Should Planking (i.e. Ledgestalling) be Banned?

[XienZo]

Different every match, if some characters can fight it, but not others, then it's perfectly fine against the characters that can fight it.

If they can get back (assuming the opponent doesn't have a guarenteed KO against them), then it's not stalling, unless the deciding factor is random chance.

So wallbombing ISN'T quite banned? What if Link has to blow himself up to 150% in order to reach them? Is it still ok?

It can be if the character is physically incapable of imposing a hitbox on the opponent for the rest of the game once they begining this action (or doing so is a guarenteed stock loss, barring random chance) or preventing them from continuing to be in this state.

What if there is a huge range of possible positions for an opponent to be, like with gliding; ie everything below the stage? Do they have to be unable to cover ALL of the area, or is it if they are unable to cover ANY of the area? Is it legal to Pound Stall just within reach of Ivysaur's maximum reach razor leaf below the stage against an Ivysaur? What if you BARELY go outside it? Is it stalling?

 

[adumbrodeus]

So wallbombing ISN'T quite banned? What if Link has to blow himself up to 150% in order to reach them? Is it still ok?

Yes, still legal, would be a nigh impossible match-up in that case, but yes, it would be legal in that match-up.


The point is that it varies from match-up to match-up what consistutes stalling. If for example, for whatever reason... fox cannot ledge-hog marth when he's planking with up-b, making him able to have invincability frames forever, then that's tactic is stalling in that match-up.


This is especially noticable with chaingrabs like DDD's infinite (the difference being that "throw at 300%" is discrete and enforceable, allowing you to perform it up to that point, or at least the ban debate being not based around stalling), which are infinites against some characters, but not others.

What if there is a huge range of possible positions for an opponent to be, like with gliding; ie everything below the stage? Do they have to be unable to cover ALL of the area, or is it if they are unable to cover ANY of the area? Is it legal to Pound Stall just within reach of Ivysaur's maximum reach razor leaf below the stage against an Ivysaur? What if you BARELY go outside it? Is it stalling?

No, it's a question of whether it's possible to hit the person without them making a technical mistake (as opposed to a mistake in the prediction game) or prevent them from continuing the state under the same conditions.


And no it wouldn't be legal, because it's capable of going outside of the range of the razor leaf in a manner that is not enforcably different from the stall version in this match-up(same as with IDC).

 

[infomon]

By your logic, we can't ban Bridge of Eldin or Hyrule Temple because nobody has won a tournament because of it. In fact, no stages are eligible for ban by this criteria since you can't win a tournament based on picking those stages.

Well, that's not quite right. It can legitimately be decided (pretty early on) that the ability to circle camp makes a stage ban-worthy, and then it's a pretty trivial matter to conclude that Hyrule Temple allows circle-camping. Noone refutes that. However, the Brawl community is ban-happy in general and most TO's ban stages that have not been proven broken by many reasonable standards. This is sad, and you should help us protest premature-scrubbiness in all its forms.

The argument for BoE, iirc, is that high-level play will inevitably reduce to a single degenerate strategy. I'm not actually convinced of this, to be honest, and would love to see videos which prove its brokenness. But I'm not sure any exist. Note that "brokenness" would have to be demonstrated vs. most characters; but different people have different thresholds for how many characters get ruined by a tactic before it's ban-worthy... and my standards tend to be a bit stricter than others'. That is to say, I don't necessarily mind if people have to counterpick.

Anyway, srry this isn't the thread for this lol.

 

[Praxis]

Well, that's not quite right. It can legitimately be decided (pretty early on) that the ability to circle camp makes a stage ban-worthy, and then it's a pretty trivial matter to conclude that Hyrule Temple allows circle-camping. Noone refutes that. However, the Brawl community is ban-happy in general and most TO's ban stages that have not been proven broken by many reasonable standards. This is sad, and you should help us protest premature-scrubbiness in all its forms.

Oh, I agree, and I'm a strong proponent of Green Greens as a legal tournament stage xD It's legal in WA and Texas IIRC.

The argument for BoE, iirc, is that high-level play will inevitably reduce to a single degenerate strategy. I'm not actually convinced of this, to be honest, and would love to see videos which prove its brokenness. But I'm not sure any exist. Note that "brokenness" would have to be demonstrated vs. most characters; but different people have different thresholds for how many characters get ruined by a tactic before it's ban-worthy... and my standards tend to be a bit stricter than others'. That is to say, I don't necessarily mind if people have to counterpick.

Anyway, srry this isn't the thread for this lol.

My point is that we CAN ban things based on theory without widespread abuse of it prior. Planking is already an evident problem in SoCal; do people have to be planking to win regional tournament finals before it gets accepted as a problem? Scratch that- I've SEEN someone win a semifinals through planking.



Has anyone here actually read David Sirlin's "Playing to Win"?

"A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted. "

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it. In a fighting game, a trick might make a move invulnerable that shouldn’t be, but actually detecting every time the trick is used might be nearly impossible. Or consider a real-time strategy game, where a trick might give your units a few more hit points than normal, but again, detecting this might be nearly impossible in a real game. If something is to be banned from tournament play, it must be reasonably easy to identify when it happens or to prevent it from ever happening at all.

Also in a fighting game, a move might be “unfairly” unblockable, but only when that move is executed in a certain situation with precise 1/60th of a second timing. Did the player execute it during that “unfair” time window? Or 1/60th of a second late? Perhaps he accidentally executed the move at the unfair time through sheer luck. Is he to be penalized? Imagine trying to enforce a rule that states “You may usually use move X, but there’s 1/60th of a second where you may not use move X.”

Discrete

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

Warranted

Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

A bug that gives players a small advantage does not warrant a ban. In fact, it’s common. Many players don’t even realize they are using bugs, but instead view them as “advanced tactics.” Even bugs that have a huge effect on gameplay are usually not warranted to be banned. The game may change with the new tactic, but games are resilient and there tend to be countermeasures (sometimes other bugs) to almost everything.

In the fighting game Street Fighter Alpha 2, there is a bug that allows the player to activate a very damaging move (called “Custom Combo”) against an opponent who is standing up (not crouching). The designers surely intended a standing opponent to be able to crouch and block this move upon seeing it, but if executed correctly, he cannot. It has a huge impact on the way the game is played (standing up is now quite dangerous), but there is still an excellent game left even after this technique is known. At first glance, one might think that attacking is too dangerous because it usually involves standing up. Closer examination shows that the attacker can stick out moves to knock the defender out of his Custom Combo, should he try it. Basically, the bug can be dealt with. This game-changing tactic is referred to by players as the “Valle CC” after its inventor, Alex Valle (more on him later).

Is banning planking enforceable and discrete?
IMO, the ledge grab rule solves this. Implement it and there's no question. If the time ran out, check the edge grabs and compare to the limit. There you go.

Banning planking in any other way is simply not discrete. You can't really determine if the player is planking and prove it to a judge without allowing personal bias to seep in, nor can you even really define if the player is planking or not.

The edge grab rule solves all of this. Simply implement a ledge grab rule and call it good.

The only thing worth debating is whether or not the ledge grab rule is warranted. I've seen matches where both players planked each other (first person to get a hit runs to the ledge and planks until the match ends). They went this way for an entire set, with the third round starting off with neither players approaching and just standing there. Nobody could talk either players into approaching, and finally in the last minute of the match one of the players tried to attack, missed, got punished and the other planked him till the end.

Not even exaggurating that. Then there's always DSF vs FICTION, in winners semi's at a major 150-man tournament, as evidence of it as a major factor in tournaments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-kmLXBWsVo

 

[AvaricePanda]

Praxis, in that example, DSF didn't really win by planking. He only got one stock out of it, and Fiction made a mistake. DSF was just playing defensively in general. It was a factor of the game, yes, but it wasn't major.

And there are problems with the ledge-grab rule. The MK or whoever's planking doesn't have to constantly regrab and refresh his invincibility frames when the opponent isn't approaching and is just twiddling his thumbs. He only has to when the opponent approaches, which is generally when people get gimped from planking anyway.

This means that characters that already struggle with planking, like Falco, still struggle from it, and the rule doesn't help them at all. Falco can still be beat by planking because he has to approach to make the MK regrab, and the only way the MK can break the rule is if the Falco keeps taking a ton of damage. Either way, the Falco loses, ledge-grab rule or no ledge-grab rule.

Plus, a tactic like this should really be researched more heavily. We need to know how many characters can breeze past planking/can defeat it with difficulty/go neutral/get ***** by planking. Hardly any character boards with at least some at-first-glance trouble with planking has brought the issue up.

 

[infomon]

Hmmm. The "ledge grab rule" isn't exactly discrete. It may mean we're banning "planking the entirety of a match", but meanwhile we assert that "planking the last 3 minutes" is fine? (Since that may (idk how the actual numbers work out) give them enough time to grab as much as they want if they didn't plank in the first stock or two.)

I'm glad you gave me a video example of planking, tho; I think videos are one of the only serious ways we can move forward with legitimately debating how warranted the ban is. In that vid, tbh it looks like either Wario made some serious mistakes at critical moments (two in particular). But I don't really know much about the matchup. Do Warios generally feel like approaching a planking MK is too risky? How does the charge of their waft affect the odds?

Edit: Avarice basically beat me to it lol. btw Praxis that was a really good post.

 

[Bellioes]

Praxis, in that example, DSF didn't really win by planking. He only got one stock out of it, and Fiction made a mistake. DSF was just playing defensively in general. It was a factor of the game, yes, but it wasn't major.

And there are problems with the ledge-grab rule. The MK or whoever's planking doesn't have to constantly regrab and refresh his invincibility frames when the opponent isn't approaching and is just twiddling his thumbs. He only has to when the opponent approaches, which is generally when people get gimped from planking anyway.

This means that characters that already struggle with planking, like Falco, still struggle from it, and the rule doesn't help them at all. Falco can still be beat by planking because he has to approach to make the MK regrab, and the only way the MK can break the rule is if the Falco keeps taking a ton of damage. Either way, the Falco loses, ledge-grab rule or no ledge-grab rule.

Plus, a tactic like this should really be researched more heavily. We need to know how many characters can breeze past planking/can defeat it with difficulty/go neutral/get ***** by planking. Hardly any character boards with at least some at-first-glance trouble with planking has brought the issue up.

This is so true. I am very strongly against planking but there isnt really a concrete way to ban it cause theres no, as Praxis said, discrete definition. We cant just say 'Planking is banned' cause the definition of Planking can take on different degrees depending on the person. One person could say planking is staying on or near the ledge for more than half the match another could say it means not approaching while avoiding all attempts to approach by the opponent. Its hard to say whos right and whos wrong. And any rule implemented with the goal of preventing people from planking is probably gonna have a weakness that people will in one way or another exploit. There will always be a way to circumvent said rule.

 

[Praxis]

Hmmm. The "ledge grab rule" isn't exactly discrete.

It is if you look at it outside the context of planking. We're not banning planking. We're instituting a ledge grab rule. The edge grab rule will be enforceable and discrete.

It doesn't actually stop planking 100% (indeed, you are right, using the edge grab rule to stop planking would not be discrete as players will simply plank to the extent of the limit), but it will certainly reduce the viability of it. It at least prevents a player from planking the ENTIRE match after the first hit (something I've witnessed).

So yes, if we instituted a ledge grab rule, we'd have to say "planking the last 3 minutes" is fine (assuming we allowed enough ledge grabs for that). No leeway, either you pass the limit or you do not. The rules would list the ledge grab rule, NOT a ban on planking.

Also, if you want another video, the classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRs10GVwvg

And thanks ^_^

 

[AvaricePanda]

He didn't run out the time.

Although yes I agree somewhat. I realize it won't allow for planking the entire match, but the thing is, it still allows for planking. Meaning people still need to experiment with what their character can do against planking, seeing as how many people haven't and planking would still be a problem with those characters bad against it.

 

[XienZo]

And there are problems with the ledge-grab rule. The MK or whoever's planking doesn't have to constantly regrab and refresh his invincibility frames when the opponent isn't approaching and is just twiddling his thumbs. He only has to when the opponent approaches, which is generally when people get gimped from planking anyway.

This means that characters that already struggle with planking, like Falco, still struggle from it, and the rule doesn't help them at all. Falco can still be beat by planking because he has to approach to make the MK regrab, and the only way the MK can break the rule is if the Falco keeps taking a ton of damage. Either way, the Falco loses, ledge-grab rule or no ledge-grab rule.

Its not supposed to help Falco. If it did, the rule would be faulty; MK is just exploiting the fact that Falco can't hit things under the stage well. It has little to do with stalling; if the time limit was one hour, Falco would still get screwed over.

On the other hand, ICs or Wario or MK's fight against a planker WOULD change if the time limit was changed, since people plank them to stall for time.

The problem isn't that MK will gimp you. If you lose a stock to planking, thats not stalling. The problem is that with his superior aerials, he'll immediatly damage you the same amount you managed to damage him to dislodge him, and then escape to another ledge/knock you away.

 

[infomon]

Heh. Praxis, I actually find the "classic" plank video does nothing to suggest that planking merits a ban. The MK experimented with planking from the get-go and was taken to mid-percent last-stock, and capitalized on many of Falco's errors to win the match.

XienZo makes me wonder why anybody's intent on banning planking.... when planking might very well be what everyone was hoping for when the "ban MK" campaign was in force. Planking might finally prove that MK is broken and ban-worthy and then many of us would (supposedly) be happier in a (supposedly) more diverse metagame. Yay! I guess I'm just surprised that ppl would rush to ban planking instead of just rushing to ban MK

I've always said I don't think either should be banned, and I hope this doesn't make ppl rush even quicker to the conclusion that either should be banned lol I'm just sayin'

 

[Praxis]

Banning planking is a stopgap.

I'd much rather ban MK and never touch the edgegrab rule than enforce a edgegrab rule.
:3

And I do agree that we're too banhappy. Weren't people clamoring for a ban on infinites a while back? That violates all the Sirlin principles; you can't enforce it, Dedede'll just small step CG you for 100%. Ban that, then you're talking about banning walking and grabbing but not running and grabbing, which is a ridiculous thing to ban. But that's a different argument altogether.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

*sigh

Samus, Link, Young Link, Pikachu, Pichu, Jiggs, Kirby, Ness, Mewtwo, Peach, Ice Climbers, Yoshi?.

Projectile =/= ability to hit that peach.

 

[1048576]

The projectle crawls along the stage wall, so when Peach rams her *** into it, she gets shocked.

Ice Climbers can fall down and then use their squall hammer to hit peach and reach the stage. Dual squall hammer goes really high. You can survive after going to the magnifying glass at the bottom of FD.

 

[XienZo]

And I do agree that we're too banhappy. Weren't people clamoring for a ban on infinites a while back? That violates all the Sirlin principles; you can't enforce it, Dedede'll just small step CG you for 100%. Ban that, then you're talking about banning walking and grabbing but not running and grabbing, which is a ridiculous thing to ban. But that's a different argument altogether.

I think that if you take a small step, you miss the infinite. You can only have an infinite if you buffer a regrab, and a regular CG if you run. You don't have in-betweens; it'd be too slow for infinite and too short of reach for a regular CG. Its actually more of a black-and-white kind of thing.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Praxis your videos prove nothing, I'm pretty sure even SK himself said to some extent that it was like, a winnable match.

"why are people still complaining about this video???????????????????
Its been 4 months lator after i play plank and people still complain?

come on now."

Stop with this bull ****, he didn't even run out the time.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

The projectle crawls along the stage wall, so when Peach rams her *** into it, she gets shocked.

Ice Climbers can fall down and then use their squall hammer to hit peach and reach the stage. Dual squall hammer goes really high. You can survive after going to the magnifying glass at the bottom of FD.

I don't think it goes far enough... I'm not sure about the squall hammer... video evidence or something? I wasn't too into melee.

 

[Ice_smash]

It is if you look at it outside the context of planking. We're not banning planking. We're instituting a ledge grab rule. The edge grab rule will be enforceable and discrete.

Praxis, how can one look at the ledge grab rule outside the context of planking? Outside the context of planking, there is absolutely no reason to institute a ledge grab rule. The reason people are proposing a ledge grab rule is to prevent planking. Using Sirlin's camping example, a time limit (on camping) is perfectly enforceable and discrete, outside the context of camping.

It doesn't actually stop planking 100% (indeed, you are right, using the edge grab rule to stop planking would not be discrete as players will simply plank to the extent of the limit), but it will certainly reduce the viability of it. It at least prevents a player from planking the ENTIRE match after the first hit (something I've witnessed).

The exact same thing can be said for camping in Sirlin's example, which, as I think you would agree, shouldn't be limited by some arbitrary time limit.

So yes, if we instituted a ledge grab rule, we'd have to say "planking the last 3 minutes" is fine (assuming we allowed enough ledge grabs for that). No leeway, either you pass the limit or you do not. The rules would list the ledge grab rule, NOT a ban on planking.

Again, in an argument for instituting a time limit on camping, "either you pass the limit or you do not."

It's not the limit that should be "enforceable and discrete," but the actual thing to be banned. A ban on planking is definitely not discrete.

 

[Popertop]

imho, talking about it doesn't really do anything.
now is the time for action.
you implement the rule and see it's results, or you don't do anything and see what happens.

srsly.

 

[Dekar173]

Haha poptart had like 160 ledge grabs at whobo, silly bastage ;p

As for planking, it's called planking for a reason: because it's very very gay. Ban it, holy snappers.

 

[Maniclysane]

Haha poptart had like 160 ledge grabs at whobo, silly bastage ;p

As for planking, it's called planking for a reason: because it's very very gay. Ban it, holy snappers.

Because being gay is totally the criteria needed to ban something.

I think winning is gay.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Because being gay is totally the criteria needed to ban something.

I think winning is gay.

I love you.

Anyone who wants to ban it solely for being lame is a fool and shouldn't be in competitive gaming. No exceptions.

 

[aeghrur]

Hm, 73%(addition of first 2 choices that are pro-ban) basically want planking banned.
Sigh, Brawl community disappoints me.
Especially after reading that elitist/arrogant crap between dekar, inui, atomsk, and spadefox. >_>
But Fizzy's sig is still cool. :D

 

[Orange_Soda_Man]

Anyone who wants to ban it solely for being lame is a fool and shouldn't be in competitive gaming. No exceptions.

Do you concede that there are other reasons to fix planking then? Otherwise you're axing off 73% of SWF.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Hm, 73%(addition of first 2 choices that are pro-ban) basically want planking banned.
Sigh, Brawl community disappoints me.
Especially after reading that elitist/arrogant crap between dekar, inui, atomsk, and spadefox. >_>
But Fizzy's sig is still cool. :D

The problem is many, if not most, of the voters are barely even a part of the Brawl community.
Ignorant fad voting has a lot to do with it.

 

[1048576]

Or amybe its because it's stalling akin to wallbombing. Nah, couldn't be. Everyone except you must just be an idiot.

 

[AvaricePanda]

...or, for like the 10th time I suggested, character boards actually DO something about it. They actually bring up the issue of planking instead of people bawwing about how "it's broken it's stalling ban it!"

Again, it's a tactic that quite a bit of characters can get past, and quite a bit more could have an easier time of doing if they actually tried. It's a tactic where top pros, such as Azen, can easily beat it. It's a tactic that isn't stalling because you can still hit the person planking (I don't see why this keeps getting brought up). The question is, does it force someone into too disadvantageous of a situation for it to be allowed in tournaments? Since a lot of people haven't taken the time to actually experiment yet, this answer isn't known (although as of now, I'd suppose it's no).

 

[XienZo]

Anyone who wants to ban it solely for being lame is a fool and shouldn't be in competitive gaming. No exceptions.

Well, there IS smogon who banned Wobbufett since he was boring, not because he broke the game.

Although its interesting that the community seemed to be perfectly fine afterwards, so I wonder...

 

[Praxis]

How's this argument?

Wario is MK's closest thing to an even matchup. Planking horribly skews this.

Two options here:
Ban planking...or ban MK, because with planking legal, he is completely unchecked whatsoever.

I'd prefer the latter, actually. It's more discretely enforceable

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well, there IS smogon who banned Wobbufett since he was boring, not because he broke the game.

Although its interesting that the community seemed to be perfectly fine afterwards, so I wonder...

...

No.

Wobbafett is not currently banned.


That shows a poor understanding of the pokemon metagame works.


Pokemon doesn't ban pokemon (with one notable exception), instead it sends them to a different metagame.

Basically there are these tiers:

Ubers
Overused
Boarderline
Underused
Neverused

Out of that there are 4 metagames.

Ubers
Overused
Underused
Neverused

In each metagame, you are allowed to use pokemon up to and below the tier that the metagame is named for.


Why? Because it was recognized that pretty much any of the members of the higher tiers, when introduced to the tier lower, overcentralize the metagame tremendiously, and the game becomes "play a counter to this, or lose" and there's not enough counters within the tier to avoid removing a massive chunk of the tier from viability.

What this basically came down to is that there were only a very select few viable pokemon (aka, the ubers and a small number of others). In other words, 3 or so pokemon were effectively viable with the rest being basically cannon fodder, creating tremendous overcentralization.


However, it was noticed that within it's own tier, pretty much any pokemon could compete.

So seperate metagames were formed, and this allowed a robust and viable metagame in spite of the fact that there was a very select few pokemon that were viable when compared to the whole.


Now then, the one ban, it was because of an unexpected interaction between powers that basically stalled out the game. I other words, a totally defensive pokemon had to use up all their pp to attack, and the pokemon in question has very strong hp and defensive stats, basically stalling out the game.

This was wobbafett, during the previous generation he was banned because his power had this effect.

However, when two wobbafetts face off in this generation, they can switch out, ending the stalemate, thus wobbafett is not banned anymore.


But... against almost any OU or under pokemon, against Wobbafett the best possible result is both are KO'd, thus he's definitely an uber.


So, wobbafett was once banned because he created a stalemate situation, but not anymore.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Do you concede that there are other reasons to fix planking then? Otherwise you're axing off 73% of SWF.

I only mentioned people who want it banned because they are scrubs, I've been arguing other things for quite a while, I know there are other reasons. >_>

 

[XienZo]

...
So, wobbafett was once banned because he created a stalemate situation, but not anymore.

Ubers IS the banned list. Wobba was on Uber last gen too, regardless of the glitch. Uber tier is NOT supposed to be balanced; it is simply all the Pokemon that were unbalanced in Standard thrown in there. If a Pokemon is broken in Ubers, it isn't banned; that would create a "banned" tier above ubers, and what if they had a broken pokemon there?

Furthermore, the point was, most people noted Wobba wasn't over-centralizing in the test period in standard, but he was still banned by popular vote.

 

[Popertop]

Haha poptart had like 160 ledge grabs at whobo, silly bastage ;p

As for planking, it's called planking for a reason: because it's very very gay. Ban it, holy snappers.

it was very silly.

the timer was on 8 minutes, so that gave me like forty extra ledge grabs.

we should have played more friendlies

I only mentioned people who want it banned because they are scrubs, I've been arguing other things for quite a while, I know there are other reasons. >_>

you should come down to Texas sometime

 

[Popertop]

ignore ....

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ubers IS the banned list. Wobba was on Uber last gen too, regardless of the glitch. Uber tier is NOT supposed to be balanced; it is simply all the Pokemon that were unbalanced in Standard thrown in there. If a Pokemon is broken in Ubers, it isn't banned; that would create a "banned" tier above ubers, and what if they had a broken pokemon there?

Furthermore, the point was, most people noted Wobba wasn't over-centralizing in the test period in standard, but he was still banned by popular vote.

Heh, no. There are plenty of pokemon banned from UU that are legal in OU, are you suggesting that OU pokemon are banned from pokemon too?

The fact is, the community was smart enough to create a mechanism for people to be able to play teams at every tier of the game, including stuff that was obviously ban-worthy in the standard game, as well as stuff that could not possibly be viable in the normal metagame.


No then, wobbafett might have not been immediately overcentralizing, but the lock he created was more then enough to break the game effectively speaking. In D/P/P he's certainly not balanced for OU as I remember, so he stayed in Ubers.

 

[XienZo]

Heh, no. There are plenty of pokemon banned from UU that are legal in OU, are you suggesting that OU pokemon are banned from pokemon too?

It only applies at the top tier, since you can dump broken OU Pokemon to Uber, but at the point where you get into a handful-of-character Uber tier, you can't dump broken pokemon into the tier above it. Thats why there's no borderline between Uber and OU; its banned or not banned.

Ubers is NOT designed to be balanced. I don't think there's any major person in the Pokemon community that says otherwise; thats where I hear it from all the time.

The fact is, the community was smart enough to create a mechanism for people to be able to play teams at every tier of the game, including stuff that was obviously ban-worthy in the standard game, as well as stuff that could not possibly be viable in the normal metagame.

Of course, but the Uber tier is more centralized (or rather, has more % of unviables) than the others.

No then, wobbafett might have not been immediately overcentralizing, but the lock he created was more then enough to break the game effectively speaking. In D/P/P he's certainly not balanced for OU as I remember, so he stayed in Ubers.

I meant in D/P/Pt, he was shown NOT to be unbalanced for OU. I think he it may have been due to the far more offensive metagame, but I recall Wobba not being gamebreaking during the test period.

 

[MajinSweet]

How's this argument?

Wario is MK's closest thing to an even matchup. Planking horribly skews this.

Two options here:
Ban planking...or ban MK, because with planking legal, he is completely unchecked whatsoever.

I'd prefer the latter, actually. It's more discretely enforceable

And what about Snake or Diddy? Last I heard they have decent match ups on MetaKnight. And they both have safe ways to fight off planking. Then again, that would require actual effort, it would be much easier to just ban everything.

 

[GwJ]

But we shouldn't have to choose 2 out of the 38 different characters if we want to beat one character. If we ban planking, we won't have to limit ourselves to such an extreme as to remove about 94% of the cast.

 

[Myre]

A good bait game will always win everything. If you are two steps ahead of your opponent in the match, then it is impossible to lose, because that is pretty much the definition of winning.

Example:

MK starts planking. You're all, "Omg, planker. >.<"
You try to approach, but you get knocked back. Well, that didn't work.
So now you try to approach again. You could either
A) Try to attack again
B) Pull back and let MK whiff or hit your shield or whatever you've decided to bait with.
If MK suspects you're going to do the first one, he's going to counter you and hit you again.
If he suspects you're going to do the second one, he's just going to keep planking.
What you have to do is mix it up enough and do it convincingly enough to make him guess wrong. After one or two or three, if he's being stubborn, times of successfully hitting him, he'll get the point and stop. Then you go on with the match from there.

I vote against banning it. I believe that everything in our power should be done to keep from banning anything. There is a solution to this. Maybe even multiple solutions. One of them is simply working on your baiting game.

Every match of Smash is based on adaptation; you adapt to the situation and work from there. The person who adapts the fastest and most skillfully will win. Try to get out of the mindset of, "He's out of my range of attack," and into the mindset of, "How do I bring him into my range of attack?"

 

[BibulousDan]

I think we are being a little nit picky here. I mean in the video Falco did get him out of it on many occasions. I think that we are just looking for things to complain about frankly.