Unban IDC (proposal inside) DON'T FREAKIN CLOSE WITHOUT EXPLANATION MODS!

[Affinity]

So NO. You DIDN'T counter my proposal many times.

Whatever you say kid.

 

[metaXzero]

No one with a brain is going to try an offensively use it either.

Also, Define: "Dragging out the match"

But but it's an utterly broken offense/defense!

"So why unban it" So why ban something that isn't broken?

And I personally define stalling as "using an unbeatable tactic to drag a match out until it ends by timer (obviously in your favor).

Whatever you say kid.

luv ya too <3

 

[Vulcan55]

But but it's an utterly broken offense/defense!

I don't know where you got this, but it clearly is not broken offensively.

"So why unban it" So why ban something that isn't broken?

Thanks for dodging the question.
But anyways, it is broken. You can stall a match infinitely.

And I personally define stalling as "using an unbeatable tactic to drag a match out until it ends by timer (obviously in your favor).

Okay. I'll make sure to stop with one second left on the timer.

 

[metaXzero]

I don't know where you got this, but it clearly is not broken offensively.

Thanks for dodging the question.
But anyways, it is broken. You can stall a match infinitely.

Okay. I'll make sure to stop with one second left on the timer.

People on the keep-ban side say otherwise (as well as saying used defensively, it's broken). Have you been reading through the thread at all?

And now you can't. It's not broken anymore. So why keep something banned when it's not utterly broken or overcentralizing? Simply put, we DON'T ban things when they aren't utterly broken or overcentralizing.

Also, majority of the match?

 

[Natch]

Wow. swordgard really did exaggerate his experience with IDC. I mean, it wasn't even held for 30 seconds (the maximum I've faced). Good choice of if you had known, you would rule in fornaxx's favor.


MK's pretty much an anti-camp character. And no one has a perfect keep away method (besides MK himself lol). If you can hold a GOOD MK away for an entire match, well kudos.

And the MK vs. MK scenario; It's in the OP. Match is treated as if the 2 MK's DIDN'T use IDC (meaning you may not want to use IDC against another MK).

Then we go back to the first scenario, where the OTHER player will try and stall the whole match. He just has to run out the clock, and he auto-wins. However, the MK player knows this too. So what does he do? He uses a normal DC. The other player runs out the clock, but SURPRISE, the MK used a normal DC. Now we have a player dispute. If you assign judges, you will have player disputes. If you record matches and review them in slow motion, you will still have player disputes.

Everyone will piss and moan and whine and john over and over and over and over and over again. Tournies will take forever to finish, people will leave Brawl entirely. The game is no fun anymore,


On other hand, it turns out that the players realize this would end uo happening. So, nobody uses IDC for that reason. Everyone soft bans it.

Regardless of what happens, you'll still end up failing.

 

[metaXzero]

Then we go back to the first scenario, where the OTHER player will try and stall the whole match. He just has to run out the clock, and he auto-wins. However, the MK player knows this too. So what does he do? He uses a normal DC. The other player runs out the clock, but SURPRISE, the MK used a normal DC. Now we have a player dispute. If you assign judges, you will have player disputes. If you record matches and review them in slow motion, you will still have player disputes.

Everyone will piss and moan and whine and john over and over and over and over and over again. Tournies will take foever to finish, people will leave Brawl entirely.


On other hand, it turns out that the players realize this is happening. So, nobody uses IDC for that reason. Everyone soft bans it. By unbanning IDC, you did nothing. Either way, you still fail

What GUARANTEED and unbeatable way do you have of stalling out MK? Answer?

Your statement of "inability to tell IDC from DC" (which is false since 1. IDC requires noisy Up C-Stick spam and 2. You should easily be able to tell when DC is extended) can be applied to the current ban. MK player uses DC, opponent claims it is stalling with IDC. everyone pisses and moans, Down-B is soft-banned. Now did that actually happen huh?

 

[Vulcan55]

Situation 1: MK ditto
-Be the first to get a hit, then IDC for the rest of the match.

Sit. 2: MK v X char
-You play normally, not using the IDC at all.

Sit. 3: MK v X char
-You try and use the IDC offensively, and "succeed".

Sit. 4: MK v X char
-You try and IDC offensively, but the other player notices, and camps and stalls the whole match just to run the timer and get a free win.

If you are playing anyone smart, Sit. 3 will never happen.
If you are smart, you will be in Sit. 2

 

[metaXzero]

Situation 1: MK ditto
-Be the first to get a hit, then IDC for the rest of the match.

Sit. 2: MK v X char
-You play normally, not using the IDC at all.

Sit. 3: MK v X char
-You try and use the IDC offensively, and "succeed".

Sit. 4: MK v X char
-You try and IDC offensively, but the other player notices, and camps and stalls the whole match just to run the timer and get a free win.

If you are playing anyone smart, Sit. 3 will never happen.
If you are smart, you will be in Sit. 2

Why are you ignoring my OP? If 2 MKs BOTH use IDC, the match is treated as if the 2 MKs DIDN'T use IDC. Only if both MKs use IDC would one be given an incentive to stall out a match. Basically it's risky to use IDC against another MK (assuming every MK becomes proficient in doing IDC).

And as I said to Natch, What GUARANTEED and UNBEATABLE way do you have of stalling out MK?

Anyway, we're a bit off subject. You're not arguing against my proposal nor are you showing why IDC should remain banned. You're just talking about the viabillity (or lack of as you say) of IDC as an attack/defense. That doesn't matter here.

 

[Natch]

What GUARANTEED and unbeatable way do you have of stalling out MK? Answer?

Your statement of "inability to tell IDC from DC" (which is false since 1. IDC requires noisy Up C-Stick spam and 2. You should easily be able to tell when DC is extended) can be applied to the current ban. MK player uses DC, opponent claims it is stalling with IDC. everyone pisses and moans, Down-B is soft-banned. Now did that actually happen huh?

I never said it was unbeatable and garunteed. I said that people can try to stall. People have the capacity to make an attempt at stalling out the match. People will succeed-not all the time, but the fact remains that every MK who uses IDC will have to deal with this.

Also, you need to take into account how much longer DC lasts when you tap the C-Stick once. That's pretty minute, and someone who isn't familier with how long DC lasts could be taken advantage of.

Just did some testing. it's possible to extend DC using only the Analog Stick. From what I've tested, it's more difficult to extend the DC with just your Analog Stick alone.

 

[metaXzero]

I never said it was unbeatable and garunteed. I said that people can try to stall. People have the capacity to make an attempt at stalling out the match. People will succeed-not all the time, but the fact remains that every MK who uses IDC will have to deal with this.

Also, you need to take into account how much longer DC lasts when you tap the C-Stick once. That's pretty minute, and someone who isn't familier with how long DC lasts could be taken advantage of.

Just did some testing. it's possible to extend DC using only the Analog Stick. From what I've tested, it's more difficult to extend the DC with just your Analog Stick alone.

If their isn't an unbeatable or guaranteed way to stall out MK, I really don't see the problem here.

If you're going to extend the DC, you're going to do so in an at least somewhat noticeable amount. Don't see the point of extending it EXTREMELY slightly versus just doing a regular DC.

You can IDC with only the Analog stick (granted, it's much harder)? Thought you would need the A-Stick to keep MK on the ground. Are you hitting up and down repeatedly on the A-stick?

 

[Vulcan55]

And as I said to Natch, What GUARANTEED and UNBEATABLE way do you have of stalling out MK?

But seriously, I'm not going to bother with the rest. You have proven to me, that you are very stupid, to put it bluntly.

 

[metaXzero]

But seriously, I'm not going to bother with the rest. You have proven to me, that you are very stupid, to put it bluntly.

Thanks for NOT providing an answer and flaming me instead. You REALLY helped the keep-ban side right there.

 

[Skip2MaLoo]

everyone should main falcon and just IFP.

 

[PukeTShirt]

i am convinced the OP is the most epic troll evar. that is all

0knackers

 

[okiyama]

So the fact that I play a character means that I can pause the game at any time I want for any amount of time I want while the game timer still goes isn't broken?

Sure.

 

[Natch]

If their isn't an unbeatable or guaranteed way to stall out MK, I really don't see the problem here.

If you're going to extend the DC, you're going to do so in an at least somewhat noticeable amount. Don't see the point of extending it EXTREMELY slightly versus just doing a regular DC.

You can IDC with only the Analog stick (granted, it's much harder)? Thought you would need the A-Stick to keep MK on the ground. Are you hitting up and down repeatedly on the A-stick?

Of course the method of stalling isn't garunteed. Not even Planking is 100% fool proof. However, you have to take into account there is not garunteed way for MK to PREVENT stalling. There would be cases where the ML

Slightly extending the duration of DC is a moot point, after I looked at all the conseqeuences of such. However, using Analog Stick to extend DC IS a big deal.

What if a player extends it using the Analog Stick? Is that still an IDC? Using the Analog Stick might mean that it's no longer infinite, simply due to a limitation on how fast one could move the Analog Stick. Or, what if they simply use DC and extend it by going from Air->Ground->Air? This isn't infinite, due to the manner in which you execute it, but it does extend DC by a noticable amount. Is THAT one an IDC? What happens if a player extends DC using the C-Stick? How can you prove that they weren't using the Analog Stick?

You will not be able to reliably prove if a player used IDC or not. There will be disputes between players, and everyone will be trying to push the enevelope. And people WILL do these things, trust me.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

However I have come up with a proposal that allows IDC to be used AND makes it completely unviable as a way to stall out matches.

Basically "IF A MK USES IDC IN A MATCH, THEY SHALL LOSE THAT MATCH IF THE MATCH TIMER RUNS OUT.

Your proposal doe not make the match "unstallable" at all. They could just come out of idc 1 second before the timer runs out.

 

[swordgard]

Your proposal doe not make the match "unstallable" at all. They could just come out of idc 1 second before the timer runs out.

He didnt do it for long in those times, but anything over 10 seconds already puts you in a bad position to defend yourself(and he actually used it on me for a 30 seconds period last match we played online, 30 seconds is HUGE). The thing is if he really wanted to, he could just idc until i make a mistake and appear. This means someone who really wanted could say that its not stalling, hes just using it for long periods until i make a mistake and attack. Its the exact same thing as planking, your not stalling technically, because you can attack. But you are still in allowing metaknight into a position where little can be done. I can make a mistake and he will punish. Yes he has a small amount of lag, but its nothing compared to the pressure that can be applied to many chars. And he can come out near and nado and its very hard to space out of. Seriously, the potential for brokeness is there. It has just not been used in tourneys before. What i am saying, this technique wont make you win every match, just like planking wont, but it still has the potential to break the metagame.

 

[metaXzero]

So the fact that I play a character means that I can pause the game at any time I want for any amount of time I want while the game timer still goes isn't broken?

Sure.

PROVE it's broken. Especially when by using IDC, you can't let that match timer hit 0.

Of course the method of stalling isn't garunteed. Not even Planking is 100% fool proof. However, you have to take into account there is not garunteed way for MK to PREVENT stalling. There would be cases where the ML

Slightly extending the duration of DC is a moot point, after I looked at all the conseqeuences of such. However, using Analog Stick to extend DC IS a big deal.

What if a player extends it using the Analog Stick? Is that still an IDC? Using the Analog Stick might mean that it's no longer infinite, simply due to a limitation on how fast one could move the Analog Stick. Or, what if they simply use DC and extend it by going from Air->Ground->Air? This isn't infinite, due to the manner in which you execute it, but it does extend DC by a noticable amount. Is THAT one an IDC? What happens if a player extends DC using the C-Stick? How can you prove that they weren't using the Analog Stick?

You will not be able to reliably prove if a player used IDC or not. There will be disputes between players, and everyone will be trying to push the enevelope. And people WILL do these things, trust me.

Basically, it will boil down to the players abilities? The MKs players ability to defeat his opponent in time Vs. the opponent's ability to hold MK away for an entire. match? Don't really see what's wrong with that. If it suddenly becomes an epidemic of IDC using MKs losing sets via their opponent holding them off for an entire match, I guess IDC will end up soft-banned (no one will use IDC due to inabillity to defeat their opponent in time). I see that as HIGHLY unlikely though.

The act of extending DC past it's original limit is technically using IDC (no matter the method). Though really, I can't see people extending IDC using a harder method that yields the same result.

And again, the "inability to tell IDC from DC" argument can be applied to the current ban. How do we currently tell IDC from DC?

Your proposal doe not make the match "unstallable" at all. They could just come out of idc 1 second before the timer runs out.

And then they lose the match. Good freaking job.

 

[swordgard]

PROVE it's broken. Especially when by using IDC, you can't let that match timer hit 0.

Basically, it will boil down to the players abilities? The MKs players ability to defeat his opponent in time Vs. the opponent's ability to hold MK away for an entire. match? Don't really see what's wrong with that. If it suddenly becomes an epidemic of IDC using MKs losing sets via their opponent holding them off for an entire match, I guess IDC will end up soft-banned (no one will use IDC due to inabillity to defeat their opponent in time). I see that as HIGHLY unlikely though.

The act of extending DC past it's original limit is technically using IDC (no matter the method). Though really, I can't see people extending IDC using a harder method that yields the same result.

And again, the "inability to tell IDC from DC" argument can be applied to the current ban. How do we currently tell IDC from DC?






And then they lose the match. Good freaking job.

Where is the line for stalling <.<

 

[metaXzero]

Another possible Double post because I can't edit quotes.

He didnt do it for long in those times, but anything over 10 seconds already puts you in a bad position to defend yourself(and he actually used it on me for a 30 seconds period last match we played online, 30 seconds is HUGE). The thing is if he really wanted to, he could just idc until i make a mistake and appear. This means someone who really wanted could say that its not stalling, hes just using it for long periods until i make a mistake and attack. Its the exact same thing as planking, your not stalling technically, because you can attack. But you are still in allowing metaknight into a position where little can be done. I can make a mistake and he will punish. Yes he has a small amount of lag, but its nothing compared to the pressure that can be applied to many chars. And he can come out near and nado and its very hard to space out of. Seriously, the potential for brokeness is there. It has just not been used in tourneys before. What i am saying, this technique wont make you win every match, just like planking wont, but it still has the potential to break the metagame.

I've delt with a MK who could hold IDC for 30+ seconds. Still never actually got to land the attack without missing or hitting my shield.

Again, you're overestimating the lessened lag from coming out of DC without the attack. Their IS enough lag where you'll be alerted to whatever attack they try (especially Mach Tornado). And if they come up close enough to Up-B or D-Smash, you can not only defend yourself, you can punish them (like YOUR matches ThatGuy posted).

Yeah, IDC COULD break the game. But then again, it can very well NOT break the game. It could just be another tool for MK. Heck, it could in the long run, be utterly useless. But the simple fact is, we won't know until it's allowed tourneys.

EDIT:"and where is the line for stalling" We assume people are playing to win. If eating away minutes upon minutes brings you closer to a loss, why the heck would you?

 

[Grunt]

But where's your limit? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? 1 minute?

 

[metaXzero]

But where's your limit? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? 30 seconds? 1 minute?

Their is no limit (their is no viable way to limit it to a specific time presented). but if that match timer hits 0:00:00, MK loses.

 

[Grunt]

While doing IDC correct?

 

[metaXzero]

While doing IDC correct?

If they use IDC AT ALL for whatever reason. Basically, if you use IDC, you have to defeat your opponent before the timer hits 0. Fail, and you lose that match.

 

[DMG]

If they use IDC AT ALL for whatever reason. Basically, if you use IDC, you have to defeat your opponent before the timer hits 0. Fail, and you lose that match.

Look, I posted in the other thread, read this, and I will post it again. I understand this subject very well, don't tell me to read over your posts/thoughts again. I understand what your point is, and I have been trying to tell you why the SBR's decision will most likely not be reversed.

If a MK player uses this once for 5 seconds, he is now forced to beat his opponent without the clock running out. His opponent can HARDCORE CAMP and MK would lose even if the guy has one stock. There are plenty of characters who can hold off MK for a few minutes if they absolutely needed to. They might get hit, they might even lose a stock or two, but the timer would run out. Is that fair for MK to lose then? No.

Ur rule is not fair to someone who uses this for a short amount of time FOR WHATEVER REASON and gains relatively nothing because it forces him to not just beat his opponent with a % or stock lead but by killing him within the time frame.

I have tried to explain quite a few times why your rule would not be implemented IN THIS CURRENT FORM. If you want ANY chance of having a rule that allows but limits the IDC, then you must add the following things:

1. In Depth Explanations describing scenarios where MK does not lose/loses because of the IDC.

2. Some method of reasonably determining if a player is reporting correctly that his opponent used IDC and should be DQ'd for breaking the rules.

Your current rule is too subjective, not clear enough, hard to enforce, and in it's current form it is not a suitable replacement for an outright ban.

Your logic on unbanning this is "SBR prove me wrong." You should be proving THEM wrong and showing them that your rule is not only reasonable to enforce, but that it is correct for them to prefer that over a ban. So far, you have not done that.

 

[metaXzero]

Look, I posted in the other thread, read this, and I will post it again. I understand this subject very well, don't tell me to read over your posts/thoughts again. I understand what your point is, and I have been trying to tell you why the SBR's decision will most likely not be reversed.

If a MK player uses this once for 5 seconds, he is now forced to beat his opponent without the clock running out. His opponent can HARDCORE CAMP and MK would lose even if the guy has one stock. There are plenty of characters who can hold off MK for a few minutes if they absolutely needed to. They might get hit, they might even lose a stock or two, but the timer would run out. Is that fair for MK to lose then? No.

Ur rule is not fair to someone who uses this for a short amount of time FOR WHATEVER REASON and gains relatively nothing because it forces him to not just beat his opponent with a % or stock lead but by killing him within the time frame.

I have tried to explain quite a few times why your rule would not be implemented IN THIS CURRENT FORM. If you want ANY chance of having a rule that allows but limits the IDC, then you must add the following things:

1. In Depth Explanations describing scenarios where MK does not lose/loses because of the IDC.

2. Some method of reasonably determining if a player is reporting correctly that his opponent used IDC and should be DQ'd for breaking the rules.

Your current rule is too subjective, not clear enough, hard to enforce, and in it's current form it is not a suitable replacement for an outright ban.

Your logic on unbanning this is "SBR prove me wrong." You should be proving THEM wrong and showing them that your rule is not only reasonable to enforce, but that it is correct for them to prefer that over a ban. So far, you have not done that.

"would"? As in characters have some UNBEATABLE and GUARANTEED way to hold off MK (who's basically an anti-camp character) for an entire match? Care to explain this method? If it's not unbeatable, their is NO guarantee that we will have an epidemic of IDC-using MKs losing matches due to time. We would have to see in practice if my rule leads to that outcome. Using IDC is a choice. You don't HAVE to use it if you don't think you can deal with an opponent trying to camp you to the time.

The SBR banned IDC under the line of "inability to tell if one is stalling or not". So they instead treat basically ALL uses of IDC as attempts to stall and penalize users. I have basically made rule that renders stalling with IDC unviable, yet allows the use of it.

When something is banned, its because it's broken to the point of overcentralization. If it isn't broken like that, THEN YOU DON'T BAN IT. As a stall, IDC is obviously too broken. But in other uses, IDC has YET too prove itself broken. With the stall problem gone, IDC has no reason to continue being banned.

Yes. Their is a possible problem under my rule of MKs who use IDC getting the timer ran out by their opponents. But then again, it could turn into nothing and matches go along as usual.

The fact is, we won't know for sure unless my proposal is actually tried out

 

[DMG]

"would"? As in characters have some UNBEATABLE and GUARANTEED way to hold off MK (who's basically an anti-camp character) for an entire match? Care to explain this method? If it's not unbeatable, their is NO guarantee that we will have an epidemic of IDC-using MKs losing matches due to time. We would have to see in practice if my rule leads to that outcome. Using IDC is a choice. You don't HAVE to use it if you don't think you can deal with an opponent trying to camp you to the time.

If an opponent uses it on accident, he is now at a disadvantage because of your rule. That is not fair. If he chooses to use it say after his opponent dies, runs out the invincibility, and then stops and resumes the fight, he is now at a disadvantage for doing that. Is it fair? No. U didn't understand my point about characters camping MK, they can camp and win on time. They can take hits/lose a stock or two, but because of your rule they would actually win against MK EVEN IF when he uses it he gains relatively nothing for doing it.

If your opponent camps you for time, you should not lose when time runs out if you are ahead. Your rule makes it so that no matter what lead MK has, he would lose anyways. That is obviously not fair.

The SBR banned IDC under the line of "inability to tell if one is stalling or not". So they instead treat basically ALL uses of IDC as attempts to stall and penalize users. I have basically made rule that renders stalling with IDC unviable, yet allows the use of it.

The SBR banned it for many reasons I think. One of them is because it is a very potent stalling tool, another reason I think is because you cannot reasonably allow it while still establishing clear, non subjective, easily enforceable rules on the IDC. Your proposed rule is not clear, is very subjective, not easy to enforce, AND to the minds of the majority of the community it is not a suitable replacement for the current ban. If you modify your rule, then maybe, but currently it is not close to being actually better/the correct choice over the ban.

When something is banned, its because it's broken to the point of overcentralization. If it isn't broken like that, THEN YOU DON'T BAN IT. As a stall, IDC is obviously too broken. But in other uses, IDC has YET too prove itself broken. With the stall problem gone, IDC has no reason to continue being banned.

Yes. Their is a possible problem under my rule of MKs who use IDC getting the timer ran out by their opponents. But then again, it could turn into nothing and matches go along as usual.

The fact is, we won't know for sure unless my proposal is actually tried out

U don't understand. The IDC DOES NOT have to be broken in any other way aside from stalling for it to be banned. It is banned because it is a stalling tool that CANNOT BE REASONABLY LIMITED/MADE FAIR. It doesn't have to be a great approach, it doesn't have to be some unstoppable guaranteed attacking option for them to ban it. All that it had to be was a powerful stalling tool that is probably impossible to reasonably limit in competitive play. IT MET THOSE GUIDELINES. Just because it didn't meet YOUR GUIDELINES doesn't mean we need to prove somehow that it can meet your guidelines.


Your current proposed rule is not good enough to be a suitable replacement. IMO I do not think there is a reasonably enforceable/fair/non subjective/in depth rule set out there that would allow but limit the IDC. If you disagree with me, then fine, come up with a better rule set and we will see if it is fair/non subjective/reasonably easy to enforce. If you cannot do that, the drop the subject and stop posting this proposed rule because I have already explained that it is not good enough.

I don't have a problem with different view points, and I don't have a problem with people presenting their side, but I think I have explained why your currently proposed rule would not work. If you change it up some, add to it, etc then repost it and we can talk about the new/different proposed rule, but for this current one I think we've beaten this discussion to a dry pulp.

 

[metaXzero]

If an opponent uses it on accident, he is now at a disadvantage because of your rule. That is not fair. If he chooses to use it say after his opponent dies, runs out the invincibility, and then stops and resumes the fight, he is now at a disadvantage for doing that. Is it fair? No. U didn't understand my point about characters camping MK, they can camp and win on time. They can take hits/lose a stock or two, but because of your rule they would actually win against MK EVEN IF when he uses it he gains relatively nothing for doing it.

If your opponent camps you for time, you should not lose when time runs out if you are ahead. Your rule makes it so that no matter what lead MK has, he would lose anyways. That is obviously not fair.



The SBR banned it for many reasons I think. One of them is because it is a very potent stalling tool, another reason I think is because you cannot reasonably allow it while still establishing clear, non subjective, easily enforceable rules on the IDC. Your proposed rule is not clear, is very subjective, not easy to enforce, AND to the minds of the majority of the community it is not a suitable replacement for the current ban. If you modify your rule, then maybe, but currently it is not close to being actually better/the correct choice over the ban.



U don't understand. The IDC DOES NOT have to be broken in any other way aside from stalling for it to be banned. It is banned because it is a stalling tool that CANNOT BE REASONABLY LIMITED/MADE FAIR. It doesn't have to be a great approach, it doesn't have to be some unstoppable guaranteed attacking option for them to ban it. All that it had to be was a powerful stalling tool that is probably impossible to reasonably limit in competitive play. IT MET THOSE GUIDELINES. Just because it didn't meet YOUR GUIDELINES doesn't mean we need to prove somehow that it can meet your guidelines.


Your current proposed rule is not good enough to be a suitable replacement. IMO I do not think there is a reasonably enforceable/fair/non subjective/in depth rule set out there that would allow but limit the IDC. If you disagree with me, then fine, come up with a better rule set and we will see if it is fair/non subjective/reasonably easy to enforce. If you cannot do that, the drop the subject and stop posting this proposed rule because I have already explained that it is not good enough.

I don't have a problem with different view points, and I don't have a problem with people presenting their side, but I think I have explained why your currently proposed rule would not work. If you change it up some, add to it, etc then repost it and we can talk about the new/different proposed rule, but for this current one I think we've beaten this discussion to a dry pulp.

Again, HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU ACCIDENTLY IDC? Accidently DCing is barely arguable (if at all), but accidently IDCing is just hilarious.

Like I said, you don't HAVE to use IDC. If you don't think you can handle your opponent trying to camp you to the timer, you don't use it. It's that simple. IF opponents "hardcore camping" IDC-using MKs to the timer becomes a major problem in the future, we'll deal with it then (like we'll deal with if IDC proves to be a broken offense/defense). But the fact is their is no guarantee that it will happen. MKs an anti-camp character, and no one has a guaranteed way of keeping him away an entire match. Don't think it's fair that you can lose a match by timer if you use IDC? Well then, I guess you won't use IDC.

How is it not clear (how can I be MORE clearer)? How is it not easy to enforce (shouldn't be that much different then enforcing the current ban)? How is it very subjective? Explain because I don't see the problem...

The stalling problem is gone. The one confirmed reason for IDC being broken is gone. So it NO LONGER MEETS THOSE GUIDELINES. Now, why keep it banned?

All you've said is "it's not fair". Maybe after a few tourneys we can see if it's "fair" or not. But at THIS moment, you have no proof that every MK that uses IDC will get stalled out upon using IDC.

And I'd like to add on to the current proposal. But the fact is most add ons and refinements make it unrealistic and unviable to use. And so, this what I get too keep the proposal clear and enforceable.

 

[DMG]

Again, HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU ACCIDENTLY IDC? Accidently DCing is barely arguable (if at all), but accidently IDCing is just hilarious.

If they wanna smash attack as soon as possible and start slamming on the Cstick. It shouldn't matter how someone does something on accident. The point is, when someone does do it on accident or gains nothing from doing it, you are punishing him for doing it. Now you could say that about banning it outright, how it's not fair to make someone lose the match for doing it on accident there, but no one said banning it was a perfect answer either. ANY answer will have flaws in it, outright banning it has fewer flaws than making a rule set however.

Like I said, you don't HAVE to use IDC. If you don't think you can handle your opponent trying to camp you to the timer, you don't use it. It's that simple. IF opponents "hardcore camping" IDC-using MKs to the timer becomes a major problem in the future, we'll deal with it then (like we'll deal with if IDC proves to be a broken offense/defense). But the fact is their is no guarantee that it will happen. MKs an anti-camp character, and no one has a guaranteed way of keeping him away an entire match. Don't think it's fair that you can lose a match by timer if you use IDC? Well then, I guess you won't use IDC.

You say no one has a guaranteed way to keep MK away, yet you could say MK has no guaranteed way to approach every time. You cannot make assumptions like that, It works both ways

So now let's say that MK's who use IDC now have a widespread problem with the opponent camping them, what do you do about THAT camping? Do you make YET ANOTHER rule preventing THEM from camping? Your current rule does not address that, and we do not need tourney results/matches to determine that that would be an issue. If you make it so that MK loses no matter what if he does that and it goes to time, then shouldn't you make it fair by saying the other person can't win on time by camping?

How is it not clear (how can I be MORE clearer)? How is it not easy to enforce (shouldn't be that much different then enforcing the current ban)? How is it very subjective? Explain because I don't see the problem...

The stalling problem is gone. The one confirmed reason for IDC being broken is gone. So it NO LONGER MEETS THOSE GUIDELINES. Now, why keep it banned?

All you've said is "it's not fair". Maybe after a few tourneys we can see if it's "fair" or not. But at THIS moment, you have no proof that every MK that uses IDC will get stalled out upon using IDC.

And I'd like to add on to the current proposal. But the fact is most add ons and refinements make it unrealistic and unviable to use. And so, this what I get too keep the proposal clear and enforceable.

Your current rule says that MK cannot win on time if he uses IDC. You did not explain what happens if he uses on accident and his opponent camps him, you did not explain what happens if he does it and he fight his opponent who doesn't camp and yet MK falls short of killing him completely before time runs out, your rule is not specific enough.

It is also subjective because people would disagree over whether you should lose if your opponent camped you or not. Someone can say "MK deserves to lose, he used IDC period, end of story he should lose if it goes to time", while someone else can say "MK used IDC, gained relatively nothing positionally, and now his opponent is abusing the rules and camping, putting MK at an unfair disadvantage". Congratulations, you now have a SUBJECTIVE rule.

The stalling problem is not gone, you did not solve it but instead made the situation more complicated. Instead of saying "Don't do that or you lose", you are saying "U can do it, but you can't win on time. Oh, and your opponent can camp you and he wins even if you have the lead."

We don't need tournament results before we ban it, if you want it allowed then introduce a good rule set that the community agrees on before we let it in, test it with the rule set, and then make a decision.

Your current rule does not solve the issue about stalling, it makes things more complicated, more subjective, and even though Banning it is not perfect, it is certainly better than your current rule.

 

[metaXzero]

If they wanna smash attack as soon as possible and start slamming on the Cstick. It shouldn't matter how someone does something on accident. The point is, when someone does do it on accident or gains nothing from doing it, you are punishing him for doing it. Now you could say that about banning it outright, how it's not fair to make someone lose the match for doing it on accident there, but no one said banning it was a perfect answer either. ANY answer will have flaws in it, outright banning it has fewer flaws than making a rule set however.



You say no one has a guaranteed way to keep MK away, yet you could say MK has no guaranteed way to approach every time. You cannot make assumptions like that, It works both ways

So now let's say that MK's who use IDC now have a widespread problem with the opponent camping them, what do you do about THAT camping? Do you make YET ANOTHER rule preventing THEM from camping? Your current rule does not address that, and we do not need tourney results/matches to determine that that would be an issue. If you make it so that MK loses no matter what if he does that and it goes to time, then shouldn't you make it fair by saying the other person can't win on time by camping?



Your current rule says that MK cannot win on time if he uses IDC. You did not explain what happens if he uses on accident and his opponent camps him, you did not explain what happens if he does it and he fight his opponent who doesn't camp and yet MK falls short of killing him completely before time runs out, your rule is not specific enough.

It is also subjective because people would disagree over whether you should lose if your opponent camped you or not. Someone can say "MK deserves to lose, he used IDC period, end of story he should lose if it goes to time", while someone else can say "MK used IDC, gained relatively nothing positionally, and now his opponent is abusing the rules and camping, putting MK at an unfair disadvantage". Congratulations, you now have a SUBJECTIVE rule.

The stalling problem is not gone, you did not solve it but instead made the situation more complicated. Instead of saying "Don't do that or you lose", you are saying "U can do it, but you can't win on time. Oh, and your opponent can camp you and he wins even if you have the lead."

We don't need tournament results before we ban it, if you want it allowed then introduce a good rule set that the community agrees on before we let it in, test it with the rule set, and then make a decision.

Your current rule does not solve the issue about stalling, it makes things more complicated, more subjective, and even though Banning it is not perfect, it is certainly better than your current rule.

If they start spamming C-Stick while in DC, THEY MIGHT AS WELL BE TRYING TO IDC. Though really, you need U-Smash and have to be holding DOWN on the analog stick to initiate IDC. D-Smash (what their probably going for) and F-Smash CAN'T cause IDC.

Neither side has the perfect approach or defense. We agree right? So it boils down in the ability of the players? The MKs ability to take out his opponent versus the non MKs ability to "hardcore camp" the MK out? .......Don't see what's wrong when neither side has an auto-win tactic. Especially when it's MK of all characters (don't some characters camp him anyway?)

People don't think MK should lose due to time if IDC is used. Well their is no other option without completely rendering this proposal impossible to enforce. If they don't wanna take take the risk of using IDC, just don't use it (and don't bring in "accidently" again).

Actually you DO need tourney results/matches to say it WILL be a serious issue. Without any evidence to back up your claim, you are basically theorycrafting. And theories have no place here.
Also, HOW is the stalling problem not gone again?

 

[DMG]

Neither side has the perfect approach or defense. We agree right? So it boils down in the ability of the players? The MKs ability to take out his opponent versus the non MKs ability to "hardcore camp" the MK out? .......Don't see what's wrong when neither side has an auto-win tactic. Especially when it's MK of all characters (don't some characters camp him anyway?)

It still puts MK at a disadvantage since you are forcing him to act, and it would be unfair IMO to ask MK to kill his opponent completely or lose. MK has to get rid of all of his stocks, his opponent has to live for 8 minutes or so.

People don't think MK should lose due to time if IDC is used. Well their is no other option without completely rendering this proposal impossible to enforce. If they don't wanna take take the risk of using IDC, just don't use it (and don't bring in "accidently" again).

Actually you DO need tourney results/matches to say it WILL be a serious issue. Without any evidence to back up your claim, you are basically theorycrafting. And theories have no place here.
Also, HOW is the stalling problem not gone again?

Accidentally using IDC is a completely valid scenario and you would look like a very bad TO if you actually DQ'd/gave someone a loss for doing it accidentally after their opponent realized he can camp and win just because of that. Unless you plan to add on to your current proposal and include situations like that. But then again, how do you define if someone does it on accident? How do you know/define if his opponent is actually camping the MK or not? U didn't get rid of the stalling problem, it just now got more complicated trying to define it, and if you don't define it then you are just proposing a bad rule.

Banning > Subjective Rule set

U are basing your rule on theory as well, since you yourself do not know if your proposed rule will actually solve anything. You are assuming that it will, and we are assuming it will not.

 

[metaXzero]

It still puts MK at a disadvantage since you are forcing him to act, and it would be unfair IMO to ask MK to kill his opponent completely or lose. MK has to get rid of all of his stocks, his opponent has to live for 8 minutes or so.



Accidentally using IDC is a completely valid scenario and you would look like a very bad TO if you actually DQ'd/gave someone a loss for doing it accidentally after their opponent realized he can camp and win just because of that. Unless you plan to add on to your current proposal and include situations like that. But then again, how do you define if someone does it on accident? How do you know/define if his opponent is actually camping the MK or not? U didn't get rid of the stalling problem, it just now got more complicated trying to define it, and if you don't define it then you are just proposing a bad rule.

Banning > Subjective Rule set

U are basing your rule on theory as well, since you yourself do not know if your proposed rule will actually solve anything. You are assuming that it will, and we are assuming it will not.

Let the better player win. MK already has to approach most of the time (unless he plans on Planking lol), so it's not an "OMG unbeatable" disadvantage.

"Oh noes! While using Dimensional Cape, I accidently held down on the Analog stick and then started to hit up on the C-Stick as fast as possible! I so did not mean to IDC!"
-_________-

You do see how utterly ridiculous that "valid scenario" sounds right?


Banning is for utterly broken things. IDC no longers meets the requirements of a bannable tech.

MY proposal is based on theory? IDC is unbanned and no one can stall with it. That's what my proposal accomplishes. It's that simple.

 

[DMG]

Let the better player win. MK already has to approach most of the time (unless he plans on Planking lol), so it's not an "OMG unbeatable" disadvantage.

"Oh noes! While using Dimensional Cape, I accidently held down on the Analog stick and then started to hit up on the C-Stick as fast as possible! I so did not mean to IDC!"
-_________-

You do see how utterly ridiculous that "valid scenario" sounds right?

:/

U don't have to think it is valid or even think that someone can do it on accident, all that I want you to understand is that your proposed rule creates a lot of subjectivity/controversy/defining difficulties compared to just banning it. Banning this is a lot less subjective than allowing it with limits. You can argue over the limits that should be used, over whether the person went past the limit, etc where as if it is banned the only thing you are trying to figure out is if it occurred period. It either happened or it didn't, plain and simple.

Banning is for utterly broken things. IDC no longers meets the requirements of a bannable tech.

MY proposal is based on theory? IDC is unbanned and no one can stall with it. That's what my proposal accomplishes. It's that simple.

YOU may think your idea makes IDC not broken, but it seems like people either disagree or they do not think there is a reasonable way to implement what you are suggesting. I happen to think that banning it is not only better than your idea, but that it also has fewer flaws and less subjectivity that your idea.

Your proposal is theory good sir. YOU ARE ASSUMING YOUR IDEA SOLVES IT WITHOUT IT BEING IMPLEMENTED/HAVING EVIDENCE! lol. That is theory. U can argue all day about whether it was right for the SBR to ban the IDC mostly on theory, but as it stands your idea is complete theory as well.

I think their decision was correct, they understood how broken this would be if it was completely allowed, and they understood how big of a pain it would be to try and create a reasonable rule set on this when Banning it was not only a simpler idea, but it would have less flaws/subjectivity than probably any proposed rule set on IDC.

 

[Frames]

metaXzero it seems like ur posts are falling on deaf ears, maybe u should host some idc-unbanned tournies so people can see its no big deal

i hosted a big tourney in july and the tourney was literally a week after it was discovered but i was just like "this is dumb its not gonna make a difference" and the tourney was fine, no problems with it at all

for people who are arguing it for it to be banned, you gotta just know that most people dont have the patience for dumb crap like this, you guys are so worried about it, so don't do it in tournament. and for people that do just tell em to stop stalling or they're dq'd the end most people just wanna play their matches and get it over with

u might as well ban all of dedede's chain grabs while ur at it, oh wait we dont cuz its not broken!

 

[metaXzero]

:/

U don't have to think it is valid or even think that someone can do it on accident, all that I want you to understand is that your proposed rule creates a lot of subjectivity/controversy/defining difficulties compared to just banning it. Banning this is a lot less subjective than allowing it with limits. You can argue over the limits that should be used, over whether the person went past the limit, etc where as if it is banned the only thing you are trying to figure out is if it occurred period. It either happened or it didn't, plain and simple.




YOU may think your idea makes IDC not broken, but it seems like people either disagree or they do not think there is a reasonable way to implement what you are suggesting. I happen to think that banning it is not only better than your idea, but that it also has fewer flaws and less subjectivity that your idea.

Your proposal is theory good sir. YOU ARE ASSUMING YOUR IDEA SOLVES IT WITHOUT IT BEING IMPLEMENTED/HAVING EVIDENCE! lol. That is theory. U can argue all day about whether it was right for the SBR to ban the IDC mostly on theory, but as it stands your idea is complete theory as well.

I think their decision was correct, they understood how broken this would be if it was completely allowed, and they understood how big of a pain it would be to try and create a reasonable rule set on this when Banning it was not only a simpler idea, but it would have less flaws/subjectivity than probably any proposed rule set on IDC.

Those "limit" problems would make more sense if my rule had a set time of how long IDC can be used. But the fact is, you can use IDC as much as you want. You just gotta defeat your opponent before the timer hits 0. Just like the the current ban, all you need to know is if IDC was used. "it either happened or didn't, plain and simple".

The people who claim IDC is still broken are doing so with NOTHING BUT THEORY. They shouldn't be considered in this discussion.

Now to your claim that MY rule will only work in theory. If the current ban can work and be enforced due to how clear and blunt it is, my proposal can also be enforced due to also being clear and blunt. I didn't make a bunch of exceptions to the rule, nor did I make a bunch of vague areas. I just made ONE CLEAR RULE. Just like the current ban is ONE CLEAR RULE.

With that out of the way, we are left with the problems that you claim WILL happen. But as said, we won't know unless my proposal is used.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I can IDC for over 3 minutes straight and my opponents in friendlies hate me XD It's great to waste invincibility on a respawn with absolutely no repurcussions. If you're afraid of being punished out of the IDC when you reappear, you can actually reappear instantly grabbing any ledge you want which of course activates your ledge invincibility and we all know how good Meta Knight's edge game is. It puts you in a ridiculously powerful advantage, and in friendlies I've been able to effectively use it to get myself out of many bad situations I shouldn't be able to. It's too good by far. And none of that is even using it to stall.

Edit: While I'm here- What is wrong with you anyway? You are on the war path for the dumbest possible thing you could pick beyond asking them to unban Mewtwo. You've been on this for months, practically spamming this topic at everyone. They say the definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Have you got those different results yet?

 

[metaXzero]

I can IDC for over 3 minutes straight and my opponents in friendlies hate me XD It's great to waste invincibility on a respawn with absolutely no repurcussions. If you're afraid of being punished out of the IDC when you reappear, you can actually reappear instantly grabbing any ledge you want which of course activates your ledge invincibility and we all know how good Meta Knight's edge game is. It puts you in a ridiculously powerful advantage, and in friendlies I've been able to effectively use it to get myself out of many bad situation I shouldn't be able to. It's too good by far. And none of that is even using it to stall.

I'd really luv some vids. I'm not doubting your ability with IDC. I just don't think it's OPed at all when you can't stall a match. Many say it's a broken offense/defense and many say it's utterly useless. We won't know the truth while it's banned...

Though really. Under my proposal, it wouldn't be in your best interest to IDC for 3 minutes straight...

Not even going to waste my time with that edit of yours...

 

[DMG]

Like I said before, if you want people to take you more seriously, then make a better rule set. One rule that creates very subjective positions in game is not a very good rule. :/

Your actual rule is very simple; however once you implement it it creates a lot of subjectivity, hence I said it was not clear.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Still think this technique is broken, but I'm mostly gonna sit this one out, for now. A few issues however.

Your current rule says that MK cannot win on time if he uses IDC. You did not explain what happens if he uses on accident and his opponent camps him, you did not explain what happens if he does it and he fight his opponent who doesn't camp and yet MK falls short of killing him completely before time runs out, your rule is not specific enough.

On accident?

A person is responsible for everything his/her/it's/potato's character does. Period.

It's your responsability to know your characters, and the implications of everything your character does.

You could argue this for accidental use of any banned tactic, but if you used the melee IC's freeze glitch (your opponent is frozen in place until grabbed for anyone who doesn't know melee), it doesn't matter if they meant to use down-b instead of over-b, they're DQ'd.

Same with SDing, or simple things like ftilting instead of f-smashing.

You do something by accident, tough s***, your mistakes make you lose.

It is also subjective because people would disagree over whether you should lose if your opponent camped you or not. Someone can say "MK deserves to lose, he used IDC period, end of story he should lose if it goes to time", while someone else can say "MK used IDC, gained relatively nothing positionally, and now his opponent is abusing the rules and camping, putting MK at an unfair disadvantage". Congratulations, you now have a SUBJECTIVE rule.

But, his rule doesn't establish that situation...

His rule establishes that any verifiable use of IDC means if the game ends on time, the MK player loses.

That is not subjective it is OBJECTIVE.

"Stalling is banned" is subjective, "lame tactics are banned" is subjective. In neither case is a specific action actually banned, only a general class of actions, with a precise definition of actions that fall afoul of this prohibition existing only in the minds of, say, the TOs.


Which brings me to this point:

for people who are arguing it for it to be banned, you gotta just know that most people dont have the patience for dumb crap like this, you guys are so worried about it, so don't do it in tournament. and for people that do just tell em to stop stalling or they're dq'd the end most people just wanna play their matches and get it over with

The "stalling ban" is a horrible rule.

I understand that it's intended to cover a wide variety of possible infinite stalls, but "The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable" doesn't have a concrete line between "stalling" and "not stalling", making it subjective, and therefore discourages playing to win, because a player never knows when they may run afoul of this technique.

Instead, specific bans of infinite stalls should be and should've been implemented as they're discovered, with an actual action given that without which, the action is banned.