What is a Wobbling ban?

[Strong Badam]

So... hitting them twice in one grab?

during a time where they could escape if they weren't in hitstun

 

[Ghostbone]

How long until you're certain that they could've escaped?
Because if mashing perfectly they'd be out basically as soon as the first pummel is over.

 

[Roneblaster]

Whats wrong with wobbling being anything ic's do that is an infinite that doesnt involve a throwing animation?

can i get a response to this please?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I did respond to it Reneblade.

 

[Roneblaster]

thats not what im asking.

IC players have atleast 3 ways to infinite out of a grab that doesn't involve throwing their opponent. im pretty positive that thats what fly means when he says "you cant know what wobbling is"

everyone knows what standard *** normal ****ing wobbling is.

i either didnt make myself clear enough or you're not knowledgeable enough to make this thread.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm pretty sure he means exactly what I said, it's just a single action repeated over and over, so you can't ban "Wobbling", you have to either ban or limit the tactic that causes it.

 

[Roneblaster]

either way it doesnt matter what you think because if wobbling is banned and you do something that smells of wobbling, you probably deserve whatever punishment you get.

(unless the TO is an inbred like the people John plays with)

id be in favor of banning Ice climbers. itd make this debate alot easier.

also: ban rapid jabs, waveshining, shooting lasers, jumping, or anything else you can do repeatedly. not falcon punches or ganon uptilts though, those take forever to do.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

either way it doesnt matter what you think because if wobbling is banned and you do something that smells of wobbling, you probably deserve whatever punishment you get.

(unless the TO is an inbred like the people John plays with)

id be in favor of banning Ice climbers. itd make this debate alot easier.

Right, so Wobbling is allowed as long as you think you can get away with it. Cool.

also: ban rapid jabs, waveshining, shooting lasers, jumping, or anything else you can do repeatedly. not falcon punches or ganon uptilts though, those take forever to do.

Erm... what?

 

[Roneblaster]

Right, so Wobbling is allowed as long as you think you can get away with it. Cool.

yep

Erm... what?

it's just a single action repeated over and over

just ban all things you can spam.
(trying to highlight the stupidity of this whole ****ing argument in general)

 

[adumbrodeus]

So why isn't wobbling legal everywhere anyway?

 

[Roneblaster]

why is wobbling legal at all?

 

[stelzig]

Right, so Wobbling is allowed as long as you think you can get away with it. Cool.

Yes, getting away with something = allowed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

why is wobbling legal at all?

Bans need to be justified, you first.

 

[Roneblaster]

you're trying to bring down the status quo, please proceed.

 

[adumbrodeus]

you're trying to bring down the status quo, please proceed.

Fine, there's no justifacation for it to be banned, ergo it should not be banned. Refute.

 

[Roneblaster]

im not going to refute an opinion that doesnt bring any facts or info to the table with it.

that would be silly. lets get some facts to discuss.


i see u lovage

 

[adumbrodeus]

im not going to refute an opinion.

that would be silly. lets get some facts to discuss.

That's not an opinion, that is a statement of lack of evidence in regards to the technique being banworthy.


If the technique is in fact banworthy you can refute this by providing evidence that it is in fact banworthy.

 

[Roneblaster]

what is ban worthy?
(this is still an opinion thing, which leads me back to my original point: this discussion is dumb)

 

[adumbrodeus]

What indeed?

In order to establish that a ban is indeed justified you must first establish a criteria, so if you cannot, wobbling should not be banned.

 

[Lovage]

that's not the point of this thread u n00bs


And wobblings gay as **** anyway LOL

 

[Roneblaster]

yea some1 close this before i rage out of control.

until then:

ok in your perfect world wobbling shouldnt be banned.

please come into my world where wobbling is banned and you still havent justified why it shouldnt banned, only talked around the point.

GOM is slacking, why hasnt GSL started yet?

 

[adumbrodeus]

that's not the point of this thread u n00bs


And wobblings gay as **** anyway LOL

I completely disagree, establishing WHY it's banworthy (if at all) is essential to establishing the levels a ban must go to.


A ban that is not properly defined in it's limitations is worthless since a person may simply argue that they did not violate the rules in good faith. This then brings about the necessary question of whether the impact to the metagame is worth a strict ban of the actual items required to actually ban what the community intuitively wants to ban.

yea some1 close this before i rage out of control.

until then:

ok in your perfect world wobbling shouldnt be banned.

please come into my world where wobbling is banned and you still havent justified why it shouldnt banned, only talked around the point.

GOM is slacking, why hasnt GSL started yet?

You're using rhetoric to avoid answering the actual question, you could've just asked me how this relates to the main point of discussion of course and I would've been glad to oblige.


Still, I would like an answer.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Read the top of the opening post, adumbrodeus.

just ban all things you can spam.
(trying to highlight the stupidity of this whole ****ing argument in general)

I... didn't say ban things that you can spam...

I didn't say anything even close to that.

Yes, getting away with something = allowed.

Well when I don't actually know what is and isn't allowed and it's up to the TOs discretion, I will obviously be trying to get away with the most borderline stuff I can.

 

[Roneblaster]

You're using rhetoric to avoid answering the actual question, you could've just asked me how this relates to the main point of discussion of course and I would've been glad to oblige.


Still, I would like an answer.

i would like an answer to.

I... didn't say ban things that you can spam...

I didn't say anything even close to that.

spam, do repeatedly, its semantics.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes, getting away with something = allowed.

Missed this.


Yes, it is.


If you cannot remove it from effective play due to a lack of a clear line between it and legitimate play, then it's allowed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

^You worded that better than I did

I didn't say to ban things that you can do repeatedly either, it's not semantics at all, it's you completely failing at comprehension, Rene.

 

[Roneblaster]

i didnt say you said that, i said do it to make this argument more simple, because obviously what were *****ing about is things that you can do repeatedly and NOT about an infinite grab "combo"

Just out of curiosity to know what all of you think, which is more fair, allowing two pummels per grab, or allowing three?

just saw this

infinite pummels from one climber should be legal, because you can mash out of one person pummels.


@ the last adum post

and then the TO throws you out.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Read the top of the opening post, adumbrodeus.

Read my prior post, I only dropped one post which delved into that, and it was a sedgeway for something that IS very topical.

i would like an answer to.

Then let me ask another way, how destructive do you think that wobbling is to the metagame? As a collinary, what level of disruption is justified to removing it from the game, and why?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

?????????????

Yeah... At no point did I say that "single actions repeated over and over" should be banned.

I was saying that you can't just ban "Wobbling" you have to either ban that option (I went over in the OP why this isn't a good idea) or limit that option (which, in the case of Wobbling, might not even stop the problem at all).

Read my prior post, I only dropped one post which delved into that, and it was a sedgeway for something that IS very topical.

Alright, just make sure to stay on topic.

 

[Roneblaster]

i think that all infinites that can be performed on a specific stage is ban worthy(banned stages) or an infinite that can be done regardless of stage.

full disclosure:
I feel guilty and dirty after tech-chasing regrabs twice in a row with falcon.

^^^^ just doesnt feel in the spirit of the game.


Tuesday, i never said that you said anything needed to be banned.

im seriously about to just skip this and go to the core issue that everyone says(everyone argues the same point) but i wanna see if u guys can argue to there.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

just ban all things you can spam.
(trying to highlight the stupidity of this whole ****ing argument in general)

^Then what on Earth were you talking about with this?^

 

[Roneblaster]

that was me taking an extreme point to your point that (in summary) what you said was:
what anti-wobblers are *****ing about is an action that is repeated over and over.

so i played along and said ban EVERYTHING that you can repeat rapidly to make it fair.

 

[adumbrodeus]

i think that all infinites that can be performed on a specific stage is ban worthy(banned stages) or an infinite that can be done regardless of stage.

full disclosure:
I feel guilty and dirty after tech-chasing regrabs twice in a row with falcon.

^^^^ just doesnt feel in the spirit of the game.


Tuesday, i never said that you said anything. period.

Ok, now what level of interference is justified to prevent this? Are we talking about banning a move, a sequence of moves, moves done in the context of another move, a stage, a match-up, what? Do you have a proposal that you consider easy to differentiate from what is not banned and enforcible both from the prospective of the TO and the player attempting to decide whether to execute a specific technique?


Full disclosure:
I feel awesome tech-chasing a falcon to death with sheik. It's so much fun watching them be helpless.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

what anti-wobblers are *****ing about is an action that is repeated over and over.

Well... yeah, it is...

so i played along and said ban EVERYTHING that you can repeat rapidly to make it fair.

Huh? How did you get from the above sentence to this? o_O

 

[Roneblaster]

gsl is 40 minutes away from being live, idk if im gonna last that long

you ****ing ban things that arent in the spirit of the game.

see this is all opinion bull**** and is dumb. we all think different things are "not in spirit of the game" so we all have different opinions on what, if anything should be banned.


BAN PEACH, SHE HAS ITEMS.



(ban metaknight)


@ tuesday, i got there by using the qualifying sentence that you conveniently chose not to quote.

 

[john!]

sedgeway? collinary? oh my goodness...

reneblade, i don't think you answered his question. we know that you want infinites banned, but what evidence do you have that wobbling has a negative effect on the metagame? at the very least i think that it will get a few more people to play icies, a character that is somewhat underplayed already for how good they are, which will make the scene more interesting as a whole.

i gotta say that you still haven't given a solid reason for wobbling's ban... although i shouldn't expect much, seeing as you advocate an ice climbers nerf, and then constantly whine about how bad falcon is, when he is even better than icies. icies are too good with wobbling, but falcon is even better and he sucks. how can a logical, rational person hold those two opinio- oh wait.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@Reneblade
Well it obviously is in the spirit of the game, because, well, IT'S IN THE GAME.

Oh, and you said you were "taking an extreme point to my point". But what I said wasn't supposed to be a point or an argument, it's a fact to support my argument.

 

[Roneblaster]

wrong tuesday. sheiks d-throw was changed in PAL, ganon a few moves nerfed, fox got nerfed.

so which game is the true spirit of the game. they are CLEARLY things in NTSC that aren't in the spirit of the game.

inbeforesome1saystheydidnttakeoutICchaingrabsinpal

$100 dollars says no1 had a ****ing clue IC CG's were even possible before pal came out.


@john

please quote me a post where i have ever said ICs are too good with wobbling.

please provide proof that my incessant trolling about how bad falcon is is sincere. cause i can point you to my friends who i play with and they will tell you how *SPOILER ALERT* i know falcon is a good character and dont talk like that IRL.

i dont think wobbling necessarily has a negative impact on the meta-game as a whole. (i dont think its possible at this point since the # of IC players are so low.) i also dont think its neccessary for that to happen for it to be bannable.


GSL is on, im about to start paying alot less of attention to this ****.

just kidding, probably another 20 minutes of KPOP before starcraft action begins prolly.

 

[stelzig]

Well when I don't actually know what is and isn't allowed and it's up to the TOs discretion, I will obviously be trying to get away with the most borderline stuff I can.

You think that's obvious? Eh, I don't think so and if you know it's borderline yourself and you're intentionally doing it, well then you're also "living on the edge" and should know you could end up getting DQ'd for it. Especially in later matches where there will be more witnesses.

Edit: Adumb - So as long as I can get away with anything you see that as allowed? So if I go ahead and report a loss as an actual win and there's no way to dispute, then me getting a rematch (at the very least) is perfectly fine? I know this isn't strictly an in-game thing, but saying that it was allowed and "ok" to do something simply because you didn't get caught or could get away with it? eeeh.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I guess wave-shining isn't in the spirit of the game because they took it out in Brawl, right?



@stelzig
So... I should get DQ'd for doing something which hasn't been properly defined and is subjectively enforced? That's pretty stupid, I'm going to enter a tournament to try and win, so I'd really like to know how far I'm allowed to go to win. I don't want to intentioanlly limit myself "just in case", nor should I have to.