The Japanese Ledge Grab rule

[[FBC] ESAM]

The only way that anybody would ever get 70 ledgegrabs is if they were stalling on the ledge, which is what this rule is trying to cut down on. On norfair, me and my brother had 33 and 27 ledgegrabs, and we weren't camping. If we were, we would have both had 20 more each. This is an excelleng rule imo.

 

[OverLade]

I really dislike this rule. I play Link, and use Zair alot, to recover, avoid spikes, and edgehog. I would probably go over in quite a few legitimate matches, and it would piss me off if that cost me a match.

There's no way you would go over 70, I guarantee it.

Of course...unless you were planking...which would make sense.

Even if you're just casually ledgecamping you shouldn't have a problem with this rule.

 

[Ryan-K]

I like the puerto rican rule better.

If your opponent is onstage and you grab the ledge 5 times in a row without touching ground or getting hit (opponent has to be onstage so you can edgeguard using the ledge) then you lose. or if you don't lose, that can at least be actual criteria for if someone is planking/ledgecamping after a judge gets called over.

I'm sorry but that's just plain dumb. You are basically forcing people to get up right away when they may be legitimately looking for an opening. There have been times where I've edgestalled for about 6 grabs or more which isn't that much at all and doesn't take time, and alot of the time esp. with character like marth I often grab the ledge ledgehop fair, and take the ledge without getting hit or onstage just so I can be safe.

There is a difference between excessive match-long stalling and looking for an opening and a rule like that doesn't discriminate between the two.

 

[CT Chia]

The number could always be upped. If you need to rgab the ledge 70 times in 7 minutes...your grabbing the ledge once every 6 seconds, and every 6.86 seconds in a 8 minute match, that probably means one of two things:

A. your getting 4 stocked in a 3 stock match.
B. your planking like a maniac.

We can always modify it to make it more ledgegrabs...like 90 perhaps.

this post says it all. every 6.86 seconds... come on. this completely invalidates everyone saying what if i need to recover and grab the ledge that often. its not possible for someone to need to grab the ledge that often while being edgeguarded. the average brawl life lasts like 1.5 minutes i would say, which means on average u would be able to grab the ledge 23 times, (since 70 / 3 is 23.3). if you use the max alloted ledge grabs 23.3 for that stock in 1.5 min, thats grabbing the ledge like once every 1.86 seconds.

do the math, its near impossible to reach the 70 value unless ur doing NOTHING but ledge camping.

 

[JPOBS]

So now the best strategy is to just grab the ledge 70 times than stop?

this

As sirlin owuld say, "the best strategy would be to grab the ledge 69 times"
good job solving that problem boys.

 

[bobson]

this

As sirlin owuld say, "the best strategy would be to grab the ledge 69 times"
good job solving that problem boys.

On the bright side, this opens up possibility for all sorts of terrible 69 jokes.

 

[Blackshadow]

Face it guys; you either agree with Sirlin and keep items banned while leaving planking be or you disagree with Sirlin, put items on and find some arbitrary means of banning planking, such as this "Japanese Ledge Grab Rule". You can't have it both ways.

 

[deepseadiva]

Sirlin Sirlin sirlin Sirlin sirlin Sirlin Sirlin Sirlin Sirlin sirlin Sirlin sirlin Sirlin Sirlin.

I'm sorry. I'm just a stupid troll. xD

 

[AlphaZealot]

this

As sirlin owuld say, "the best strategy would be to grab the ledge 69 times"
good job solving that problem boys.

This has already been addressed. If you grab the edge 69 (or 70 if the rule is "over 70 times" times and there is still a minute left in the match...hmm...what would happen guys? Oh, you grab once more when you recover and now you are over 70 and if the timer runs out you lose. This means you have to go on the offensive.

People will probably not be able to keep a completely accurate count in their head, so it would seem prudent to me that if I am playing under this rule that I will be very conservative with my edge grabs once I feel I am getting around 50-60.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

And besides, you can't possibly count how many ledgegrabs you do. It's not like you have an automatic counter in your head. You will lose track at one point.

 

[OverLade]

And besides, you can't possibly count how many ledgegrabs you do. It's not like you have an automatic counter in your head. You will lose track at one point.

Trying to keep track will decrease how much you can concentrate on the match. You're more likely to lose from trying to keep track because lack of focus than accurately keeping track and it even mattering....

 

[AlphaZealot]

Trying to keep track will decrease how much you can concentrate on the match. You're more likely to lose from trying to keep track because lack of focus than accurately keeping track and it even mattering....

Yeap, thus increasing the effectiveness of this rule in removing planking.

 

[~Simple~]

ledge grab rule- "You are not allowed to grab the ledge more than 70 times in any individual tourney match. If you do, you automatically forfeit that match."
Alpha Zealot said he believes the Japanese already use this rule.

We started talking about this in the CoT4 results thread, and I feel it needs its own discussion. I REALLY like this idea, and I'm probably going to use it at my next Pittsburgh tourney. There are a lot of complaints of people stalling and planking, and although many TO's now prohibit ledge stalling, it is very hard to enforce. CoT4 showed this with several incidents, Norfair in particular being a troublesome stage to enforce it. This rule is very easy to enforce. In the victory/defeat screen after the match, you can check the stats to see how many times each player grabbed the ledge. If someone accuses the other of excessively planking/ledge stalling, you simply need to check the end stats. I know I'm not alone in thinking this was a good idea, what are other player's thoughts about this?

Hmm 70 times, well does the amount of times you can grab the ledge change when you change how many stocks is in the game?

 

[JFox]

thats the point. we dont want people to be keeping track, we want them to stop planking, lol. so no one is gonna use the "just get to 69 edge grabs" because that would distract them from playing the match. your better off just not planking too much.

you can still plank at the end of you stocks though. the rule is def conservative enough that you have plenty of lee-way. Like I mentioned earlier, the average person who simply uses the ledge for recovery only grabs the ledge about 10 times or so in a match, 20 max. that means you have tons of lee-way to mess around planking without getting anywhere near 70. the thing is, you can't use it as a method of stall, which is really what people are trying to eliminate.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Hmm 70 times, well does the amount of times you can grab the ledge change when you change how many stocks is in the game?

We are talking about a competitive scene with 3 stock matches with a 7 minute time limit.


And hell, if we see that people still plank and we can't get up to 70, we can just drop the number 5 or 10 grabs, it won't effect non-ledge campers

 

[Genome Squirrel]

Face it guys; you either agree with Sirlin and keep items banned while leaving planking be or you disagree with Sirlin, put items on and find some arbitrary means of banning planking, such as this "Japanese Ledge Grab Rule". You can't have it both ways.

did he change his mind since

http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?t=256&highlight=brawl
post 60 or 75 if you dislike reading entire threads

items would be a good counter to planking as whoever isn't planking would have easy access virtually all of items if he positioned himself right. but items have been elsewhere, they are "too good." let's not lose focus on what this thread is really about, indirectly banning something that isn't "too good" even though smart players can still find away it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I'm sorry, but lets not make this thread an items debate.

 

[fkacyan]

I think people need to stop quoting Sirlin.

They really have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[OverLade]

*Wonders how the hell Items are in anyway relevant to this thread*

 

[SpaceFalcon]

I think SSBB players are running out of things to ban and edit

 

[ant-d]

I think SSBB players are running out of things to ban and edit

lol

 

[Genome Squirrel]

sorry i went off on a tangent, it just bothers me how inconsistantly the SBR bans things
sure planking is annoying and hard to get around, but you could say the same thing about projectiles
should toon link lose if he used 70 projectiles in a game, that seems like an unreasonable number and it's hard to get around. if you ban something it should be specific and it have a very strong basis.

 

[Omni]

If a Falco laser camps me until I approach, then forward+b's to the other side of the stage and repeats, I'm ledge camping.

The reason why ledge camping shouldn't be banned is because the slippery slope could cause other "techniques" to be banned.

Laser camping with Falco is the same thing as ledge camping. Both of these techniques can be "beaten", but the risk of getting punished (the person using the technique) is low.

In Melee, ledge camping wasn't banned unless it was an infinite stall. Why should it be any different with Brawl?

Another example, say someone who's really good at edgeguarding like a f-smashing Lucario is trying to predict when I'll get off the ledge. Am I forced to risk myself to the impeding danger?

The point is that so many things in this game can be abused. I could hit someone once and run away for the entire match forcing my opponent to chase me usually leaving more openings for them to get hit. Are we going to try to make a rule to ban it?

Taking a game that obviously isn't very tourny-viable and applying massive restraints and bans to it won't make the game any better. It is what it is.

 

[pockyD]

yes, thanks for repeating something that has been addressed at least 10x in this thread alone

 

[OverLade]

If a Falco laser camps me until I approach, then forward+b's to the other side of the stage and repeats, I'm ledge camping.

The reason why ledge camping shouldn't be banned is because the slippery slope could cause other "techniques" to be banned.

Laser camping with Falco is the same thing as ledge camping. Both of these techniques can be "beaten", but the risk of getting punished (the person using the technique) is low.

In Melee, ledge camping wasn't banned unless it was an infinite stall. Why should it be any different with Brawl?

Another example, say someone who's really good at edgeguarding like a f-smashing Lucario is trying to predict when I'll get off the ledge. Am I forced to risk myself to the impeding danger?

The point is that so many things in this game can be abused. I could hit someone once and run away for the entire match forcing my opponent to chase me usually leaving more openings for them to get hit. Are we going to try to make a rule to ban it?

Taking a game that obviously isn't very tourny-viable and applying massive restraints and bans to it won't make the game any better. It is what it is.

.......Nobodys banning ledge camping.....

Nubs need to read the **** thread.

 

[Omni]

yes, thanks for repeating something that has been addressed at least 10x in this thread alone

You're welcome. Repeating for emphasis. Unless I missed the part where all of my points were countered.

Red Halberd: Putting a rule to the number of times a person can grab the ledge is an attempt to do what?

 

[pockyD]

You're welcome. Repeating for emphasis. Unless I missed the part where all of my points were countered.

The point is that this "rule" is only being discussed as a replacement for the current ridiculous "Stalling: no stalling allowed" rule.

There are plenty of other places to discuss whether stalling itself is broken/ban-worthy or not, but the discussion for this rule should only exist under the assumption that it is (since it seems to be "banned" in more tournaments than not these days)

 

[indianunit]

how long should we wait before we cast a vote on this debate? having an opinion is one thing but putting it into an effect is what i want to see.

 

[pockyD]

how long should we wait before we cast a vote on this debate? having an opinion is one thing but putting it into an effect is what i want to see.

there's no "vote" because there still is (and there probably will never be) no "standard" ruleset for tournaments

any "rule" proposition is merely something for each T.O. to consider individually for their own tournament.

 

[Omni]

The point is that this "rule" is only being discussed as a replacement for the current ridiculous "Stalling: no stalling allowed" rule.

There are plenty of other places to discuss whether stalling itself is broken/ban-worthy or not, but the discussion for this rule should only exist under the assumption that it is (since it seems to be "banned" in more tournaments than not these days)

So what's the point of replacing a ridiculous rule with a less ridiculous rule but still ridiculous in itself? My argument is that the Japanese Ledge Grab rule is an attempt to discourage ledge camping without "banning" it. It would be silly to try to replace a rule with another rule that probably shouldn't exist.

 

[OverLade]

So what's the point of replacing a ridiculous rule with a less ridiculous rule but still ridiculous in itself? My argument is that the Japanese Ledge Grab rule is an attempt to discourage ledge camping without "banning" it. It would be silly to try to replace a rule with another rule that probably shouldn't exist.

This rule is easier to enforce, and discourages, rather than bans.

No ledgecamping, is vague because ledgecamping in itself is difficult to define. This on the other hand is definite.

Rediculous and realistic as well as consistent is better than rediculous and unrealistic and nonconsistent.

 

[indianunit]

i see. is there anyway to implement a standard ruleset for tournaments though? there is statewide tourney that occasionally happens (usually every month or so) and i think the TO has decided not to implement this rule. I on the other hand don't want to see planking happen to me. If there isn't thats alright, i can only hope that it never happens to me.

 

[pockyD]

So what's the point of replacing a ridiculous rule with a less ridiculous rule but still ridiculous in itself? My argument is that the Japanese Ledge Grab rule is an attempt to discourage ledge camping without "banning" it. It would be silly to try to replace a rule with another rule that probably shouldn't exist.

I agree that neither should exist... but that issue has already been discussed to death hundreds of times. There is such thing as the lesser of two evils...

it's like going into the bowser boards and asking what stage to take ganondorf to, then getting the response "play sheik"

 

[RyanPF]

So what's the point of replacing a ridiculous rule with a less ridiculous rule but still ridiculous in itself? My argument is that the Japanese Ledge Grab rule is an attempt to discourage ledge camping without "banning" it. It would be silly to try to replace a rule with another rule that probably shouldn't exist.

The point is that some TOs would have a "no planking" rule regardless of what some people think. So having a defined rule is better than having a loose rule that requires a judge. We can't tell all TOs what to do but we can give them a rule that's better than the one they currently use.

 

[Omni]

I agree that neither should exist... but that issue has already been discussed to death hundreds of times. There is such thing as the lesser of two evils...

it's like going into the bowser boards and asking what stage to take ganondorf to, then getting the response "play sheik"

This rule is easier to enforce, and discourages, rather than bans.

No ledgecamping, is vague because ledgecamping in itself is difficult to define. This on the other hand is definite.

Rediculous and realistic as well as consistent is better than rediculous and unrealistic and nonconsistent.

So if you two both agree that the current rule and the Japanese Grab rule is either ridiculous and/or shouldn't exist, why waste time trying to implement it in the first place?

Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, would it not be more effective to simply get rid of the current rule instead of replacing it with "a lesser evil"? Even better is focusing on the issue whether or not ledge camping should be discouraged. From what I recall, all video games have elements that certain people don't necessarily agree with.

Or why not discuss what should constitute the placing of a "rule"? What I am saying is that this discussion should be postponed until all these other founding questions have been answered first.

 

[OverLade]

So if you two both agree that the current rule and the Japanese Grab rule is either ridiculous and/or shouldn't exist, why waste time trying to implement it in the first place?

Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, would it not be more effective to simply get rid of the current rule instead of replacing it with "a lesser evil"? Even better is focusing on the issue whether or not ledge camping should be discouraged. From what I recall, all video games have elements that certain people don't necessarily agree with.

Or why not discuss what should constitute the placing of a "rule"? What I am saying is that this discussion should be postponed until all these other founding questions have been answered first.

I dont think it isn't necessary, I just think even it wont be enough to technically stop planking.

I think planking should be banned. I just think this is better than a generic no planking rule.

 

[pockyD]

So if you two both agree that the current rule and the Japanese Grab rule is either ridiculous and/or shouldn't exist, why waste time trying to implement it in the first place?

Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, would it not be more effective to simply get rid of the current rule instead of replacing it with "a lesser evil"? Even better is focusing on the issue whether or not ledge camping should be discouraged. From what I recall, all video games have elements that certain people don't necessarily agree with.

Or why not discuss what should constitute the placing of a "rule"? What I am saying is that this discussion should be postponed until all these other founding questions have been answered first.

If I were running a tournament, I would not ban ledge-camping or stalling or whatever. Unfortunately, 100% of all brawl tournaments are not run by me.

As far as the "other" discussions, they have all been done to death hundreds of times (feels like this is the third time I've said this in the last hour). If the TOs don't want to choose the "right" way, I'd rather them meet me halfway than to just straight up keep using the same non-rule

 

[Omni]

If the TOs don't want to choose the "right" way, I'd rather them meet me halfway than to just straight up keep using the same non-rule

The first TO that announced that a "No Planking" Rule is to be implemented probably did not put in the time and effort to discuss if this rule should be acceptable. All that happened was people pointed to the YouTube video of Plank vs. SK92, "felt' that this was wrong, and based on how they "felt" jumped on the "feeling" bandwagon.

Pocky, you're a smart guy. I can tell.

When a stupid rule is put into place and the mass majority (who 90% are usually stupid) accepts this rule without the proper procedure to come to that conclusion, what is our job? To tell everyone how stupid they are; not tell them they could be less stupid and settle with slightly stupid instead.

By conforming to the current rule set through the act of "upgrading" it, we're acknowledging the general idea of the rule to be accepting regardless if its temporary or not.

 

[pockyD]

The first TO that announced that a "No Planking" Rule is to be implemented probably did not put in the time and effort to discuss if this rule should be acceptable. All that happened was people pointed to the YouTube video of Plank vs. SK92, "felt' that this was wrong, and based on how they "felt" jumped on the "feeling" bandwagon.

Pocky, you're a smart guy. I can tell.

When a stupid rule is put into place and the mass majority (who 90% are usually stupid) accepts this rule without the proper procedure to come to that conclusion, what is our job? To tell everyone how stupid they are; not tell them they could be less stupid and settle with slightly stupid instead.

By conforming to the current rule set through the act of "upgrading" it, we're acknowledging the general idea of the rule to be accepting regardless if its temporary or not.

Fact of the matter is, people who are "no planking" will not EVER be convinced that it's not broken // shouldn't be banned. For anyone to want to ban it to begin with pretty much signifies an overall "scrub" mentality that runs deeper than this specific issue, which anyone is unlikely to shed. I have never heard of a single person who was originally for "no planking", but somewhere along the line got turned around (on the other hand, plenty of people who originally didn't think it was broken jump over after being victimized themselves)

It's unfortunate that most tournament organizers either are in that camp, or go out of their way to cater to them (since honestly, it's probably at least 80% of the brawler population), but it is what it is. The same arguments against banning it have been around for an eternity, but it still was "banned" in the most recent large-scale tournaments (CoT4). I don't think there is any changing their minds.

 

[Omni]

You're right.

And this is probably the reason why Brawl will never be an "MLG status", tourny-viable game. Because of the too many people with scrubby mentalities and the TO's that conform to them.