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

[metaXzero]

Nice post adumbrodeus. I actually learned some stuff there. Even though you are being neutral to this discussion, I'm going to use elements of your post to further my case.

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.

My proposal's OBjective apparently.

As adumbrodeus said, you are responsible for the actions of your characters. "Accidently" use IDC? Make poor use of IDC? tough ****. Deal with the consequences of your actions (like SDs, using the wrong move, etc.).

And as I said before, I can't change my proposal without rendering it as subjective as "camping is banned".

 

[CaliburChamp]

MetaXZero: Your wasting your time trying to reason with these stubborn people. SBR is no better than a random person on the street, they are not "above us." Some rules are made to be broken, like banning IDC. If it is banned at a tournament, disregard it and continue to use it at the tournament. I'm sure nobody will complain about it. Be a rebel.

 

[Yuna]

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

My only question is:
Why? Why should we allow it for this specific stalling tech but not for other techs? Oh, it's OK to randomly stall during certain parts of the match as long as the timer doesn't run out completely? Also, what if MK uses the IDC as a legit approach/whatever and his opponent then screws him over by running the timer out? Even if the MK is leading by 2 stocks, he'd still auto-lose.

But I guess that's a risk MKs will just have to take.

What happens if 2 MK's facing use IDC? :
The match is treated as if the 2 MKs DIDN'T use IDC.

This, however, is moronic.

 

[metaXzero]

Yay! Yuna finally came. Though I'm surprised by shortness of the post.

My only question is:
Why? Why should we allow it for this specific stalling tech but not for other techs? Oh, it's OK to randomly stall during certain parts of the match as long as the timer doesn't run out completely? Also, what if MK uses the IDC as a legit approach/whatever and his opponent then screws him over by running the timer out? Even if the MK is leading by 2 stocks, he'd still auto-lose.

But I guess that's a risk MKs will just have to take.


This, however, is moronic.

Can you name any other stalling techs that have possible non-stall applications? I know I can't :/

Well, they got to finish you off before that timer hits 0. Holding 3 minute long IDCs is far from achieving that.

As I've said to other people for the past 5 pages, no character has a perfect way to hold off MK (Mr. anti-camp) for 8 minutes. As you said, It's just a risk that that MKs will have to take if they choose to IDC.

I admit, I personally don't like my rule for MK dittos. But I have to keep this as objective and reasonable as possible or the whole thing falls apart. I guess this just means that few (if any) MKs are going to use IDC in dittos.

But thank you for finally posting (even if you didn't destroy anything ...yet...).

@CaliburChamp: Yeah. I know. But people treat them as such. And they have the best players in it. I just wish they'd come here and either crush my proposal (HIGHLEY unlikely) or accept they can't defeat it and use it (since not using it makes them look even more like stubborn children).

......What's left to discuss now?

 

[Mew2King]

I agree

unban IDC if it's not used for stalling a match

at that point it's really obvious

 

[Yuna]

Can you name any other stalling techs that have possible non-stall applications? I know I can't :/

Every single one which can be used for recovery?

Well, they got to finish you off before that timer hits 0. Holding 3 minute long IDCs is far from achieving that.

That's not the point, the point is that using this rule, even if MK is way ahead when the timer runs out, he'd auto-lose.

I admit, I personally don't like my rule for MK dittos. But I have to keep this as objective and reasonable as possible or the whole thing falls apart. I guess this just means that few (if any) MKs are going to use IDC in dittos.

Objective? Possibly. Reasonable? No.

But thank you for finally posting (even if you didn't destroy anything ...yet...).

So you want me to destroy your arguments? Masochist.

 

[metaXzero]

Every single one which can be used for recovery?


That's not the point, the point is that using this rule, even if MK is way ahead when the timer runs out, he'd auto-lose.


Objective? Possibly. Reasonable? No.


So you want me to destroy your arguments? Masochist.

Like the Peach Bomber stall in Melee (aren't most stages where that can be done banned for some other reason)? Or Jiggly's Pound stall in Melee (without her jumps, wouldn't she just rise in place and with no chance of recovery, making stalling obvious?) or...........I'm drawing a blank. Sorry Yuna I can't think of any other legitimate stalls that may have a non-stall use.

It's a risk that MK takes if they try and use IDC to help secure victory. But as said, no other character has some guranteed way of keeping Mr. anti-camp away for an entire match...

As I said, it's a risk to using IDC. In MK dittos, I guess at worst, most MKs just won't use IDC to avoid the risk of giving the other MK the incentive to try and stall'em out.

Either someone destroys my argument with no chance of healing, SBR acknowledges defeat, or the SBR shows themselves as stubborn children. Either one will do. Though I AM a bit masochistic (rip it apart Yuna!)

 

[Yuna]

Like the Peach Bomber stall in Melee (aren't most staged where that can be done banned)? Or Jiggly's Pound stall in Melee (without her jumps, wouldn't she just rise in place and with no chance of recovery?) or...........I'm drawing a blank. Sorry Yuna I can't think of any other legitimate stalls that may have a non-stall use.

Yes. Please tell me why we shouldn't impose this rule on this? And if by "Most stages", you mean "none", then yeah.

 

[metaXzero]

Yes. Please tell me why we shouldn't impose this rule on this? And if by "Most stages", you mean "none", then yeah.

Hmm...

Well, I guess why not? If Jiggs' rising Pound stall and Peach's wall bomber stall clearly have a non-stall use like IDC that could very well be useful, I guess this could apply to them too...

And it's still the players choice to actually use them...

 

[DMG]

Say what you want, but I think it would be fairly hard to present a rule that not only allows the IDC and limits it, but that also is easy to enforce and doesn't have problems like the opponent getting a free win for camping the MK enough to where the timer runs out and he has at least one stock left.

As it stands, I think an outright ban is not perfect obviously, but it is closer to perfect that trying to come up with a rule set that limits it. Currently, it is certainly better than your proposed rule, but maybe not so if you modify it some.

Edit:

My only question is:
Why? Why should we allow it for this specific stalling tech but not for other techs? Oh, it's OK to randomly stall during certain parts of the match as long as the timer doesn't run out completely? Also, what if MK uses the IDC as a legit approach/whatever and his opponent then screws him over by running the timer out? Even if the MK is leading by 2 stocks, he'd still auto-lose.

But I guess that's a risk MKs will just have to take.

I've been trying to say this for awhile, the other character camping MK back would be a problem. This rule stops one thing and actually promotes another camping/stalling thing. That is not good lol.

 

[metaXzero]

Say what you want, but I think it would be fairly hard to present a rule that not only allows the IDC and limits it, but that also is easy to enforce and doesn't have problems like the opponent getting a free win for camping the MK enough to where the timer runs out and he has at least one stock left.

As it stands, I think an outright ban is not perfect obviously, but it is closer to perfect that trying to come up with a rule set that limits it. Currently, it is certainly better than your proposed rule, but maybe not so if you modify it some.

Edit:

I've been trying to say this for awhile, the other character camping MK back would be a problem. This rule stops one thing and actually promotes another camping/stalling thing. That is not good lol.

How many times do I have to say this? NO CHARACTER HAS A PERFECT WAY TO HARDCORE CAMP META KNIGHT (besides himself). You say it like every MK who uses IDC WILL get camped out to the timer EVERYTIME. Yet, you have no proof of this. You're just assuming that it WILL happen everytime. It COULD happen, but then again, it COULD NOT (this is Meta Knight we're talking about. Not Snake, not Dedede, META KNIGHT).

Like I said, it's just a risk that comes from trying to take full advantage of IDC. If you're someone who can't deal with that risk, you just don't use it.

 

[DMG]

How many times do I have to say this? NO CHARACTER HAS A PERFECT WAY TO HARDCORE CAMP META KNIGHT (besides himself).

Then you aren't good enough. You don't have to camp MK perfectly, all you have to do is run out the timer by any means necessary, since apparently the MK is supposed to get rid of EVERY stock you have within the time or he loses PERIOD.

How many times do I have to say this? NO CHARACTER HAS A PERFECT WAY TO HARDCORE CAMP META KNIGHT (besides himself).

You say it like every MK who uses IDC WILL get camped out to the timer EVERYTIME. Yet, you have no proof of this. You're just assuming that it WILL happen everytime. It COULD happen, but then again, it COULD NOT (this is Meta Knight we're talking about. Not Snake, not Dedede, META KNIGHT).

Like I said, it's just a risk that comes from trying to take full advantage of IDC. If you're someone who can't deal with that risk, you just don't use it.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't HAVE to happen every time, you do understand though that is kinda unfair to a MK player to make him force all 3 stocks off under time or he loses. Whether it happens every time or not, it's not a good rule.

U don't seem to understand the impact of your rule:

If someone uses the IDC for a purpose OTHER than stalling, they are punished for it.

Your rule punishes them for using it period. Not only that, but it encourages the opponent to camp MK back.

Banning it punishes the player for using it at anytime, and while this is bad for someone who wants to use it as a legitimate approach, here is why it is better than your rule:

IT DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STALLING AND APPROACHING WITH IDC. It is VERY hard to come up with a rule that clearly tells you "Hey, stalling with this is bad, but you can approach with it."

If you can improve on that rule, then go ahead. But multiple people have pointed out that your idea is not suitable for multiple reasons, and I still haven't seen you address what to do about the other characters camping MK. All you've said really is that there's no way to tell if it will happen all the time, which doesn't solve things when it DOES happen.

 

[Nope]

IDC should still be banned

IDC is the perfect approach for meta all the advantages characters with projectiles have go to waste.

We talked about banning this character very seriously so why would we unban this and give him even more?

It's hard to police every station at a tournament when it comes down to it most of the time it's your word against his if he used the IDC for 1 second or 5.

 

[metaXzero]

Then you aren't good enough. You don't have to camp MK perfectly, all you have to do is run out the timer by any means necessary, since apparently the MK is supposed to get rid of EVERY stock you have within the time or he loses PERIOD.

You say it like every MK who uses IDC WILL get camped out to the timer EVERYTIME. Yet, you have no proof of this. You're just assuming that it WILL happen everytime. It COULD happen, but then again, it COULD NOT (this is Meta Knight we're talking about. Not Snake, not Dedede, META KNIGHT).

Like I said, it's just a risk that comes from trying to take full advantage of IDC. If you're someone who can't deal with that risk, you just don't use it.

It doesn't HAVE to happen every time, you do understand though that is kinda unfair to a MK player to make him force all 3 stocks off under time or he loses. Whether it happens every time or not, it's not a good rule.

U don't seem to understand the impact of your rule:

If someone uses the IDC for a purpose OTHER than stalling, they are punished for it.

Your rule punishes them for using it period. Not only that, but it encourages the opponent to camp MK back.

Banning it punishes the player for using it at anytime, and while this is bad for someone who wants to use it as a legitimate approach, here is why it is better than your rule:

IT DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STALLING AND APPROACHING WITH IDC. It is VERY hard to come up with a rule that clearly tells you "Hey, stalling with this is bad, but you can approach with it."

If you can improve on that rule, then go ahead. But multiple people have pointed out that your idea is not suitable for multiple reasons, and I still haven't seen you address what to do about the other characters camping MK. All you've said really is that there's no way to tell if it will happen all the time, which doesn't solve things when it DOES happen.[/QUOTE]

You are still not showing a perfect way to hold off MK for an entire match. You continue on like their most certainly is, yet you show nothing but your claim. Until you show an unbeatable way to hold off a good MK for an entire 8 minute match, I have no reason to consider it.

"It's unfair to IDC-using MK players that if the timer hits Zero, they lose". And it's fair that MK players who want to use IDC, CAN'T because if they do, they'll get DQed? You say my rule isn't fair, yet ignore the current rule. Can you honestly say DQing IDC-using MK players is more fair then allowing them to use IDC but punishing them if they fail to defeat their opponent?

Mholtz: Actually read the thread before posting. I'm getting tired of posts like that...

 

[DMG]

You are still not showing a perfect way to hold off MK for an entire match. You continue on like their most certainly is, yet you show nothing but your claim. Until you show an unbeatable way to hold off a good MK for an entire 8 minute match, I have no reason to consider it.

Lol so I have to prove that people can stall MK for 8 minutes instead of you proving how "all powerful" and "Anti Camp" he is? We have asked you what do you do to address the problem of the opponent camping MK out and you have not given us an answer because you think it won't happen? :/

"It's unfair to IDC-using MK players that if the timer hits Zero, they lose". And it's fair that MK players who want to use IDC, CAN'T because if they do, they'll get DQed? You say my rule isn't fair, yet ignore the current rule. Can you honestly say DQing IDC-using MK players is more fair then allowing them to use IDC but punishing them if they fail to defeat their opponent?

Yes, they are both unfair, and yours solves one stalling issue and creates another. Banning it gets rid of the stalling problem at the cost of taking away any other possible use. Limiting it with your rule gets rid of stalling with MK BUT now creates an issue with the opponent camping him. So what is the point of allowing it if they will be disadvantaged anyways for using it period? Banning it would make MK lose for doing it, and your rule basically makes it a ton easier for his opponent to win. So... yeah... your rule doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[Affinity]

Give me a vid showing IDC as broken BESIDES stalling SBR. GIVE IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReZSN1P9gls

0:49-0:51

Hylian uses the IDC to escape being attacked in a corner. It shows how Meta Knight can use the IDC to escape any disadvantageous situation.


FIN

 

[metaXzero]

Lol so I have to prove that people can stall MK for 8 minutes instead of you proving how "all powerful" and "Anti Camp" he is? We have asked you what do you do to address the problem of the opponent camping MK out and you have not given us an answer because you think it won't happen? :/



Yes, they are both unfair, and yours solves one stalling issue and creates another. Banning it gets rid of the stalling problem at the cost of taking away any other possible use. Limiting it with your rule gets rid of stalling with MK BUT now creates an issue with the opponent camping him. So what is the point of allowing it if they will be disadvantaged anyways for using it period? Banning it would make MK lose for doing it, and your rule basically makes it a ton easier for his opponent to win. So... yeah... your rule doesn't get us anywhere.

We ARE talking about MK right? Mostly offensive playstyle MK? SS tier MK? Master of approaching in a defensive orientated game MK?

Yes. You have to prove that people have a perfect and consistent way to hold him off from killing them in an 8 minute match. Until then, you're claiming with nothing to back it up.

 

[DMG]

We ARE talking about MK right? Mostly offensive playstyle MK? SS tier MK? Master of approaching in a defensive orientated game MK?

Yes. You have to prove that people have a perfect and consistent way to hold him off from killing them in an 8 minute match. Until then, you're claiming with nothing to back it up.

Fine.

Wario can do it. GG you lose.

Your requirements for our proofs are ridiculous, all we've asked you is how you would handle the opponent camping MK and your solution is basically "Who cares?"

Your rule will not be used in place of the ban. That is good enough for me.

 

[metaXzero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReZSN1P9gls

0:49-0:51

Hylian uses the IDC to escape being attacked in a corner. It shows how Meta Knight can use the IDC to escape any disadvantageous situation.


FIN

...................You're joking right? THAT'S your big broken use?

Just as he chose to IDC there, he could have done alot of things to get out of that disadvantage position (which wasn't even that disadvantaged).

This use here wasn't even that different from Akuma, Bison, or Dhalsim teleporting out of a corner when pinned (other then Hylian not really being pinned). I don't even remember the SF community calling that "broken", let alone needing to be banned.

 

[metaXzero]

Possible Double post

Fine.

Wario can do it. GG you lose.

Your requirements for our proofs are ridiculous, all we've asked you is how you would handle the opponent camping MK and your solution is basically "Who cares?"

Your rule will not be used in place of the ban. That is good enough for me.

That was awful. You're not seriously saying Wario with nothing but "he can"?

You have NOTHING to show that people can perfectly and consistently camp out IDC-using MKs for entire matches. It's no different then claiming IDC is an utterly broken offense/defense that will overcentralize the game with nothing but theory to back it up.

On the off-chance it DOES become a problem, MKs who can't deal with it may end up soft-banning IDC. But right now you've shown absolutely nothing that it WILL become a problem.

GG

 

[Yuna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReZSN1P9gls

1:41

Hylian is IDC:ing, Wrath has very limited options. Shield (and risk it shrinking and/or breaking), try to attack pre-emptively and hope it hits or run away. That's pretty much it.

Unless you're psychic and can tell exactly when he's gonna pop out with that attack. MK can do this at will. If he thinks it's too risky, he can just IDC to a safe distance at mach 5 speed.

Giving this to any character in the game would make them really, really good. Giving it to MK would make MK the only choice. And, no, I do not believe that we have to give this time. I do not think that we need months of MKs running around IDC:ing their way to victory before we ban it.

If tomorrow someone discovered a way to infinite chaingrab everyone as King DeDeDe from anywhere on any stage, would we allow that to fly in tournaments for a while, hoping a work-around will be found? Or will we just ban it until such a time, if ever, a work-around is found?

 

[Affinity]

...................You're joking right? THAT'S your big broken use?

It's just an example of how it can be used for something other than stalling.

You asked for a video, I gave you a video.




Also, I'd like to bring up something that was said earlier:

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?

Seriously. MetaXzero, stop wasting your time.

 

[DMG]

snip

I'm still winning since your idea still hasn't been brought unto serious consideration for adapting it.

Hehehe.

You may not think that the opponent Camping MK back is a problem, but other people have said so. You even asked Yuna on his profile to come here, and even he seems like he disagrees with your rule. He brought up camping as an issue, in fact a few others brought it up.

Hell, the FIRST REPLY TO YOUR THREAD was about camping.

Let's say a Meta player uses the IDC a single time for 2 seconds to get off the ledge once. Is it really fair that the other player can camp hardcore to run the clock out and not have to worry about losing by %?

If you want your idea to be taken seriously, then tell us how you deal with the other player camping. Now. Not after we use your idea and IDC is allowed.

 

[metaXzero]

1:41

Hylian is IDC:ing, Wrath has very limited options. Shield (and risk it shrinking and/or breaking), try to attack pre-emptively and hope it hits or run away. That's pretty much it.

Unless you're psychic and can tell exactly when he's gonna pop out with that attack. MK can do this at will. If he thinks it's too risky, he can just IDC to a safe distance at mach 5 speed.

Giving this to any character in the game would make them really, really good. Giving it to MK would make MK the only choice. And, no, I do not believe that we have to give this time. I do not think that we need months of MKs running around IDC:ing their way to victory before we ban it.

If tomorrow someone discovered a way to infinite chaingrab everyone as King DeDeDe from anywhere on any stage, would we allow that to fly in tournaments for a while, hoping a work-around will be found? Or will we just ban it until such a time, if ever, a work-around is found?

While they are IDCing waiting to strike, you have Shield, sidesteps, and rolls. With these, it makes it extremely difficult for the MK to land that IDC attack within a short amount of time (if MK misses or hits the shield, he is utterly punishable). And if they are going to wait as long as it takes for a clear opening, they have to remember that ticking clock.

If over time, several MKs can use IDC to easily defeat their opponents within the timer, THEN you have a strong case of IDC being broken all around.

It's just an example of how it can be used for something other than stalling.

You asked for a video, I gave you a video.




Also, I'd like to bring up something that was said earlier:


Seriously. MetaXzero, stop wasting your time.

Your example is like someone using a similar vid in w/e SF game to get Dhalism's teleport (or Dhalsim himself) banned. Only the vid was alot worse for making your point.

Try again.

I'm still winning since your idea still hasn't been brought unto serious consideration for adapting it.

Hehehe.

You may not think that the opponent Camping MK back is a problem, but other people have said so. You even asked Yuna on his profile to come here, and even he seems like he disagrees with your rule. He brought up camping as an issue, in fact a few others brought it up.

Hell, the FIRST REPLY TO YOUR THREAD was about camping.



If you want your idea to be taken seriously, then tell us how you deal with the other player camping. Now. Not after we use your idea and IDC is allowed.

YOU'RE the only one who's continuing to bring it up with every reply. Everyone else seems to have just taken my response to the "opponents camping out MK" thing and said OK (their not coming back and saying it's "unfair" like you are).

Like it's been said, you (and everyone else who's brought up this "camping" problem) have not brought up a perfect and unbeatable way to camp out MK. Spamerer seemed to suggest maybe Snake and Olimar could do it, but until someone brings up an UNBEATABLE camp method against MK, I'm treating it like I'm treating the "IDC IS broken" claim.

 

[DMG]

YOU'RE the only one who's continuing to bring it up with every reply. Everyone else seems to have just taken my response to the "opponents camping out MK" thing and said OK (their not coming back and saying it's "unfair" like you are).

Like it's been said, you (and everyone else who's brought up this "camping" problem) have not brought up a perfect and unbeatable way to camp out MK. Spamerer seemed to suggest maybe Snake and Olimar could do it, but until someone brings up an UNBEATABLE camp method against MK, I'm treating it like I'm treating the "IDC IS broken" claim.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be good enough to camp for 8 minutes. That is NOT unreasonable good sir.

IDC is broken not only for stalling, but for how it gets you out of tight situations, and gives you an unpredictable attack. It is much less potent without stalling, but your rule does not solve things.

Your answer to camping is that there is no perfect camp... Fine. MK has no perfect approach, u c whut I did thar? So now MK CAN get camped because he's not perfect at approaching.

So, other than saying "There is no perfect camp", tell us how you would address the opponent camping MK.

 

[Yuna]

While they are IDCing waiting to strike, you have Shield, sidesteps, and rolls. With these, it makes it extremely difficult for the MK to land that IDC attack within a short amount of time (if MK misses or hits the shield, he is utterly punishable). And if they are going to wait as long as it takes for a clear opening, they have to remember that ticking clock.

This changes nothing. It's still a mix-up where the one who's being IDC:ed against has to either be psychic or literally run away or run a high risk of getting hit.

MK can just keep doing the IDC to run down your shield or force you to run away... all the while staying safe.

Your example is like someone using a similar vid in w/e SF game to get Dhalism's teleport (or Dhalsim himself) banned. Only the vid was alot worse for making your point.

Except Dhalsim cannot stay gone for as long as he wishes to, he cannot teleport however far he wishes to, he cannot teleport at mach 5 speed, he has set "respawning" spots depending on which teleport he used (thus, he can be predicted) and he doesn't have an attack out of the teleport (the teleport itself does not end with an attack).

This is not comparable to Dhalsim's or Gouki's (Gouki's teleport is even more predictable upon ending since you can actually see him) teleports. And since when could Vega teleport?

 

[ssbbFICTION]

hai gize. Lets let this ruin the entire tourney scene across America for a few months so we can say its not theorycraft anymore, kay?

 

[metaXzero]

It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be good enough to camp for 8 minutes. That is NOT unreasonable good sir.

IDC is broken not only for stalling, but for how it gets you out of tight situations, and gives you an unpredictable attack. It is much less potent without stalling, but your rule does not solve things.

Your answer to camping is that there is no perfect camp... Fine. MK has no perfect approach, u c whut I did thar? So now MK CAN get camped because he's not perfect at approaching.

So, other than saying "There is no perfect camp", tell us how you would address the opponent camping MK.

We've been through this before. Their is no perfect approach or stall. So it comes down to the players skill at approaching/camping. Don't see what's wrong with that. Especially when it's your choice to take full advantage of IDC.

This changes nothing. It's still a mix-up where the one who's being IDC:ed against has to either be psychic or literally run away or run a high risk of getting hit.

MK can just keep doing the IDC to run down your shield or force you to run away... all the while staying safe.


Except Dhalsim cannot stay gone for as long as he wishes to, he cannot teleport however far he wishes to, he cannot teleport at mach 5 speed, he has set "respawning" spots depending on which teleport he used (thus, he can be predicted) and he doesn't have an attack out of the teleport (the teleport itself does not end with an attack).

This is not comparable to Dhalsim's or Gouki's (Gouki's teleport is even more predictable upon ending since you can actually see him) teleports. And since when could Vega teleport?

MK player also has to be good at acting on the little open lag of sidestep--> shield and sudden rolls. If it proves itself utterly broken in practice at tourneys though, then I guess IDC is banned again. Only, you actually have a case to defend it's banning unlike now where it's based on theory.

I'm referring to how IDC was actually used in that vid. Affinity is arguing that IDC's ability to get you out of bad situations (like various Street Fighter teleports) is utterly broken. And Bison (I hate saying Vega, bleh) can teleport in the Alpha series, Capcom vs. SNK games, and Street Fighter 4.

 

[Skler]

"sudden rolls" lol. Rolls aren't hard to predict when you move at IDC speed or punish, especially when you're moving at IDC speed. If you roll you get hit by the invisible **** machine that is invisible MK.

IDC makes sure MK is never in a bad position because whenever the player wants to they can say "oh no I messed up, time to use my magic fix it button to make the boo boo go away" and then teleport to anywhere (except platforms, but nobody wants to go there) without any repercussions except having to endure slamming the c stick for a little.

That's stupid and should be banned.

That's my Brawl related post for the month.

 

[metaXzero]

"sudden rolls" lol. Rolls aren't hard to predict when you move at IDC speed or punish, especially when you're moving at IDC speed. If you roll you get hit by the invisible **** machine that is invisible MK.

IDC makes sure MK is never in a bad position because whenever the player wants to they can say "oh no I messed up, time to use my magic fix it button to make the boo boo go away" and then teleport to anywhere (except platforms, but nobody wants to go there) without any repercussions except having to endure slamming the c stick for a little.

That's stupid and should be banned.

That's my Brawl related post for the month.

Rolls worked for me lol. As long you don't use them much. A sudden change that could that could throw MK off and lead to him missing/hitting your shield.

But again. It should be proven that is utterly broken. Not assumed. Doesn't help that some people like M2K believe IDC is too hard to apply and Dojo believes IDC is just useless...

 

[Affinity]

I'm referring to how IDC was actually used in that vid. Affinity is arguing that IDC's ability to get you out of bad situations (like various Street Fighter teleports) is utterly broken. And Bison (I hate saying Vega, bleh) can teleport in the Alpha series, Capcom vs. SNK games, and Street Fighter 4.

Smash and Street Fighter are two completely different types of fighting games.

Comparing the two in this debate is moronic.

 

[metaXzero]

Smash and Street Fighter are two completely different types of fighting games.

Comparing the two in this debate is moronic.

Playing that card eh? Not going to work.

The use of IDC in that vid (getting out of a disadvantaged position: the edge) is JUST LIKE Dhalsim teleporting out of a corner in Street Fighter games. Only difference is that where Dhalsim in a corner is clearly at a disadvantage, MK at the edge was hardly disadvantaged.

 

[DMG]

Playing that card eh? Not going to work.

The use of IDC in that vid (getting out of a disadvantaged position) is JUST LIKE Dhalsim teleporting out of a corner in Street Fighter games. Only difference is that where Dhalsim in a corner is clearly at a disadvantage, MK at the edge was hardly disadvantaged.

Dhaslim also was limited on how far he could teleport, and he couldn't make himself invincible for as long as he wanted to... and he couldn't immediately attack when he reappeared.

Lol.

 

[metaXzero]

Dhaslim also was limited on how far he could teleport, and he couldn't make himself invincible for as long as he wanted to... and he couldn't immediately attack when he reappeared.

Lol.

We're on the subject of "is the ability of IDC to get out of a "disadvantaged position" like Hylian's video shows broken?". In this application alone, it is clearly akin to Dhalsim's Yoga Teleport. We're currently not talking about any other applications of IDC.....

 

[DMG]

We're on the subject of "is the ability of IDC to get out of a "disadvantaged position" like Hylian's video shows broken?". In this application alone, it is clearly akin to Dhalsim's Yoga Teleport. We're currently not talking about any other applications of IDC.....

IDC is better at getting you out of bad spots BECAUSE you can control it's length, it's duration, and you can attack out if it. That makes it different than Dhaslim's teleport.

 

[metaXzero]

IDC is better at getting you out of bad spots BECAUSE you can control it's length, it's duration, and you can attack out if it. That makes it different than Dhaslim's teleport.

Again, we were discussing IDC as seen in that video (getting out of a "disadvantaged" position). Even with the controlled duration and length it is still accomplishing the same thing as Yoga Teleport. That's undeniable.

And yes. We know that when you look at it overall, IDC is superior to Yoga Teleport.

 

[Skler]

Yoga teleport is technically punishable because of it's predictability and, to a leser extent, it's lack of a hitbox. IDC is not punishable because it is unpredictable and can have no lag at all if done to a ledge.

IDC is everything fighting games hate. It ruins the idea of putting your opponent into a bad position because now your opponent can just hit the reset button without fear of getting punished.

 

[metaXzero]

Yoga teleport is technically punishable because of it's predictability and, to a leser extent, it's lack of a hitbox. IDC is not punishable because it is unpredictable and can have no lag at all if done to a ledge.

IDC is everything fighting games hate. It ruins the idea of putting your opponent into a bad position because now your opponent can just hit the reset button without fear of getting punished.

lol. You said your last post was your Brawl related post for the month. Yet, here you are again.

As I said before, in the instance of that vid Affinity presented, IDC is akin to Yoga Teleport (an unpunishable escape out of a bad position). And before someone tells me that YT is punishable (I know that), I'm referring to getting out of that "corner" that the ZSS was trying to keep him (the edge even though Hylian could have gotten out of that several ways really). If your opponent is up close trying to keep Dhalsim in that corner, they aren't going to punish Yoga Teleport.

Though really, the "brokeness" of IDC's other applications is still theoretical. In practice, we still only have 2 tourney vids of a guy getting punished whenever they came out of IDC and a Wi-Fi match where Hylian just flees to an edge...

 

[SCOTU]

At first i read this and thought, hm, this doesn't sound too bad. Being a TO, I could try this, but then i noticed that there are two MAJOR issues with this proposal. Upon reading farther in the thread, they've already been addressed. Both reasons defeat this method of unbanning regardess of the brokenness or not brokenness of the IDC.

Let's say a Meta player uses the IDC a single time for 2 seconds to get off the ledge once. Is it really fair that the other player can camp hardcore to run the clock out and not have to worry about losing by %?

If the MK uses it for whatever non stalling reason, the other player can and will camp/ledgewhore that MK to death to run out the clock even if that character is losing. This in effect simply reverses the problem generated by the IDC in favor of the player that doesn't use it.

You argue that no character has a method of keeping a MK away. I can easily think of 2: MK and ICs. I recently ran a tournament where two matches TIMED OUT because the winning characters had to spend THE ENTIRE MATCH running away from the ICs. These matches were Bowyer (MK) vs lain (ICs) and Anther (pika) vs Omniswell (ICs). All 4 of the players in these matches are reasonable players of the game, with both ICs being fully capable of CGing, and both the IC's opponents' knowing the matchup well. Forcing aggressiveness against ICs substantially decreases your effectiveness, meaning ICs could keep a MK away for an entire match if he used the IDC, and force a win, even if the stock is down. The other character who can keep MK away for a match is MK. MK can do a rather good job of edge camping MK, there is no denying this.

The counter argument is simply: don't use it against either of these characters. It's just my personal belief that there should be no artificial rule that allows one player to win when had they not used one move (even if it benefited them), they would have won.

Doesn't this still create a problem? If both use it at whatever point for some reason, the MK with % advantage is just going to IDC the rest of the match then.

Also, this solution doesn't solve anything in the ditto matchup. If both MKs use this technique, something that wouldn't be too uncommon (a very common matchup, with a technique that does a relatively safe job of getting you out of a tough place like the edge), then this ruling solves nothing, as they could simply use it for stalling like any other stall tactic, and the original reason it was banned is still here.

 

[metaXzero]

At first i read this and thought, hm, this doesn't sound too bad. Being a TO, I could try this, but then i noticed that there are two MAJOR issues with this proposal. Upon reading farther in the thread, they've already been addressed. Both reasons defeat this method of unbanning regardess of the brokenness or not brokenness of the IDC.



If the MK uses it for whatever non stalling reason, the other player can and will camp/ledgewhore that MK to death to run out the clock even if that character is losing. This in effect simply reverses the problem generated by the IDC in favor of the player that doesn't use it.

You argue that no character has a method of keeping a MK away. I can easily think of 2: MK and ICs. I recently ran a tournament where two matches TIMED OUT because the winning characters had to spend THE ENTIRE MATCH running away from the ICs. These matches were Bowyer (MK) vs lain (ICs) and Anther (pika) vs Omniswell (ICs). All 4 of the players in these matches are reasonable players of the game, with both ICs being fully capable of CGing, and both the IC's opponents' knowing the matchup well. Forcing aggressiveness against ICs substantially decreases your effectiveness, meaning ICs could keep a MK away for an entire match if he used the IDC, and force a win, even if the stock is down. The other character who can keep MK away for a match is MK. MK can do a rather good job of edge camping MK, there is no denying this.

The counter argument is simply: don't use it against either of these characters. It's just my personal belief that there should be no artificial rule that allows one player to win when had they not used one move (even if it benefited them), they would have won.



Also, this solution doesn't solve anything in the ditto matchup. If both MKs use this technique, something that wouldn't be too uncommon (a very common matchup, with a technique that does a relatively safe job of getting you out of a tough place like the edge), then this ruling solves nothing, as they could simply use it for stalling like any other stall tactic, and the original reason it was banned is still here.

Wow! Bowyer played a defensive player. I understand the fear of being CGed and how one spacing mistake can lead to it, but dang! Waiting on the Smallville platform?

Anyway, you do have a point with the MK thing. I guess the best fix would be ban IDC in MK dittos. That works right (simple fix that doesn't destroy the rest of the proposal)?

The IC point however, I'm a bit skeptical. I'd like to apply it here too, but Bowyer's uber-defensiveness leaves me iffy. If you can bring any further videos of ICs holding off MKs for entire matches (preferably, when the MKs aren't THAT defensive), I might apply my MK ditto edit to ICs too.

*goes to edit OP*