The MK Legal Ruleset Discussion

[Ussi]

I honestly think the game should go down to 2 stock 6 minutes just so its shorter.

the LGL is really i think just supposed to stop people from attempting to plank at all. Its a psychological thing. Its not really meant to be reached, cause 50 is absurdly high for any character.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

my name is M2K and I'm angry because now I have to complete school and find a real job.

cry more

Yay, way to legitimatize smash as a competitive e-sport! ^_^

...

 

[krazyzyko]

1 stock less for MK.

 

[Judo777]

Pretty sure their cg is harder than most wall infinites.

Oh, it is. But the results, and goal are the same either way: Easy Kill.

What lol? He said its hard, and you agreed, then you said easy kill? I might be mistaken but if its hard...... doesn't that make it NOT easy????????

 

[Damix91]

I just don't understand. What is actually wrong with ledgecamping as a tactic? If I play Sub-Zero in MK9, I don't get awarded an auto-loss for hiding behind my clones. If I turtle to run the clock out at then end of a round of street fighter, the TO doesn't award a win to my teammate. In fact if I turtle in any fighting game, I don't get punished arbitrarily for it.

I don't understand the concept that timeout isn't a legitimate way to win. Someone needs to present a reason why it shouldn't be allowed and dislike of the tactic isn't a competitive one unless we are saying that all forms of stalling are overpowered tactics.

Metaknight being hard to beat when he stalls is a different matter completely. Its an isolated case of a particular character being overpowered when using a certain tactic, not the legitimacy of a tactic itself so why would you suggest to ban stalling of all forms.

Never mind the fact that when I play as Pit, half the time I'm on the ledge I don't want to be, it's just all my aerials are extremely unsafe when ledgehopped and I just have terrible options.

Now I'm not suggesting MK specific rules should be the focus of discussion - such as LGL's, move restriction etc- because they shouldn't. The stagelist should be the focus of discussion primarily because its the easiest to enforce, would cause the least delay in tournaments etc.

Don't touch LGL's. I would start by banning Brinstar/RC and go from there.

 

[Metro_Knight]

My ruleset input:

Universal LGL of 35 in the case of timeout
3 Stock, 10 min timer

Starter Stages:

Battlefield
Smashville
Final Destination

Counterpick Stages:

Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise

Plain and simple.

-----

Reason for removing all other stages:

Pokemon Stadium 1&2/Frigate Orpheon - People stall on certain transformations because they don't like them. Takes longer, includes temporary walls in PS.

Halberd/Delfino Plaza - Penetrable base stages, includes walk offs in Delfino, and some hazards in Halberd (which aren't the issue, but worth noting).

Castle Siege - Stages 1 and 3 are pretty neutral, but the destructible statues in 2 can interfere, as well as walk offs in stage 2 and during the short transition. Walk offs are avoidable to a degree, and I don't think this stage is as big of an issue, but I think for a competitive setting why not just play on the stages that are pretty much neutral for all characters. If you want to play for the "more fun" stages, play All Brawl.

Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise - Don't think I even need to say anything about these.

I honestly think this should have been tried out as an official rule change before banning a character. If MK was still a problem, then bring the stages back and ban the character.

 

[ElDominio]

I honestly think this should have been tried out as an official rule change before banning a character. If MK was still a problem, then bring the stages back and ban the character.

Here is where your argument just rolled up into a ball and ceased existing.

Why remove stages before banning a character?
Banning two stages = banning two more diverse options for every single character in the cast (a.k.a., banning stages removes depth)
Banning one character = removing one character from everyones matchups (but since other stages can be kept legal, matchups vary more wildly, a.k.a. more depth)

See the problem with banning stages to keep a character legal?

Smash has these options for this exact same reason, so you can explore how a different character works on a different stage.
By only allowing "neutrals" (mind you, the neutrality of YI and FD can be heavily debated), we are removing a lot of learning and time required to adapt and develop a way to play on different stages.

We just fall back to the "FD, no items, Fox only"

 

[C.J.]

Castle Siege - Stages 1 and 3 are pretty neutral, but the destructible statues in 2 can interfere, as well as walk offs in stage 2 and during the short transition. Walk offs are avoidable to a degree, and I don't think this stage is as big of an issue, but I think for a competitive setting why not just play on the stages that are pretty much neutral for all characters. If you want to play for the "more fun" stages, play All Brawl.

but I think for a competitive setting why not just play on the stages that are pretty much neutral for all characters.

neutral for all characters.

Uhhh, no. The most neutral stages in the game are probably PS2/Castle Siege/some other stage with transformations. Here's a quick way to tell if a stage is neutral; would a character be likely to CP it (not a player, a character) or ban it? Would it be a frequent occurrence? Then that stage is NOT neutral. FD is the most obvious example of it not being neutral. Additionally, you're putting arbitrary emphasis on characters that do better on flat/plat stages. Why are those characters more important than G&W, Wario, etc? Answer, they're not. So why do some characters get their best stages and others are forced to have only their worse stages legal? No, it's not because those characters are bad (well, some are, but that's not the point). Being bad on many stages means you're a worse character (falco) and being better on a larger variety of stages means you're not a bad/are a decent character (G&W). Yet, you are arbitrarily deciding that falco/Diddy/IC should gain an inherent benefit from the stage list.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Why remove stages before banning a character?
Banning two stages = banning two more diverse options for every single character in the cast (a.k.a., banning stages removes depth)
Banning one character = removing one character from everyones matchups (but since other stages can be kept legal, matchups vary more wildly, a.k.a. more depth)

See the problem with banning stages to keep a character legal?

There is none. You just made a pretty blatant attempt to make it seem like there was one though. If MK were only broken on these 2 stages it'd be perfectly legit to ban the stages in order to keep the character legal.

Not that it matters though for MK isn't broken anyway and banning both stages is a sound decision regardless of MK.

 

[Metro_Knight]

Here is where your argument just rolled up into a ball and ceased existing.

Why remove stages before banning a character?
Banning two stages = banning two more diverse options for every single character in the cast (a.k.a., banning stages removes depth)
Banning one character = removing one character from everyones matchups (but since other stages can be kept legal, matchups vary more wildly, a.k.a. more depth)

See the problem with banning stages to keep a character legal?

Smash has these options for this exact same reason, so you can explore how a different character works on a different stage.
By only allowing "neutrals" (mind you, the neutrality of YI and FD can be heavily debated), we are removing a lot of learning and time required to adapt and develop a way to play on different stages.

We just fall back to the "FD, no items, Fox only"

#1. My post wasn't meant to be an argument, it was merely a suggestion, and your input on my suggestion is very appreciated.

#2. This thread, and my post, are to discuss possible ideas for a ruleset that includes Meta-Knight. It's not trying to prove that the game would be better with Meta-Knight, it's trying to create an alternative to Unity for people who still want to play with and against Meta-Knight, but in scenario where playing against Meta-Knight isn't as dominant as he is. The purpose of this is not to create a ruleset where Meta-Knight isn't dominate, it's to create one where he's LESS dominate, to provide an alternative ruleset, whether or not it becomes something that is actually used widespread at tournaments. - I do understand why banning stages to keep a character legal has alot of downsides, but as I said, we're not debating that here.

#3. I see your point in the sense that "our metagame needs more stages so that we can advance and adapt", and maybe I should rephrase what I mean about "neutrals".. but what I meant was, 1: Stages that cannot be abused in ways that only apply to specific characters, and 2: Stages in which no character has a reason to stall, or wait for a stage to transform into something more favorable. I'm not saying all the stages I removed don't fit that description, but the ones I included I believe for the most part do.

#4. Also, maybe this is less important, but the idea of having a small stagelist and stages without transitions was also meant to increase the speed of tournaments. But whether that is really needed is debatable.

Uhhh, no. The most neutral stages in the game are probably PS2/Castle Siege/some other stage with transformations. Here's a quick way to tell if a stage is neutral; would a character be likely to CP it (not a player, a character) or ban it? Would it be a frequent occurrence? Then that stage is NOT neutral. FD is the most obvious example of it not being neutral. Additionally, you're putting arbitrary emphasis on characters that do better on flat/plat stages. Why are those characters more important than G&W, Wario, etc? Answer, they're not. So why do some characters get their best stages and others are forced to have only their worse stages legal? No, it's not because those characters are bad (well, some are, but that's not the point). Being bad on many stages means you're a worse character (falco) and being better on a larger variety of stages means you're not a bad/are a decent character (G&W). Yet, you are arbitrarily deciding that falco/Diddy/IC should gain an inherent benefit from the stage list.

I'm not sure how every character in the game plays on every stage.. but I was looking toward the Japanese stagelist, since as pointed out, they seem to not have an issue with Meta-Knight. I don't know what the stages are that are closest to being relatively even for most characters, stages that could also inhibit Meta-Knight (because that's the point of this ruleset..), but I wasn't attempting to put forth fact about stages, nor was I saying I'm the most experienced person who everyone should trust, or even take my opinion into consideration at all. I was just posting my thoughts about some options that I think are at least worth discussing, if only for people like you to explain to the masses (including myself), why that logic isn't completely sound.

Anyways, like I said to ElDomino, your input on my post is appreciated.

 

[Sorto]

I just don't understand. What is actually wrong with ledgecamping as a tactic? If I play Sub-Zero in MK9, I don't get awarded an auto-loss for hiding behind my clones. If I turtle to run the clock out at then end of a round of street fighter, the TO doesn't award a win to my teammate. In fact if I turtle in any fighting game, I don't get punished arbitrarily for it.

I don't understand the concept that timeout isn't a legitimate way to win. Someone needs to present a reason why it shouldn't be allowed and dislike of the tactic isn't a competitive one unless we are saying that all forms of stalling are overpowered tactics.

Metaknight being hard to beat when he stalls is a different matter completely. Its an isolated case of a particular character being overpowered when using a certain tactic, not the legitimacy of a tactic itself so why would you suggest to ban stalling of all forms.

Never mind the fact that when I play as Pit, half the time I'm on the ledge I don't want to be, it's just all my aerials are extremely unsafe when ledgehopped and I just have terrible options.

Now I'm not suggesting MK specific rules should be the focus of discussion - such as LGL's, move restriction etc- because they shouldn't. The stagelist should be the focus of discussion primarily because its the easiest to enforce, would cause the least delay in tournaments etc.

Don't touch LGL's. I would start by banning Brinstar/RC and go from there.

Stalling is banned in all the smash games. That is not my rule, it is an agreed upon rule in all the previous rulesets of all of the smash games.

Therefore my argument becomes:
If stalling is banned, then techniques that permit heavy stalling or sudo stalling should be banned.


The issue becomes defining stalling.

When a character repeatedly planks, it is not to attack or inflict damage. It is to run the timer and avoid conflict.

Metaknights plank is described framewise to hard to beat. Thus the theoritical issue becomes he can run the timer once he has a lead.

Peaches peach bomber stall in melee is positionally too hard to beat. She is not invincible and not impossible to reach. It is only about position and risk/reward. So theoretically she could run the timer (on the older stage list choices) once she got a lead. This technique was/is banned under the stalling clause. Peach is not banned, even though a technique that she alone had was too powerful (in a prior metagame)

 

[Ripple]

peach bomber was not even a good stalling technique.

if you missed, you died

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Here is where your argument just rolled up into a ball and ceased existing.

Why remove stages before banning a character?
Banning two stages = banning two more diverse options for every single character in the cast (a.k.a., banning stages removes depth)
Banning one character = removing one character from everyones matchups (but since other stages can be kept legal, matchups vary more wildly, a.k.a. more depth)

See the problem with banning stages to keep a character legal?

Smash has these options for this exact same reason, so you can explore how a different character works on a different stage.
By only allowing "neutrals" (mind you, the neutrality of YI and FD can be heavily debated), we are removing a lot of learning and time required to adapt and develop a way to play on different stages.

We just fall back to the "FD, no items, Fox only"

If you ban a stage, you only remove the match ups that can happen on that stage. If you remove a character, you remove everyone of that character's match ups on every single stage

 

[Sorto]

peach bomber was not even a good stalling technique.

if you missed, you died

It was still banned.

Stalling is banned in smash. Mk planking seems to essentially be stalling.

Peach was not unhittable. Peach was not invincible. Peach could be reached. Peach could be hit by item like projectiles. But peach was peach bombering for two reasons.

1. To run the timer by being in too good and unfair of a position.
2. Hoping a character would go after her and put themselves at a heavily unfair disadvantage that would most likely lead to a larger stock lead.

The character is flawed, but not broken. The technique is broken because it allows stalling. And under the melee ruleset, like the brawl ruleset, stalling was banned.

I really see planking as a similar situation.

 

[Ripple]

It was still banned.

Stalling is banned in smash. Mk planking seems to essentially be stalling.

Peach was not unhittable. Peach was not invincible. Peach could be reached. Peach could be hit by item like projectiles. But peach was peach bombering for two reasons.

1. To run the timer by being in too good and unfair of a position.
2. Hoping a character would go after her and put themselves at a heavily unfair disadvantage that would most likely lead to a larger stock lead.

The character is flawed, but not broken. The technique is broken because it allows stalling. And under the melee ruleset, like the brawl ruleset, stalling was banned.

I really see planking as a similar situation.

it's not even close to the same.

peach can't attack you. she can do anything and the risk/reward isn't even in her favor.

no one would even consider doing it in a legit match.

it was only banned because the melee community are scrubs too

 

[Sorto]

it's not even close to the same.

peach can't attack you. she can do anything and the risk/reward isn't even in her favor.

no one would even consider doing it in a legit match.

it was only banned because the melee community are scrubs too

I would only say risk reward is in her advantage because of positioning.

Situations:
Attack and miss: Risk getting hit by peach bomber and being gimped. Also recovering from that position can be relatively tricky.

Attack and trade: Both get hit and most likely get gimped. Tho peach has a better recovery and if she isn't instantly knocked into a pit she can attempt to peach bomber at a lower position. I assume you would only peach bomber in a stock lead, so the stock lead remains in the described scenarios.

Attack and hit: Peach get hit and your hitbox gets slightly extended adding to increased lag time. If she is low enough then this makes recovering increasingly difficult. Peach may get gimped, but if she is not instantly knocked into the pit she can attempt to go for peach bomber again. Leading to all the scenarios described.

But moreso this is not my argument and I am digressing. My argument is... if a technique is used for stalling purposes and stalling is banned then ban the technique, not the character who uses the technique.

When it comes to metaknight, planking is not only stalling. But peach bombering is not only stalling.

There main shared concept is to run the clock while abusing defensive flaws of the games and avoiding conflict.

 

[Ghostbone]

lol at risking getting hit by Peach Bomber.

It won't hit you, and you can hit her easily.

It was originally banned when stages like fourside were legal, and the ban just carried through, and nobody ever thought about removing it (similarly, Mewtwo's "soul stunner" is commonly banned, despite requiring already turned off items, nobody has bothered to remove it).
It's a terrible technique, puts Peach in a horrible position, and the only time a Peach player would ever do it is when they have no other options for recovery (as you can move upwards very slowly)

Add onto this that you almost have to be frame perfect as Peach, and the other player can literally just wait for her to mess up.

 

[Tesh]

peach bombering sounds alot like sonic's HA stall

 

[Sorto]

@Tesh:True


So is the general consensus about a ruleset

Increased timer, approx 10 min

and RC/Brinstar no longer legal

and 30ish LGL

+ URC Ruleset
?

 

[Ghostbone]

peach bombering sounds alot like sonic's HA stall

Except imagine Sonic's doing it on the side, not under.

 

[Tesh]

@ Sorto, I strongly recommend you find a scrooging limit you can enforce somehow. Or at least lower the LGL for MK more to 20 so that anti-scrooging can at least be about "force MK to grab the ledge".

 

[Metro_Knight]

I had an idea for a way to get rid of scrooging, however it probably wouldn't work on stages like Delfino or Halberd as well due to penetrable platforms and their transformations.. and it would be difficult to implement in general.

Basically, the act of going under the stage is prohibited, unless your opponent has just hit you off the stage. Doing so results in loss of stock.

Basically, you can still recover from one side, under the stage, and to the other, but you cannot elect to do that after having grabbed a ledge or set foot on a platform. It would allow players who use strong recovery moves like Pit to choose whether or not to redeploy on to the opposite ledge they got knocked off.

Not sure how easily this would be enforced, or if it is too harsh of a prohibition, but just an idea..

 

[Mithost]

How about making a timeout without a 2 stock lead results in a tie, which is followed by a 1 stock 3 min match.

 

[Ussi]

Been mentioned before, absolutely terrible.


The only unbias ruleset I can think of is just banning all stages that have any form of stalling on it. Which leaves only BF, YI, SV, Lylat, and FD left. Anything else is going out of it's way to nerf MK.

I also think stocks should be 1-2 stocks 3-6 minutes.

 

[Mithost]

I love the 1 stock 3 minute match idea, It just needs to pick up steam. I happen to be really good with charizard and If I could use solely him I would. It would also help the MK case a bit.

 

[BlueXenon]

Banned stages Stages: Brinstar
Ledge Grab Limits: 12 for MK, 25 for everyone else
Time-out: 4 Minutes
Number of Stocks: 1 (MK is very good at coming back when he is losing so 1 stock matches is a good idea)

I dont play in tournaments, but this is just my idea.

 

[Ghostbone]

The only unbias ruleset I can think of is just banning all stages that have any form of stalling on it. Which leaves only BF, YI, SV, Lylat, and FD left. Anything else is going out of it's way to nerf MK.

SV doesn't have any form of stalling on it? lolololol

 

[Sorto]

@Big tournament players

With a LGL is scrooging really even considered that much of an issue anymore?

 

[WindMajor]

Scrooging is what bypasses an LGL now.

 

[Ghostbone]

Scrooging is what bypasses an LGL now.

Only on Smashville really.

Smashville is just amazing for stalling with MK, even if you have a LGL, and a scrooging limit, he can still just dair camp the platform, and a lot of characters can't do much.

 

[WindMajor]

It's pretty effective on a lot of stages, but SV is a different kind of monster.

 

[Metro_Knight]

Been mentioned before, absolutely terrible.


The only unbias ruleset I can think of is just banning all stages that have any form of stalling on it. Which leaves only BF, YI, SV, Lylat, and FD left. Anything else is going out of it's way to nerf MK.

I also think stocks should be 1-2 stocks 3-6 minutes.

When I suggested these stages people critiqued me saying that these are not neutral stages, and they benefit characters that perform well on flat ground like falco. I know earlier in this thread Ussi suggested these stages and didn't get as a harsh response, which I am confused about.. also, while I agree that these five stages are the stages that are not as able to stall on as others, I agree with the sentiment Ghostbone that SV does have stalling capabilities.

@Sorto - LGL seems to help stalling a great deal, including MK's planking, but Twinkie is correct in the fact that scrooging is a way to get around the LGL. Takes up more time in between ledge grabs (more time than planking anyway) by gliding under the stage.

Anyone have thoughts on the idea of requiring a stock loss for going under a stage unless recovering from a hit? EDIT: Or how the **** to implement it?

 

[Metro_Knight]

MK is very good at coming back when he is losing so 1 stock matches is a good idea)

I dont play in tournaments, but this is just my idea.

I haven't been able to play in tournaments either, but I'm very confused why MK is better at coming back than other characters?..

 

[Ghostbone]

I haven't been able to play in tournaments either, but I'm very confused why MK is better at coming back than other characters?..

Because he's the best at approaching in the game, and his ability to gimp is leagues ahead of other characters...

 

[Metro_Knight]

Because he's the best at approaching in the game, and his ability to gimp is leagues ahead of other characters...

I'm just not clear on why being down a stock in the game makes the character Meta-Knight better.

 

[Sorto]

When I suggested these stages people critiqued me saying that these are not neutral stages, and they benefit characters that perform well on flat ground like falco. I know earlier in this thread Ussi suggested these stages and didn't get as a harsh response, which I am confused about.. also, while I agree that these five stages are the stages that are not as able to stall on as others, I agree with the sentiment Ghostbone that SV does have stalling capabilities.

@Sorto - LGL seems to help stalling a great deal, including MK's planking, but Twinkie is correct in the fact that scrooging is a way to get around the LGL. Takes up more time in between ledge grabs (more time than planking anyway) by gliding under the stage.

Anyone have thoughts on the idea of requiring a stock loss for going under a stage unless recovering from a hit? EDIT: Or how the **** to implement it?

I always thought a solid anti scrooge rule would be... if a player goes under a stage twice before either character lands a hit in between on one another then the character is in violation of scrooging. One understage could be used to recover possibly. Two is used on purpose and is to scrooge. Since never taking damage means you could never be knocked back off stage the second under the stage to cause scrooging would only be used as a means of stalling. Someone could use one understage maneuver to stall, but they are limited in there ability to stall.

 

[Ussi]

SV doesn't have any form of stalling on it? lolololol

I mentioned before that SV is the only problem on the stage list, so it's the stage you should ban vs MK unless you really feel like dealing with scrooging. For any other characters it's a good stage.

 

[Ripple]

I got a brilliant idea. Let's make a rule so that mk can't go over the stage (walking or otherwise) unless he goes under the stage 2x beforehand.

 

[Judo777]

How about making a timeout without a 2 stock lead results in a tie, which is followed by a 1 stock 3 min match.

Which means if I am up by 2 stocks and its about to go to time I'm SDing lol

 

[Ralph Cecil]

SV can let you scrooge without grabbing the ledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Y9pRs4zFw