1 question
Why Uthrow when u can just upsmash :/
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Top Ten Videos of Each Character
- Thread starter BlueXenon
- Start date
Why Uthrow when u can just upsmash :/
dainbramage
Smash Journeyman
Sorry, but this has been annoying me for a while.
Why 8 minutes? Why not 7 or 9?
Why do we play out sudden death if it happens a second time? Why not play a second extra one-stock match? Why not a third?
Why 60 mph? Why not 59 or 61?
Why are 2 points of light considered resolved when the intensity in the trough between the 2 peaks is 78% of that of either peak? Why not 77% or 79%? (sorry, I'm studying optics atm and wanted to include an example from science)
Why is a second 9129631770 state transitions of a Cs-133 atom? Why not a different isotope or atom, or different number of transitions? Why is the speed of light 299792458 m/s ? (note that if the value picked was the closest integer to the known experimental value, it would not be what's written above) Why not just make it 3*10^8 when SI units started redifining everything to be easily defineable by natural phenomena? Why start schooling at the age of 5? Why not 6, or 4? Why is pi the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter? Why not the radius instead? Why are electrons negative? Why not positive?
I'm going to put this in big letters for the benefit of everyone.
Just because something is arbitrary does not make it bad
Arbitrary rules exist everywhere, in both smash already and in real life. Without arbitrary numbers we'd get nowhere in anything.
---
On the actual topic itself, I agree with everything else you say.
Why 3 stocks? Why not 2 or 4?
Why 8 minutes? Why not 7 or 9?
Why do we play out sudden death if it happens a second time? Why not play a second extra one-stock match? Why not a third?
Why 60 mph? Why not 59 or 61?
Why are 2 points of light considered resolved when the intensity in the trough between the 2 peaks is 78% of that of either peak? Why not 77% or 79%? (sorry, I'm studying optics atm and wanted to include an example from science)
Why is a second 9129631770 state transitions of a Cs-133 atom? Why not a different isotope or atom, or different number of transitions? Why is the speed of light 299792458 m/s ? (note that if the value picked was the closest integer to the known experimental value, it would not be what's written above) Why not just make it 3*10^8 when SI units started redifining everything to be easily defineable by natural phenomena? Why start schooling at the age of 5? Why not 6, or 4? Why is pi the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter? Why not the radius instead? Why are electrons negative? Why not positive?
I'm going to put this in big letters for the benefit of everyone.
Just because something is arbitrary does not make it bad
Arbitrary rules exist everywhere, in both smash already and in real life. Without arbitrary numbers we'd get nowhere in anything.
---
On the actual topic itself, I agree with everything else you say.
The difference between other arbitrary decisions like stocks, time, etc compared to the number he picked is that generally there tend to be some good reasons behind that recommendation. I would like to know the genuine reasoning he has for picking 5 instead of a different number. If not five, what would be an acceptable range for him? I'm baffled somewhat that he basically suggested a total GUL, but I'd be interested in finding out more about his recommendation.
As for IC infinites, no the argument "But what if I want to kill with Uthrow" is not gonna fly. That would be like M2K using IDC and saying "But what if I want to approach with it". You can deem that IC's having to kill with Uthrow is unnecessary to protect because they clearly have better options. However, what proof is there that MK's gliding under stages is unnecessary? You could argue that his options BESIDES planking and scrooging are unnecessary because he clearly has better options (aka plank and scrooge). Having a CG limit that prevents the IC's from killing with a terrible kill option when they have other better choices is much different than having a limit aimed at gliding under the stage which is a variable usefulness option.
Furthermore, let's say that you do in fact deem his Gliding unnecessary, along with killing with Uthrow. If you make killing with Uthrow feasible with a bigger/no CG limit, I would assume you would be in favor of a looser gliding limit because there's no need to manage the unnecessary right? :D
If you want to ban gliding under the stage more than once without resetting with a hit, sure go ahead. That rule would have problems anyways with people planking, scrooging, coming in with something safe, getting that single hit, staying onstage far away from them as possible, drop down waste a few jumps, if the opponent isn't too close reverse shuttle loop onto the stage to preserve edge grabs, maybe eventually grab it once, waste some jumps, glide halfway under the stage, come back, etc.
Enforcing it might be harder if you don't clearly have what is and what is not allowed. What constitutes going under the stage? How far do you have to go, are you allowed to turn around, does this count if you use a move that leaves you vulnerable but still takes you under the stage, etc. If you have everything defined and the person who is gonna enforce it is properly educated in this matter, then yes that could be enforceable. However, there's no point enforcing a rule if it is bad to begin with.
"Just like how if you make something such as "gliding under the stage more than once without touching the main platform", the person you're playing against won't go ape**** because you used a tactic, that, in moderation (which it would be in moderation if you only did it twice), isn't even broken to begin with)."
If the tactic is not broken in moderation, then why have such a hard limit? (The answer later) If you say "Oh well the other guy won't care if you go under the stage more than once", that would make a rule where you can't go under more than once seem like a bit of overkill. As for the rule enforcing itself, what you said seems to contradict itself. If the person is breaking the technical rule, and the other person lets it slide for whatever reasons, that doesn't change the fact that the person overstepped the boundaries. I don't care if M2K used IDC for like 2 seconds against me 1 time in the entire match, the rules state he cannot do that period or be DQ'd and you can bet I would either pause the match, or quit out and get a replay and notify the TO.
Here's why you have issues:
1. Is the tactic hard to define as being used in moderation compared to being overused?
What is the difference between someone using IDC in moderation compared to someone exploiting it? There isn't a clear answer on that. In fact I guarantee the answer varies from person to person, based on how they feel. When it comes to making a limit/ban on a tactic, you are gonna have a hard time limiting it very well when its not even agreed on or very clear what is too much and what is acceptable/not that bad. Planking AND scrooging fit this unfortunately. You are gonna struggle making a rule for them when it's hard to say "Yeah this is the moderate amount, this is too much" especially seeing how well they combine together and compliment each other. Now I'm not saying that this should stop people from attempting to come up with a rule, but people too readily accept the notion that these kinds of rules are great or that they are guaranteed to work.
If something is broken in excess, but fine in moderation, and you want to impose some kind of limit that tries to allow you to do it in moderation, you do run the risk of dipping over too far either side and either allowing them to be excessive or denying them to use it in moderation. The consequence of allowing someone to abuse something in excess is usually greater than denying someone the chance to use something in moderation. Hence why IDC is banned period instead of people trying to ban using for 5 seconds or using it for retreating or using it for whatever.
If something has the threat of being too good/being used too much, generally it is removed instead of restricted. Look at stages. Take Hyrule for example. It is banned, however you COULD try to make rules saying you cannot circle camp or camp in the "cave of immortality" but this is not the course of action we took. There were far worse consequences to be realized from having the stage legal and trying to moderate it, than there were of outright banning it and making sure no one can use it at all.
Now apply that to planking and scrooging. What is the greater risk, that we allow them regulated and it's still too good, or we outright ban them completely? Here's where it gets harder, because both tactics are not necessarily 100% bannable without also having consequences. Scrooging for example: You can eliminate scrooging completely by making a rule that says it is illegal for anyone to pass under a stage a single time ever. Now sure, you could say "Well wait a minute, what if I want to go under the stage for non broken reasons?" If the tactic is broken, you are better off making it completely non viable instead of allowing it in "doses" you think are acceptable.
TL;DR
If faced with the risk of something being broken, or something being gone, you send it packing instead of cutting it up and trying to make it acceptable.
As for IC infinites, no the argument "But what if I want to kill with Uthrow" is not gonna fly. That would be like M2K using IDC and saying "But what if I want to approach with it". You can deem that IC's having to kill with Uthrow is unnecessary to protect because they clearly have better options. However, what proof is there that MK's gliding under stages is unnecessary? You could argue that his options BESIDES planking and scrooging are unnecessary because he clearly has better options (aka plank and scrooge). Having a CG limit that prevents the IC's from killing with a terrible kill option when they have other better choices is much different than having a limit aimed at gliding under the stage which is a variable usefulness option.
Furthermore, let's say that you do in fact deem his Gliding unnecessary, along with killing with Uthrow. If you make killing with Uthrow feasible with a bigger/no CG limit, I would assume you would be in favor of a looser gliding limit because there's no need to manage the unnecessary right? :D
If you want to ban gliding under the stage more than once without resetting with a hit, sure go ahead. That rule would have problems anyways with people planking, scrooging, coming in with something safe, getting that single hit, staying onstage far away from them as possible, drop down waste a few jumps, if the opponent isn't too close reverse shuttle loop onto the stage to preserve edge grabs, maybe eventually grab it once, waste some jumps, glide halfway under the stage, come back, etc.
Enforcing it might be harder if you don't clearly have what is and what is not allowed. What constitutes going under the stage? How far do you have to go, are you allowed to turn around, does this count if you use a move that leaves you vulnerable but still takes you under the stage, etc. If you have everything defined and the person who is gonna enforce it is properly educated in this matter, then yes that could be enforceable. However, there's no point enforcing a rule if it is bad to begin with.
"Just like how if you make something such as "gliding under the stage more than once without touching the main platform", the person you're playing against won't go ape**** because you used a tactic, that, in moderation (which it would be in moderation if you only did it twice), isn't even broken to begin with)."
If the tactic is not broken in moderation, then why have such a hard limit? (The answer later) If you say "Oh well the other guy won't care if you go under the stage more than once", that would make a rule where you can't go under more than once seem like a bit of overkill. As for the rule enforcing itself, what you said seems to contradict itself. If the person is breaking the technical rule, and the other person lets it slide for whatever reasons, that doesn't change the fact that the person overstepped the boundaries. I don't care if M2K used IDC for like 2 seconds against me 1 time in the entire match, the rules state he cannot do that period or be DQ'd and you can bet I would either pause the match, or quit out and get a replay and notify the TO.
Here's why you have issues:
1. Is the tactic hard to define as being used in moderation compared to being overused?
What is the difference between someone using IDC in moderation compared to someone exploiting it? There isn't a clear answer on that. In fact I guarantee the answer varies from person to person, based on how they feel. When it comes to making a limit/ban on a tactic, you are gonna have a hard time limiting it very well when its not even agreed on or very clear what is too much and what is acceptable/not that bad. Planking AND scrooging fit this unfortunately. You are gonna struggle making a rule for them when it's hard to say "Yeah this is the moderate amount, this is too much" especially seeing how well they combine together and compliment each other. Now I'm not saying that this should stop people from attempting to come up with a rule, but people too readily accept the notion that these kinds of rules are great or that they are guaranteed to work.
If something is broken in excess, but fine in moderation, and you want to impose some kind of limit that tries to allow you to do it in moderation, you do run the risk of dipping over too far either side and either allowing them to be excessive or denying them to use it in moderation. The consequence of allowing someone to abuse something in excess is usually greater than denying someone the chance to use something in moderation. Hence why IDC is banned period instead of people trying to ban using for 5 seconds or using it for retreating or using it for whatever.
If something has the threat of being too good/being used too much, generally it is removed instead of restricted. Look at stages. Take Hyrule for example. It is banned, however you COULD try to make rules saying you cannot circle camp or camp in the "cave of immortality" but this is not the course of action we took. There were far worse consequences to be realized from having the stage legal and trying to moderate it, than there were of outright banning it and making sure no one can use it at all.
Now apply that to planking and scrooging. What is the greater risk, that we allow them regulated and it's still too good, or we outright ban them completely? Here's where it gets harder, because both tactics are not necessarily 100% bannable without also having consequences. Scrooging for example: You can eliminate scrooging completely by making a rule that says it is illegal for anyone to pass under a stage a single time ever. Now sure, you could say "Well wait a minute, what if I want to go under the stage for non broken reasons?" If the tactic is broken, you are better off making it completely non viable instead of allowing it in "doses" you think are acceptable.
TL;DR
If faced with the risk of something being broken, or something being gone, you send it packing instead of cutting it up and trying to make it acceptable.
Goldenadept
Smash Lord
the fact that we consider removing the timer and stocks and adding all these rules just because of mk is a little depressing, remember when smash was fun? O~O
KillerJawz
...
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,285
It's not all just because of MK, but I see your point.
#HBC | ZoZo
Shocodoro Blagshidect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg2x22YH2NE&playnext_from=TL&videos=sf0n4AHqUJk&feature=sub
LOOK AT THAT FINAL STOCK, OH SO AMAZING
LOOK AT THAT FINAL STOCK, OH SO AMAZING
Tiersie
Smash Ace
Oh **** get wrecked aaaaaah.
theunabletable
Smash Lord
Why should I be forced to upsmash? I want to kill with Uthrow, and your rules are limiting that ability.
Okay, I'm up to that.
Just so you know, with DI, DK doesn't get killed by ICs Uthrow on Japes till around 950% or so.
So add another 50-100% as cushion, and we get 999%.
Allow me to CG you to 999%, or keep the rule the same and maybe add a limitation to MKs scrooging (honestly, I'm not sure currently whether MKs scrooging is broken enough to warrant any sort of limitation, but it's not worse than the limitations we already have on people with infinites.
The stage would be defined as the lowest area that contains a spawn point.
I'd be able to work those out, but I haven't in these last few posts. Those are not problems.
In what way is it bad? Or atleast in what way is it any worse than our limitations on the infinites, our rising stall ban, or the outright ban of the IDC?
In general, most people NEVER use the IDC in tournament for fear of getting DQ'd.
Good for you. You can do the same thing with a scrooging rule, you know.
May I ask how many people you have gotten DQ'd for using the IDC on you in tournament?
Fine, ban MK from gliding under the stage (I'm not sure, myself, if Pit's or Charizard's gliding is broken, so I won't bother talking about that).
Sounds fair and reasonable, considering what you just said now, to me.
Sorry I didn't have time to respond to everything, barely had time to respond to what I actually did respond to
There are a lot of things to consider:
People getting knocked horizontally under the stage.
I don't think any character should be able to mix up and go under the stage ever, but there are times where people get knocked under the stage and are forced to recover to the other side.
People need to go under the stage to recover. Not true.
MK's Up B is near identical to Marth's in terms of recovery except MK can loop around and get another chance to grab the ledge if their opponent gets up and that he can dip down and go under the stage. Marth recovers without the option to go under the stage. Besides, MK has all of his other B options to recover.
Snake can do under stages, but there is never any reason to. It hinders him to try to go under the stage....
ROB can recover without going under the stage with using projectiles and Up B mixups. It's like he's pit with better recovery projectiles and the ability to attack while using the Up B.
The only character that might need to go under the stage to recover is Pit, but usually they go under the stage when they're below their opponent after ledge camping. That issue is resolved with the LGL rule.
The limit being ineffective because it's too high.
I originally thought 3 underpasses was good(one for each stock), but I thought that would cause problems especially with Pit players if they really relied on going under the stage that much.
About the IDC rules, I don't know of any tournament that has banned the Extended Dimensional Cape. All of the ones I know ban the Infinite Dimensional Cape for stalling reasons. I've always thought extending it was fair and should be legal because of the lag at the end of it. People say "MK can use it to get back on the stage for free"....since when do MKs have trouble getting back to the stage? If anyone wishes to stall with the infinite dimension cape, I wish them good luck. Your right arm is going to be killing you after the first 10 seconds.
People getting knocked horizontally under the stage.
I don't think any character should be able to mix up and go under the stage ever, but there are times where people get knocked under the stage and are forced to recover to the other side.
People need to go under the stage to recover. Not true.
MK's Up B is near identical to Marth's in terms of recovery except MK can loop around and get another chance to grab the ledge if their opponent gets up and that he can dip down and go under the stage. Marth recovers without the option to go under the stage. Besides, MK has all of his other B options to recover.
Snake can do under stages, but there is never any reason to. It hinders him to try to go under the stage....
ROB can recover without going under the stage with using projectiles and Up B mixups. It's like he's pit with better recovery projectiles and the ability to attack while using the Up B.
The only character that might need to go under the stage to recover is Pit, but usually they go under the stage when they're below their opponent after ledge camping. That issue is resolved with the LGL rule.
The limit being ineffective because it's too high.
I originally thought 3 underpasses was good(one for each stock), but I thought that would cause problems especially with Pit players if they really relied on going under the stage that much.
About the IDC rules, I don't know of any tournament that has banned the Extended Dimensional Cape. All of the ones I know ban the Infinite Dimensional Cape for stalling reasons. I've always thought extending it was fair and should be legal because of the lag at the end of it. People say "MK can use it to get back on the stage for free"....since when do MKs have trouble getting back to the stage? If anyone wishes to stall with the infinite dimension cape, I wish them good luck. Your right arm is going to be killing you after the first 10 seconds.
ErikG
Smash Ace
Would these restrictions only apply to gliding?
What if I'm MK on Delfino and want to attack you through the bottom of the stage?
What if I'm MK on Delfino and want to attack you through the bottom of the stage?
The limitations on infinites is not bad by any means, and although you think you have the right to have a cushion large enough to kill with Uthrow, you are mistaken. The main purpose of the rule is to eliminate stalling. The secondary purpose is to give you a cushion. Even if your "need" was relevant, it would take a backseat to the greater need of preventing stalling adequately. Making the % higher would not serve that purpose, hence the limit will not be raised.
As for IDC, you are banning extending the cape because of the ambiguity of trying to define what is IDC for stalling and what is IDC for other means. The same logic follows this as of infinites: the need to prevent this from being used for stalling is greater than that of someone needing to use it for other purposes/through other means. If you have a rule that says you cannot extend the cape, there's nothing for you to test or see how far you can go before you approach breaking the rule. What's different about a rule aimed to restrict a character from doing something gamebreaking is that unless you concrete ban it completely, you WILL have people pushing the envelope. Look at how scrooging arose, M2K used it as a way to push the envelope on how many ledge grabs he can safely get away with while still burning time elsewhere safely. Planking was formed to push the envelope on trying to run out the time in a manner that was acceptable. IDC, if you had a rule that said you could use it but only a certain number of times or a certain time length, I guarantee you players would try to abuse this as much as feasible. It's the whole notion of playing to win, using whatever tools are given to you to the max to achieve victory.
Also, something minor, but it's not hard to IDC for that long. Just use your thumb or another finger, and flick it. No need to move your arm excessively or try that hard to do it.
As for IDC, you are banning extending the cape because of the ambiguity of trying to define what is IDC for stalling and what is IDC for other means. The same logic follows this as of infinites: the need to prevent this from being used for stalling is greater than that of someone needing to use it for other purposes/through other means. If you have a rule that says you cannot extend the cape, there's nothing for you to test or see how far you can go before you approach breaking the rule. What's different about a rule aimed to restrict a character from doing something gamebreaking is that unless you concrete ban it completely, you WILL have people pushing the envelope. Look at how scrooging arose, M2K used it as a way to push the envelope on how many ledge grabs he can safely get away with while still burning time elsewhere safely. Planking was formed to push the envelope on trying to run out the time in a manner that was acceptable. IDC, if you had a rule that said you could use it but only a certain number of times or a certain time length, I guarantee you players would try to abuse this as much as feasible. It's the whole notion of playing to win, using whatever tools are given to you to the max to achieve victory.
Also, something minor, but it's not hard to IDC for that long. Just use your thumb or another finger, and flick it. No need to move your arm excessively or try that hard to do it.
Mr-R
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,544
get dat **** outta here those arent mk dittos :@
o-Serin-o
I think 56 nights crazy
Wtf. DMG what'd you do?!
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
B!squick
Smash Master
Hi. Welcome to today. Where you been?
Samuelson
Smash Lord
What happened to my beautiful thread I started like 2 years ago? Why aren't there anymore videos? 
Hehehe....
Samuelson, this is very temporary and will be reverted back after the weekend. I have the old coding saved for the previous videos.
o-Serin-o
I think 56 nights crazy
Lost in yesterday? :x
theunabletable
Smash Lord
I don't see anything in your post contradicting what I said earlier. The need to prevent stalling is greater than letting MK have a situational as hell recovery options, which he doesn't even need to get on the stage because he's ****ing MK!Me said:
Concrete banning MK from gliding under the stage a single time doesn't sound like a pleasant rule. Ban MK from grabbing the edge a single time under any circumstances, and we can be done for the day. I feel saddened that people would rather go so far as to attempt to ban anything that could be broken with the character instead of removing the character as a whole.
TLMSheikant
Smash Master
Needs more mk dittos. 5/10 thread.
Boofy!
Smash Champion
This thread plummeted into ****town
MagicJosh
Smash Apprentice
it's your money, use it when you need it
theunabletable
Smash Lord
I think it does.
Yay opinions!
I feel saddened that people care so much about banning a character due to already illegal tactics (stalling, which his planking definitely seems to fit the SBR criteria of, and his scrooging... may... I'm not sure about scrooging yet), instead of finding a way to enforce the rules we already have and make sure he can't use those illegal tactics.
DerpDaBerp
Smash Champion
So, we get MK is ********.
Can we give back this thread's original function please...
Can we give back this thread's original function please...
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
MKs planking does not qualify as stalling. If im playing MK. im hanging on the edge to keep myself in a better position. im not avoiding conflict or making myself unhittable. Im just making it so if you try to hit me, I have the advantage. and Im just making myself CLOSE to unhittable. as weve seen in DMGs planking thread, MK is not unhittable, even though his planking isnt broken.
Thats why we have a LGL
basically what it amounts to is that in order to:
We have to create supplimentary rules to completely encompass the things that only mk can do to circumvent the
At that point we are creating rules explicitly to limit MK, at which point, as DMG said, we should be banning the character.
B!squick
Smash Master
No. This thread is forever more changed. Deal.
DerpDaBerp
Smash Champion
Then DMG should change its name.
I don't really care what happens to this thread, but the existence of an actual 'Best Vids of Each Character' thread was nice.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
Some people just dont like to read.
Hes said it at least 5 times in this thread...
Conviction
Human Nature
Why are you people so butthurt?
It's A JOKE! LOL
You people can't read or can't take a joke.
KillerJawz
...
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,285
I really do suppose it's just because people don't like a joke thread being in the tactical boards . Just a thought.
. Just a thought.
Conviction
Human Nature
Yes and I can completely relate to that. Only thing that makes them dumb and look stupid is he said he is GOING TO CHANGE IT BACK!I really do suppose it's just because people don't like a joke thread being in the tactical boards
People really don't like jokes in the tactical boards.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9529892#post9529892
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9529892#post9529892
