to it; why do you insist on bringing it up like a 3 year old having a tantrum?

EDIT @ RDK: I'm going to assume that you didn't know this from earlier, but I had another debate with someone about things being arbitrary. Basically, I showed that anything, absolutely anything, can be considered arbitrary anyway; obviously, that means that I recognize that anything I say is also inherent arbitrary. When I say that something is arbitrary, I'm basically challenging someone to prove to me why I should accept whatever I'm contesting; if he/she can't, then I don't have to accept it. That should cover the majority of your post.

The decision "to continue it or to stop" isn't actually a decision, not really. In fact, it is a lack of a decision. We know the kill range is 300%, so you keep going until then, and then kill. That's not a decision; you're basically bound to complete that action.

Crap, it's almost 6 here. Yay for night work. [/sarcasm]

 

[PK-ow!]

The unacceptable parts here is:
1) This works against the vast majority of the cast.
2) Once it starts, the match effectively ends.

With combos, chaingrabs, locks and infinites, they are either highly situational and hard to start (IC's) or work only against a very select few characters (D3, others) or don't go from 0-death (countless).

And the most important part: The match does not effectively end once it starts unless the opponent is on their last stock and it's an infinite.

Okay, so it's not like combos.

It's an overcentralization/broken objection.

Because there are perfectly acceptable ways to stall matches that are legit and not bannable since you're still vulnerable and quite easy to hit.

All ways which render you untouchable and effectively end the match have to be banned. Those which are merely effective do not.

This doesn't seem principled, which I can explain by answering your next question:

And my question remains:
Why is it unacceptable to win by a timeout?

Because that is an artificiality created by our imperfections. We are forced to change the game by adding a clock, as we know - shouldn't we try to reduce the reprceussions of this change as *much* as possible?

It's considered an elementary and "obvious" philosophy in Magic tourneys that playing the clock is not playing the game. You're there to defeat your opponent. You're there to make him lose. Bringing this other factor in to your gameplay is identified as cheating (since it allows you to win without the rules - of the game - saying you do).


Just because one tactic would actually completely suck to use, doesn't mean it would be so horrible of us to put in our rules that it is of a kind with the rest of the things we call "not tourney/competition acceptable."

In Magic, a little while ago the card Shahrazad was banned in all formats. This card worked by creating a 'Subgame', which was played out with only half the normal starting life total. But the only consequence of ending the subgame was the loser lost 5 life (a quarter of the starting life) in the main game. Shahrazad, on analysis by the game developers, was found to create the problem that if someone wanted, they could just resolve a bunch of Shahrazads in a match, play the subgames (at an indisputable pace), and make it impossible for the other guy to ever actually win. Now this strategy is absolutely fail - Shahrazad is a terrible card, and it will never win you the game, against even janky scrub decks. But Wizards of the Coast found what this card created to be an unacceptable possibility for tourneys. They wanted to stop it before it upset a tournament. So they banned it.

It is only unacceptable if it's a guaranteed win by timeout if ever you should get ahead in % (or stock). Because you are preventing the match from moving forward. With legit stalling/camping which does not render you invincible/untouchable, all you are doing is playing a keepaway and avoiding game. You are not preventing the match from moving forward, just making it harder.

So, just so I understand: we deal with all stalling/camping, no matter how good, right up to the point that it is unbeatable good... then have to ban?

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

They both deserve to lose for charging Side B like that. That aside, this is yet another reason why "Everybody loses!" is an unacceptable "solution".

People just don't want to face people who run the clock out because they find it "boring". Guess what, I find it extremely tedious to face Snakes. But I wouldn't ever crusade for him to be banned unless his metagame randomly progresses to SSSS-tier sometime soon.

One, I don't think this is about 'boring'. There is a reason to want to stop stalling. I'm giving you those. Pointing to however many people who do have a stupid reason for saying something is not an argument against someone who gives a different reason for the same thing.
And there's more than one person here not giving that "stupid" version of this argument.

Two, there's a difference between stalling and camping. Playing from a defensive position =//= turtling. One is the maximization of defensive measures while attacking your opponent - a tactical choice. The other is not. I am quite sure that there are people here who are respecting this difference.

Camping and running the clock out in ways which do not render you invincible or untouchable are perfectly legit tactics both in Smash and in Competitive fighting games in general. It's just another thing you'll have to deal with if you choose to go into Competitive gaming.

. . . I just don't know what to say. I'd like to investigate... are there recordings, or just records, of what happened at events (of some game) where final brackets were decided through one player's successful stalling maneuver? Not what happened in-game, but things like reactions in the crowd?

One final summary, which I give to create the possibility of you, yet again, cutting through to change my viewpoint in a single stroke (you know, to save space).

And it works against the vast majority of the cast and renders them unplayable whenever the simple criteria of "Get a 1% or more lead" gets fullfilled. It prevents the match from continuing, which is actually one the pillars for banning in Competitive fighting games.

It seems I am on with the same idea as the actual principle in use, except the principle we have stops at what actually works / what is "sufficiently good" to actually manifest that the "game cannot continue".

I'm concerned with if the game cannot continue, too. But to me what seems important is it should focus on what the player tries to do. The player shouldn't try to do things that prevent the match from continuing.

 

[illinialex24]

I'm concerned with if the game cannot continue, too. But to me what seems important is it should focus on what the player tries to do. The player shouldn't try to do things that prevent the match from continuing.

Very true. MK's infinite cape stops the game from continuing. Ledge stalling, however, only shifts the game. It forces the person who is losing to approach. Very very different. It does not stop the game, it is just another strategy.

 

[RDK]

RDK: I'm going to assume that you didn't know this from earlier, but I had another debate with someone about things being arbitrary. Basically, I showed that anything, absolutely anything, can be considered arbitrary anyway; obviously, that means that I recognize that anything I say is also inherent arbitrary. When I say that something is arbitrary, I'm basically challenging someone to prove to me why I should accept whatever I'm contesting; if he/she can't, then I don't have to accept it. That should cover the majority of your post.

And my point was that the 300% cap is indeed not arbitrary at all. At that point, you have to end the infinite and finish off your opponent or you're disqualified.

Stopping at 300% all but guarantees shaving off a stock, and also prevents them from continuing indefinitely for the remainder of the match. Please tell me how this is arbitrary.

The decision "to continue it or to stop" isn't actually a decision, not really. In fact, it is a lack of a decision. We know the kill range is 300%, so you keep going until then, and then kill. That's not a decision; you're basically bound to complete that action.

So what? I still don't get your point.

You're under the false assumption that all you do to initiate the infinite is press a magical infinite button, sit back, and crack open a can of Bud Light. You actually have to keep the infinite going. Despite how simple the commands are, this still involves decision-making and some amount of skill, however small.

Even if it didn't require decision-making, which it clearly does, BTW, you still have to reconcile why we should ban this and not Sheik's F-tilt on Fox, or something equally inane.

Is this really going to be a repeat of the D3 ban thread?

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah all infinites should be banned but ledge stalling is not an infinite.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Incidently, rising pound is not an infinite.

Hence me asking if the posters here were aware of the properties of rising pound (yuna).

 

[Yuna]

There is an implication that there is a difference. If they were 100% the same, then there's no problem. They obviously have an important difference (lack of need for decision making). Sirlin notes that decision making (in his article about SSF2THDR) is the basis of competitive gaming. The logical conclusion is that something that is against decision making is also against competitive gaming. QED.

Don't strawman. You should know by now that I won't let it slide.

This is not what you argued. You argued that infinites are not combos. Prove that.

It effectively does. How long does it take for a grab to reach 300% (from 0%) under the infinites? Taking into account that D3's will take MUCH more time than the IC's, it still (even under the non-stalling rules we put in place) can easily run the match to the timer.

8 minutes for a single stock? Maybe in Delusion Land. All 3 stocks? Then we might be talking.

That's right. But WHY does "removing yourself from the field" matter? Because by doing so, the opponent has NO SAY in the outcome.

No, because by doing so, you're preventing the game from continuing. You are winning by simply preventing your opponent from doing anything.

At least if they're getting infinited, the game is continuing. Your damage goes up, you will eventually hit 300% (or whatever percent ICs need to KO you) and the infinite will end. Unless, of course, the timer runs out before that, but that can happen with any prolonged combo/chaingrab.

No matter what decision the opponent makes, he's still screwed. Now, what does that sound like? Infinites. Again, combos will end, maybe in death, maybe not. Infinites will not end, but if they do, it WILL be in death and there is NOTHING anyone can do about that.

They got hit by a combo. Suffer the consequences. And you cannot just magically start infinites from nothing, you need to actually hit people with the infinite-starter (a grab in most cases). With stalling tactics, all you need to do is get a lead.

Simply getting a lead as ICs won't magically win you the match. Getting the lead with someone who can infinitely stall will. The game just ended. With an infinite, the stock just ended.

Why can you not see the difference in these two things?

Just illustrating that the number is arbitrary. Also, that shows that one move = death. Not good.

Not good =/= Must be banned

Might as well just play RPS or flip a coin. (Or better yet, any other better fighting game )

Or just not play DK vs. D3.

Infinites are inherently "too good". They always end in death.

They are? Are ICs sweeping the nation?

How is that NOT too good?

Because if they were, we'd see ICs sweeping all tournaments since they are apparently, so friggin' good!

Even if the infinites are RIDICULOUSLY hard to set up (they aren't), someone will end up doing it and will contest tournament results because of it.

"They will contest tournament results because of it"?

Why take the chance when its REALLY EASY to just say "no infinites"? It's not hard. Jab locks are banned (here in TX, at least, and no TX jokes, please), and they are WAY harder to set up than a grab.

Yes, but then again, Texas is just filled with Scrubs. Because you guys banned Jab Locks. What kind of idiocy spawned that ban?

B ) If we can easily (and painlessly) do it (without losing anything, which we don't), then why not?

You're losing perfectly legit tactics/strategies/combos because of your own Scrubbinness.

C ) If the reason was "I don't like it!", you'd be right. It's not.

O RLY? You are unable to prove that infinites break the game, yet you keep claiming they must be banned, using flawed "facts". Maybe you just beleive in your own lies.

D ) That's like saying "I really wish there wasn't torture" and then not bringing a case of torture to the War Crimes tribunal because the guy wasn't "waterboarded enough".

BS logic. BS analogy. BS argument.

Debate all you want. I just don't think you've ever been through a debate without insulting someone.

People get insulted by the most innocuous things, like me claiming something they just said was illogical when it clearly is. Boo, friggin' hoo. Grow tougher skin.

Honestly don't think you can. I'd love to see you try that in a university Debate course.

I'd ace the friggin' course. Because I'm smart enough to play by the rules. I have yet to receive a single infraction for what I say and how I say it. Why? Because I know the rules and adhere to them. If I were to take a university debate course, I'd learn what is expected of me and what is required for me to get an A. And I'd just do it.

Again, they always end the same way: death. Who cares exactly when they end?

You claimed infinites never end. Stop making a claim, argue for it and then, when proven catastrophically wrong, try to change the **** subject. I'm not a run-of-the-mill SWF lemming. I will catch you and I will call you on it!

What matters is that they always can go on long enough to end in death, and there is NO action that the opponent can take to change that.

This was not your original argument.

It removes a player from the game, indefinitely (or close enough to indefinitely so that no choice the opponent makes has a difference. It's like a limit; once you get close enough to 0, you can just call it 0).

It removes one stock. It's the same thing as a 0-death combo. I suggest you crusade against those as well.

Again, ignoring anything past this point. I've already said I won't respond to it; why do you insist on bringing it up like a 3 year old having a tantrum?

Because you're not only saying you refuse to respond to it, you're repeatedly acting as if I've said things I never said and occasionally even adding new accusations to the mix. Instead of just admitting to being wrong, like, you know, a normal person.

 

[RDK]

Okay, so it's not like combos.It's an overcentralization/broken objection.

The tactic in no way overcentralizes the game. This is flat-out false.

Because that is an artificiality created by our imperfections. We are forced to change the game by adding a clock, as we know - shouldn't we try to reduce the reprceussions of this change as *much* as possible?

Absolutely not. This is the same exact mentality that people use when they p!ss and moan about changing every last matchup to give the sucky character an easier time.

Banning is used as a last resort, and only on things that actually matter. In the grand scheme of things, a single matchup does not matter. Sorry, but it doesn't.

So, just so I understand: we deal with all stalling/camping, no matter how good, right up to the point that it is unbeatable good... then have to ban?

You're confusing terms here.

Making yourself 100% unavailable to the opponent by actually taking your character offscreen or using some other glitch that prevents the match from continuing is bannable. Regular stalling? No.

People stall and camp all the time. Haven't you ever seen a Snake or a ROB play?

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

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Rephrase?

Two, there's a difference between stalling and camping. Playing from a defensive position =//= turtling. One is the maximization of defensive measures while attacking your opponent - a tactical choice. The other is not. I am quite sure that there are people here who are respecting this difference.

...so you're advocating that you should be forced to openly attack the opponent after being allowed to turtle for so long?

Isn't that one of those "arbitrary" thingies Keiser was talking about earlier? Oh yeah, it is.

. . . I just don't know what to say. I'd like to investigate... are there recordings, or just records, of what happened at events (of some game) where final brackets were decided through one player's successful stalling maneuver? Not what happened in-game, but things like reactions in the crowd?

This says nothing about the ban status of stalling in tournaments, but it does say something about it's practicality. If it was insanely beneficial, everyone would do it.

I'm concerned with if the game cannot continue, too. But to me what seems important is it should focus on what the player tries to do. The player shouldn't try to do things that prevent the match from continuing.

That's not trying to prevent the match from continuing indefinitely at all. We've already established what that means competitively. If you're for banning stalling, then you logically have to ban sheilding, airdodging, spotdodging, or every other defensive strategy in existence, because they all are basically ways to prevent your opponent from hitting you (stalling included).

The difference between all of those things and the things we listed as bannable is that the latter is actually taking away the ability of your opponent to react, since at that point you're virtually not able to be touched.

 

[cutter]

Honestly, I cannot wait any longer for the SBR to do their podcast on infinites

 

[Yuna]

Because that is an artificiality created by our imperfections. We are forced to change the game by adding a clock, as we know - shouldn't we try to reduce the reprceussions of this change as *much* as possible?

"We're forced to change the game"? What the hell does this even mean? That we originally played with no timer on but then added the timer? Wow, horrible, the rules changed.

Timers are perfectly legit staples of Competitive fighting games. So are wins by timeout. Deal.

It's considered an elementary and "obvious" philosophy in Magic tourneys that playing the clock is not playing the game.

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

You're there to defeat your opponent. You're there to make him lose. Bringing this other factor in to your gameplay is identified as cheating (since it allows you to win without the rules - of the game - saying you do).

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

So, just so I understand: we deal with all stalling/camping, no matter how good, right up to the point that it is unbeatable good... then have to ban?

I want it proven even theoretically to be unbeatable first before we friggin' ban it.

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

Then sucks to be those characters. Unless it:
1) Prevents the game from continuing indefinitely.
2) Removes one or both players from the field (same result as above)
3) Over-centralizes the metagame

There's no reason to ban it. Wow, it's really, really good against these few characters. Boo, friggin' hoo.

One, I don't think this is about 'boring'. There is a reason to want to stop stalling. I'm giving you those.

And I'm of the opinion that your proposed rules are bad.

Pointing to however many people who do have a stupid reason for saying something is not an argument against someone who gives a different reason for the same thing.
And there's more than one person here not giving that "stupid" version of this argument.

Pray tell, what reason do you have to want to ban all running of the clock? Besides BS MtG analogies.

Two, there's a difference between stalling and camping. Playing from a defensive position =//= turtling. One is the maximization of defensive measures while attacking your opponent - a tactical choice. The other is not. I am quite sure that there are people here who are respecting this difference.

What part of "All excessive stalling tactics/techniques which render you untouchable are already banned/will be banned when proven broken" and "Certain kinds of camping will run the clock out, thus, banning all running of the clock is not acceptable" (both having been stated, by me alone, repeatedly) was too Vietnamese cho mày hiêu'?

. . . I just don't know what to say. I'd like to investigate... are there recordings, or just records, of what happened at events (of some game) where final brackets were decided through one player's successful stalling maneuver? Not what happened in-game, but things like reactions in the crowd?

Should we care?

I'm concerned with if the game cannot continue, too. But to me what seems important is it should focus on what the player tries to do. The player shouldn't try to do things that prevent the match from continuing.

Anything that prevents the game from continuing (guaranteed) needs to be banned.

 

[pockyD]

the MTG analogy is stupid. MTG (unless some ridiculous new mechanics have been introduced since i stopped playing) is not a real-time game

 

[ColinJF]

There's an even better reason not to bring up Magic. Namely, the stalling rules in Magic are degenerate and a text book example of poorly designed competitive rules.

http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/PG_080901.pdf

Section 133, Magic's fantastic anti-stalling rule:
"Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaging in Slow Play. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Cheating — Stalling."

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

 

[WITH]

D3's infinite forces you to counterpick. Counterpicking is a staple in Competitive fighting games.

Counterpick Jiggs?

Because if they were, we'd see ICs sweeping all tournaments since they are apparently, so friggin' good!

Jiggs is sweeping all tournaments?

You see, you use different arguments when they suit you.

 

[illinialex24]

Counterpick Jiggs?

Jiggs is sweeping all tournaments?

You see, you use different arguments when they suit you.

I'm gonna try to get her to sweep some and she isn't as terrible as most people think, not even close.... She is not great though.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No one actually proved that rising pound stalling is banworthy.

You're the one equating Infinite Pound to various combos (infinites are just that, combos) which eventually end.

If rising pound was that, it would be banworthy. But it's not.

 

[aeghrur]

On the topic of Jiggs, I wanna see some vids illinialex, hopefully with you resting people out of their moves. :D

On the OPs topic, I'm not even gonna respond as it's kinda far from planking now, lol.

 

[illinialex24]

On the topic of Jiggs, I wanna see some vids illinialex, hopefully with you resting people out of their moves. :D

On the OPs topic, I'm not even gonna respond as it's kinda far from planking now, lol.

Wait until the next monthly . I will almost certainly have some stuff with that

 

[metaXzero]

I liked Eyada's proposal a few pages back. The community won't accept it (I'm pretty sure camping isn't such a problem where tournies are swept by people doing the Plank or something similar), but if it WERE a problem where running out the clock is such an attractive and problematic strategy, Eyada's proposal renders that useless while showing who's actually "playing to win".

Sorta sounds like my IDC unban proposal.....

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

There's an even better reason not to bring up Magic. Namely, the stalling rules in Magic are degenerate and a text book example of poorly designed competitive rules.

http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/PG_080901.pdf

Section 133, Magic's fantastic anti-stalling rule:
"Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaging in Slow Play. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Cheating — Stalling."

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KoSa!]

I believe if you are setting up a wall of bairs with Jiggs, or something than that's not stalling. Or on PS1 when the fire element or the earth element comes up and interrupts the fight and you are forced to either stay on the safe side or charge and get punished then that's not stalling. But if you do that Sonic infinite homing attack, then that's stalling. The idea of running from PT to induce fatigue is very interesting, if a wall is setup and PT can't penetrate(No Homo) it then that's really his/her fault. I don't see how stalling can take place in the maps that are legit, except PS1,Norfair,LM,Rainbow all to a point.

 

[Dekar173]

Put quite simply, if there is any question in your head over whether you're stalling or not, then you are in fact stalling.
If you're playing normally, and not worrying about stalling, then you're not stalling.

/thread

 

[illinialex24]

Put quite simply, if there is any question in your head over whether you're stalling or not, then you are in fact stalling.
If you're playing normally, and not worrying about stalling, then you're not stalling.

/thread

Probably the least informed post I have seen in this thread.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Somebody made a thread in the sonic boards, and i think it was related to this thread, and it made me realise something.

honestly, homing stall with sonic isnt broken, and really doesnt have a basis to be banned.
EDIT: alex's avi is ****

 

[metaXzero]

Put quite simply, if there is any question in your head over whether you're stalling or not, then you are in fact stalling.
If you're playing normally, and not worrying about stalling, then you're not stalling.

/thread

We can't see into players heads.

 

[illinialex24]

Somebody made a thread in the sonic boards, and i think it was related to this thread, and it made me realise something.

honestly, homing stall with sonic isnt broken, and really doesnt have a basis to be banned.

Depends, for a few characters and if the stage causes it to auto home in regardless of whether you spotdodge then yes it is fairly unfair. Otherwise, it should be allowed.

 

[da K.I.D.]

1. by play to win standards, screw other characters. just counter pick sonic with somebody who has a good projectile, or a glide attack.
2. no stage is small enough, for you to not be able to get out of his homing range.
3. even if you do get out of his range, it doesnt matter if you do it right. he can still homing stall with the right timing.

 

[Flamingo]

Stalling is gay.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I love stalling!

 

[Tenki]

On Sonic's HA stall, just because people have some kind of fear and idiocy about them that paralyzes their ability to be able to interpret when people are spamming or being serious on the Sonic boards.

-------------------------
Originally posted here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6507879#post6507879

is it usefull? Everytime I do it after a while the other guy runs too far away and sonic homes rigght to the bottem lol

Can't you just run away from the homing stall and then sonic plummets to his death? Or is this something different?

No.

If the Sonic is performing it correctly, it's done so it's a "delayed"/full-'charged' homing attack. The HA rises to the ceiling, and it will NOT fall. It will simply crawl along the ceiling.

Also, running away from the homing stall does NOT hurt the Sonic at all, unless he's trying to float off or screws up his timing.

Homing Attack

This is Sonic's most underrated and most committed move. It's quite obvious for people to airdodge when they see Sonic charging the Homing Attack. However, this is NOT always the best answer, depending on where you are.

...
Homing Stall
CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION... Going out of Sonic's range does NOT break his Homing Stall. In fact, it helps it. If noone is in range, the Homing Attack will bounce Sonic along the ceiling in the direction he's facing. If you ARE in range, it will move towards you, and after being under you, move left and right indefinitely. Easy way to get someone disqualified for stalling, or to make the Sonic player suicide in frustration.

Remember to drag him towards the center of the stage so he can't float towards the edge and spring back.​

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Browny]

how about, if HA stalling is banned, any form of stalling should be banned

 

[Natch]

I liked Eyada's proposal a few pages back. The community won't accept it (I'm pretty sure camping isn't such a problem where tournies are swept by people doing the Plank or something similar), but if it WERE a problem where running out the clock is such an attractive and problematic strategy, Eyada's proposal renders that useless while showing who's actually "playing to win".

Sorta sounds like my IDC unban proposal.....

Yeah.

It creates just as many problems. It's a rule where two people can screw each other over and then john about it to the TO later. It's a scrub rule is what it is.

Also, nice job throwing out that plug for your own scrub rule.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Yeah.

It creates just as many problems. It's a rule where two people can screw each other over and then john about it to the TO later. It's a scrub rule is what it is.

Also, nice job throwing out that plug for your own scrub rule.

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

 

[petrie911]

It creates just as many problems. It's a rule where two people can screw each other over and then john about it to the TO later. It's a scrub rule is what it is.

It doesn't create any problems that aren't already present in the system, and it's not like people aren't johning about stalling anyways (otherwise this topic wouldn't exist). Calling it a scrub rule is silly, as it just replaces one arbitrary rule with another. While it does change the viability of some tactics, any rule change invariably does that. It also has the nice advantage of clock running becoming a 100% losing strategy.

 

[Yuna]

Counterpick Jiggs?

This is not a solution. If the solution is "Counterpick Jiggs", Jiggs would be bannable.

Jiggs is sweeping all tournaments?

You see, you use different arguments when they suit you.

I see you cannot comprehend the fact that there are several reasons to ban things, something I have said, oh, at least 4 times in the past 2 pages alone.

In order to ban a character or a combo, they have to be "too good", over-centralizing, have no effective weapon and no solution besides "Play X character or lose".

However, specific tactics/techniques can be banned if they:
* Prevents competition/Prevents the game from continuing (Free Glitches, Glitches/techniques which remove one or both parties from the field, such as IDC and various stalling techniques)

There is more than one single criteria for banning. If you'd bothered to read my posts in their entirety instead of picking and choosing the ones you can "refute", you would know that.

If rising pound was that, it would be banworthy. But it's not.

It's a tactic whose only purpose is to stall the game, thus it is banned under the umbrella ban on stalling tactics. How many times must I repeat this before you, Jack Kaiser and WITH will comprehend plain English?

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

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

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

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

What? A poster comparing Magic the Gathering (and Yu-Gi-Oh) to Smash that actually makes sense and who shows insight into how Competitive Smash works?! Unheard of!

1. by play to win standards, screw other characters. just counter pick sonic with somebody who has a good projectile, or a glide attack.

By "Staples of Competitive gaming bans", "Prevents the match from continuing" overrides "Play to win". Also, rendering a vast majority of the cast unplayable =/= "Play to win" overrides it.

I've said this, oh, 29 or so times in this thread alone now.

 

[metaXzero]

Yeah.

It creates just as many problems. It's a rule where two people can screw each other over and then john about it to the TO later. It's a scrub rule is what it is.

Also, nice job throwing out that plug for your own scrub rule.

"Scrub rule"? Do you even have any idea what a scrub is?

The proposal makes stalling ineffective as a "playing to win" strategy in a non-arbitrary way. Those who stall anyway aren't playing to win. And people who just go out to tournys to run out the clock to be a douche will probably get banned from entering after a while.

And technically, YOU (and everyone else)are a scrub for having IDC banned on POSSIBLE brokeness and overcentralization (IDC stalling is not valid anymore).

 

[Yuna]

"Scrub rule"? Do you even have any idea what a scrub is?

The proposal makes stalling ineffective as a "playing to win" strategy in a non-arbitrary way. Those who stall anyway aren't playing to win. And people who just go out to tournys to run out the clock to be a douche will probably get banned from entering after a while.

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

And technically, YOU (and everyone else)are a scrub for having IDC banned on POSSIBLE brokeness and overcentralization (IDC stalling is not valid anymore).

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

 

[PK-ow!]

"We're forced to change the game"? What the hell does this even mean? That we originally played with no timer on but then added the timer? Wow, horrible, the rules changed.

Timers are perfectly legit staples of Competitive fighting games. So are wins by timeout. Deal.

Once again, I don't care about your argument from tradition.
It seems like what you want to do is show how the timer really is part of the system. It's something that we do want there - we explicitly want strategies of avoidance to feature in high-level play when applicable (e.g. Sonic running the **** away when he's up a stock and playing to trade down). I just haven't seen you show that. You've said

1) Competitive fighting does this, deal with it (argument from tradition)
2) Some kinds of things that count for what you're talking about are legit (begging the question)
3) If it breaks the game (actually or theoretically), it's banned, otherwise we don't.

So it looks like your best chance here is again to point up to the principle of conservative banning. We play the game as it allows itself to be played, ban what makes the game utterly trivial (unplayable, can't continue, or reducing choice to a single character/single tactic) where we need, and abandon the game if the bans you would need are unenforceable.

I just find it odd in a way, that I need a certain reason to accept, that, Planking say, is going to be allowed, unless and until it actually (or theoretically, you've lessened this point) shows itself unbeatably good. Where 'unbeatably good' takes value 'good to the point of overcentralization' (to characters who can beat the tactic, or, if none can assuming perfect execution, to the character who's best at it). The reason I am looking for is one that I need to be better than the principle of conservative banning (hereafter PCB), because it seems just as crucial to me as a rule against "prevents the game from continuing" or "removes one or more characters from play." And I'm looking for a way to explain my intuition, because all I can say right now is I'm at a loss why other's views are not naturally the same.


And no, no one has Planked me. This is not me being butthurt. This is me making sense of news from tourneys.

So, I suppose you've got the lead here now, but I am still looking for this intuition and am not ready to change view on this yet.

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

Okay I'll stop with Magic.

Then sucks to be those characters. Unless it:
1) Prevents the game from continuing indefinitely.
2) Removes one or both players from the field (same result as above)
3) Over-centralizes the metagame

There's no reason to ban it. Wow, it's really, really good against these few characters. Boo, friggin' hoo.

The situation posed was that it works against every character. And that it was "good enough" to eliminate all aggressive possibilities from the opponent.

And I'm of the opinion that your proposed rules are bad.

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

Pray tell, what reason do you have to want to ban all running of the clock? Besides BS MtG analogies.

It's not the MtG analogies, like I ran those to reach my attitude, but I suppose it might be a sense of what competition is, with which I have come from Magic.

Playing the timer is not what could happen ideally. If we had no tournament limitations, the fact of needing to actually win to, you know, win, would force a player to take an action. Both players, invested in ending the infinity, would go for the other's next stock. They would try to attack.
And then given that they're attacking, either they're not invulnerable and the game goes on, or they are invulnerable but thus implicating a tactic/move to be by other precepts clearly broken (for attacking while invulnerable, construed broadly, would cover the very definition of "broken tactic" - if you disagree it's just me not being clear and so I don't hold to this parenthetical point).

Back to the reality of time limits,

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

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

I can already see your reply coming: Run your own tourney. Yeah... when I can sponsor the first one through a loss.

What part of "All excessive stalling tactics/techniques which render you untouchable are already banned/will be banned when proven broken" and "Certain kinds of camping will run the clock out, thus, banning all running of the clock is not acceptable" (both having been stated, by me alone, repeatedly) was too Vietnamese cho mày hiêu'?

The first part is clear, but actually you might have me wrong on the second point. Camping is not running of the clock. Or rather, something, which I might have a name for because I don't call it stalling, and could fall with a lot of what you just meant by 'camping', is not running of the clock. Running of the clock is when the only thing you are "doing" is moving the timer down, and avoiding harm. If you are *at all* sending danger your opponent's way, then you're not playing the clock, since I can find something you are playing (your opponent). Camping, now I don't want to look a full fool* getting jargon wrong, but I'm going to say it's taking a defensive position. But not stalling. You may not be maximizing your possible KO reward, but you are, say, shooting arrows. Or throwing Waddle Doos. And this there can be no problem with that is non-scrubby, for sure.

*or %#$ misspelling words

(I have no idea why I'm putting this here)

 

[Ripple]

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


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

 

[choice_brawler]

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


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

This is for our own entertainment purposes though. Its better for the people in the match to win more so than put on a good show. At least i think thats what they have in mind. Its competitive gaming. This is like that whole honor thing that was posted a while back, that doesnt fly. As much as we may want things concepts such as these to be reason enough to avoid running out the clock and stalling, they're not. Not everyone that enters tourneys is gonna feel the same way, and heck they have the reason to. If they know they can win money by running around then there is no reason why that person should decide to do otherwise. Thats why we need to come up with a good way to handle this or decide whether or not it needs to be handled.