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

[DMG]

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*

MK's usually get ***** for trying to go aggressive vs IC's, most characters period actually have a better chance getting a lead and running away the entire match instead of keep approaching IC's over and over.

A problem you would have with adding IC's and other characters is how do you define a character as being able to camp MK for 8 minutes, and therefore included under your exceptions? What "standard" do they have to pass? My standard for a character to be an exception might be different from your standard, Yuna might have a different standard than me, and Scotu might have a completely different standard from all 3 of us. Who is right? That is a pretty subjective thing since most people will have different standards on what characters should be exceptions to your rule.



You want MK to lose on time against certain characters, and you want him to win on time vs certain characters. So it would be perfectly fine for MK to stall with it against IC's, but it's not ok if he does it to someone else?

 

[metaXzero]

MK's usually get ***** for trying to go aggressive vs IC's, most characters period actually have a better chance getting a lead and running away the entire match instead of keep approaching IC's over and over.

A problem you would have with adding IC's and other characters is how do you define a character as being able to camp MK for 8 minutes, and therefore included under your exceptions? What "standard" do they have to pass? My standard for a character to be an exception might be different from your standard, Yuna might have a different standard than me, and Scotu might have a completely different standard from all 3 of us. Who is right? That is a pretty subjective thing since most people will have different standards on what characters should be exceptions to your rule.



You want MK to lose on time against certain characters, and you want him to win on time vs certain characters. So it would be perfectly fine for MK to stall with it against IC's, but it's not ok if he does it to someone else?

I didn't say I WILL apply the MK ditto part to ICs. I'm still iffy of whether ICs can consistently stall out MK. And the way your post is stating the scenario, you're leaving the impression that ICs don't actually stall ANYONE. Their opponents just stay away from them for long periods (or out-right camp the ICs to the timer).

Match consistency. If we have several match videos of IDC-using MKs losing via getting camped to the timer by w/e character, I might add that character to the match-ups where IDC is banned. The reason MK dittos are exempt from the "several videos" is because MK DOES have an unbeatable and consistent way to hold off MKs who use IDC (IDC itself).

 

[DMG]

I didn't say I WILL apply the MK ditto part to ICs. I'm still iffy of whether ICs can consistently stall out MK. And the way your post is stating the scenario, you're leaving the impression that ICs don't actually stall ANYONE. Their opponents just stay away from them for long periods (or out-right camp the ICs to the timer).

Match consistency. If we have several match videos of IDC-using MKs losing via getting camped to the timer by w/e character, I might add that character to the match-ups where IDC is banned. The reason MK dittos are exempt from the "several videos" is because MK DOES have an unbeatable and consistent way to hold off MKs who use IDC (IDC itself).

Well it is true that the best method to beat the IC's is to just get a lead and camp them in most scenarios. Camping them with a lead is less risky than approaching over and over and risking getting grabbed.

How many videos for each character? What if I don't agree with you that the vids prove anything? What if you disagree with me?

We can't just allow exceptions based on how YOU particularly view them, we shouldn't allow exceptions simply because not everyone will agree on them/everyone views the characters differently. Everyone has different standards.

So now your rule has become subjective with the exceptions. Hurray lol.

Now can we just stop, and once and for all end this? Because there is no way you are gonna solve this with an allowing/limiting rule.

 

[metaXzero]

Well it is true that the best method to beat the IC's is to just get a lead and camp them in most scenarios. Camping them with a lead is less risky than approaching over and over and risking getting grabbed.

How many videos for each character? What if I don't agree with you that the vids prove anything? What if you disagree with me?

We can't just allow exceptions based on how YOU particularly view them, we shouldn't allow exceptions simply because not everyone will agree on them/everyone views the characters differently. Everyone has different standards.

So now your rule has become subjective with the exceptions. Hurray lol.

Now can we just stop, and once and for all end this? Because there is no way you are gonna solve this with a allowing/limiting rule.

Nice try. But no die.

Nothings actually changed lol (excluding the MK ditto). As I said before, I need to know if their are characters that have some unbeatable and consistent way of holding off MK for an entire match. Videos just help prove the point (like videos that would prove the theory that IDC is broken for so-and-so reason). Right now, their is nothing proving any other character has an unbeatable way to hold off MK for an entire match.

So yeah. Here we are again...

 

[SCOTU]

ICs hold of MK (or anyone else) for a whole match by making the matchup HUGELY advantageous for the ICs if the other character is forced to approach.

You also must note that a character need not hold off MK for the entire match. They simply need to be able to hold him off for... say... the last 2 minutes? with the resources they have left. So if they see the MK do a IDC, they can play defensively and carefully the entire match, and just need to prevent themselves from being KOd in the last minute or two, regardless of how far ahead the MK is.

 

[DMG]

Nice try. But no die.

Nothings actually changed lol (excluding the MK ditto). As I said before, I need to know if their are characters that have some unbeatable and consistent way of holding off MK for an entire match. Videos just help prove the point (like videos that would prove the theory that IDC is broken for so-and-so reason). Right now, their is nothing proving any other character has an unbeatable way to hold off MK for an entire match.

So yeah. Here we are again...

As YOU said before, YOU need to know if there are characters who can camp MK. There is the problem in itself, YOU are the one who thinks he has the power to determine for the entire community whether or not a character can camp MK. Your views are subjective, my views are subjective, etc.

Right now, there is nothing proving any other character has an unbeatable way to hold off MK for an entire match IN YOUR OPINION/THROUGH YOUR EYES. Anything that is based mostly off of one particular person's perspective is SUBJECTIVE, unless that person is speaking for an entire community.

Lol.

 

[metaXzero]

ICs hold of MK (or anyone else) for a whole match by making the matchup HUGELY advantageous for the ICs if the other character is forced to approach.

You also must note that a character need not hold off MK for the entire match. They simply need to be able to hold him off for... say... the last 2 minutes? with the resources they have left. So if they see the MK do a IDC, they can play defensively and carefully the entire match, and just need to prevent themselves from being KOd in the last minute or two, regardless of how far ahead the MK is.

The fact is though, ICs don't unbeatably stall people. Their opponents just choose of their own will to hardcore camp ICs. Yes, the ICs benefit from an opponent having to approach them. But the fact is 1. It's the MKs choice to IDC and 2. ICs aren't unapproachable.

And the 2 minute thing. Well that's the fault of the MK player for using IDC at a timeframe where they will be unable to KO them before the timer hits 0.

 

[metaXzero]

Double freaking post.

As YOU said before, YOU need to know if there are characters who can camp MK. There is the problem in itself, YOU are the one who thinks he has the power to determine for the entire community whether or not a character can camp MK. Your views are subjective, my views are subjective, etc.

Right now, there is nothing proving any other character has an unbeatable way to hold off MK for an entire match IN YOUR OPINION/THROUGH YOUR EYES. Anything that is based mostly off of one particular person's perspective is SUBJECTIVE, unless that person is speaking for an entire community.

Lol.

*shakes head*
Isn't subjective rules like "camping is banned", "gay tactics are banned", etc. because their utterly unclear except to the person who said it? And because of that, people get conflicting ideas of meaning?

My belief while making my proposal is that no one can unbeatably stall MK for an entire match. You and others believe otherwise. HOWEVER, the fact is you and your side have yet to present ANYTHING to suggest I'm wrong. With nothing on your side to show characters CAN unbeatably stall MK (besides maybe theory), my belief reigns as the current technical truth.

Again, I say no other character can unbeatably stall MK. MY evidence: YOUR lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. Until you can show something besides theory, their is no reason to believe MK can unbeatably be camped out by anybody but himself...

 

[DMG]

Double freaking post.

*shakes head*
Isn't subjective rules like "camping is banned", "gay tactics are banned", etc. because their utterly unclear except to the person who said it? And because of that, people get conflicting ideas of meaning?

It would be subjective because if you make a list of exceptions, then there certainly is a standard for making those exceptions, and people's standards are different. If you say for example Snake is good enough to be an exception, I or anyone else can disagree because we might feel like Snake doesn't meet the cuts. Who says we have to use YOUR standards (Who says your standards are better than mine?), why not make the community or the SBR vote as a whole on the standard to use?

My belief while making my proposal is that no one can unbeatably stall MK for an entire match. You and others believe otherwise. HOWEVER, the fact is you and your side have yet to present ANYTHING to suggest I'm wrong. With nothing on your side to show characters CAN unbeatably stall MK (besides maybe theory), my belief reigns as the current technical truth.

Again, I say no other character can unbeatably stall MK. MY evidence: YOUR lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. Until you can show something besides theory, their is no reason to believe MK can unbeatably be camped out by anybody but himself...

You are not at the top of the Metagame, get off of your fake pinnacle lol. U are not the supreme technical being of Smash who bestows vast knowledge upon us mere mortals who cannot obviously comprehend how "impossible" it is to camp MK.

Show US vids of MK destroying players who try to camp them. Go on, the burden is on you for a change lol.

If you think MK is un-campable, then you should ban IDC. Why? Because think about it, OBVIOUSLY he is just PERFECT at approaching oh noez we can't camp him. He wouldn't need it to approach since he is PERFECT at approaching normally and he doesn't need to be invincible while he approaches to win. If MK is so good that no one can camp him, then wouldn't an invincible approach be just a bit too much?

This is why I do not like your logic. Your logic (from what I understand) is this:

1. All burden of proof falls on everyone else. I do not have to prove my side of the story, rather I just let everyone else try to prove their side and tell them that they didn't try hard enough/provide good enough evidence, or that their point is wrong.

2. My idea solves things in my particular mind, it doesn't matter if a number of people disagree with me.

3. I am the one who chooses the standard to make characters exempt under my rule.

4. If IDC was really broken, I shouldn't be able to formulate an idea to unban it since, heck it is broken. If I can form an idea, then it isn't broken, even if my idea doesn't fully solve the issue.



Making a list of characters for exceptions is not a good idea, trying to impose limits that the community does not agree on is not a good idea, and we have gone over this discussion multiple times. Your idea does not, will not, shall not, cannot, and would not work.

 

[SCOTU]

The fact is though, ICs don't unbeatably stall people. Their opponents just choose of their own will to hardcore camp ICs. Yes, the ICs benefit from an opponent having to approach them. But the fact is 1. It's the MKs choice to IDC and 2. ICs aren't unapproachable.

It's the MK's choice to super camp because they don't want an 80-20 matchup against them for approaching. Approaching the ICs constantly because they're trying to stall out the match is recipe for failure.

And the 2 minute thing. Well that's the fault of the MK player for using IDC at a timeframe where they will be unable to KO them before the timer hits 0.

Using the IDC in the first few minutes of the match is "using [it] at a timeframe where they will be unable to KO them before the timer hits 0"? I think not. But if the other player plays it safe and campy the whole match, there's nothing stopping the match to getting to 5-6 minutes in and the non IDC user still having a stock left, at which point they could hardcore camp with the intent to stall the timer (with only 2 minutes left)... even though the MK stopped using the IDC early in the match because they're NOT trying to stall.

 

[metaXzero]

It would be subjective because if you make a list of exceptions, then there certainly is a standard for making those exceptions, and people's standards are different. If you say for example Snake is good enough to be an exception, I or anyone else can disagree because we might feel like Snake doesn't meet the cuts. Who says we have to use YOUR standards (Who says your standards are better than mine?), why not make the community or the SBR vote as a whole on the standard to use?




You are not at the top of the Metagame, get off of your fake pinnacle lol. U are not the supreme technical being of Smash who bestows vast knowledge upon us mere mortals who cannot obviously comprehend how "impossible" it is to camp MK.

Show US vids of MK destroying players who try to camp them. Go on, the burden is on you for a change lol.

If you think MK is un-campable, then you should ban IDC. Why? Because think about it, OBVIOUSLY he is just PERFECT at approaching oh noez we can't camp him. He wouldn't need it to approach since he is PERFECT at approaching normally and he doesn't need to be invincible while he approaches to win. If MK is so good that no one can camp him, then wouldn't an invincible approach be just a bit too much?

This is why I do not like your logic. Your logic (from what I understand) is this:

1. All burden of proof falls on everyone else. I do not have to prove my side of the story, rather I just let everyone else try to prove their side and tell them that they didn't try hard enough/provide good enough evidence, or that their point is wrong.

2. My idea solves things in my particular mind, it doesn't matter if a number of people disagree with me.

3. I am the one who chooses the standard to make characters exempt under my rule.

4. If IDC was really broken, I shouldn't be able to formulate an idea to unban it since, heck it is broken. If I can form an idea, then it isn't broken, even if my idea doesn't fully solve the issue.



Making a list of characters for exceptions is not a good idea, trying to impose limits that the community does not agree on is not a good idea, and we have gone over this discussion multiple times. Your idea does not, will not, shall not, cannot, and would not work.

These exceptions would have to have a clearly unbeatable way to stall out MK (like MK himself does via IDC) in order to warrant an IDC ban in that match-up. That's pretty OBjective (like my proposal).

What the heck are you talking about? When did I ever claim to be the top of the metagame (or even better? What would that have to do with anything? Really, what are you trying to accomplish? All I've done is call you out on your lack of evidence.

Show YOU vids that MK is so good at approaching campers? Go watch the M2K vs. Kevin vid in the MK boards or something if you seriously mean that statement. You should already know why MK is good at approaching.

WE DON'T BAN THINGS BECAUSE A CHARACTER "DOESN'T NEED IT". If it's truly broken and overcentralizing, THEN and ONLY then does it deserves its banning. IDC hasn't been proven as a broken approach (what little evidence we have actually says the opposite), it's not proven a broken defense and the stalling issue of IDC is null.

#1 What do I have to prove? That IDC isn't broken like you say? YOU HAVEN'T PROVED IT IS IN THE FIRST PLACE (besides stalling which is null).

#2 IDC was banned due to it's potency as a stall and the inability to tell stalling with it from just doing it for w/e reason. My proposal eliminates stalling with it, but allows using for other reasons. It's that simple

#3 As long as it's as objective and clear as possible, I don't see the problem.

#4 As said in the OP, I SHOULDN'T be able to make a proposal to unban IDC if it's truly broken besides stalling. Any attempt made to unban it should have been shut down with FACTS and EVIDENCE long ago. But instead, all you have is theories. IDC was banned on it's stalling nature, but it's other uses were never proven to be just as broken (and some people like Dojo claim it's useless while people like M2K claim it's really hard to apply).

And finally, as said to you or someone else on the keep ban side, IF THE CURRENT BAN CAN BE MADE TO WORK, MY PROPOSAL CAN TOO. The way are designed, either both can work or both can fail.

I'm saddened that your argument degenerated into "IDC is definitely broken" and "MK doesn't need to be better". I really am...

 

[metaXzero]

Yet another possible DP.

It's the MK's choice to super camp because they don't want an 80-20 matchup against them for approaching. Approaching the ICs constantly because they're trying to stall out the match is recipe for failure.



Using the IDC in the first few minutes of the match is "using [it] at a timeframe where they will be unable to KO them before the timer hits 0"? I think not. But if the other player plays it safe and campy the whole match, there's nothing stopping the match to getting to 5-6 minutes in and the non IDC user still having a stock left, at which point they could hardcore camp with the intent to stall the timer (with only 2 minutes left)... even though the MK stopped using the IDC early in the match because they're NOT trying to stall.

Exactly, if they don't want to use IDC against ICs because they are unconfident in their ability to defeat ICs before the timer, they just don't use IDC against ICs. I'm not forcing every MK to use IDC lol. It's their choice


As said, it's not guaranteed that the MK player will be unable to finish their opponent off. Only MK himself has a confirmed guaranteed way to run out the clock against MK (IDC). Everyone else is just not unbeatable.

If you're saying "it's not fair to IDC-using MKs", is it fair that currently if they use IDC for any reason, they should be DQed?

 

[DMG]

These exceptions would have to have a clearly unbeatable way to stall out MK (like MK himself does via IDC) in order to warrant an IDC ban in that match-up. That's pretty OBjective (like my proposal).

What if we present a vid and you don't agree that it is unbeatable? You would probably have to ask the community if it was unbeatable, not just go by what you think.

This is why I said the rule presents subjectivity. People's opinions on subject matter that is not concrete/absolute are subjective. There is no concrete standard to define if someone can stall out MK, only different views from different people.

I'm saddened that your argument degenerated into "IDC is definitely broken" and "MK doesn't need to be better". I really am...

Ok... NOW I am convinced that you are trolling.

I've tried to make a point that this would be broken on ANY character, even CF. MK being good has nothing to do with me wanting it now allowed.

IDC, when left in, IS BROKEN. The problem we are coming into is that IF YOU TRY TO LIMIT IT, YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH A REASONABLE RULESET. Banning it wasn't perfect, never will be perfect, but as it stands an outright ban is better than trying to allow it with limits imposed.

But whatever, I have more important things to think about. Seriously, we could spend this time doing something actually useful to improve/attempt to improve the Metagame, and instead we are here arguing over IDC. We get it, you want to be the hero that changed the world with a rule, but this crusade is over.

U come up with a ruleset that isn't subjective, and I will suck your Peepee... Fair enough?

 

[Oracle]

You can't limit the IDC because it is stupid and unreasonable to think that you can have a TO at every match involving MK. And when left unchecked, it is broken because it promotes stalling and is an attack that is literally impossible to predict the location where MK will appear.

 

[swordgard]

So let me see here, answer to this. Yes, the idc is blockable/dodgeable, however, why should the metkanight be able to do it over and over on me if i have no other choice but to either take the hit or dodge(usually meaning i WONT have tim to retaliate and overall hel keep the advantage for the match). Whats stopping him from doing it over and over, if i have no offensive counter? Also, this has many issues as the one needing a TO near for stuff like that and ALSO it allows metaknight to by pass any sort of defensive strategy. Wtf do you need more, your simply removing the whole defensive counter aspect of the game.

 

[metaXzero]

What if we present a vid and you don't agree that it is unbeatable? You would probably have to ask the community if it was unbeatable, not just go by what you think.

This is why I said the rule presents subjectivity. People's opinions on subject matter that is not concrete/absolute are subjective. There is no concrete standard to define if someone can stall out MK, only different views from different people.





Ok... NOW I am convinced that you are trolling.

I've tried to make a point that this would be broken on ANY character, even CF. MK being good has nothing to do with me wanting it now allowed.

IDC, when left in, IS BROKEN. The problem we are coming into is that IF YOU TRY TO LIMIT IT, YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH A REASONABLE RULESET. Banning it wasn't perfect, never will be perfect, but as it stands an outright ban is better than trying to allow it with limits imposed.

But whatever, I have more important things to think about. Seriously, we could spend this time doing something actually useful to improve/attempt to improve the Metagame, and instead we are here arguing over IDC. We get it, you want to be the hero that changed the world with a rule, but this crusade is over.

U come up with a ruleset that isn't subjective, and I will suck your Peepee... Fair enough?

Ugh. We keep repeating ourselves. OK. I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

IDC can be used. If the match ends in timer, MK loses. Our current understanding is NO ONE can unbeatably stall out MK besides himself. Only MK players who decide to make use of IDC (meaning they are confident they can deal with the possibility of uber campy opponents) are going to worry about uber campy opponents. Obviously, some MK players won't use IDC for whatever reasons (Mew2King believes it's really hard to apply in a useful way during a match while Dojo thinks it's just useless.) So basically, we have a clear rule that unbans IDC while taking care of the stalling problems that were the crux of it's banning.

You continue to basically argue "it's subjective that MKs should lose if they use IDC and fail to defeat their opponent", "opponents will camp and WILL SUCCEED in stalling out IDC-using MKs", and that "it's subjective to ban IDC in some match-ups and not others.

Well to your first point, it's the MK player's choice to make use of IDC and risk a uber campy opponent. THEIR CHOICE. If they are a MK player who doesn't wanna risk losing a match due to the chance of getting uber-camped thanks to the use of IDC, well then don't use it. No one is forcing MK players to use IDC in a match.

To your second point, you've yet to show that anyone besides MK can unbeatably camp a MK player to the timer. Your only argument against this is "MK doesn't have the perfect approach". Well then, it boils down to player ability. Neither can unbeatably camp to the timer/approach and KO all stock. And I don't see what's wrong with that...

And your third point. MK himself has a PROVEN and UNSUBJECTIVE way to stall out himself; this very technique. No one can argue this AT ALL. You are right that everyone will NOT all agree that *insert character* can stall out MK. But the fact is to our current knowledge of Brawl, only one character (himself) can unbeatably stall out an IDC-using MK. If anyone else can have meet the guideline established by MK himself for stalling out IDC users (a CLEAR and unbeatable stall/camp technique), IDC should be banned in that match-up.

*sigh* Well, go ahead and try to counter the points here. But remember, NO THEORY. IDC is unproven as broken (what we have for IDC matches suggests the opposite). And if you seriously think you are wasting your time here debating with me, well why continue here? You could be doing something else...

You can't limit the IDC because it is stupid and unreasonable to think that you can have a TO at every match involving MK. And when left unchecked, it is broken because it promotes stalling and is an attack that is literally impossible to predict the location where MK will appear.

TO only needs to know if IDC was used in a match (assuming the match ends via timer). Just like the current ban where TO only needs to no if IDC was used before DQing someone.

So let me see here, answer to this. Yes, the idc is blockable/dodgeable, however, why should the metkanight be able to do it over and over on me if i have no other choice but to either take the hit or dodge(usually meaning i WONT have tim to retaliate and overall hel keep the advantage for the match). Whats stopping him from doing it over and over, if i have no offensive counter? Also, this has many issues as the one needing a TO near for stuff like that and ALSO it allows metaknight to by pass any sort of defensive strategy. Wtf do you need more, your simply removing the whole defensive counter aspect of the game.

If you block or dodge the IDC attack, you can CLEARLY punish Meta Knight's ending lag. And if MK decides to spam IDC-->come out and attack, they are not going to finish you off in 8 minutes.

TO only needs to know if IDC was used (just like when IDC is banned, TO only needs to know if IDC was used before DQing someone).

 

[GPEternity]

I read a couple pages and found myself reading the same exact crap for a half hour. So I gave up.

All I have to say is that your ruleset tampers with the natural flow of the game. I will get to this in a bit.

As it stands the IDC has 1 application that must be called to attention, and that is its defensive purpose. Yes, using it to stall is taken care of but it can still be used for a split second to get MK out of a sticky situation. The ability to teleport quickly out of a bad position is in itself broken. Ignore all this SF comparison stupidity and just consider the fact that in an instant MK can reset the position to neutral. MK is a character that likes to approach, and the style that the rest of the cast uses is naturally to camp and wait for MK to approach and punish mistakes that MK makes while approaching. This is the only way to truly pressure MK. MK however, can undo all the pressure by IDC away. He doesn't have to approach with it or anything, he just needs it to stop whatever you are doing to him and then get right back in your face with his other moves.

Now onto game tampering. A lot of rules are imposed on the game to make things fair, banning of items, banning of stalling, banning of certain/all infinites etc etc. However, these bans are meant to ensure that the competitive aspect of brawl is held at a constant level playing field. What your rule does is give MK players the option to completely change the dynamics of the game.

Naturally, the game is composed of 2 characters fighting eachother, with the goal being to gain, maintain, and further a lead in damage/stock to ultimately win the match. They do this by attacking the other character and forcing the other to make mistakes. Despite differences in character playing styles and matchups, one aspect is held constant in all matches: Take more stock than are taken from you, and if tied stocks, deal more damage than is dealt to you. This goal is clear, it is universal. Your rule changes this fundemental in that the non-mk no longer has to take a single stock, or deal a single % of damage. He merely must survive. You suger-coat this by calling it a "risk" of a "campy" opponent. It isn't just a risk, it is a complete change in game dynamic. No matter how the match proceeds after the IDC is used, one thing is changed, victory conditions. It goes from fighting game to cat-mouse. This change will be in the back of both players minds for the rest of the match. The MK will have killing in his head, and the non-MK will have survival in his head. This is not theory. It is an easily provable FACT that the knowledge you have of the game will alter your playing style and mentality. I know DDD can cg me for 50%+, so I will emphasize not getting grabbed. I know I cannot reliably approach MK, so I will orient myself defensively. I know I will win if MK fails to kill me, I will try to survive. Your rule allows one player to change the victory conditions, and with it, the dynamics of the game and matchup. This is unfair. Are you going to find ATs for all other characters and say if they use it they must kill their opponent? If you cannot do this then the game implementation of your rule is unfair. And don't try to turn this back around and say that banning the IDC is unfair because it gives a defeat condition for MK. That argument is invalid for the fact that the IDC has a stalling application in itself which warrants a ban. You cannot solve the IDC stall problem and allow its use without changing the dynamics of the game.

Secondly, you create a specific rule modification in a specific matchup. Again, this is a changed dynamic. You are banning certain maneuvers in a certain matchup. Its like saying melee Marth isn't allowed to CG Falco but can CG Fox. Whats up with the exceptions here? MK can change the game up against all characters except for other MKs? In other words, MK gets to change the game, he also gets the priviledge of the game not getting changed on him.

Which character ends up having the advantage is moot point, the point is that the game has been changed. And the change is placed in the hands of 1 specific character.

Also, I'd like to add that bringing up the fact that no character other than MK has a guaranteed stall is stupid and redundant. We know nobody has a guaranteed stall, if they did the stall would be banned for the purpose that it stalls. Come to think of it, thats why the IDC is banned isn't it? Fact of the matter is the primary use of the IDC is indeed to stall. Stalling is not good, therefore IDC is banned. Once again, you cannot undo the stalling aspect of the tech without blurring a very clear dynamic of the game.

Also, you propose to ban IDC in any match where a non-MK could stall out the MK if the MK used IDC. I don't need to mention that said stall method would be banned. But I will mention that you are thus suggesting we give MK an AT that allows him to stall (I KNOW I KNOW ITS A BAD IDEA UNDER YOUR RULE, BUT THE POINT IS IT IS ALLOWED), teleport instantly out of any disadvantagous or perceived threatening postion at will, and disallowing it in any matchup where it would cause him to lose. Looks like MK is getting the long straw in everything here.

Note: Please note very clearly that I disregard the theoretical applications of the IDC, I address its known applications and your inability to solve them. Foremost is stalling, which I have explained carefully that your rule gives MK a choice in changing the matchup at will. ALSO, he can still use the move to stall. Bad idea or not, he can stall with it. Then there is the reseting of positions, he can go where he wants to go. He doesn't need to approach or attack with it, he can do all that already, but the IDC allows him to place himself in a position where he may be more comfortable, say from across the stage to just outside your reach if you're TL.

Finally, it is not our jobs to prove to you that Banning was the right thing to do. But banning does solve the stalling problem and does not give MK any uneccessary choice nor does it change the goal of the game. You are the challenger of the establishment, therefore you are the one who must provide the evidence and gather support. You are the one who requires overwhelming evidence. You are the one who must track down video footage of the IDC in use that is clearly not broken, you are the one who must host tourneys with your rule in implementation and prove that the IDC can be used and still foster competitive exciting gameplay.

 

[metaXzero]

^Wall-o-text by GPEternity. Can't quote.

Anyway, your first paragraph. WHY should I not compare IDC's defensive "get out of a bad position" application to Yoga teleport? While both moves are obviously different, the fact is in this comparison of defense, both can be used to get out of a bad position. Yoga Teleport moreso puts the match back in Dhalsim's favor instead of neutral due to his playstyle of using his range to poke approaching players. MK however HAS to approach his opponent upon using IDC to "reset the match to neutral". And also, what exactly is a bad position for MK anyway that would make IDC use broken. Him approaching, getting hit a few times, and IDCing away to repeat? Hylian's video of him IDCing from one edge to another (he wasn't even in a true bad position since he had other non-IDC ways to get out of there)?

Items make a different game we'd rather not play. They're not all broken and item rulesets like ISP can be played competitively. We here just prefer items off.

Stop saying "it's unfair (presumably for the MK)". "Fair" is subjective and we don't ban things for being unfair. You say it's unfair to IDC-using MKs that they HAVE to finish off their opponent? I say it's unfair that if any MK uses IDC at ALL (even if they gain nothing from it), they get DQed. Which is more unfair? It's all subjective. Therefore, being "unfair" is not a good reason to keep it banned And the exceptions rule; IDC can clearly stall out a match in an unbeatable fashion. That's why IDC is banned in MK dittos. No one has an IDC-like AT or at least a "make me unKOable for 8 minutes straight" AT or method. So their is no reason to ban IDC in other match-ups.

Again, if you find an unbeatable AT for stalling out matches for anyone else, bring it up. IDC is banned in MK dittos because if one uses IDC, the other can then use IDC when he has a percent advantage to run out the clock. This effectively renders my proposal pointless in MK dittos because IDC is STILL being used to stall out for the win.

As I said to Yuna a few pages back, any other ATs with various uses including perfect stalling will simply fall under the same proposal here. If they truly have useful applications besides stalling, I don't see why it shouldn't also fall with IDC here.
If stalling with IDC will lose you match, why would you? We assume you are playing to win. Holding 3 minute long IDCs isn't playing to win.

Their are already some videos in this very thread that show IDC in use at a tourney. The videos do NOT show an utterly broken defense/offense AT. And some TOs have already unbanned IDC (some even just using the subjective "stalling with IDC is banned" rule which while this shouldn't be made standard, it at leasf dissuades long IDCs) so hopefully, we will have more to look at.

 

[GPEternity]

1- Comparison can't be made because as already mentioned the Yoga Teleport has a set pattern and is therefore predictable. IDC lets MK teleport to a distance of his choosing. Effectively eliminating any attempt to bring pressure on him. Don't ask which character would naturall want to pressure MK, simple fact is that MK can reset the position at his leisure whether he is at an advantage or disadvantage or evened out. Read carefully, I said any bad position or perceived bad position. Its all up to the MK. One MK may feel perfectly comfortable in the same position that would cause another to sweat. Point of the IDC is it allows the MK to get out of situations they are not comfortable in. No other character has that magical reset button. If my marth is hanging on a ledge, i'm hanging on a ledge, i don't get to hop off and telport to the other ledge so my opponent can't ledgeguard me.

Please reread the post because you have completely misunderstoof the point of my main bodies, heres a guide:

1- It is not unfair for MK to have to defeat his opponent. It is unfair that MK has the option of changing the victory conditions of the game at will.

2- You are changing the rule when two MKs meet. Creating specific rules for specific matchups again changes game dynamics.

3- Ignore the specifics of the rule itself and consider the scope of the implementation: This rule is put into effect when this character does this. This character cannot do this when facing this other character. When this rule is in effect, it is possible to win in a way that normally would be a lose.

4- Compare 3 to the current rule: This character cannot do this because it has an application that is unfair to other characters and cannot be put into controlled application without changing how the game is played.

There is a part in parenthases somewhere where I stated in caps to stop bringing up the unviability of stalling out using the IDC under your rule. Point is MK has an untouchable stall. Regardless of other applications and consequences, it is an untouchable stall. Period period period.

I ask you this, if you argue that all applications of IDC in current videos show it to be not so useful, then you are providing evidence that the IDC in fact does not have a useful application other than stalling. Therefore you yourself have eliminated IDC from the discussion of a useful non-stall AT. Why are you arguing to unban it then? To which extent, current tourneys do not have your rule in place, which I have pointed out changes the victory conditions of the game. Can you provide evidence that your rule can be implemented while still upholding the standards of competitive smash? In other words, can you ensure matches in which IDC is used will not all become keep away games of MK chasing somebody around the stage for 8 minutes with the other player making no attempt to punish MK's mistakes?

Again, in all matchups involving a specific character, a major change can be made to the matchup with the decision to make the change in the hands of 1 specific character.

 

[DMG]

GPEternity just won this thread.

 

[swordgard]

If you want to compare yoga teleport to something, comepare it to the normal use of dimensional cape.

 

[metaXzero]

1- Comparison can't be made because as already mentioned the Yoga Teleport has a set pattern and is therefore predictable. IDC lets MK teleport to a distance of his choosing. Effectively eliminating any attempt to bring pressure on him. Don't ask which character would naturall want to pressure MK, simple fact is that MK can reset the position at his leisure whether he is at an advantage or disadvantage or evened out. Read carefully, I said any bad position or perceived bad position. Its all up to the MK. One MK may feel perfectly comfortable in the same position that would cause another to sweat. Point of the IDC is it allows the MK to get out of situations they are not comfortable in. No other character has that magical reset button. If my marth is hanging on a ledge, i'm hanging on a ledge, i don't get to hop off and telport to the other ledge so my opponent can't ledgeguard me.

Please reread the post because you have completely misunderstoof the point of my main bodies, heres a guide:

1- It is not unfair for MK to have to defeat his opponent. It is unfair that MK has the option of changing the victory conditions of the game at will.

2- You are changing the rule when two MKs meet. Creating specific rules for specific matchups again changes game dynamics.

3- Ignore the specifics of the rule itself and consider the scope of the implementation: This rule is put into effect when this character does this. This character cannot do this when facing this other character. When this rule is in effect, it is possible to win in a way that normally would be a lose.

4- Compare 3 to the current rule: This character cannot do this because it has an application that is unfair to other characters and cannot be put into controlled application without changing how the game is played.

There is a part in parenthases somewhere where I stated in caps to stop bringing up the unviability of stalling out using the IDC under your rule. Point is MK has an untouchable stall. Regardless of other applications and consequences, it is an untouchable stall. Period period period.

I ask you this, if you argue that all applications of IDC in current videos show it to be not so useful, then you are providing evidence that the IDC in fact does not have a useful application other than stalling. Therefore you yourself have eliminated IDC from the discussion of a useful non-stall AT. Why are you arguing to unban it then? To which extent, current tourneys do not have your rule in place, which I have pointed out changes the victory conditions of the game. Can you provide evidence that your rule can be implemented while still upholding the standards of competitive smash? In other words, can you ensure matches in which IDC is used will not all become keep away games of MK chasing somebody around the stage for 8 minutes with the other player making no attempt to punish MK's mistakes?

Again, in all matchups involving a specific character, a major change can be made to the matchup with the decision to make the change in the hands of 1 specific character.

In reference to the video Affinity posted way back (of Hylian IDCing to the other edge which he argued was broken) is how I'm comparing IDC to YT. Not IDC as a whole, the "getting out of a bad position" as shown in that video.

1. YOU say it's unfair, I say it's NOT unfair. "Fair" is subjective. Why are you using it as an argument? Especially when others on the "keep-ban" side say it's unfair to the MK...

2. MK is the only character who actually and ireffutably defeats the point of the proposal (to unban IDC while allowing its use in matches). No other character does so.

As I said, we don't ban things for possibly being useless. We ban them for being broken and unviable for being allowed in serious play. No matter how much you bring up "they can still run out the timer", the fact is doing so isn't "playing to win" under my proposal. We assume tourney players are there to "play to win". Stalling with IDC is NOT "playing to win". So why would they? And the usefulness of IDC truthfully remains to be seen. Some claim it to be the ultimate offense/defense, others claim it as useless or a novelty. So we CAN'T say it IS ultimate/pointless with certainty unless IDC is allowed in tourneys.

 

[DMG]

As I said, we don't ban things for possibly being useless. We ban them for being broken and unviable for being allowed in serious play. No matter how much you bring up "they can still run out the timer", the fact is doing so isn't "playing to win" under my proposal. We assume tourney players are there to "play to win". Stalling with IDC is NOT "playing to win". So why would they? And the usefulness of IDC truthfully remains to be seen. Some claim it to be the ultimate offense/defense, others claim it as useless or a novelty. So we CAN'T say it IS ultimate/pointless with certainty unless IDC is allowed in tourneys.

1. When this is full blown allowed, it is broken and over centralizes the metagame around this technique. We cannot allow the IDC full blown for any reason or the metagame would revolve solely around MK and this technique. This point cannot be reasonably argued against, this is fact.

2. You are attempting to allow IDC but put imposed limits that change the conditions of victory for both players.

3. IDC has some proven broken uses and some suggested non broken uses. You are attempting to negate the broken uses while at the same time allowing the non broken uses. We just think you cannot do such a thing reasonably.

4. If we use your rule, it doesn't actually prohibit the MK from using the IDC in broken ways, it just strongly attempts to dissuade them from doing so.

5. Banning this technique means no one uses IDC or they lose. Your rule basically allows it, but puts the MK player at such an inherent disadvantage that they are very likely to lose the match based on your new conditions. MK players who are "playing to win" therefore stop using IDC, which gives us the same result as a ban. No one will use it if they are "playing to win". Your rule gives us the same end result then, just through a different method.

6. There's no need to change the rules if we would get the same result.

 

[metaXzero]

1. When this is full blown allowed, it is broken and over centralizes the metagame around this technique. We cannot allow the IDC full blown for any reason or the metagame would revolve solely around MK and this technique. This point cannot be reasonably argued against, this is fact.

2. You are attempting to allow IDC but put imposed limits that change the conditions of victory for both players.

3. IDC has some proven broken uses and some suggested non broken uses. You are attempting to negate the broken uses while at the same time allowing the non broken uses. We just think you cannot do such a thing reasonably.

4. If we use your rule, it doesn't actually prohibit the MK from using the IDC in broken ways, it just strongly attempts to dissuade them from doing so.

5. Banning this technique means no one uses IDC or they lose. Your rule basically allows it, but puts the MK player at such an inherent disadvantage that they are very likely to lose the match based on your new conditions. MK players who are "playing to win" therefore stop using IDC, which gives us the same result as a ban. No one will use it if they are "playing to win". Your rule gives us the same end result then, just through a different method.

6. There's no need to change the rules if we would get the same result.

1. I didn't say IDC should be allowed full blown. Where did I say "IDC should be allowed with NO restrictions or conditions.

2. Yes. To allow IDC while putting down the stalling problem. Your point?

3. And all I see why from your side is "it's unfair".

4. The stalling problem. Long IDC's become ill advised unless you are that good at beating your opponent quickly. The main problem with unrestricted IDC is that getting the percent advantage, then IDCing becomes the near-ultimate "playing to win" strategy. Now, it does the opposite. So why would anyone do so?

5&6. You don't know if that WILL happen nor do you have anything to back it up. The benefits of IDC could very well make up for that risk of uber campy opponents. But WILL it? Who's to say while it's banned...

 

[swordgard]

1. I didn't say IDC should be allowed full blown. Where did I say "IDC should be allowed with NO restrictions or conditions.

2. Yes. To allow IDC while putting down the stalling problem. Your point?

3. And all I see why from your side is "it's unfair".

4. The stalling problem. Long IDC's become ill advised unless you are that good at beating your opponent quickly. The main problem with unrestricted IDC is that getting the percent advantage, then IDCing becomes the near-ultimate "playing to win" strategy. Now, it does the opposite. So why would anyone do so?

5&6. You don't know if that WILL happen nor do you have anything to back it up. The benefits of IDC could very well make up for that risk of uber campy opponents. But WILL it? Who's to say while it's banned...

I am now convinced that there is no way to show you how broken IDC is and near impossible to monitor. Just so you know, it is broken to be able to reset your position at any point in the match and without any restrait except vertical heigh. This allows anyone to get out of any tight situation, and that overcentralizes the game.

 

[metaXzero]

I am now convinced that there is no way to show you how broken IDC is and near impossible to monitor. Just so you know, it is broken to be able to reset your position at any point in the match and without any restrait except vertical heigh. This allows anyone to get out of any tight situation, and that overcentralizes the game.

YOU and some other guys say it's broken, me and some other guys say it's NOT broken, and some other people say it's a useless novelty. In the end, all we have is theory because we have little to back it up.

In practice though, we barely have anything to support ANYBODIES claim. Just 2 videos where you yourself beat an IDCing MK and a Hylian vid showing already known info but not answering the question "is it broken (or broken enough to deserve banning)". How can you say it WILL "overcentralize" the game when in practice it's unproven?

Semi-related note: The ISP project has usually had Final Smashes banned due to potential overcentralization between Sonic and Spacies. But recently, they made a rule that may allow Final Smashes back in while solving the overcentralization problem...

 

[swordgard]

YOU and some other guys say it's broken, me and some other guys say it's NOT broken, and some other people say it's a useless novelty. In the end, all we have is theory because we have little to back it up.

In practice though, we barely have anything to support ANYBODIES claim. Just 2 videos where you yourself beat an IDCing MK and a Hylian vid showing already known info but not answering the question "is it broken (or broken enough to deserve banning)". How can you say it WILL "overcentralize" the game when in practice it's unproven?

Semi-related note: The ISP project has usually had Final Smashes banned due to potential overcentralization between Sonic and Spacies. But recently, they made a rule that may allow Final Smashes back in while solving the overcentralization problem...

Those people didnt abuse IDC much, but how can choosing what situation your ok with and which one you can totally bypass is NOT broken? Explain to me, for i see no other character who has any nearly similar ability. Oh and fyi, Either its BROKEN, then it needs to be banned, or like you keep saying, its useless. If its useless and just causes more rules to be added in and possible confusion with all the matchups thingy, then it should be banned anyways because there is nothing good with keeping it in. And why should I HAVE to cope up with IDC players while other MKS dont? How fair is that <.< Anyone who has trouble with IDC will have to learn mk thus overcentralizing .

 

[metaXzero]

Those people didnt abuse IDC much, but how can choosing what situation your ok with and which one you can totally bypass is NOT broken? Explain to me, for i see no other character who has any nearly similar ability. Oh and fyi, Either its BROKEN, then it needs to be banned, or like you keep saying, its useless. If its useless and just causes more rules to be added in and possible confusion with all the matchups thingy, then it should be banned anyways because there is nothing good with keeping it in. And why should I HAVE to cope up with IDC players while other MKS dont? How fair is that <.< Anyone who has trouble with IDC will have to learn mk thus overcentralizing .

When we have lots of MKs winning due to IDC, THEN you can argue about IDCs "brokeness" and "needing to be banned. But until then (if then even happens considering that IDC may NOT be broken), you only have theory.

And I never argued IDC was useless. I countered your evidence-less "IDC is DEFINITELY broken" with how other people see it as useless. I myself see IDC as just another tool in MK's arsenal.

Also, stop arguing "fair".

 

[DMG]

When we have lots of MKs winning due to IDC, THEN you can argue about IDCs "brokeness" and "needing to be banned. But until then (if then even happens considering that IDC may NOT be broken), you only have theory.

We do not need tournament results to better comprehend how broken it would be for any character to be able to stay invincible for 8 minutes after getting a lead of any kind.

You can argue about other aspects of it, but the stalling part is set in stone broken. No one credible is arguing to allow it for tournament results to see if that aspect is broken, because the clear consensus is that using it for that purpose is indeed broken.

If you want to allow it to test the other applications, then you need to be able to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time keeping everything else exactly the same. IMO, there is no way to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time allowing the other uses, because if you attempt to do so you need to change the rules, and even after all of that work the rule you come up with will never be able to reach perfect equilibrium (is too subjective, changes conditions for victory for both players, has certain exceptions, etc.).

 

[metaXzero]

We do not need tournament results to better comprehend how broken it would be for any character to be able to stay invincible for 8 minutes after getting a lead of any kind.

You can argue about other aspects of it, but the stalling part is set in stone broken. No one credible is arguing to allow it for tournament results to see if that aspect is broken, because the clear consensus is that using it for that purpose is indeed broken.

If you want to allow it to test the other applications, then you need to be able to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time keeping everything else exactly the same. IMO, there is no way to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time allowing the other uses, because if you attempt to do so you need to change the rules, and even after all of that work the rule you come up with will never be able to reach perfect equilibrium (is too subjective, changes conditions for victory for both players, has certain exceptions, etc.).

Why do you keep bringing up stalling aspect? That was taken care of at the OP. Stop bringing it up plz.

"It's not fair to the MK players that using IDC could risk an extra-campy opponent" and it's fair that ANY use of IDC=instant DQ? "Fair" is subjective. Don't argue it.

"Changing the terms of victory is unfair". Again, fair is subjective. And it's kinda strange you guys are arguing that changing the victory terms at will is unfair AND the change itself is unfair to MK (the one who initiated it).

"Exceptions are subjective" MK himself is the only character who WITHOUT A DOUBT can defeat the point of my purposal by uber camping (via IDC itself). Everyone else as far as we currently know, can't.

 

[DMG]

Lol. U didn't get what I was trying to say at all.

I only brought up stalling because you kept saying IDC isn't broken, as if the stalling part is not broken, and I am reminding you that it is.

As for campy opponents, I'm not arguing over whether it is fair or not, what I am arguing is that you can't take out the stalling aspect of IDC while at the same time not punishing a player for using it. Your rule gets rid of the stalling problem but it also disadvantages the MK player if his opponent chooses to camp him. Irregardless of whether that is fair or not, the problem is that you are disadvantaging the MK player if he chooses to use IDC. We don't need tournament results here either to conclude that camping/trying to survive in this situation as the other character is now probably the best strategy.

IMO, there is no good way to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time allowing the other uses without creating an imperfect rule.

Hence, even though a ban destroys any possible use of IDC, it's still the best rule/option we have, and it will probably always be the best option.

 

[Deleted member]

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

So you want to make comebacks impossible as opposed to really hard? against MK?

*gets 2 KOs, stalls for 6 minutes, gets last KO or hopes that opponent gives up*

I'll make you a deal. I'll host tournaments and allow you to perform the IDC, but if you do, I'll also allow anyone else to punch you in the face. If you have a tough face, I will consider it a learned skill and allow both to take place without fear of disqualification.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So you want to make comebacks impossible as opposed to really hard? against MK?

*gets 2 KOs, stalls for 6 minutes, gets last KO or hopes that opponent gives up*

I'll make you a deal. I'll host tournaments and allow the IDC, but I'll also allow anyone to punch anyone else that at any point in the tournament performs the IDC for any reason directly in the face. If you have a tough face, I will consider it a learned skill and allow both to take place without fear of disqualification.

Make sure you record it.

 

[swordgard]

So you want to make comebacks impossible as opposed to really hard? against MK?

*gets 2 KOs, stalls for 6 minutes, gets last KO or hopes that opponent gives up*

I'll make you a deal. I'll host tournaments and allow you to perform the IDC, but if you do, I'll also allow anyone else to punch you in the face. If you have a tough face, I will consider it a learned skill and allow both to take place without fear of disqualification.

Please do that, id lol so bad.

 

[metaXzero]

Lol. U didn't get what I was trying to say at all.

I only brought up stalling because you kept saying IDC isn't broken, as if the stalling part is not broken, and I am reminding you that it is.

As for campy opponents, I'm not arguing over whether it is fair or not, what I am arguing is that you can't take out the stalling aspect of IDC while at the same time not punishing a player for using it. Your rule gets rid of the stalling problem but it also disadvantages the MK player if his opponent chooses to camp him. Irregardless of whether that is fair or not, the problem is that you are disadvantaging the MK player if he chooses to use IDC. We don't need tournament results here either to conclude that camping/trying to survive in this situation as the other character is now probably the best strategy.

IMO, there is no good way to remove the stalling aspect while at the same time allowing the other uses without creating an imperfect rule.

Hence, even though a ban destroys any possible use of IDC, it's still the best rule/option we have, and it will probably always be the best option.

"your proposal disadvantages IDC-using MKs". You seem to be arguing the same "fairness" stance, but claim you aren't.

Anyway, yes their is a catch to using IDC. Your point exactly? If you can't deal with that catch, you just don't use IDC.

So you want to make comebacks impossible as opposed to really hard? against MK?

*gets 2 KOs, stalls for 6 minutes, gets last KO or hopes that opponent gives up*

I'll make you a deal. I'll host tournaments and allow you to perform the IDC, but if you do, I'll also allow anyone else to punch you in the face. If you have a tough face, I will consider it a learned skill and allow both to take place without fear of disqualification.

Really Umbreon. You REALLY think that will work in PRACTICE? Take off 2 stock, IDC until the last minute, then use your remaining minute to try and KO your possibly campy opponent in 60 seconds before the timer hits zero (which I remind you, YOU LOSE if the timer hits Zero). While I disagree with the keep ban sides "opponents WILL camp MK the entire match", to hold MK away for just 1 minute seems...........not that difficult.

If you're so sure that's a perfect way to win, well allow IDC at your tournies (minus pointless punching).

 

[G U R U]

Stupid topic is stupid.

 

[Deleted member]

Really Umbreon. You REALLY think that will work in PRACTICE? Take off 2 stock, IDC until the last minute, then use your remaining minute to try and KO your possibly campy opponent in 60 seconds before the timer hits zero (which I remind you, YOU LOSE if the timer hits Zero). While I disagree with the keep ban sides "opponents WILL camp MK the entire match", to hold MK away for just 1 minute seems...........not that difficult.

Watched dmbrandon do it to NinjaLink in person to be funny. it works.

We also have this problem now where any tournament with more than 60 people will usually not finish in 1 day. You're effectively making this number 20, since we'll have to wait half an hour for each set rather than 10 minutes. This is largely why we ban stalling in the first place. Not to make the game better for the players, but so that tournaments are feasibly possible.

And in light of Jam Stunna's post, the face punching WILL be taped. If you feel the need to frustrate your opponent, it's only good sportsman ship that your opponent should feel some kind of accomplishment at the end of the set, regardless of the outcome. If not by game, then by punching. i really don't see the issue, and it's pretty far from pointless.

 

[metaXzero]

Watched dmbrandon do it to NinjaLink in person to be funny. it works.

We also have this problem now where any tournament with more than 60 people will usually not finish in 1 day. You're effectively making this number 20, since we'll have to wait half an hour for each set rather than 10 minutes. This is largely why we ban stalling in the first place. Not to make the game better for the players, but so that tournaments are feasibly possible.

And in light of Jam Stunna's post, the face punching WILL be taped. If you feel the need to frustrate your opponent, it's only good sportsman ship that your opponent should feel some kind of accomplishment at the end of the set, regardless of the outcome. If not by game, then by punching. i really don't see the issue, and it's pretty far from pointless.

No vids? Just a random friendly?

So basically, what you are saying is that IDC-using MKs WILL hold IDC until the last minute, then try and win the match before that clock hits zero (though you're giving off the impression that they WILL always win if doing this based on one example). Your statement of MKs winning like that conflicts with other people on the "keep-ban" side that say other characters can keep MK from killing them for an entire 8-minute match (claiming the IDC condition is "unfair" and "too disadvantaged").

Your claim that this will drag out tournaments as a whole due to all IDC-using MKs always holding it to the last minute would look better with more then just a random friendly of Ninjalink and dmbrandon...

 

[Deleted member]

No vids? Just a random friendly?

So basically, what you are saying is that IDC-using MKs WILL hold IDC until the last minute, then try and win the match before that clock hits zero (though you're giving off the impression that they WILL always win if doing this based on one example). Your statement of MKs winning like that conflicts with other people on the "keep-ban" side that say other characters can keep MK from killing them for an entire 8-minute match (claiming the IDC condition is "unfair" and "too disadvantaged").

Your claim that this will drag out tournaments as a whole due to all IDC-using MKs always holding it to the last minute would look better with more then just a random friendly of Ninjalink and dmbrandon...

I made no such assertions about what MK players will do, nor did I assert that the opponent would necessarily punch the MK player in the face. I'm just saying that I think it's a fair trade, and would either allow them together or ban them exclusively, but always together. I also think the face punching would cancel out the match stalling, since I would allow the face punching to take place mid-match.

Really, it solves everything, and you get your wish. Why are you being so difficult about it?

 

[metaXzero]

I made no such assertions about what MK players will do, nor did I assert that the opponent would necessarily punch the MK player in the face. I'm just saying that I think it's a fair trade, and would either allow them together or ban them exclusively, but always together. I also think the face punching would cancel out the match stalling, since I would allow the face punching to take place mid-match.

Really, it solves everything, and you get your wish. Why are you being so difficult about it?

......I didn't say anything else about the face punching rule in my previous post. You can do whatever you want with that....