How can character A's attack make character B win?
It's silly.
Link's Bomb.
Snake's Grenade.
I know you probly thought of that a couple minutes after posting, but left it up like a man.
Well good for you. Almost as manly as Ganon.
My point is that, looking at all of the other suicide moves, Ganoncide's programming is obviously faulty. And even if you disagree (despite the evidence), the SBR is a committee of the "top minds" in the Brawl community. Why would they blindly follow programming that is likely faulty, instead of getting together like the committee they are and decide whether it is faulty or not?
Ganonciding/other suicide moves may not be AS game-breaking as infinite dimensional cape, but it is still game-breaking for a few specific characters, especially considering the fact they had to make a rule about it in the official ruleset. And I'm pretty appalled that they made the rule without ANY exploration or rational, logical comparison of the suicide moves.
Instead, they just opted for "we don't know the developer's intent, so we're going to ignore all of the evidence and follow obviously faulty programming."
Because glitches are never banned for being glitches.
Glitches are the source of some of the greatest exploits a fighter game offers to its meta game.
No one cares what the intent is. Ever. If the game functions, we can play it. If developers produce a forced patch (say,
Soul Calibur IV's 1.03), well, you bite it. If not, you take the game and you push it to its limits. You do that by not giving in to whining, or persuasion of any kind, on ANY point, no matter what, until the choice being faced is at the stakes of "this game is not playable" or "this game ceases to be competition."
You do this for two reasons. One, to defend the height of the meta, always pushing for the highest exploits. Well ah, you think, a rule about Ganonciding has little to do with this. You'd be right, I'll give that to you. But there's another reason. That reason is, Two, about keeping us all playing the same game. A divided community is just many separate games. They are as
Tekken and
TvC, as far as that pushing of the meta is concerned. Those arguments, however well we draw up the framework for evaluating the persuasions, will not be evaluated by the masses with critical detachment and rationality. It will be a free-for-all of choice.
And this will damage all the games. You can only take the height to its limit in so many games at once, being Human. The player pool will actually split, and the effect of the split will be sharper as you check higher echelons of actual ability. At the highest levels, where players must commit to knowing one system (within a similarity sphere of systems, that other games coming from truly separate origins easily escape) to be indeed high level players, they must all either stick to one of these game versions (
making the other versions moot, because the competition isn't there)... or face a brittle environment/meta in each one's respective game, being reduced to a fraction of the former playership; a fraction that vanishes as the number of possibilities of these multiple versions explodes. Overcentralized tops occur, now, simply because there aren't as many top players as there are
options.
All created because we didn't draw an absolute, immovable line about what 'changes' to the system we even wanted to hear discussion about.
It is a system that, yes, has the possibility of disallowing good things. But that is the cost taken for the benefit of never allowing the bad, dare I say poisonous things.
It is the argument here, basically, that this choice of method, is the rational one for the purpose of constructing a FTG rule set.
