Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[mixa]

Great now I'll only get z-cancel results when I search my name

the fate of all hipsters

It's a 20 frame window.

last time i checked the discussion was like this (pink is me, blue is sangoku) so my guess is that your cheater keyboard is cheating
stop cheating the star king!!

 

[NovaSmash]

Um, it just seems like a pointless argument to me.

 

[clubbadubba]

Um, it just seems like a pointless argument to me.

100%. But I can't help who or what I love. Also, life is pointless. Did anyone else just get chills? Our entire lives have no more meaning than an argument about a game mechanic that is and always will be part of this game.

Also z-cancelling does add some depth due to some outlier type situations. I just think it makes more sense in general to have the outlier situations be the one's that require extra input. Meaning z-cancelling would cause lag to happen on landing (plus all other affects), not z-cancelling would have no lag.

 

[The Star King]

last time i checked the discussion was like this (pink is me, blue is sangoku) so my guess is that your cheater keyboard is cheating
stop cheating the star king!!

; _ ; I actually remember reading that, the 20 frame LIE was spread around for so long that it's hard to get rid of in my head, I must destroy it.

 

[NovaSmash]

100%. But I can't help who or what I love. Also, life is pointless. Did anyone else just get chills? Our entire lives have no more meaning than an argument about a game mechanic that is and always will be part of this game.

Also z-cancelling does add some depth due to some outlier type situations. I just think it makes more sense in general to have the outlier situations be the one's that require extra input. Meaning z-cancelling would cause lag to happen on landing (plus all oth ier affects), not z-cancelling would have no lag.

I didn't even say life is pointless just that argument is. Stop putting words in my mouth and blowing things out of proportion.

Is anyone on this forum capable of posting without being a sarcastic jacka$$?

 

[Sedda]

I'm sure he was just kidding Nova. Some people complain about us not having discussions about smash, so even thought this is the billionth time people have argued about Z cancelling, at least we're getting back into smash.

 

[Cobrevolution]

that isn't a WORD CLUBDAWG

being unfair to both participants is valid in my mind, and i will use that as a basis for my judgments

There is great reason that is a foul. It does affect the shot if a shooter thinks he is about to get hit. If it were legal, defenders would definitely do it all the time. Which seems to imply that defenders gain some advantage from it... and initiating contact that creates an advantage is the definition of a foul in basketball.

so a shooter thinks he's going to get hit and throws up a rainbow, and it clanks off the top and misses.

in this hypothetical first situation, there's contact, so he was right about getting hit, he read the contact correctly and altered his shot to compensate, which turned out to be the wrong choice, because he still missed, even though the contact didn't directly affect the shot; that is, its trajectory and direction were not physically changed. which, in my opinion, is what should constitute a foul for continuation or whatever.

in this hypothetical second situation, there's NO contact, so he was wrong about getting hit, he read the contact incorrectly and altered his shot to compensate, which turned out to be the wrong choice, because he still missed. there was nothing that happened for him to change the shot besides the fact that he thought he was going to be hit.

also, there are so many no-calls on that kind of stuff, and people will always cry (see: JOHN) about contact, because they know they can get the advantage from it (see: FLOPPING AND *******)

i understand having to let the shooter come down to the floor and not hitting bodies; that's obvious to prevent injury and is a somewhat aggressive-type foul. i'm fine with those.

but the mind of the shooter was affected by the presence of the defender and the defender's choice of movement - in both situations, the result was the same, but there was different contact (some and none). so why call it half the time and not the other (and they also get each call wrong often enough), when the end results are the same?

also, the last sentence of that quote - come on now, i hope they realize how absurd some of these contact rules are. they changed one of the rules wherein if the defender has his hands up and is stationary, and you swing your arms up and through the defender, you would get the contact/continuation call (a la brook lopez). that isn't called anymore.

and i hope they get rid of the foul that comes about when a guy is shooting, pump fakes, and the defender bites and tries to avoid contact but the offensive player jumps into him and shoots, and thus initiates contact and gets the call. wouldn't you say the offensive player is the one initiating contact and gaining advantage, and thus should be called for a foul?

 

[asianaussie]

i was skeptical when kero said in his poster tier list that clubba brings up sports all the time, but i think im starting to see it

 

[rjgbadger]

I have to be honest, this is probably why I like Z-canceling ; __ ;




That's the point though. Even when people are playing around and not trying 100%, you can still kinda see how good they are. Maybe not completely, but you still get a feel for how good they are at the game. Plus even if someone is playing someone that's not trying their best they are still getting an opinion on how they think that player is, so whats wrong with saying it? If anything that should show that person that they should go play them and prove them wrong.

Unless you have it bad with like everyone in the entire community, I think overall if there's enough people participating in the list making, they will get accurately represented. and then if not, so what if someone puts you lower than you think you are. Maybe play someone who put you there and record or go under a alias and do it, but don't just completely hide yourself from being mentioned.

If they don't like the community, then why would they care about what we think? Shouldn't they just ignore it and just keep doing their own thing? Also they wouldn't be here in the first place most likely. If someone only cares about cool/funny combos then why would they care AT ALL about where they place on an online COMPETITIVE tier list?

I just tried to give reasons as to why people wouldn't be interested in being included. I've met people on kaillera before that say they hate the way people in the server act, in and out of game, and these people are not always super notable players or alts, either. idk I just don't think one should be forced to be included in subjective rankings, but that's just me maybe,

 

[The Star King]

i was skeptical when kero said in his poster tier list that clubba brings up sports all the time, but i think im starting to see it

You didn't before? You blind son?

No seriously how were you skeptical lol, that doesn't make any sense

 

[clubbadubba]

I didn't even say life is pointless just that argument is. Stop putting words in my mouth and blowing things out of proportion.

Is anyone on this forum capable of posting without being a sarcastic jacka$$?

what? how did you take offense to that? I didn't say you said it, that's my opinion lol. Not being sarcastic at all.

Cobr:
Definition of a foul is someone initiating contact that gains a competitive advantage. Like I said, if you were allowed to do it, defenders would do it. Hence its advantageous and initiated contact, hence foul. There is literally no reason for the defender to even touch the offensive player. Not much wiggle room on this one. And the difference in your two scenarios is there is contact in one of them, that simple. No contact, no foul (unless you like pretend to punch somebody but pull up before you do, pretty sure that's a tech lol). I guess you're saying the definition is bad... I think its a pretty damn good way to cover everything single type of contact that can happen in a basketball game.

I'm not sure what rule change you are talking about. Verticality for defenders has been a rule ever since I've played organized basketball (which has been about 17 years). They had one year recently where it was a point of emphasis so there were a lot more no-calls if that's what you mean?

With the pump fake thing, it depends on the situation. If its super duper obvious that the offensive player is initiating the contact there will be no call, and you see this all the time. However, if the defender leaps out of control and is flying in a direction that will avoid contact with the offensive player, the offensive player is well within his right to beat that defender to the spot and allow himself to be hit by the defender which is a foul on the defender. If you fly out of control in basketball, you are risking a foul. Except with the new nonsense charge rules where once the player makes a, what is it, "move to the basket" you can no longer step in front of him and take a charge. Which I'll admit, is inconsistent with the rest of the fouls. But then again, charge calls have always been an anomaly compared to the rest of the fouls. That's really more to keep scores high to keep viewership high though, kind of like the NBA's old no/limited zone policy and the defensive 3 second ****, which is a whole other debacle.

 

[asianaussie]

You didn't before? You blind son?

No seriously how were you skeptical lol, that doesn't make any sense

i think i automatically ignore sport posts like how murikans autoignore anime posts

 

[Cobrevolution]

Definition of a foul is someone initiating contact that gains a competitive advantage. Like I said, if you were allowed to do it, defenders would do it. Hence its advantageous and initiated contact, hence foul. There is literally no reason for the defender to even touch the offensive player. Not much wiggle room on this one. And the difference in your two scenarios is there is contact in one of them, that simple. No contact, no foul (unless you like pretend to punch somebody but pull up before you do, pretty sure that's a tech lol). I guess you're saying the definition is bad... I think its a pretty damn good way to cover everything single type of contact that can happen in a basketball game.

well, the contact didn't affect anything in either situation, so i don't think you should be able to call a foul on something that didn't physically alter the shot (even though contact was made, the ball had already left his hand).

whether he got hit on the arm or not is moot, because the shot still missed in both cases, and there's no advantage, then, that comes with or without contact in the two situations...because the ball is out of his hands. obviously, if you hit his arm as he's pulling up, it's a foul; if you catch nothing but wrist on a layup as he's about to finger roll it, it's a foul; but if he let it go and it's on its way and you hit his hand and get a foul called on you, that's weak.

I'm not sure what rule change you are talking about. Verticality for defenders has been a rule ever since I've played organized basketball (which has been about 17 years). They had one year recently where it was a point of emphasis so there were a lot more no-calls if that's what you mean?

i know if you go straight up hands up as a defender you're good and shouldn't get called for a foul (despite that happening often still). but i mean you're faced up with someone, close to them, hands up, covering the airspace, and they swing their arms up through yours (that is, the offensive player initiates contact). that used to be called a defensive foul a lot, even though it was the offensive player swinging his arms up. then i guess they realized it's wack to blame the defender for something the offensive player initiated and stopped calling it.

If its super duper obvious that the offensive player is initiating the contact there will be no call, and you see this all the time. However, if the defender leaps out of control and is flying in a direction that will avoid contact with the offensive player, the offensive player is well within his right to beat that defender to the spot and allow himself to be hit by the defender which is a foul on the defender.

see, why? the defender is deliberately avoiding contact and the offensive player is deliberately initating it. why is it within his right to move to a position that will give him an obvious advantage? why is the offensive player allowed to initiate contact at a spot that he isn't and can avoid being near?

 

[M!nt]

^ The way you and mixa quote really drives me crazy lol

 

[clubbadubba]

with the hit after the shot:

If they stopped calling that foul, defenders would be allowed to hit after the shot. Do you think defenders would then hit shooters after the shot more often or less often or the same? If you say less often or the same, well I say you're wrong. If you say more often, I say you're right, and I say that proves that it gives defenders an advantage (why else would they do it more?). Defender has: 1)initiated contact 2) gained an advantage, so it must be a foul. That's really all there is to it. Subjective statements like "that's weak" don't bring anything to the discussion

Verticality:

Yea officials used to call this wrong all the time. The rule has not changed as far as I know. Defender is entitled to jump straight up and down or even backwards to defend a shot. They made it a point of emphasis lately, which resulted in a lot more correct calls, which is a good thing. But to be clear, this is not new, officials just went on a trend of calling it incorrectly. There are points of emphasis for officiating in NBA, NCAA, and even High School basketball each year to reverse such trends, verticality just so happend to be on of those one year.

Pump faking:

If it is clear that the offensive player initiated the contact against the defensive player, there should not be a call. It is true that too often the offensive player is given too much benefit of the doubt in this kind of scenario, but this is because officials are making bad calls, not because the rules are wrong. However, if the defensive player is moving in a non-vertical direction, it is very often the case that they are just as responsible for the contact as the offensive player. And when both are equally responsible, well you can bet its gonna go on the defense, which isn't so awful because when you think about it his advantage from contact is much greater than the offensive player's since controlling the ball through contact is an added difficulty for the offensive player. What you are saying is that because the offensive player is intended for contact to occur, that he is initiating the contact. This is not out initiating contact is defined in basketball. Intent plays no role in normal personal fouls whatsoever. All that matters is who was in position first, and who came into that position second, thereby invading previously occupied space. When contact occurs, its all about who occupied the space of the contact first.

Say a defender is at the middle of the foul line (point A) and the offender is at the top of the key (point B). Offender pump fakes, and the defender falls for it and jumps towards a point beside the offender (point C). Seeing the defender going to point C, the offender takes a dribble and gets to point C before the defender does (who right now is flying helplessly through the air), and then hoists up a shot as the defender comes crashing down on him. This is a foul on the defender because the offensive player was at point C first so it is HIS space. Just because the defender is flying helplessly towards point C does not mean that point C is his space. Nothing is your space until you physically occupy it.

Now, all that said, apparently these days offensive players can occupy giant lanes of space my making a move to the basket and plowing over everyone that wasn't set before they made their move. Which is pretty bull**** and counter-intuitive, but the NBA does love their offense.

 

[Shears]

Are we arguing z-cancelling or basketball foul rules? I'm confused.

 

[clubbadubba]

^^you're right, lets go back to timers/commies

 

[Shears]

Show me one anti-timer that isn't a closet communist.

Now that the 64 boards are a fascist police state with all these brawl mods oppressing us, I don't think its safe to have political discussions anymore.

 

[Sedda]

jeez and I thought the anime stuff was out of hand...

 

[clubbadubba]

you thought wrong you god damn commie

 

[Cobrevolution]

If they stopped calling that foul, defenders would be allowed to hit after the shot. Do you think defenders would then hit shooters after the shot more often or less often or the same? If you say less often or the same, well I say you're wrong. If you say more often, I say you're right, and I say that proves that it gives defenders an advantage (why else would they do it more?). Defender has: 1)initiated contact 2) gained an advantage, so it must be a foul. That's really all there is to it. Subjective statements like "that's weak" don't bring anything to the discussion

it should be a shooting foul if (and only if) the ball is still in the offensive player's hands. like you said, though, you could mimic a punch and get a t - same thing could apply here. if you deliberately aim for the hands and arm instead of the ball, foul. if you're going for the ball, ball is released, you miss ball, hit arm, shot is unchanged, no foul. because i don't think it should matter if a player believes he's going to be hit and changes his shot that the contact is what makes the shot change. it's the possibility of contact, and when and if it happens, you cannot blame it for the miss or the make.

Defender is entitled to jump straight up and down or even backwards to defend a shot.

in brook's case, i believe the defender never jumped at all, was just standing with his hands, while brook had the ball off a pass or something. so he'd get down low then just swing his arms up through the defender's and get the call. but they're calling it offensive foul now, which it is. i dunno if that has to do with verticality in the jumping sense or not?

However, if the defensive player is moving in a non-vertical direction, it is very often the case that they are just as responsible for the contact as the offensive player. And when both are equally responsible, well you can bet its gonna go on the defense, which isn't so awful because when you think about it his advantage from contact is much greater than the offensive player's since controlling the ball through contact is an added difficulty for the offensive player.

i think if you have the ability to avoid contact and intentionally seek it out, that's a foul against the perpetrator. so if someone catches a pass at the top of the 3 pt line and his defender takes two steps and jumps towards him as he pump fakes (at which point the defender tries to move away from the contact), he has two options: 1, he can jump up and shoot through it anyway or 2. dribble away. of course, if he's stuck and the defender jumps toward him and he can pivot away or in or something, he shouldn't have the ability to move where the defender is going and get a foul, so long as the defender is actively trying to avoid that from happening.

When contact occurs, its all about who occupied the space of the contact first.

i suppose that's what i disagree with. i notice that wayyy too many fouls are called against the defense and not nearly enough against the offense. the best option is, of course, to let people play like they did in the 80s and 90s. but that's just me...

Say a defender is at the middle of the foul line (point A) and the offender is at the top of the key (point B). Offender pump fakes, and the defender falls for it and jumps towards a point beside the offender (point C). Seeing the defender going to point C, the offender takes a dribble and gets to point C before the defender does (who right now is flying helplessly through the air), and then hoists up a shot as the defender comes crashing down on him. This is a foul on the defender because the offensive player was at point C first so it is HIS space. Just because the defender is flying helplessly towards point C does not mean that point C is his space. Nothing is your space until you physically occupy it.

Now, all that said, apparently these days offensive players can occupy giant lanes of space my making a move to the basket and plowing over everyone that wasn't set before they made their move. Which is pretty bull**** and counter-intuitive, but the NBA does love their offense.

your example is exactly what i'm referring to in my above response, which i pretty much disagree with. i guess it's the same thing when they talk about defenders who slide their feet to try to draw a charge.

 

[asianaussie]

So @ Shaya , d-frag is over, what shall our **** anime for next season be? I think one of the ones about NEETs will do nicely

 

[kys]

Just two quick comments, because I'm not reading/processing all of the points.

A defender can foul even if he's straight up because of side to side body contact.

When the hand is in contact with the ball, the hand is considered part of the ball.

Officiating basketball is hard as hell, so I give the refs a lot of slack.

 

[clubbadubba]

it should be a shooting foul if (and only if) the ball is still in the offensive player's hands. like you said, though, you could mimic a punch and get a t - same thing could apply here. if you deliberately aim for the hands and arm instead of the ball, foul. if you're going for the ball, ball is released, you miss ball, hit arm, shot is unchanged, no foul. because i don't think it should matter if a player believes he's going to be hit and changes his shot that the contact is what makes the shot change. it's the possibility of contact, and when and if it happens, you cannot blame it for the miss or the make.

So you are arguing what basketball rules according to cobr should be in a very specific instance? I guess I can't argue against your opinion, but I've explained 3 times now why it is a foul and why it is consistent with how the game is officiated as a whole. You seem to want to change a single instance so that it doesn't mesh with how the rest of the game is officiated, I don't see why that has any merit sorry.

in brook's case, i believe the defender never jumped at all, was just standing with his hands, while brook had the ball off a pass or something. so he'd get down low then just swing his arms up through the defender's and get the call. but they're calling it offensive foul now, which it is. i dunno if that has to do with verticality in the jumping sense or not?

sounds like the ref made a bad call. However, if the defender moved forwards/sideways at all during the contact he could be liable for the foul because it is considered that he also initiated the contact. A lot of defenders think they're straight up but move instinctively ever so slightly towards the ball on the shot, which results in a foul on them. Its tough to learn to do as a defender and a lot of players never learn ever at the pro level. That said, there are definitely lots of bad calls in situations like these..

i think if you have the ability to avoid contact and intentionally seek it out, that's a foul against the perpetrator. so if someone catches a pass at the top of the 3 pt line and his defender takes two steps and jumps towards him as he pump fakes (at which point the defender tries to move away from the contact), he has two options: 1, he can jump up and shoot through it anyway or 2. dribble away. of course, if he's stuck and the defender jumps toward him and he can pivot away or in or something, he shouldn't have the ability to move where the defender is going and get a foul, so long as the defender is actively trying to avoid that from happening.

Hmm I see what you're saying and I'm really just trying to show you why that doesn't mesh with the rest of basketball. Uh... hmmm...

You can't really start to use intent as a parameter for foul calls. If you did, no one would ever commit a foul except on breakaway layups. Fouls are almost always just the result of poor body control or of taking a poor angle. Players don't mean to commit fouls. When you call fouls in basketball, you should just imagine that every player on the floor is a crash dummy that is incapable of thought. And I know your opinion is against this, but that is how basketball is, and it makes sense.

Say instead of jumping out of control, the defensive player just runs full speed from point A to point C. Not a great basketball play sure, but for the sake of discussion imagine it. If the offensive player gets to point C first and the defender just keeps on running through point C, I bet you would agree that that it is a foul on the defender. But what you're saying is that if the defender is moving in the exact direction, except this time he is out of control of his body, suddenly he is immune to a foul call? This goes against the very spirit of the game of basketball. Basketball is about body control. Period. By giving an out of control player a pass on a foul call in a situation where being in control would give him a foul, you are rewarding a player for violating one of the most basic principles of basketball: losing body control. I understand that you could change that particular rule so that in that particular case "cobr calls what cobr wants," but if you do that, all of a sudden the rules when you put them together aren't a cohesive ruleset like they are now (with the exception of a charge).

Also, it would be pretty silly to give any defender who decides to jump out of control all of the space in front of him. Just doesn't make sense.


@ kys UCLA OVER FLORIDA GO HOME GATORS

 

[Shaya]

So @ Shaya , d-frag is over, what shall our **** anime for next season be? I think one of the ones about NEETs will do nicely

D-frag isn't ****, gtfo.
We already know what our actual **** anime of next season is going to be: DAL.

 

[Cobrevolution]

So you are arguing what basketball rules according to cobr should be in a very specific instance? I guess I can't argue against your opinion, but I've explained 3 times now why it is a foul and why it is consistent with how the game is officiated as a whole. You seem to want to change a single instance so that it doesn't mesh with how the rest of the game is officiated, I don't see why that has any merit sorry.

shrug. it's a simple thing for me. inasmuch as van gundy wants the charge to be removed and floppers to be fined 1 million dollars haha. there are people who don't think you should be able to take a half step. from my time spent playing in the park, i'm used to pretty much no fouls being called, and people still make shots with their hands being slapped and don't care and still win, even if someone is jumping into them. guess we're just on TWO DIFFERENT SIDES CLUBBA

When you call fouls in basketball, you should just imagine that every player on the floor is a crash dummy that is incapable of thought. And I know your opinion is against this, but that is how basketball is, and it makes sense.

that's cruel

Say instead of jumping out of control, the defensive player just runs full speed from point A to point C. Not a great basketball play sure, but for the sake of discussion imagine it. If the offensive player gets to point C first and the defender just keeps on running through point C, I bet you would agree that that it is a foul on the defender. But what you're saying is that if the defender is moving in the exact direction, except this time he is out of control of his body, suddenly he is immune to a foul call?

well, if homie is running to point C, why would the offensive player even want to be at that point? he would be better served being away from the defense at all times, right? but no, because free throws would be rewarded upon that foul taking place. and it's easier to make free throws than shots. and if the offensive player is purposely placing himself in a position to receive contact that the defensive player is purposely trying to avoid so as to put himself in a much more advantageous position (at the line vs on the floor)...well, that's what i scoff at, i suppose.

i don't like that the defender is constantly in the wrong if the offensive player can choose to not be at the contact space

and i'm not saying they should change all the rules to accomodate my preferences. i'm gonna watch it regardless. but there are always ways to improve the game, and i think most would agree that the nba was tougher two, three decades ago, with much more contact and physicality. which i think is more fun to watch, and hell, play.

 

[clubbadubba]

-if the offensive player has no right to step in front of the defender's path, then the defender has no right to step in front of the offensive player's path. And if that's the case, defense is literally impossible.

-You don't get to ask as the ref why player wants to go to point C lol. If he wants to go there, he can go there. It should never be the refs job to try and figure out a player's strategy. Maybe he really wanted to get there because it was the best angle to make a pass. If he gets there first, he owns that spot. Saying a spot actually belongs to a player who is 10 feet away is nonsense.

-the defender has lost his ability to "purposely avoid the foul" once he is airborne. At that point he has put himself at the mercy of physics. His decision to not attempt to avoid a foul was made as soon as he jumped, it was bad defense.

-The nba certainly had more contact decades ago. Mostly a lot more hand usage was allowed. They got rid of those rules precisely because they were losing ratings since people did not find it fun to watch.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

D-frag isn't ****, gtfo.
We already know what our actual **** anime of next season is going to be: the visual novel to anime adaptation ones (DMMD/sdr2)

fixed

also yeah sports talk

how cool would it be if michigan and michigan state faced off in the finals of college basketball, i feel somewhat prideful that my state knows how to dribble and shoot the ball better than other states

 

[ballin4life]

It actually does add depth: A person can to a edge cancel without doing a Z-Cancel.

(1) Probably means the non-z cancel hitboxes for stuff like kirby air attacks still come out
(2) Shiny green stuff comes out for things like link's dair

(1) alone adds depth.

Just the fact that some moves have less hitboxes when they are z canceled adds depth.

So your opinion is wrong.

Edge cancels would be very useful even with automatic z canceling. Also the fact that in some rare cases not z canceling an aerial can be useful (e.g. Jiggs dair) does add some depth. It's just not worth it at all for the 3 cases in the game where not z canceling is useful since in every other situation you ALWAYS want to z cancel. It would make far more sense for example to make it so that the default is automatic Z canceling and then you can press Z to get a laggier but slightly different attack.

Again Z canceling being in the game has reduced the player base significantly by needlessly making the game harder to learn and play. If you think that's worth it so that you can show off your amazing skill at pressing Z every time you hit the ground then I don't know what to say.

Oh yeah, people were asking why argue about something you can't change. Well besides the fact that 95% of our arguments are pretty pointless anyway, nowadays people are more and more able to make their own games where they can change stuff. So you have an example like Project M adding Z canceling back into a game - which is completely silly.


On basketball - if the offensive player initiates the contact it should be an offensive foul. I don't give a **** if the defender's feet weren't "set" - the fact that you can run directly into someone and it's a foul on them is just ridiculous. Happens all the time in pick up too where people just run directly into you and then try to call fouls on you. Also in particular college basketball this year is pretty unwatchable since you're not allowed to play any defense and games just wind up being a parade to the free throw line.

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

Again Z canceling being in the game has reduced the player base significantly by needlessly making the game harder to learn and play. If you think that's worth it so that you can show off your amazing skill at pressing Z every time you hit the ground then I don't know what to say.

You know, in brawl they took out z canceling. There is a bigger player base there, so I mean, you could always just play brawl.

 

[Vale]

I'm pretty sure playing more than one smash game is against the law.

 

[NovaSmash]

Again Z canceling being in the game has reduced the player base significantly by needlessly making the game harder to learn and play. If you think that's worth it so that you can show off your amazing skill at pressing Z every time you hit the ground then I don't know what to say.

So you're saying z cancelling has reduced the player base and made it harder to learn but then you also say, basically (in a sarcastic way) that z cancelling doesn't take much skill. You just contradicted yourself. It really only takes a week to get z cancelling down. If someone can't take the time to learn it....then I don't know what to say.

Also how in the world do you know z cancelling has significantly reduced the player base? Have you took a poll of 100 people and asked them why they don't play ssb64? Have ALOT of people told you they don't want to play ssb64 because they think z cancelling is so hard?

 

[ballin4life]

You know, in brawl they took out z canceling. There is a bigger player base there, so I mean, you could always just play brawl.

Ah, the good ol last resort of the Z canceling zealots.

I don't play brawl for reasons unrelated to the presence or absence of z canceling. Also, I already know how to z cancel quite well in smash64 so z canceling doesn't affect me much directly. It only affects me indirectly through the fact that fewer people play smash64 at all.

So you're saying z cancelling has reduced the player base and made it harder to learn but then you also say, basically (in a sarcastic way) that z cancelling doesn't take much skill. You just contradicted yourself. It really only takes a week to get z cancelling down. If someone can't take the time to learn it....then I don't know what to say.

So you want someone to spend a week practicing a non-interactive tech skill in a game in order to play it at the most basic level. That's certainly going to reduce your player base. Note though that my problem is NOT that you have practice technical skill - it's that you have to practice a technical skill that doesn't add anything to the actual strategy of the game. For example Shine canceling is technically difficult but actually does add to the strategy of the game since it is an option - not something you have to do every time.

The point is that it IS difficult for beginners, but it doesn't add any strategy for experts.

Also how in the world do you know z cancelling has significantly reduced the player base? Have you took a poll of 100 people and asked them why they don't play ssb64? Have ALOT of people told you they don't want to play ssb64 because they think z cancelling is so hard?

I personally know people that don't play smash64 any more and part of the reason is z canceling. I have friends that have other things to do besides practice Z cancels for a week so that I could even start teaching them how to really play.

 

[NovaSmash]

Uh, well I honestly can't say anything except that they shouldn't even bother playing ssb64 in the first place. It's not like you have to practice z cancelling 6 hours a day to get it down. If they don't have time to learn z cancelling then they won't have time to practice advanced moves either.

 

[Sedda]

Yeah, I know plenty of people who didn't keep up with the game at the very beginning because of Z cancelling.Obviously they're not going to keep up with the game, so saying that they shouldn't doesn't do anything for the Z cancelling argument.

It's just a bad mechanic, and I'll excuse it for the same reason fireblaster gave once: It's a very old game and it wasn't designed to be played the way we play it anyway. I keep playing it because I love it, but it boggles my mind that the Project M people did absolutely nothing to try to alter the mechanic to make it something good.

I hope that the guys working on the 64 mod for brawl (if they still are) come up with something like that. If not, might as well play 64 only.

 

[M!nt]

I think his argument is that of course people are going to expect to have to put time and effort into something advanced, but something that is basic and crucial to even play the game you shouldn't have to. I'm for z-cancels though because i'm a stuck up snob.

 

[NovaSmash]

All I'm saying is that complaining about z cancelling is the same as complaining that the sky is blue, never gonna change unless you call up Nintendo and ask them to make a ssb64 remake with no z cancelling so noobs can play it.

 

[prisonchild]

after skimming over the recent z canceling and basketball rule 'debates' I laughed a little inside at the thought of having z canceling in any of the 2K games. miss a z cancel when going for a rebound? trip and fall when you land.

also, jeff van gundy is a cretin.

 

[M!nt]

All I'm saying is that complaining about z cancelling is the same as complaining that the sky is blue, never gonna change unless you call up Nintendo and ask them to make a ssb64 remake with no z cancelling so noobs can play it.

Not really though because all that has to happen is a major tournament such as apex require a gameshark with auto z-cancels on. This is unlikely, but if they do eventually start enforcing stock timer than a gameshark would be a lot easier to use and they'd have it ready to have auto z-cancels on.

 

[NovaSmash]

Not really though because all that has to happen is a major tournament such as apex require a gameshark with auto z-cancels on. This is unlikely, but if they do eventually start enforcing stock timer than a gameshark would be a lot easier to use and they'd have it ready to have auto z-cancels on.

And I can guarantee that doing that will not make a major boost in attendance. Seriously, most of you people who want z cancelling gone are just bad players and think everyone is as bad as you and needs a crutch to get better at ssb64.