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

[metaXzero]

The community at large has played around with it for about a month and then decided that it was ban worthy. The only person left is you.

I agree with Dojo, this is a fruitless debate.

"played around with it" and decided that the ability to stall and the inability to tell if one is stalling or not was enough for a ban. Nothing, NOTHING was said about IDC's other applications being broken (presumably because it'd be arguing with theory) Unfortunantely for you, I made a legitimate proposal that delt with the stalling issue.

And I'm not the only person here who's consider that IDC MAY NOT be broken. And no one has found flaws in my proposal...

 

[swordgard]

"played around with it" and decided that the ability to stall and the inability to tell if one is stalling or not was enough for a ban. Nothing, NOTHING was said about IDC's other applications being broken (presumably because it'd be arguing with theory) Unfortunantely for you, I made a legitimate proposal that delt with the stalling issue.

And I'm not the only person here who's consider that IDC MAY NOT be broken. And no one has found flaws in my proposal...

And its broken for other things we dont have vids simply because it was so long ago <.<. Seriously, your blind if you think it aint broken.

And noone has found flaws? wtf where have you been, why should i go mk to be immuned to this? This isnt counterpick specific <.<

 

[metaXzero]

And its broken for other things we dont have vids simply because it was so long ago <.<. Seriously, your blind if you think it aint broken.

And noone has found flaws? wtf where have you been, why should i go mk to be immuned to this? This isnt counterpick specific <.<

But those others things you guys keep talking about were NEVER proven in practice (not in ANY shape or form). As I said throughout the thread, you can talk all you want about how theoretically, IDC MAY be utterly broken. But the fact is you've YET to demonstrate it in a tourny. What we have RIGHT NOW is 2 vids of YOU punishing IDC.

No one is forcing you to pick MK. That's YOUR choice to assume IDC is unbearable and pick MK. Your point is moot.

Also, a note about the "relieving pressure" argument. While starting up DC, MK is vulnerable while he's vanishing AND about a second when he's invisible initially. Basically, if MK can completely start up the DC without being hit out of it, he was never truly under pressure.

 

[pure_awesome]

Meta, not everything needs to be proven in practice. If DK mains discovered a tech where they could control the percent their opponents spawned at, we wouldn't need to run a high-level tourney to see who could abuse the mechanic better than the other. It would just be banned.

This leads into my second point. How powerful does something have to be in order to be banned off theory alone? That's not quantifiable. It's completely a matter of opinion. And the majority of the community is of the opinion that it's overpowered enough to warrant banning. You have your own, perfectly valid opinion, but you are in the minority. I am of the opinion that items should be on in competitive play. But I'm clearly in the minority, and I accept and understand that.

And that's for theory alone. This is barring the fact that we have many high level players, people who make it their hobby to break these things, saying it's ban-worthy. We have amateurs saying it's ban-worthy. Why? Because we ran our own tests. Just because there's no video of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[metaXzero]

Meta, not everything needs to be proven in practice. If DK mains discovered a tech where they could control the percent their opponents spawned at, we wouldn't need to run a high-level tourney to see who could abuse the mechanic better than the other. It would just be banned.

This leads into my second point. How powerful does something have to be in order to be banned off theory alone? That's not quantifiable. It's completely a matter of opinion. And the majority of the community is of the opinion that it's overpowered enough to warrant banning. You have your own, perfectly valid opinion, but you are in the minority. I am of the opinion that items should be on in competitive play. But I'm clearly in the minority, and I accept and understand that.

And that's for theory alone. This is barring the fact that we have many high level players, people who make it their hobby to break these things, saying it's ban-worthy. We have amateurs saying it's ban-worthy. Why? Because we ran our own tests. Just because there's no video of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your example is WAAYY to simple and clear cut in what it does, application, and effiency to be compared to IDC. It would make more since if we were arguing the stalling aspect and it's effiency (which the debate wouldn't last long at all if we were debating the stalling aspect).

If the majority of the community wants to be thick-headed ignorant and keep a CLEARLY questionable tech banned because "out of of 3 possible outcomes of IDC's true power, one of them is IDC could be broken" and ignore the current video evidence that brings it's "brokeness" EVEN FURTHER into question, fine. But for those who actually question IDC's power, yet don't want to make a subjective rule, this proposal is legitimate. Also, Item Smash is just a different game from Item-less. We don't ban all items because they are broken. We turn them off so we can play item-less Smash.

IDC stalling and inability to tell what you are using IDC for. That's ALL that it was officially banned on originally. And you simply can't tell if IDC's applications are broken by simply practicing on your own or in friendlies. And when you don't even show in-practice what made you come to your conclusion, it becomes even MORE questionable.

 

[pure_awesome]

Your example is WAAYY to simple and clear cut in what it does, application, and effiency to be compared to IDC. It would make more since if we were arguing the stalling aspect and it's effiency (which the debate wouldn't last long at all if we were debating the stalling aspect).

All I was doing with that example was pointing out that it's entirely possible for something to be banned based on theory alone. Any comparison to the IDC was made in your own head.

If the majority of the community wants to be thick-headed ignorant

...

and keep a CLEARLY questionable tech banned because "out of of 3 possible outcomes of IDC's true power, one of them is IDC could be broken" and ignore the current video evidence that brings it's "brokeness" EVEN FURTHER into question, fine.

The "current video evidence" has been discredited by the very people who participated in it, and I literally cannot believe you're still bringing it up.

But for those who actually question IDC's power, yet don't want to make a subjective rule, this proposal is legitimate.

Yes, it is. It's perfectly legitimate. For those who question it. I'm not sure what part of that makes the rest of us, including the SBR, thick-headed and ignorant, though.

IDC stalling and inability to tell what you are using IDC for. That's ALL that it was officially banned on originally. And you simply can't tell if IDC's applications are broken by simply practicing on your own or in friendlies. And when you don't even show in-practice what made you come to your conclusion, it becomes even MORE questionable.

What it was banned for originally doesn't even matter. Even if your proposal fixed the stalling problem (when as far as I can tell, it simply reverses it), there's still the matter that it's a mobile spotdodge from hell that MK can attack out of, that KOs in reasonable percentages and can be easily abused for the entire length of a 3-stock, 8-minute match. Even with the stalling aspect fixed, it's still ban-worthy, just for different reasons. So even if we say "Oh, stallling is no longer a problem, let's unban it." we turn around and walk smack into another reason.

If Super Sonic was Sonic's Neutral B move, would you be able to tell that it was broken by practicing on your own, or in friendlies? Not everything needs a high-level tourney to test out.

 

[metaXzero]

All I was doing with that example was pointing out that it's entirely possible for something to be banned based on theory alone. Any comparison to the IDC was made in your own head.


...

The "current video evidence" has been discredited by the very people who participated in it, and I literally cannot believe you're still bringing it up.


Yes, it is. It's perfectly legitimate. For those who question it. I'm not sure what part of that makes the rest of us, including the SBR, thick-headed and ignorant, though.


What it was banned for originally doesn't even matter. Even if your proposal fixed the stalling problem (when as far as I can tell, it simply reverses it), there's still the matter that it's a mobile spotdodge from hell that MK can attack out of, that KOs in reasonable percentages and can be easily abused for the entire length of a 3-stock, 8-minute match. Even with the stalling aspect fixed, it's still ban-worthy, just for different reasons. So even if we say "Oh, stallling is no longer a problem, let's unban it." we turn around and walk smack into another reason.

If Super Sonic was Sonic's Neutral B move, would you be able to tell that it was broken by practicing on your own, or in friendlies? Not everything needs a high-level tourney to test out.

Excuse me? WHEN and HOW was the current video evidence discredited at all? It's currently all we have of IDC IN PRACTICE at a tourney. Practical experimentation>theoretical analysis. You could argue IDC could have been done better, but that's only if you bring up vids of better IDC use. Until then, you are arguing theory against CURRENT facts.

You are invisible and invincible with only 2 ways of coming out (a fast attack that's HORRIBLY unsafe on block, and not attacking which is still punishable if you pop out at close range). Startiing up IDC at close range also leaves you vulnerable to being knocked out of it (so much for relieving pressure and dodging sudden attacks). And holding overly long IDCs is just risky and ill-advised. IDC is VERYb questionable for being ban-worthy. Their is NO "it IS banworthy".

And stop using extreme examples to compare to IDC. Super Sonic (like your last example) is to simple and clear-cut in application and effiency to compare to IDC.

 

[pure_awesome]

Excuse me? WHEN and HOW was the current video evidence discredited at all? It's currently all we have of IDC IN PRACTICE at a tourney.

Hylian, three pages ago.

Practical experimentation>theoretical analysis.

I can shoot a bullet out of a gun or throw it between my legs, but I'm still going to hit the barn.

You could argue IDC could have been done better, but that's only if you bring up vids of better IDC use. Until then, you are arguing theory against CURRENT facts.

Right. Because there's no videos of it, it didn't happen.

And stop using extreme examples to compare to IDC. Super Sonic (like your last example) is to simple and clear-cut in application and effiency to compare to IDC.

No, you stop assuming that everything I say is a direct comparison to the IDC, especially when I specifically said that's not what I'm doing. I'm illustrating that something can easily be identified as broken through solo play or friendlies. Pay attention.

All your little middle paragraph did is explain the extremely obvious weaknesses of the IDC that any MK player with a half a brain knows how to avoid. Unsafe on block? Don't use it when it can be blocked. What're you going to do, sit in your shield all day? Psychically predict a PS?
Even if you're somehow superhuman enough to consistently block my DC attack, I can just instant-warp to the ledge and plank. Diddy got you reeling with naners? Not anymore, you're suddenly across the stage in an advantageous situation. Sorry, Diddy.

IDC completely wrecks the momentum system of Brawl, is at the very least an arguably broken move in it's own right, and this system does nothing to fix the stalling system, it only reverses it to the other player. Not a chance.

 

[metaXzero]

Hylian, three pages ago.

I can shoot a bullet out of a gun or throw it between my legs, but I'm still going to hit the barn.

Right. Because there's no videos of it, it didn't happen.

No, you stop assuming that everything I say is a direct comparison to the IDC, especially when I specifically said that's not what I'm doing. I'm illustrating that something can easily be identified as broken through solo play or friendlies. Pay attention.

All your little middle paragraph did is explain the extremely obvious weaknesses of the IDC that any MK player with a half a brain knows how to avoid. Unsafe on block? Don't use it when it can be blocked. What're you going to do, sit in your shield all day? Psychically predict a PS?
Even if you're somehow superhuman enough to consistently block my DC attack, I can just instant-warp to the ledge and plank. Diddy got you reeling with naners? Not anymore, you're suddenly across the stage in an advantageous situation. Sorry, Diddy.

IDC completely wrecks the momentum system of Brawl, is at the very least an arguably broken move in it's own right, and this system does nothing to fix the stalling system, it only reverses it to the other player. Not a chance.

Hylian is talking about the ONE Wi-Fi video of himself running away to an edge and attacking a ZSS who is just spamming D-Smash. I'm talking about the 2 TOURNEY vids where swordgard faces an IDC using MK.

What? How does that challenge "in-practice>theory"?

You're trying to illustrate your point that some things can be determined as uber broken with just a little isolated practice. But you're giving the impression that you are saying "IDC is just like my EXTREME examples".

No ones perfect. Or at least no one has shown themselves to be perfect. We've YET to see ANYONE use IDC to consistently punish open lag. Instead, we have 2 tourney vids of a MK trying, but failing to punish open lag. You IDC to the edge and start planking for the rest of the match, YOU LOSE THE MATCH PERIOD. Using IDC means you lose if the timer hits Zero, so WHY would you plank (or even camp)? And as I said, if you can completely start-up DC while your opponent is attacking you, you were NOT under pressure. IDC does not cancel hitsun and can be interupted before you dissapear AND a little bit after you vanish.

The other player can camp. Camping is NOT stalling. No other character has an unbeatable stall maneuver against MK. And no other character is proven to be able to keep MK away for an entire 8 minute match. Stop using the "non-MKs can try and CAMP IDC-MKs to the timer". That's unproven to even be a problem.

 

[Plairnkk]

nope it needs to be banned lol. if a mk player uses it vs me at all i would intentionally run out the timer with any char on any stage just so that i would get a free win, lol

 

[metaXzero]

nope it needs to be banned lol. if a mk player uses it vs me at all i would intentionally run out the timer with any char on any stage just so that i would get a free win, lol

Don't you use MK? It's banned in dittos lol

Right now, no other character has an unbeatable stall on MK. And no other character is PROVEN to be able to unbeatably camp MK to the timer. If you wanna make that claim, bring proof of doing it consistently instead of just saying "I can do it".

 

[pure_awesome]

You're trying to illustrate your point that some things can be determined as uber broken with just a little isolated practice. But you're giving the impression that you are saying "IDC is just like my EXTREME examples".

As I said before, I'm not giving off that impression at all. That's going on in your own head. Don't blame me when you jump to conclusions.

No ones perfect. Or at least no one has shown themselves to be perfect. We've YET to see ANYONE use IDC to consistently punish open lag. Instead, we have 2 tourney vids of a MK trying, but failing to punish open lag. You IDC to the edge and start planking for the rest of the match, YOU LOSE THE MATCH PERIOD. Using IDC means you lose if the timer hits Zero, so WHY would you plank (or even camp)? And as I said, if you can completely start-up DC while your opponent is attacking you, you were NOT under pressure. IDC does not cancel hitsun and can be interupted before you dissapear AND a little bit after you vanish.

Seriously? Do you know how fast DC starts up? How often do you think people are going to be getting hit? This ain't Smash64. It's absurd think this wouldn't break the momentum system. Just warp across the stage to the ledge, plank until you re-gain your composure, and start again. It's like a reset button for your approach. Or any other part of the match, for that matter.

Yet to see anyone consistently punish open lag? What about all the high-level players that say that they've witnessed, or even been doing, just that? Yeah, they're probably all liars.

The other player can camp. Camping is NOT stalling. No other character has an unbeatable stall maneuver against MK. And no other character is proven to be able to keep MK away for an entire 8 minute match. Stop using the "non-MKs can try and CAMP IDC-MKs to the timer". That's unproven to even be a problem.

I don't think you know what running out the timer means. Plenty of characters have unbeatable stalls. Jiggs under Battlefield, Snake C4 Teching, etc. But they're banned, so what difference does it make? No character needs an unbeatable stall, especially when you consider that stalling itself is banned. You're not trying to kill Meta anymore, you're trying to not die. You're not fighting MK, you're fighting the clock. Outright unbeatable stalling is totally banned anyway, so what difference would it make which characters had it? The concern is the exact same as before: It becomes too attractive to win by just running out the timer. Possibly more so, since you can do it even when MK has a two-stock lead.

Anyway, here's how the rest of our conversation would go:

Me - Here's a reason why it should be banned, or why this solution won't work.
You - Oh yeah? Prove it.
Me - We don't need proof. It's obvious to anyone who's ever legit messed around with IDC.
You - Nope. Vids or it didn't happen.

So yeah, I'll be leaving now. Good luck with your proposal, Meta.


Oh, I almost forgot. The bullet thing.

"I can use accurate method A or I can use less accurate method B, but either way I'm still going to hit hugely obvious target C."

Watch those metaphors, they'll get you.

 

[AlphaZealot]

You want to bring something back that lets MK disappear for unknown quantities of time?

It is a pretty simple concept: you need two characters on the screen to be playing a fighting game. With all the (possibly stupid) things in Brawl, this is the only one that violates the cardinal rule of fighting games-which is simply one character fighting another.

Its not about brokenness. It isn't (but it could be) about stalling. Its about this move violating the most fundamental, inherent property of what makes something a fighting game. This type of move has never occurred before-no other fighting game to my knowledge allows one character to disappear for amounts of time determined only by the player performing the tactic. If EVO banned this technique, and not items, then you KNOW that it is screwed up on a level that transcends brokenness/balance/any of the other factors people usually talk about when removing something from the game. Simply put, this move is in a league of its own.

As said, this is pretty much a fruitless debate, I don't think anyone would want to see this rule unchanged, and I also think most TO's will use their common sense.

 

[metaXzero]

As I said before, I'm not giving off that impression at all. That's going on in your own head. Don't blame me when you jump to conclusions.


Seriously? Do you know how fast DC starts up? How often do you think people are going to be getting hit? This ain't Smash64. It's absurd think this wouldn't break the momentum system. Just warp across the stage to the ledge, plank until you re-gain your composure, and start again. It's like a reset button for your approach. Or any other part of the match, for that matter.

Yet to see anyone consistently punish open lag? What about all the high-level players that say that they've witnessed, or even been doing, just that? Yeah, they're probably all liars.


I don't think you know what running out the timer means. Plenty of characters have unbeatable stalls. Jiggs under Battlefield, Snake C4 Teching, etc. But they're banned, so what difference does it make? No character needs an unbeatable stall, especially when you consider that stalling itself is banned. You're not trying to kill Meta anymore, you're trying to not die. You're not fighting MK, you're fighting the clock. Outright unbeatable stalling is totally banned anyway, so what difference would it make which characters had it? The concern is the exact same as before: It becomes too attractive to win by just running out the timer. Possibly more so, since you can do it even when MK has a two-stock lead.

Anyway, here's how the rest of our conversation would go:

Me - Here's a reason why it should be banned, or why this solution won't work.
You - Oh yeah? Prove it.
Me - We don't need proof. It's obvious to anyone who's ever legit messed around with IDC.
You - Nope. Vids or it didn't happen.

So yeah, I'll be leaving now. Good luck with your proposal, Meta.


Oh, I almost forgot. The bullet thing.

"I can use accurate method A or I can use less accurate method B, but either way I'm still going to hit hugely obvious target C."

Watch those metaphors, they'll get you.

Like I said, if you can completely start-up DC, you were NOT under real pressure. You could have done a variety of other things besides IDC to get out of that situation and run to your precious ledge. And if you plan on LEDGE CAMPING for long periods, you DON'T want to use IDC to get to the ledge.

They can say whatever they want. If they wanted to, they could say "I saw a guaranteed grab set-up for ICs". But if they don't even show what they saw and their is no one to back it up besides blind people who say "so and so saw it so it MUST be true", then it's questionable. And it becomes more questionable when current knowledge of it in practice contradicts it.

Jiggs under Battlefield (how's that go?) and Snake C4 teching (unbeatable?) presumebly only have stalling as an actual application. If they have some feasible application, they could fall under this proposal with IDC. But they don't do they?

Anyway, the simple fact is you can't show any characters that WITHOUT A DOUBT can camp MK to the timer consistently. IDC is banned in dittos because MK himself CAN defeat the purpose of my proposal by unbeatably camping (using IDC itself). No other character has a technique that can ABSOLUTELY stall for the time against MK. And right now, no other character can definetely camp MK to the timer. So to our current knowledge, "MK being camped out by non-MKs" is NOT valid.

If that's all for our conversation, fine then. Go

EDIT: AlphaZealot.. MK has to come out eventually to do whatever. And no smart MK is going to hold extremely long IDCs. MK is still there.

EVO didn't ban IDC. They allowed it "as long as you don't stall with it" (bad rule). And items AREN'T broken. They just make a different game that we at Smashboards don't wanna play (not a bad reason).

 

[AlphaZealot]

AlphaZealot.. MK has to come out eventually to do whatever.

Has to come out...so he was impossible to hit then...which means that...

MK is still there.

Is false. MK, for all intents and purposes, does not exist during the IDC. Such an occurrence isn't a set amount (like Sheik/Zelda's Up-B), it is an indefinite, indeterminable amount of time. Under your rule it may not be indefinite, but it is still indeterminable and it is still MK not existing. The opponent needs to exist in order for you to fight them. When the opponent does not exist, you remove all the inherent values associated with fighting games.

 

[metaXzero]

Has to come out...so he was impossible to hit then...which means that...



Is false. MK, for all intents and purposes, does not exist during the IDC. Such an occurrence isn't a set amount (like Sheik/Zelda's Up-B), it is an indefinite, indeterminable amount of time. Under your rule it may not be indefinite, but it is still indeterminable and it is still MK not existing. The opponent needs to exist in order for you to fight them. When the opponent does not exist, you remove all the inherent values associated with fighting games.

While they are IDCing, they can't be touched, nor can they touch anything themselves. The fact is though, both opponents know the other person is still there. The IDC-MK knows his opponent is waiting for them to come out while the non-MK is knows he WILL come out eventually unless he wants to lose the match, and to keep aware of the camera's position to prevent from being surprised attacked (and punish the MKs after-lag). Both players were not just seperated and can just sit back (if either player seriously thinks that, he/she's asking to get hit).

So to you AlphaZealot, IDC should remain banned ONLY because it's the first discovery of it's kind ever in a fighter? It doesn't matter whether or not it's actually broken in use or has a stalling problem, just because it's the first technique of it's kind, we should ban it.

...Such a precedent would lead to even stupider bans ya know

That's why we ban things only for being broken and overcentralizing. That's why EVO allowed IDC and items. They weren't proven to be broken and overcentralizing (IDC's effiency is still debatable and items are only proven to make a different game).

 

[Darth Waffles]

Please read all of this before posting.

Like I said, if you can completely start-up DC, you were NOT under real pressure.

Are you confusing DC with Warlock Punch? DC does not take long at ALL to start up. If "real pressure" means that I'm getting attacked faster than I can start a DC with, then that's barely worth discussing. I'm not going to wait until I'm getting slapped around; I'm going to use it whenever I FEEL like I'm about to be pressured. As other people have mentioned, MK can reset his position a lot faster than Diddy get set up again with bananas, especially if the Diddy doesn't know where the MK is going to reappear. You already proposed banning it in MK dittos. If nothing else, your "real pressure" doesn't exist much, since MK is the one approaching the opponent, not the other way around. If I'm approaching, I obviously have time to start up a DC when I feel like it, and when I'm getting hit, the lack of serious hitstun will enable me to start an IDC more than you make it seem. Seriously, a MK will not be getting harassed with "real pressure" all match.

You could have done a variety of other things besides IDC to get out of that situation and run to your precious ledge.

Why would you bother, when you COULD do it without your opponent knowing where you are? If you're close to your opponent, the camera angle isn't going to give you away at all. You don't even have to go to the ledge every time. You can IDC to the ledge, sure, but you can also IDC to your nearby opponent, and there's nothing they can do about it. If they try to run away, then when MK reappears (even at the same spot he disappeared at), all the MK has really done is turned a situation into a neutral position. Many people don't think this is fair, and as such, prefer it to be banned. More on that later.

You want a video that isn't of swordgard?
You want a video in which the MK is not punished for using it?
You want a video in which the MK user wins after getting some type of advantage from using IDC?

Fine, here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wxAsoU2kSc
I don't know why people didn't reference this before, since it's from months ago, but here we go.

Example 1: 0:40 to 0:48. Make sure you stop at 0:48 (NOT 0:49! I'm doing this for a reason), and continue reading. Dojo has been powershielding nearly all of Santi's projectiles. He's taken a few hits, and now his shield is smaller than he might like. He needs to keep approaching. Unfortunately for him, he seems pressured by Santi's projectile spacing, a bomb, a boomerang, and an arrow. He tries side-b, but gets intercepted. The solution? IDC! No more projectiles to worry about. Now go back to the paused video. Where is he going to come out? I'll tell you that he comes out of it at 0:49. I would guess, presumably as Santi did, that Dojo will reappear slightly in front of him, where the camera is centered. Unpause the video. Did you KNOW that Dojo was behind him? I certainly didn't. Do you think it should be legal in Wifi Tourneys too? So much for hearing the c-stick clacking =\

Example 2: around 3:25. This is a point that others have brought up that I don't think you've addressed well enough. In this example, it doesn't even matter that Dojo used it to approach. What's more important is the fact that he wasted Santi's invincibility frames from respawning, and there was absolutely nothing that Santi could have done about it. Enough said.

Example 3, and the most important one: 3:36 to 3:39. Please watch this more than once. I thought Santi was playing pretty smart here considering the fact that he had absolutely no idea when or where Dojo was going to reappear. Unfortunately, it didn't matter. Santi eventually had to land on the ground again, and despite his bomb and arrow, Dojo simply reappeared behind him, getting a free grab right after reappearing. I'm sure he IDC-ed under Santi, eliminating the possibility of the camera giving him away, while staying close enough to capitalize later. Other than guessing correctly and Dojo messing up, Santi had no control, no way of knowing when or where Dojo was going to strike.

You can argue that Dojo didn't absolutely NEED to use it, but why wouldn't he in a tourney? Why choose to approach visibly, stopping to powershield projectiles when he can IDC through them? Dojo wouldn't (shouldn't) bother risking missing a powershield when he doesn't have to.

Now that that's over with, let's finish with this thread, from BOTH sides of the debate.

For the use of IDC: As much as people from both sides say that the debate is going in circles, you people need to clearly summarize this thread. That means straight-up copying-and-pasting questions and answering them completely. This discussion IS devolving into whether or not questions are being answered, so just answer them to the point where there can be absolutely no further questions.

IMPORTANT: This is directly to TOs, or people who strongly believe that this should be allowed. USE IT! You will not be arrested and beheaded for allowing this proposal to happen at your tournaments. You do not HAVE to use the SBR ruleset, even if most people do. That's a risk you take when organizing tourneys; you all should know that. Allowing rules, just like allowing stages, may or may not cause people to come. If you don't like the "official" tourneys because they don't allow IDC, then start your own. You might have less people because you separate yourself from a standard, but that's not a terribly bad thing.

Against the use of IDC: This proposal has been brought up, and people have shared their opinions. Rather than try to flame, spam, or barrage people with points that have been brought up already, just don't go to tournaments that allow this rule. Leave that to the people who want it to be allowed, and stick to a rule set that you are comfortable with. Having more people on one side agree won't make the other side go completely away, but nobody's forcing you to press the issue to its fullest. If you don't like it, say so (which people already have), explain why (which people already have), and wait for a response. If it doesn't suit you, you don't have to spend all your time pushing the issue your way.

Both sides have said some things that weren't completely clear, but I don't think that ANY post after this is needed, EXCEPT for an UN-BIASED SUMMARY of the points. This summary should be able to be seen by possible TOs, and it needs to be up to them, not the people in this thread, to decide whether or not to implement it in their tournaments. After all, it's the "SBR recommended Rule Set." Don't like every aspect of it? Don't use every aspect of it.

EDIT: About the "seen by possible TOs thing"... maybe a sub-forum or updated thread somewhere of proposals like this which modify parts of the recommended rules set? It might get crowded though.

 

[vbdood1337]

I seriously can't believe you're still arguing this. It's obvious it needs to be banned. Only by reading the first few pages its easy to see the fault in your logic. It's over, it's banned, it always will be.

Just read darth waffle's post. disregard this

 

[Plairnkk]

Don't you use MK? It's banned in dittos lol

Right now, no other character has an unbeatable stall on MK. And no other character is PROVEN to be able to unbeatably camp MK to the timer. If you wanna make that claim, bring proof of doing it consistently instead of just saying "I can do it".

ur doubting MY ability to run out the clock?

****, ballsy

 

[chesterr01]

AZ, pull the plug on this thread.

 

[swordgard]

AZ, pull the plug on this thread.

Telling you people, metaxzero is obviously trolling or blind, either way he cannot be saved.

 

[Dastrn]

ur doubting MY ability to run out the clock?

****, ballsy

haha, i was wondering if he's ever heard of you, plank. apparently not, if he doesn't think you'll be able to run the clock when you want to.

the smash community is generally against naming moves/ideas/techniques after individual players, but "planking" in one we just accepted and moved on.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I think Meta Zero may be the most ****ing stupid person I've ever met in my entire life. I cant put enough emphasis on this, this is ****ing ********.

Anyone who says EVO's use of items and IDC was a success is automatically almost if not as stupid as a huge scrub, and that in itself is pretty ****ing stupid.

I cant think of another ****ing human being on this Earth who would agree with this bull****, this is beyond facepalms.

 

[Hylian]

Don't flame him.

This thread is over.

 

[Mith_]

inb4lock????