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

[swordgard]

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

I think your just not seeing the point hes making. The use of IDC is broken, so hes making fun of your obviously flawed statements. We do not want any kind of stalling to be allowed, even by your rules its still doable. And idc is also broken for having a reset button effect.

 

[metaXzero]

I think your just not seeing the point hes making. The use of IDC is broken, so hes making fun of your obviously flawed statements. We do not want any kind of stalling to be allowed, even by your rules its still doable. And idc is also broken for having a reset button effect.

It's doable, but it's not "playing to win". We assume players are playing to win. Banking your entire match on the very last minute (which makes it VERY possible to get camped to the timer since they only need to survive for around a minute instead of an entire match) just sounds utterly moronic.

And please don't try and argue that "reset button" thing again. We really can't talk about IDC's brokeness as a *insert non-stall reason* without In-Practice results which we have little to none of.

Seriously Umbreon, what benefit do you get for making it MUCH easier for your opponent to camp you to the timer? I really don't see any...

 

[Deleted member]

I can only hope you worded that wrongly. You don't see it as advantageous to have a better camping solution than your opponent has the option of choosing?

Usually, I put more faith in the general community than pretty much any other SBR member, but wtf. Is this a joke?

 

[DMG]

I can only hope you worded that wrongly. You don't see it as advantageous to have a better camping solution than your opponent has the option of choosing?

Usually, I put more faith in the general community than pretty much any other SBR member, but wtf. Is this a joke?

Lol seriously we've thought that metaXzero was trolling us cause he's ranted about this for pages in the IDC thread and even made his own thread here, but apparently he is serious about it.

I dunno what more we can do, I don't think we can convince him anymore that a ban is better than this idea, and I REALLY don't see him convincing us that his idea is better, so that leaves us with only disagreements.

Should this thread exist anymore? We've exhausted things to say on both sides, I dunno what else there is new to say. Aside from Face punching... that is definitely a step in the LOL direction.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I can only hope you worded that wrongly. You don't see it as advantageous to have a better camping solution than your opponent has the option of choosing?

Usually, I put more faith in the general community than pretty much any other SBR member, but wtf. Is this a joke?

Uh...

Dude, if you LOSE when the clock runs out regardless of the situation, there's no advantage to not killing your opponent as quickly as possible.


By stalling out the clock, you just make it easier for the opponent to stall out the clock in the end, making you ultimately lose.



Granted, your opponent cannot force an approach via any means, but you can't really apply pressure unless you're willing to come out of IDC.


Stalling the timer doesn't help the MK player because every second means one second closer to his eventual loss, all it can serve to do is aggravate the opponent. It's far more useful to just use it offensively.




Granted, I think "broken for offensive purposes" pretty much is exactly what the technique is, though I see no harm in having a few tournaments to prove it. ..



Preferably in the NY area, I'd love to win some money on this.

 

[swordgard]

It's doable, but it's not "playing to win". We assume players are playing to win. Banking your entire match on the very last minute (which makes it VERY possible to get camped to the timer since they only need to survive for around a minute instead of an entire match) just sounds utterly moronic.

And please don't try and argue that "reset button" thing again. We really can't talk about IDC's brokeness as a *insert non-stall reason* without In-Practice results which we have little to none of.

Seriously Umbreon, what benefit do you get for making it MUCH easier for your opponent to camp you to the timer? I really don't see any...

Ok, it is playing to win if you know that its more profitable to use IDC with its uses even though you cannot stall till the last second. Playing to win only means that you will use any technique as long as it improves your chances of winning, which certainly is one of the use of IDC, so stop bringing that up saying playing to win as if winning was winning without stalling if necessary, which is exactly the opposite of what it is. And we CAN state for a fact that it DOES have a reset button effect, we have proven to you that in THEORY it has everything of a reset button, i cannot even foresee anything that stops it frfom being some sort of movement/position reset button. We do NOT need results to proove this, its a direct effect of using IDC. Tell me what IS stopping me from using IDC to go anywhere where im more comfortable one the map You cannot argue this fact, you can use it to reset position. <.< Your last argument was always bring bring videos/proofs, empiricism is not the only good system for knowledge. A priori knowledge exist. You dont need to drink poison to know its bad for your help.

Also, you cant induce a catch like this on every move. Either its banned or its unrestricted, or else we can end up allowing only 5 ics alternated grab, then only 3 d3 chaingrabs on a wall. We cannot do middlegrounds for they always lead up to complications.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok, it is playing to win if you know that its more profitable to use IDC with its uses even though you cannot stall till the last second. Playing to win only means that you will use any technique as long as it improves your chances of winning, which certainly is one of the use of IDC, so stop bringing that up saying playing to win as if winning was winning without stalling if necessary, which is exactly the opposite of what it is. And we CAN state for a fact that it DOES have a reset button effect, we have proven to you that in THEORY it has everything of a reset button, i cannot even foresee anything that stops it frfom being some sort of movement/position reset button. We do NOT need results to proove this, its a direct effect of using IDC. Tell me what IS stopping me from using IDC to go anywhere where im more comfortable one the map You cannot argue this fact, you can use it to reset position. <.< Your last argument was always bring bring videos/proofs, empiricism is not the only good system for knowledge. A priori knowledge exist. You dont need to drink poison to know its bad for your help.

Also, you cant induce a catch like this on every move. Either its banned or its unrestricted, or else we can end up allowing only 5 ics alternated grab, then only 3 d3 chaingrabs on a wall. We cannot do middlegrounds for they always lead up to complications.

...

Yes, we can.


The problem with most purposed middle-grounds are that they are either not discrete or not enforceable.

Take the purposal on it's merits and it's merits alone.


Obviously the scenario was taking with the rule assumed, normally if you can infinitely stall, it's a broken strategy. However with this rule in place you lose if the timer runs out and you use IDC. So, with this rule in place, stalling is counter-productive, because you lose regardless if the timer runs out.

 

[Deleted member]

Stalling the timer doesn't help the MK player because every second means one second closer to his eventual loss, all it can serve to do is aggravate the opponent. It's far more useful to just use it offensively.

Why would you want to piss off other players? You can just save the wear and tear on your controller and 20 minutes and key his or her car?

Stressing the punching of the face thing.

 

[metaXzero]

Ok, it is playing to win if you know that its more profitable to use IDC with its uses even though you cannot stall till the last second. Playing to win only means that you will use any technique as long as it improves your chances of winning, which certainly is one of the use of IDC, so stop bringing that up saying playing to win as if winning was winning without stalling if necessary, which is exactly the opposite of what it is. And we CAN state for a fact that it DOES have a reset button effect, we have proven to you that in THEORY it has everything of a reset button, i cannot even foresee anything that stops it frfom being some sort of movement/position reset button. We do NOT need results to proove this, its a direct effect of using IDC. Tell me what IS stopping me from using IDC to go anywhere where im more comfortable one the map You cannot argue this fact, you can use it to reset position. <.< Your last argument was always bring bring videos/proofs, empiricism is not the only good system for knowledge. A priori knowledge exist. You dont need to drink poison to know its bad for your help.

Also, you cant induce a catch like this on every move. Either its banned or its unrestricted, or else we can end up allowing only 5 ics alternated grab, then only 3 d3 chaingrabs on a wall. We cannot do middlegrounds for they always lead up to complications.

Is it's said "reset button" nature so broken that it needs banning? You'll say yes, I'll say no. In practice, we have nothing for either side. That's why I say we can't argue if IDC is broken enough to be banned (ignoring stalling).

And adumbrodeus beat me to several other responses.

Also, good luck to adumbrodeus. It'd be nice to see someone "prove" the supposed brokeness of offensive IDC use.

EDIT: Umbreon's post are confusing me @_@

 

[adumbrodeus]

Why would you want to piss off other players? You can just save the wear and tear on your controller and 20 minutes and key his or her car?

Stressing the punching of the face thing.

Well, there are occasional advantages to doing that, but a good opponent won't be pissed off by such mundane things, and you're probably better with direct insults.


But I see where you're coming from, the thing is there ARE other uses for it, and there are plenty of other things that are annoying but are legal, kirby's "hi" taunt for example. If anything, using it to taunt your opponent puts you at a disadvantage (like constantly doing the kirby taunt).


Offensively, it's a god-tier approach, defensively being able to effectively reset the match is amazing. I fully expect it to be banned for overcentralization once people actually start using it, it's just that amazing.

Also, good luck to adumbrodeus. It'd be nice to see someone "prove" the supposed brokeness of offensive IDC use.

Lol, as I said, unbanned tournaments in the NYC/LI area. I was good at it back when it got banned, it'll take me a bit too be able to use it properly again, but I could use the money.

 

[Deleted member]

ok look, when I play MK rarely, I do almost nothing but the IDC just to go back and forth across the stage to be funny. but this won't ever be allowed in tournament, and especially not so if what you're proposing will run the timer to prevent the tournament from progressing. if you can think of a way to use this that won't run the timer so that tournaments can finish on time, cool. try that.

 

[DMG]

Also, good luck to adumbrodeus. It'd be nice to see someone "prove" the supposed brokeness of offensive IDC use.

He wants it unbanned to win money from it, not because he actually agrees that is should be allowed.

Offensively, it's a god-tier approach, defensively being able to effectively reset the match is amazing. I fully expect it to be banned for overcentralization once people actually start using it, it's just that amazing.





Lol, as I said, unbanned tournaments in the NYC/LI area. I was good at it back when it got banned, it'll take me a bit too be able to use it properly again, but I could use the money.

I rest my case lol.

 

[adumbrodeus]

ok look, when I play MK rarely, I do almost nothing but the IDC just to go back and forth across the stage to be funny. but this won't ever be allowed in tournament, and especially not so if what you're proposing will run the timer to prevent the tournament from progressing. if you can think of a way to use this that won't run the timer so that tournaments can finish on time, cool. try that.

*bolding added

The entire point of this proposal is to make it useless as a stalling technique. Again, the addendium that is being proposed is that:

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

This is being proposed in lieu of:

"IDC is banned"


Basically, it overrides the normal "stock lead or damage if stocks are the same decides winner if the timer runs out".


As you can see, with this rule in place, you do not want to stall, because from the point that they use IDC the MK user is the only player who has to worry about the clock running out.



But as I said, the MK attacks with his out of cape attack almost immediately out of invincibility/invisibility.

Add that to the fact that you've got enough opportunities to launch the attack while caping that you can punish just about any lag and you've effectively given the player opposing MK one chance to put up a defense. Any failure will be punished (except shield) by the out of cape attack. You can also DI it to attack anywhere in a range equal to the distance between the central platform of battlefield and the top platform from MK's current position.

The implications of this are enormous, and there are only two safe places against that, above MK, and on the ledge, both of which are horrible positions against MK.


There's also the defensive use "position reset" which eliminates spacing mistakes very effectively.



So, I'm confident that if the proposed rule is implemented once people start attempting to abuse this technique it'll be banned for overcentralization.

He wants it unbanned to win money from it, not because he actually agrees that is should be allowed.






I rest my case lol.

You misunderstand. I've wanted it banned since it was discovered. Myself, Yuna, and a few others, were explaining the brokeness of the move back before it was banned on the original thread, trying to get it banned. We succeeded, but I see the legitimacy of people running tournaments with this new rule in place, and it does deal with the primary concern, infinite stalling.


I just have no problem proving the brokenness of this move in an actual tournament setting, in fact I welcome the opportunity. I just wouldn't mind mind picking up some money in the process.


Really, I'm more worried about proving my point, but if people seriously wanna throw money at me, I don't mind at all, lol.

 

[Deleted member]

ok, so as a stalling technique, it doesn't work. but people will still stall the timer with it and the tournament won't progress. you have to do better than that.

 

[metaXzero]

ok look, when I play MK rarely, I do almost nothing but the IDC just to go back and forth across the stage to be funny. but this won't ever be allowed in tournament, and especially not so if what you're proposing will run the timer to prevent the tournament from progressing. if you can think of a way to use this that won't run the timer so that tournaments can finish on time, cool. try that.

Wat? How does my proposal "run the timer"? MKs aren't going to drag out matches with IDC if they know they WILL LOSE upon the match timer hitting 0. Meaning dragging out matches for 6 minutes with IDC is just moronic.

He wants it unbanned to win money from it, not because he actually agrees that is should be allowed.

I rest my case lol.

I've already known adumbrodeus' stance on IDC since the old MK thread (he believes it is COMPLETELY broken, BUT knows their is nothing but theory right now. If given the chance though, he will attempt to prove IDC's ban-worth).

I never said he wants IDC unbanned. He just recognizes that I have a legitimate case to unban it. ^_^

 

[DMG]

You misunderstand. I've wanted it banned since it was discovered. Myself, Yuna, and a few others, were explaining the brokeness of the move back before it was banned on the original thread, trying to get it banned. We succeeded, but I see the legitimacy of people running tournaments with this new rule in place, and it does deal with the primary concern, infinite stalling.

Ah, I was trying to phrase it as "I agree with the ban, but I also don't mind taking money from people if you allow it." lol. I know what you are saying, I wouldn't mind doing this to people if they allowed it. Although I already camp a lot with Wario lol.

The rule actually doesn't stop MK from using it to stall, it just strongly discourages him to do so. Which is fine, but it doesn't address the issue of the other player camping MK back.

So far, the only answer I've gotten concerning the other player camping was "Tough luck, the MK made a choice when he chose to use IDC." :/

metaXzero want's to prove the true worth of the other applications of IDC, but the problem is that his rule punishes people for attempting to use other aspects of IDC. He gets rid of the stalling aspect, but it fails to give the MK an open, non limited testing ground for him to truly test the uses of IDC without being punished.

In fact, I see no way to allow MK to accurately test IDC uses in tournament while at the same time removing the stalling aspect AND also at the same time not punishing the MK player for attempting to fool around with it.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him. MK loses under the rule. It won't matter what conclusion we would come to, since MK would ultimately lose the match because of the rule. Using IDC wouldn't be MK's best strategy/"playing to win" if his opponent can just camp him and win, hence no one would use IDC, giving us the same results as a ban but with a different rule. In this situation, the new rule accomplishes nothing.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him and MK wins. If MK's start winning matches with IDC, wouldn't that validate the suggestion that those uses of IDC are broken, and that it should be re banned? If MK wins with it even after being disadvantaged by the rules for doing so, then that would certainly prove that IDC needs to be banned period, no more questions asked. In this situation, we get different results and the original/previous ruling was already the solution.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him and MK gets mixed results. He wins some and he loses some. Since MK's success doesn't follow a strict up or down pattern, how can we tell if the other uses of IDC are broken or not? In the matches MK lost, could he have won if he didn't use IDC as much during that match, or maybe if he used it differently? In the matches he won, could he have lost if his opponent camped harder/played differently? There would be too much subjectivity trying to determine whether the results point to the uses being broken or not. In this situation, we wouldn't be able to interpret the data very well, since it isn't pointing towards a particular side.


Also, metaXzero I do not think you have a legit case to unban it. Not until you give us a good rule that actually gives you a non biased testing ground for MK to try it out.

 

[metaXzero]

:/ Don't tell me he logged off for the night. I wanted to read his response (adumbrodeus).

EDIT: dr. mario guy. You continue to assume that the potential non-MK campyness WILL be an actual problem for IDC-using MKs. Current info shows only MK himself defeats my proposal's purpose with unbeatable camping (via IDC itself). Everyone else is debatable and we will never get anywhere until we have results.

 

[DMG]

:/ Don't tell me he logged off for the night. I wanted to read his response (adumbrodeus).

EDIT: dr. mario guy. You continue to assume that the potential non-MK campyness WILL be an actual problem for IDC-using MKs. Current info shows only MK himself defeats my proposal's purpose with unbeatable camping (via IDC itself). Everyone else is debatable and we will never get anywhere until we have results.

I gave you 3 situations, none of them your rule solves. I don't have to assume, I just have to accept that it is a possibility, one that you haven't tried to solve yet. :0

Instead of accepting that it could be possible, you've just stated that we don't know if it will happen or not, even though it has to be a possibility for it to be possible to occur or not occur lol.

 

[metaXzero]

I gave you 3 situations, none of them your rule solves. I don't have to assume, I just have to accept that it is a possibility, one that you haven't tried to solve yet. :0

The post for adumbrodeus?

Sit 1: Applications of IDC are proven not broken and actually useless. Doesn't matter which rule is used then since their is really no reason to use IDC (one rule DQs you and the other risks triggering a campy opponent while giving you no real benefits since IDC isn't useful). :/

Sit 2: Applications of IDC are proven uber-broken and overcentralizing. Congrats! NOW, you have a case to ban IDC that CAN'T be challenged. ^_^

Sit 3 (my personal fav): Applications of IDC have indecisive results. Basically, it's proven to at least be useful. Eventually, we go along with our merry lives. \(-^o^-)/

 

[adumbrodeus]

ok, so as a stalling technique, it doesn't work. but people will still stall the timer with it and the tournament won't progress. you have to do better than that.

How so?

If you use it to stall the timer, then you're making yourself lose. It's no different then SDing.

If you're playing to win, you wanna avoid losing time if at all possible.

Ah, I was trying to phrase it as "I agree with the ban, but I also don't mind taking money from people if you allow it." lol. I know what you are saying, I wouldn't mind doing this to people if they allowed it. Although I already camp a lot with Wario lol.

Lol, I'd say I'm a bit more altruistic about it, but I always play to win, and use the best tournament legal options on principal, at least that I can do.

But this is of particular interest to me because I've been saying it's broken since it was revealed.

But, I have no objections to getting money for proving my point.

The rule actually doesn't stop MK from using it to stall, it just strongly discourages him to do so. Which is fine, but it doesn't address the issue of the other player camping MK back.

So far, the only answer I've gotten concerning the other player camping was "Tough luck, the MK made a choice when he chose to use IDC." :/

While that's true, the tactic is so powerful that it doesn't matter.

Camping back against MK will not work because of the safety of the move derived from the near instantaneous hitbox and the ability to apply the hitbox just about instantly to just about anywhere on the entire stage (slight lag for being further then half the length of of battlefield's central platform, and anything above the height of battlefield's top platform is immune). Yes, you can be VERY precise with the move.

The fact that you are also INVINCIBLE prevents any real counter-measures, and the speed and precision of the move allows you to punish any attack or defensive maneuver except shield (though, not doing the attack and grab is a powerful answer because of grab priority)

metaXzero want's to prove the true worth of the other applications of IDC, but the problem is that his rule punishes people for attempting to use other aspects of IDC. He gets rid of the stalling aspect, but it fails to give the MK an open, non limited testing ground for him to truly test the uses of IDC without being punished.

In fact, I see no way to allow MK to accurately test IDC uses in tournament while at the same time removing the stalling aspect AND also at the same time not punishing the MK player for attempting to fool around with it.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him. MK loses under the rule. It won't matter what conclusion we would come to, since MK would ultimately lose the match because of the rule. Using IDC wouldn't be MK's best strategy/"playing to win" if his opponent can just camp him and win, hence no one would use IDC, giving us the same results as a ban but with a different rule. In this situation, the new rule accomplishes nothing.

Again, it's powerful enough that it's not relevant, punish him by making time his loss. Used properly, YOU WILL NOT BEAT an Mk using this.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him and MK wins. If MK's start winning matches with IDC, wouldn't that validate the suggestion that those uses of IDC are broken, and that it should be re banned? If MK wins with it even after being disadvantaged by the rules for doing so, then that would certainly prove that IDC needs to be banned period, no more questions asked. In this situation, we get different results and the original/previous ruling was already the solution.

Let's say MK uses it to approach/reset the position and his opponent camps him and MK gets mixed results. He wins some and he loses some. Since MK's success doesn't follow a strict up or down pattern, how can we tell if the other uses of IDC are broken or not? In the matches MK lost, could he have won if he didn't use IDC as much during that match, or maybe if he used it differently? In the matches he won, could he have lost if his opponent camped harder/played differently? There would be too much subjectivity trying to determine whether the results point to the uses being broken or not. In this situation, we wouldn't be able to interpret the data very well, since it isn't pointing towards a particular side.

The same way every other test goes, does it over-centralize the metagame?

We'll be able to see the difference between pre-IDC MK and post. If I'm correct and when people start using this at the top of what is humanly possible, every match-up vs. MK will be at best 70-30, probably more like 80-20. It will make MK as powerful as Super Turbo Akuma.


It's just too unpunishable and gives MK too many options, and a few tournaments where MK players actually use it properly will show how ridiculously powerful a technique it is.

 

[DMG]

The post for adumbrodeus?

Sit 1: Applications of IDC are proven not broken and actually useless. Doesn't matter which rule is used then since their is really no reason to use IDC (one rule DQs you and the other risks triggering a campy opponent while giving you no real benefits since IDC isn't useful). :/

Sit 2: Applications of IDC are proven uber-broken and overcentralizing. Congrats! NOW, you have a case to ban IDC that CAN'T be challenged. ^_^

Sit 3 (my personal fav): Applications of IDC have indecisive results. Basically, it's proven to at least be useful. Eventually, we go along with our merry lives. \(-^o^-)/

1. If it doesn't matter which rule is used, then why change the rule?

2. Your "challenge" to the current ban is currently flawed. ANY rule can be challenged (this includes legal laws in every day life), but on WHAT GROUNDS you challenge them on is what matters. Your grounds are very "shaky" lol.

3. If the results are indecisive, then how can you tell whether it is broken or not? How can you prove it's usefulness if you can't even reach a conclusion? Lolololololol.

Edit:

The same way every other test goes, does it over-centralize the metagame?

We'll be able to see the difference between pre-IDC MK and post. If I'm correct and when people start using this at the top of what is humanly possible, every match-up vs. MK will be at best 70-30, probably more like 80-20. It will make MK as powerful as Super Turbo Akuma.


It's just too unpunishable and gives MK too many options, and a few tournaments where MK players actually use it properly will show how ridiculously powerful a technique it is.

The thing though is that do we really absolutely HAVE to have tourney results? I mean, it just seems like one of those things where we can look right at it and determine whether it needs to be allowed or not, kinda like how it is for stages.

I feel that irregardless of whether or not the other uses of IDC are broken, that it is too hard to establish a rule that removes the stalling aspect, allows the other uses, and doesn't punish/constrain MK like I think his current rule does (removes stalling, allows other uses, but punishes/constrains MK player). Even if the other uses of IDC turn out to be nearly useless, it's so much of a hassle trying to allow them while at the same time keeping the stalling under control. THAT ALONE I think is enough for the ban to be preferred over the suggested rule, because the ban doesn't attempt to cross any possible lines of subjectivity/potential problems while as his rule does.

 

[adumbrodeus]

1. If it doesn't matter which rule is used, then why change the rule?

Because unnecessary bans of anything is bad. Only ban when absolutely necessary.

If it's worthless it shouldn't be banned.

2. Your "challenge" to the current ban is currently flawed. ANY rule can be challenged (this includes legal laws in every day life), but on WHAT GROUNDS you challenge them on is what matters. Your grounds are very "shaky" lol.

Not really, because he's challenging the grounds that the decision was made on, not necessarily the decision itself.

3. If the results are indecisive, then how can you tell whether it is broken or not? How can you prove it's usefulness if you can't even reach a conclusion? Lolololololol.

If it doesn't improve the character's win rate it shouldn't be broken by definition. Though for a time the players may not be advanced enough for it yet so this is a long-term issue. If it's broken though, it should eventually prove itself as such in results.


Unless people act like scrubs, in which case I'm gonna be winning a lot of tournaments.

The thing though is that do we really absolutely HAVE to have tourney results? I mean, it just seems like one of those things where we can look right at it and determine whether it needs to be allowed or not, kinda like how it is for stages.

I feel that irregardless of whether or not the other uses of IDC are broken, that it is too hard to establish a rule that removes the stalling aspect, allows the other uses, and doesn't punish/constrain MK like I think his current rule does (removes stalling, allows other uses, but punishes/constrains MK player). Even if the other uses of IDC turn out to be nearly useless, it's so much of a hassle trying to allow them while at the same time keeping the stalling under control. THAT ALONE I think is enough for the ban to be preferred over the suggested rule, because the ban doesn't attempt to cross any possible lines of subjectivity/potential problems while as his rule does.

Tournament results are prefered, and there's no real harm in it for the overall metagame.


Furthermore, there's no issue with punishing MK for using it if it's done in a non-subjective way and it's the only option.


The ad-hoc, "as long as it's not used for stalling" used by Inui and a few others is far more disturbing and potentially destructive then that.


Basically, this rule is discrete and enforceable, and the stalling aspect is definitely warranted, I see no problem with IDC unbanned tournaments using this rule in order to get tournament results establishing IDC as broken.

 

[DMG]

snip

Alright, fair enough. It is true that we don't have tournament results for other uses of IDC, but I think we know where this will lead. Which is fine, I will let him steer it down that probable course.

Once people start complaining about IDC again, I'll just keep this thread and metaXzero in mind and show/remind them who absolutely had to have results lol.

As long as people know who's idea this was, by all means open the gates of possibilities. Looks like I will need to practice up on this if I want to have a chance to win some before it gets banned again lol.

Still, I wouldn't myself try to risk making a gaming community torn/unhappy over something like this. Since it isn't me on the line however, go right ahead. :D

 

[adumbrodeus]

Alright, fair enough. It is true that we don't have tournament results for other uses of IDC, but I think we know where this will lead. Which is fine, I will let him steer it down that probable course.

Once people start complaining about IDC again, I'll just keep this thread and metaXzero in mind and show/remind them who absolutely had to have results lol.

As long as people know who's idea this was, by all means open the gates of possibilities. Looks like I will need to practice up on this if I want to have a chance to win some before it gets banned again lol.

Still, I wouldn't myself try to risk making a gaming community torn/unhappy over something like this. Since it isn't me on the line however, go right ahead. :D

So, basically you're copying me, right?


Yeah, still better to know for sure and it's not like these divisons don't exist already. Here in Atlantic North there's a very significant movement against it's banning.

I doubt the entire community will unban it, more likely a few TOs will unban it for their events and eventually results will show how broken it is.


As I said, in Atlantic north there's a very significant movement (I forget who got away with using it at one of Inui's tournaments against Pierce because it "wasn't being used for stalling") so I'll probably get a few chances to show it's brokenness.

 

[Vanill4]

I just skimmed the last few pages (Deus mentioned this thread to me on AIM).

The problem with seeking tournament results is that you have to assume every is truly "playing to win" and that everyone will take Deus' attitude and say "hey, this can help me win, therefore I will do it regardless of what a ridiculous tactic this is." This is nice in theory and quoting Sirlin is something most people love to do, but the fact of the matter is that this does not describe the Brawl tournament scene as it currently stands.

For example, even though the game is still relatively young, and matchups and tiers aren't set in stone, there are some characters that aren't really "tournament viable" that see lots of play in tourney. Now I'm not here to start a discussion on what is tourney viable (ironically I was discussing this with some friends last night about Melee, lol), but the point is that people don't EXCLUSIVELY "play to win" Brawl. Therefore, I think that even if IDC were banned at some tournies, a lot of people wouldn't immediately jump to MK, and not every MK player would use it.

This doesn't mean the technique isn't broken: it's an invincible and invisible approach and defense, and you can come out of it whenever you like. But the fact is if you give it a trial in tournaments, and it DOESN'T turn out "omg everyone wins with MK using IDC," it's still broken.

 

[swordgard]

So, basically you're copying me, right?


Yeah, still better to know for sure and it's not like these divisons don't exist already. Here in Atlantic North there's a very significant movement against it's banning.

I doubt the entire community will unban it, more likely a few TOs will unban it for their events and eventually results will show how broken it is.


As I said, in Atlantic north there's a very significant movement (I forget who got away with using it at one of Inui's tournaments against Pierce because it "wasn't being used for stalling") so I'll probably get a few chances to show it's brokenness.

Matches can still stall out if the other char wants to run for the whole game. And how can anyone NOT see that it IS broken. MK goes invisible, what am i left with? Only defensive and shield consuming defensive movements. I have no way to counterattack before the attack, i am just stuck there stressing out so badly because i CANNOT stop him in any way from doing his next attack. He may miss, and if im lucky i MAY get a counter, but going back into IDC isnt exactly long, therefore hel just put pressure on me over and over. We should not have to try an unbanned tourney to show how broken this is. Matches vs mk will still end up like this, IDC>in case of a hit, combo if possible then IDC back to safety. IDC misses, go back to idc, or use nado for quicker get out of here and damaging attack.

 

[Reioumu]

Metaknight, who's already well established as the best character in the game, already has super fast attacks, and now you want to give him indefinite invulnerability which he can just spam D-smash or Shuttle loop out of. It's like, if he's at a high %, he can try to delay that stock as much as possible by IDC, reappear and attack a few times, IDC again. It's really dumb and shouln't be allowed.
-Rei

 

[BBQ°]

If MK used IDC in a match, then the other player would try to abuse this rule and stall as much as possible to run out the clock. There would be no reason to fight MK once he used the IDC. Just stall and run out the clock. GG.

 

[metaXzero]

I just skimmed the last few pages (Deus mentioned this thread to me on AIM).

The problem with seeking tournament results is that you have to assume every is truly "playing to win" and that everyone will take Deus' attitude and say "hey, this can help me win, therefore I will do it regardless of what a ridiculous tactic this is." This is nice in theory and quoting Sirlin is something most people love to do, but the fact of the matter is that this does not describe the Brawl tournament scene as it currently stands.

For example, even though the game is still relatively young, and matchups and tiers aren't set in stone, there are some characters that aren't really "tournament viable" that see lots of play in tourney. Now I'm not here to start a discussion on what is tourney viable (ironically I was discussing this with some friends last night about Melee, lol), but the point is that people don't EXCLUSIVELY "play to win" Brawl. Therefore, I think that even if IDC were banned at some tournies, a lot of people wouldn't immediately jump to MK, and not every MK player would use it.

This doesn't mean the technique isn't broken: it's an invincible and invisible approach and defense, and you can come out of it whenever you like. But the fact is if you give it a trial in tournaments, and it DOESN'T turn out "omg everyone wins with MK using IDC," it's still broken.

OR IDC could turn out to be just useful without being broken. In PRACTICE, we have nothing. It can honestly anyway (adumbrodeus' "it'll prove itself broken", Dojo and others "it's a useless novelty", or my fav, "it's just useful but not broken").

We won't know the truth until we have some results.

Matches can still stall out if the other char wants to run for the whole game. And how can anyone NOT see that it IS broken. MK goes invisible, what am i left with? Only defensive and shield consuming defensive movements. I have no way to counterattack before the attack, i am just stuck there stressing out so badly because i CANNOT stop him in any way from doing his next attack. He may miss, and if im lucky i MAY get a counter, but going back into IDC isnt exactly long, therefore hel just put pressure on me over and over. We should not have to try an unbanned tourney to show how broken this is. Matches vs mk will still end up like this, IDC>in case of a hit, combo if possible then IDC back to safety. IDC misses, go back to idc, or use nado for quicker get out of here and damaging attack.

Again, in practice, we have nothing but YOU beating an IDC using MK. We can theorycraft all we want, but IDC shouldn't be banned on theory.

Metaknight, who's already well established as the best character in the game, already has super fast attacks, and now you want to give him indefinite invulnerability which he can just spam D-smash or Shuttle loop out of. It's like, if he's at a high %, he can try to delay that stock as much as possible by IDC, reappear and attack a few times, IDC again. It's really dumb and shouln't be allowed.
-Rei

Delaying the stock AND taking up time (which the MK DOES NOT want). And we don't ban things just because the best character has it.

If MK used IDC in a match, then the other player would try to abuse this rule and stall as much as possible to run out the clock. There would be no reason to fight MK once he used the IDC. Just stall and run out the clock. GG.

Some people here believe you can't camp a MK using IDC right. And besides MK himself, no other characters have a guaranteed way to keep MK away for an entire match.

adumbrodeus. I didn't know their was a "movement" in the AN to unban IDC. That's news to me. Though I'm shocked they are using "stalling with IDC is banned" as a rule. Then again, don't they ban Dedede's infinite despite the lack of a proper case besides "it's gay"?

 

[Vanill4]

OR IDC could turn out to be just useful without being broken. In PRACTICE, we have nothing. It can honestly anyway (adumbrodeus' "it'll prove itself broken", Dojo and others "it's a useless novelty", or my fav, "it's just useful but not broken").

We won't know the truth until we have some results.

That's kinda silly. Do you need empirical evidence for everything? I wonder if Mew2King can beat me in Brawl. I don't like the game, only play it on a casual level or when I can't play Melee, and the only psuedo-advanced thing I can do in Brawl is Snakedashing. Mew2King is the world's best smasher in both games, and has consistently beaten most other top level Brawlers. But we need to try it out right? After all, there are three possibilities. Mew2King can destroy me for all the obvious reaons, I can destroy him because I may perfectly counter his playstyle, or my personal favorite, we have a fair and balanced set.

Look, certain moves have certain properties that can make them really good or really bad. I know Brawl is a relatively young game, but there are some things that are just immediately obvious. Having a totally invincible approach is extremely powerful, and then you have to consider that MK can stop it and go into an attack any time he feels like it. Obviously you're not going to be persuaded on this point, as you went so far as to make the thread and come up with a pretty interesting proposal to test it, but it really just isn't necessary. IDC is overpowered, even without being used for stalling.

 

[metaXzero]

That's kinda silly. Do you need empirical evidence for everything? I wonder if Mew2King can beat me in Brawl. I don't like the game, only play it on a casual level or when I can't play Melee, and the only psuedo-advanced thing I can do in Brawl is Snakedashing. Mew2King is the world's best smasher in both games, and has consistently beaten most other top level Brawlers. But we need to try it out right? After all, there are three possibilities. Mew2King can destroy me for all the obvious reaons, I can destroy him because I may perfectly counter his playstyle, or my personal favorite, we have a fair and balanced set.

Look, certain moves have certain properties that can make them really good or really bad. I know Brawl is a relatively young game, but there are some things that are just immediately obvious. Having a totally invincible approach is extremely powerful, and then you have to consider that MK can stop it and go into an attack any time he feels like it. Obviously you're not going to be persuaded on this point, as you went so far as to make the thread and come up with a pretty interesting proposal to test it, but it really just isn't necessary. IDC is overpowered, even without being used for stalling.

We have 2 tourney videos of swordgard punishing the so-called "invincible and powerful" approach. And as said, many people disagree on just how useful IDC really is. Theory just won't won't work here.

Yes you are right. I'm not going to be convinced of non-stall IDC use as broken until we have results to back up that point.

 

[DMG]

OR IDC could turn out to be just useful without being broken. In PRACTICE, we have nothing. It can honestly anyway (adumbrodeus' "it'll prove itself broken", Dojo and others "it's a useless novelty", or my fav, "it's just useful but not broken").

Actually Dojo thinks that IDC is easily broken when used to approach/retreat, not just for stalling. He may have said that early on when this was discovered, but he has since changed his viewpoint after reviewing it again.

Most people think the other uses, when used properly, are broken. Most people do not believe IDC is either useless or good but not too good.

 

[chesterr01]

I don't know what's been said, but I don't like the fact that everytime I respawn, MK just can "disappear" and take away the pressure I have when I respawn and am invincible.

Someone did it to me in tournament everytime I would respawn, I didn't complain, but if I had lost I would have been ticked off since I played Fox, and Fox is fast, nomsain?

 

[metaXzero]

Actually Dojo thinks that IDC is easily broken when used to approach/retreat, not just for stalling. He may have said that early on when this was discovered, but he has since changed his viewpoint after reviewing it again.

Most people think the other uses, when used properly, are broken. Most people do not believe IDC is either useless or good but not too good.

He changed his stance AGAIN? When it was first discovered, he thought it was uber broken. When I brought the unban proposal up again in the IDC thread, his post concerning it gave off the impression that he thought it was just unnecessary in battle. Now you're telling me he's gone back to square one....

No matter what the majority of opinions are on IDC's power, the fact is we are still arguing only theory. And we're never going to reach the truth when all we got is theory and opinions. With in-Practice results proving a side, we can aactually reach the truth of IDC's non-stall applications.

I don't know what's been said, but I don't like the fact that everytime I respawn, MK just can "disappear" and take away the pressure I have when I respawn and am invincible.

Someone did it to me in tournament everytime I would respawn, I didn't complain, but if I had lost I would have been ticked off since I played Fox, and Fox is fast, nomsain?

......you'd REALLY be angry about this one application of all things? Even with MKs other ways to avoid you when you respawn, you'd be angry if they did this?


....So you faced an IDC-using MK and won your matches? Any vids?

 

[swordgard]

He changed his stance AGAIN? When it was first discovered, he thought it was uber broken. When I brought the unban proposal up again in the IDC thread, his post concerning it gave off the impression that he thought it was just unnecessary in battle. Now you're telling me he's gone back to square one....

No matter what the majority of opinions are on IDC's power, the fact is we are still arguing only theory. And we're never going to reach the truth when all we got is theory and opinions. With in-Practice results proving a side, we can aactually reach the truth of IDC's non-stall applications.



......you'd REALLY be angry about this one application of all things? Even with MKs other ways to avoid you when you respawn, you'd be angry if they did this?


....So you faced an IDC-using MK and won your matches? Any vids?

Because there ARE ways to predict the rest, IDC cannot be stopped. Stop saying we need tournament proof, you do not need to use empiric knowledge for this(IE testing), if in theory it is
A) Easy to do
B) Cannot be stopped from being done
C)Allows to reset position at any point
D) Is invincible in the process
E) Allows for no offence until the technique ends usually with an offensive technique in itself
F) Has a much higher damage possibility output than the counter which could be made BECAUSE you can get out of the counter with such technique
G) Can be done over and over

If it is broken in theory and humanly doable, then it is broken. Prove that those points are false, then wel have a case.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I just skimmed the last few pages (Deus mentioned this thread to me on AIM).

The problem with seeking tournament results is that you have to assume every is truly "playing to win" and that everyone will take Deus' attitude and say "hey, this can help me win, therefore I will do it regardless of what a ridiculous tactic this is." This is nice in theory and quoting Sirlin is something most people love to do, but the fact of the matter is that this does not describe the Brawl tournament scene as it currently stands.

For example, even though the game is still relatively young, and matchups and tiers aren't set in stone, there are some characters that aren't really "tournament viable" that see lots of play in tourney. Now I'm not here to start a discussion on what is tourney viable (ironically I was discussing this with some friends last night about Melee, lol), but the point is that people don't EXCLUSIVELY "play to win" Brawl. Therefore, I think that even if IDC were banned at some tournies, a lot of people wouldn't immediately jump to MK, and not every MK player would use it.

This doesn't mean the technique isn't broken: it's an invincible and invisible approach and defense, and you can come out of it whenever you like. But the fact is if you give it a trial in tournaments, and it DOESN'T turn out "omg everyone wins with MK using IDC," it's still broken.

Of course, but the trick is that there are enough people with my attitude towards IDC that I have little doubt that while they're be other characters, but nobody will be able to win against IDC-using MKs except other MKs.

Really, if it's not banned, it might not happen immediately, but as the scene develops it's overwhelming power will become evident... with a little prodding from people like me, Yuna, and Dr. Mario Guy.

Care to help with prodding?

Matches can still stall out if the other char wants to run for the whole game.

That's only possible in circle-running stages, it's too powerful and reaches too far and moves way too fast. The only escape is being above the top platform of battlefield continuously or being on a ledge.

And how can anyone NOT see that it IS broken. MK goes invisible, what am i left with? Only defensive and shield consuming defensive movements. I have no way to counterattack before the attack, i am just stuck there stressing out so badly because i CANNOT stop him in any way from doing his next attack. He may miss, and if im lucky i MAY get a counter, but going back into IDC isnt exactly long, therefore hel just put pressure on me over and over. We should not have to try an unbanned tourney to show how broken this is. Matches vs mk will still end up like this, IDC>in case of a hit, combo if possible then IDC back to safety. IDC misses, go back to idc, or use nado for quicker get out of here and damaging attack.

Pretty much the position the OP is taking.

If MK used IDC in a match, then the other player would try to abuse this rule and stall as much as possible to run out the clock. There would be no reason to fight MK once he used the IDC. Just stall and run out the clock. GG.

You mean what happens when you're above in stocks/percents anyway.

adumbrodeus. I didn't know their was a "movement" in the AN to unban IDC. That's news to me. Though I'm shocked they are using "stalling with IDC is banned" as a rule. Then again, don't they ban Dedede's infinite despite the lack of a proper case besides "it's gay"?

I heard this second-hand, but from my understanding the rule is "IDC is banned", but the person in question wasn't DQ'd because it wasn't being used for stalling under the reasoning that since that was the reason the tech was banned, if it's not used in that manner it's ok.

Which I strenuously disagree btw, tournament rules>reasoning for those rules, though I suspect that it was set up that way so anyone who used it to stall could be DQ'd (I hate subjective rules).

Because there ARE ways to predict the rest, IDC cannot be stopped. Stop saying we need tournament proof, you do not need to use empiric knowledge for this(IE testing), if in theory it is
A) Easy to do Humanly possible
B) Cannot be stopped from being done
C)Allows to reset position at any point
D) Is invincible in the process
E) Allows for no offence until the technique ends usually with an offensive technique in itself
F) Has a much higher damage possibility output than the counter which could be made BECAUSE you can get out of the counter with such technique
G) Can be done over and over

If it is broken in theory and humanly doable, then it is broken. Prove that those points are false, then wel have a case.

*fixed

It needs more though.

Regardless, testing with players playing to win should easily establish this.

 

[chesterr01]

......you'd REALLY be angry about this one application of all things? Even with MKs other ways to avoid you when you respawn, you'd be angry if they did this?


....So you faced an IDC-using MK and won your matches? Any vids?

I don't have vids. It wasn't problematic at the time because I had the upper hand in the match anyway, it just annoying. It was a pool match at Fight For Your Friends 1, if someone knows who I'm talking about. If I saw something like that happen at FFYF2 in March and someone was to abuse this, I'm sure the judges would act on that (well I would do something, and i'm sure zaf and ally would agree).

When someone respawns, he is invincible and depending on the character, that's a great moment for a free rush down.
If MK is invincible, and I can't capitalize on my chance, it's not fair. It would be absurd to allow this. And even if MK has other ways to evade the invincibility status of the character that has respawned, no matter what he does, he will still be at a position that will be influenced by the actions of the other player. If MK is offstage, then he is being edgeguarded and is at a disadvantageous position.

 

[metaXzero]

I don't have vids. It wasn't problematic at the time because I had the upper hand in the match anyway, it just annoying. It was a pool match at Fight For Your Friends 1, if someone knows who I'm talking about. If I saw something like that happen at FFYF2 in March and someone was to abuse this, I'm sure the judges would act on that (well I would do something, and i'm sure zaf and ally would agree).

When someone respawns, he is invincible and depending on the character, that's a great moment for a free rush down.
If MK is invincible, and I can't capitalize on my chance, it's not fair. It would be absurd to allow this. And even if MK has other ways to evade the invincibility status of the character that has respawned, no matter what he does, he will still be at a position that will be influenced by the actions of the other player. If MK is offstage, then he is being edgeguarded and is at a disadvantageous position.

"fair" isn't a good point to argue against my proposal for unbanning. It's subjective.

If it's broken to the point of overcentralization, it deserves banning. Is IDC? Without the ability to stall and WIN, it no longer meets this guideline. So that leaves it's other applications. Are those truly broken and overcentralizing? In theory, maybe, maybe not. In practice, we just have 2 vids of IDC failing as a "perfect" approach. So in actuallity, we don't know for sure if IDC is truly broken. We only have our opinions on the theorys. Which obviously, we are not all going to agree on.

 

[zaf]

The problem is not the IDC itself,

the problem is that MK is the only character with such a benefit.

like for example: when you kill someone and they spawn with their invincibility frames you can hide from them with your IDC. Only mk has the ability to hide and evade the precious frames of the other character. This is not fair, due to the fact that only one character has this. Invincibility frames after a death can usually lead to a nice combo or death, but to completely remove this by removing a character from play ( idc) should not be allowed.

 

[metaXzero]

The problem is not the IDC itself,

the problem is that MK is the only character with such a benefit.

like for example: when you kill someone and they spawn with their invincibility frames you can hide from them with your IDC. Only mk has the ability to hide and evade the precious frames of the other character. This is not fair, due to the fact that only one character has this. Invincibility frames after a death can usually lead to a nice combo or death, but to completely remove this by removing a character from play ( idc) should not be allowed.

In PRACTICE, is it broken to the point of overcentralization (which woyld indeed warrant a ban)? That's the question that can't be answered right now.

AGAIN, plz don't argue "fair" here.