What is a Wobbling ban?

[Roneblaster]

different game, N/A

troll attempt only minorly successful.

 

[stelzig]

Grim: You should be DQ'd if there is a rule against wobbling and you actively try to push against the rule as far as possible without being DQ'd. Or at least you risk this happening. I'm not actually arguing wether wobbling should be allowed or not in the first place (reading adumb's post again i think this may be what he meant?), but wether or not getting away with stuff that you consider borderline yourself in the setting where it IS banned = allowed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Melee PAL and Melee NTSC are also different games.

 

[Roneblaster]

they are different versions of the same game. NTSC and PAL are just adjectives.

a fat person and a skinny person are still people.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why should versions be treated differently to separate games?

 

[stelzig]

Grim: You should be DQ'd if there is a rule against wobbling and you actively try to push against the rule as far as possible without being DQ'd. Or at least you risk this happening. I'm not actually arguing wether wobbling should be allowed or not in the first place (reading adumb's post again i think this may be what he meant?), but wether or not getting away with stuff that you consider borderline yourself in the setting where it IS banned = allowed.

Simply put: If you're unsure wether something is allowed or not (could be considered wobbling), then don't do it, unless you think it's worth risking a DQ for it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

sedgeway? collinary? oh my goodness...

I have a large vocabulary, so sue me.

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.

But that's not what I'm asking, is it? I'm dropping justification at this point and just talking about the HOW, how much banning do you consider acceptable to eliminate wobbling? Do you have a proposal to eliminate it in such a way that TOs and players can efficiently utilize it (enforce it and govern actions by it respectively).

(ban metaknight)

Metaknight is already banned, gotta love the mbr.

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.

But "living on the edge" is totally legal, a competative player should be doing everything that is legal in the tournament to win. That's the problem with fuzzy rules, they don't define that line, therefore a player is left to figure that line out for himself, leading to people being overly conservative (which in turn, stagnates the metagame as innovation is quashed) or getting DQ'd unjustifiably.

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?

Except the tournament has clear rules about that, win and loss are defined by the game or in the ruleset where exceptions exist (eg. case of time-out, violation of the rules, etc), and therefore doing so constitutes violating the rules of the tournament. So no, it's not a matter of you not getting caught it's a matter of not knowing what the line is between legal and illegal.

Yes it is the responsibility of the players to know the rules, but is it right to DQ me for a rule that I cannot possibly know since it's defined only in your head?


So the short answer is, if you can get away with it WHILE STILL FOLLOWING THE RULES then it's allowed.

 

[Roneblaster]

im not asking for wobbling to be banned in NTSC but be legal in PAL. it should be banned in both.

@adumb

yes i do have a "proposal to eliminate it in such a way that TOs and players can efficiently utilize it"

any IC grab infinite that is inescapable and doesnt involve the IC's using a throwing animation is BANNED. and if you ****ing push it the TO has the right to DQ u for pushing it because its their ****ing tournament and their rules.

 

[john!]

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.

hah, joke's on me i guess. i thought you were serious, but i guess you can't tell over the internet...

but then i have a hard time imagining why you would want to ban a technique that does not make a character broken and will not affect the metagame much at all. what motivation would you have for banning it, other than personal dislike? (which isn't really a good reason imo)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

im not asking for wobbling to be banned in NTSC but be legal in PAL. it should be banned in both.

...I know that...

You were trying to say that Wobbling isn't in the spirit of the game because the developers would have taken it out if they knew about it.

Well, (new example now), they made Fox lighter in PAL, so heavy Fox is obviously not in the spirit of the game and should be banned.

 

[Roneblaster]

come on john, i already said it

its not in the spirit of the game.

you cant say my opinion isnt a good reason because the reasons for it to be unbanned boil to down to OPINIONS on banworthiness.


I'm not saying its banworthy because it got taken out it pal. i used the changes in pal to make my point that there exsist things in melee that the developers didn't want in there. aka not in the spirit of the game(maybe?), because you said "lol nope its in the game, its fine"

 

[stelzig]

I somewhat disagree with trying to bend rules being legal, but fair enough if you want to push for having more referees watching every match because you want to get away with **** you know is arguable. Do you also try to distract your opponent outside of the game because it's hard to define exactly what is DQ-worthy there?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I somewhat disagree with trying to bend rules being legal, but fair enough if you want to push for having more referees watching every match because you want to get away with **** you know is arguable.

Stelzig, players shouldn't have to intentionally limit themselves from playing 100% to win in a competition because of a vague rule.

 

[Roneblaster]

dont limit yourself. go all out, if you get DQ'd then dont do it next time.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What's that? I got DQ'd in the finals and lost $100 because I didn't know if I could do a technique or not?

Oh, what a pity, oh well, at least I'll know next time (maybe)! :D

 

[Roneblaster]

if you make it to the finals without being clear on a rule, its your fault. if you dont like the rule or the vagueness of the rule, you aren't forced to be there.

 

[stelzig]

Stelzig, players shouldn't have to intentionally limit themselves from playing 100% to win in a competition because of a vague rule.

I don't think the rule is vague enough for people trying to abuse it being vague to not "get caught" for it at one point duriung tournament. This somewhat reminds me of the coaching debate now... Another argument where I don't care too much, I really just wanted to point out that you gettinf away with something doesn't mean it is allowed. Just using the phrase "getting away with it" kinda hints towards the opposite.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wait, wait, wait.

It's my fault that I wasn't clear on a vague rule? MY fault? :@

 

[Roneblaster]

if you dont know what the rule is, then its your fault. if the rule is vague, thats your opinion, you better ****ing ask the TO if you can get more clarity on the rule. if there is no rule against it, go ahead.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's not my opinion when I have objectively proven that it is too vague in the original post of this thread.

 

[Signia]

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

This is a difficult question to answer objectively, so I'll start from basic principles.

The tournament rules, for better or for worse, change and rebalance the game. An easy example of this is the stage choosing system which makes some of Marth's best stages "neutral" and stages where Fox is broken "banned." When properly implemented and enforced, the tournament rules are indistinguishable from the game's rules, which is the game itself. In this way, the TO plays "game designer" in order to make the game practical to run in a tournament where skills can be tested. This occurs in Smash games more than in every other fighting game, or any other game played competitively, as far I know.

As we can now see, the question of whether something should be banned or not is synonymous to the question of what is good for a competitive tournament environment, one of which is game balance. Just clearing that up.

So, which rule is more "fair" is a question of game balance, the only one worth considering here: How many pummels per grab is enough to break the game's balance? (Actually this assumes the ban is actually enforceable; we obviously shouldn't consider implementing a rule that's already impossible to implement.)

I don't think I'll be able to go too in-depth about the answer to this question, as I am incapable of experiencing high level play and therefore can't have an opinion on balance where it matters, but I'll see if I can highlight some differences between ICs grab stun lock combos and other combos for balance comparison.

Some of the things that I would consider if I were to design balance characters (and moves in general) are the ease of landing their combo starters, the damage done in the combos, and the advantage given at the end of the combo, and how these combined values along with the rest of the character's attributes and options compare with that of other characters.

Here are the comparisons I've come up with, though I will limit them to combos:

-the added damage from "wobbling" is not dependent on stage positioning, percentage, character weight, character fall speed, or even DI like every other 0-death combo, but it does requires nana to be alive and next to popo or at least able to get there before the opponent can mash out of the grab

-damage is dependent on the answer to Wobbles the Phoenix's question.

-leads right into a powerful finisher which allows for a perfect 50/50 DI mixup, which sends the opponent off stage at mid percentages, possibly starting from a low percentage from the start of the combo -- this needs to be considered, as being able to take an opponent to high from low percentages thanks to wobbling from an un-CC-able move is quite a bit stronger than doing a little damage and leading to a tech chase.

So, since I am unable to do a mathematical comparison, I have to answer this question with the intuition of a low-mid level player. In fact, I have to defer to the tier list.

TL;DR: Two times. ICs is already placed high on the tier list, so a smaller buff is better than a bigger buff of three. Three would not make ICs stronger than Fox, so having three would still satisfy the requirement of having a somewhat balanced competitive game, but the difference between allowing two or three per grab could potentially be very big if you factor in regrabs resetting the count.

 

[Roneblaster]

ORLY? you have proven beyond a doubt that wobbling is vague?

why has no1 responded to

any IC grab infinite that is inescapable and doesnt involve the IC's using a throwing animation is BANNED. and if you ****ing push it the TO has the right to DQ u for pushing it because its their ****ing tournament and their rules.

if you really cared enough, you could sit down with a TO and show them likely scenarios that could happen that you arent sure are legal. if you dont do that but "care about if something is legal" you are full of ****.

 

[john!]

tournament rules should be as objective as possible. not only is the definition of wobbling subjective, the whole REASON for banning it is subjective (it's not in the "spirit of the game"). the whole thing is really shifty, and takes away from the game's competitive value. i think i'm done posting, because this debate has been rehashed way too many times...

edit: using the words "pushing it" indicates that there is no clear boundary, and therefore it's subjective

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumb

yes i do have a "proposal to eliminate it in such a way that TOs and players can efficiently utilize it"

any IC grab infinite that is inescapable and doesnt involve the IC's using a throwing animation is BANNED. and if you ****ing push it the TO has the right to DQ u for pushing it because its their ****ing tournament and their rules.

You might as well have just substituted wobbling for the bolded, you gave me what wobbling is, along with any other possible IC infinites like it discovered into the future, but it doesn't define what actions need to be take for something to be considered "wobbling" or "any IC grab infinite that is inescapable and doesnt involve the IC's using a throwing animation is BANNED." Unless you require it to be done infinite times, in which case I suspect your ban will be toothless since no IC player will ever need to perform that number of repetitions in a sequence.


Wobbling is a concept, created by a collection of moves, what moves or succession of moves would YOU ban to make wobbling impossible in a tournament environment? Why is this particular ban counter-balanced by the benefit of removal of wobbling? Is it the least intrusive effective method? Is it discrete and enforcible?

and if you ****ing push it the TO has the right to DQ u for pushing it because its their ****ing tournament and their rules.

Tournament rules are tantamount to a contract, you abide by them and pay your fee, you are given a chance to compete for the prizes promised. Violating said contract by DQ'ing a player when there was no violation at the very least should earn the ire of the community and disparage the TO's rep. Furthermore it could allow for legal action against the TO for breach of contract in locations where playing games of skill for money is legal.

I somewhat disagree with trying to bend rules being legal, but fair enough if you want to push for having more referees watching every match because you want to get away with **** you know is arguable. Do you also try to distract your opponent outside of the game because it's hard to define exactly what is DQ-worthy there?

That's the point though, referees SHOULDN'T have to watch every match cause rules SHOULD be cut and dry. Violations should be easy to pick out and players on both sides should KNOW when a rule has been broken.

As far as distractions from outside the game, it should be noted that local law violations are grounds for removal and touching any game equiptment other then your controller is illegal, local laws are quite well-defined in this area and the only outside interference that wouldn't fall under this is dealt with in the "no touching equipment" clause.

 

[stelzig]

It's not my opinion when I have objectively proven that it is too vague in the original post of this thread.

Then go ahead and ask the TO if he would ban you for doing whatever you want to do beforehand, as reneblade suggested. I have never heard of any problems during the many tournaments where it has been banned so clearly all the good ICs at the very least are capable of avoiding that with the rule in effect.

But yeah, as said, I don't care too much about wobbling so i'm gonna leave the debate now before I end up being drawn into wall-of-text arguments

Edit: because it was posted aboce me and i didn't manage to ignore it - so what if i manage to get someone else to do something for me, and it wasn't possible to prove that he had any reason to help me? Distractions outside game are also rather vague and definetly something you could try to do and get away with. Now i'm out

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Then go ahead and ask the TO if he would ban you for doing whatever you want to do beforehand, as reneblade suggested.

I will.

Redact, if you are still reading this, am I allowed to Pummel > Blizzard > Pummel > Ftilt > Pummel at ACL?

 

[Roneblaster]

well john, you say this arguement is totally subjective and shifty?

3. i'm tired of wobbling debates because everyone recycles the same argument everytime on both sides.

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

(trying to highlight the stupidity of this whole ****ing argument in general)

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

yea some1 close this before i rage out of control.

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.

<3 john

@adumb

can you get out of it?
does it involve both climbers?
does either of the climbers do a throwing motion?

if the answer to if the answers are:
no
yes
no

then its ****ing bannable.

if the to DQ's you for pushing it, deamnd your money back. if he doesnt, then you take the mother ****er to court and spend thousands of dollars to get $30 back.


GSL is on

shout-outs to Grim Tuesday, John, and the guy in the BBR for providing me with something to do until GSL came on.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Edit: because it was posted aboce me and i didn't manage to ignore it - so what if i manage to get someone else to do something for me, and it wasn't possible to prove that he had any reason to help me? Distractions outside game are also rather vague and definetly something you could try to do and get away with. Now i'm out

I dealt with this already, use local laws and a clause against touching game equipment other then your controller in play.


Most "distractions" would fall into battery or some variation of disturbing the peace depending on the local law.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

can you get out of it?
does it involve both climbers?
does either of the climbers do a throwing motion?

if the answer to if the answers are:
no
yes
no

then its ****ing bannable.

Haha, awesome. You know what this means?

Pummeling as Ice Climbers is ****ing bannable.

Good job Rene.

GSL is on

shout-outs to Grim Tuesday, John, and the guy in the BBR for providing me with something to do until GSL came on.

Link me to it?

Nevermind, found it.

 

[stelzig]

I will.

Redact, if you are still reading this, am I allowed to Pummel > Blizzard > Pummel > Ftilt > Pummel at ACL?

Yeh, i'm back just to add a suggestion, that's so obvious that it has probably already been shot down... Why not just add a damage percentage limit before a regrab? (30% limit sound fair?) Sounds fairly simple to do, and is not vague. The only minor problem I can see with that is that people naturally stay grabbed for longer at higher percentages, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to me... And of course that the ICs players will now have to learn what chains they can pull off without passing that limit. I believe that there's already a rule against doing infinites past a certain percent as well (to avoid stalling).

 

[Roneblaster]

you can get out of normal pummeling. nice try though.

and normal pummeling involves one climber.

http://www.gomtv.net/

click the "go live" button on the orange bar at the top of the page. you'll have to DL a video viewer program specific to this site though.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No, you can't Reneblade. It's impossible to escape a grab while you are being pummel'd.

@stelzig Seems like a fine rule to me.

But then it comes down to what I said in the veeeeery first post: Is it worth it?

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumb

can you get out of it?
does it involve both climbers?
does either of the climbers do a throwing motion?

if the answer to if the answers are:
no
yes
no

then its ****ing bannable.

Yes, you've established your opinions as to why it's banworthy, but you have yet to establish what actually constitutes wobbling.

What set of moves with the attributes you mentioned is wobbling?

What moves in the sequence and/or repetitions would ban what you wanna ban?


You're still stuck on banning concepts where I'm asking you to give me concrete moves that can remove a concept.

if the to DQ's you for pushing it, deamnd your money back. if he doesnt, then you take the mother ****er to court and spend thousands of dollars to get $30 back.

1. Small claims court (only a fraction of the financial investment, would be viable for a regional, national, or large local, or making a statement)

2. Punitive damages

3. I'd obviously be claiming the prize money since I already invested time into the affair.



Granted this is a much larger worry for larger organizations like MLG and VG bootcamp, but individuals could still essentially be financially ruined. I mean it's not like people weren't just proposing to sue plank, right?

 

[Roneblaster]

@grim.........are you really going there? then if what youre saying is true, then every character can wobble.

no you cant get out WHILE BEING HIT. but inbetween the times you are being hit u can get out.

@adumb

everything that falls under my conditions are wobbling. thats why you ban it. cause wobbling is banned. and if you meet my conditions of wobbling, then you ban it, cause its wobbling and wobbling is banned, cause it wobbling, and wobbling is banned.

 

[stelzig]

No, you can't Reneblade. It's impossible to escape a grab while you are being pummel'd.

@stelzig Seems like a fine rule to me.

But then it comes down to what I said in the veeeeery first post: Is it worth it?

I'm pretty sure anyone against wobbling in the first place would prefer any limitations they can get on it... So yeah. >_>

 

[Grim Tuesday]

no you cant get out WHILE BEING HIT. but inbetween the times you are being hit u can get out.

Yep, you're right.

But that's not what you said in your criteria above.

I'm pretty sure anyone against wobbling in the first place would prefer any limitations they can get on it... So yeah. >_>

So the anti-wobbling TOs would have to find a balance between destroying the Ice Climbers and making Wobbling ineffective. I am waiting for someone to propose such a balance, because most of the "limits" I've seen so far still allow the Ice Climbers to get an extra 30% or so each grab, which is almost as bad as Wobbling anyway.

 

[Roneblaster]

*looks at grims sig*

really? you're gonna do me like that?

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.

yep






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

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

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 might as well have just substituted wobbling for the bolded, you gave me what wobbling is, along with any other possible IC infinites like it discovered into the future, but it doesn't define what actions need to be take for something to be considered "wobbling" or "any IC grab infinite that is inescapable and doesnt involve the IC's using a throwing animation is BANNED." Unless you require it to be done infinite times, in which case I suspect your ban will be toothless since no IC player will ever need to perform that number of repetitions in a sequence.


Wobbling is a concept, created by a collection of moves, what moves or succession of moves would YOU ban to make wobbling impossible in a tournament environment? Why is this particular ban counter-balanced by the benefit of removal of wobbling? Is it the least intrusive effective method? Is it discrete and enforcible?




Tournament rules are tantamount to a contract, you abide by them and pay your fee, you are given a chance to compete for the prizes promised. Violating said contract by DQ'ing a player when there was no violation at the very least should earn the ire of the community and disparage the TO's rep. Furthermore it could allow for legal action against the TO for breach of contract in locations where playing games of skill for money is legal.



That's the point though, referees SHOULDN'T have to watch every match cause rules SHOULD be cut and dry. Violations should be easy to pick out and players on both sides should KNOW when a rule has been broken.

As far as distractions from outside the game, it should be noted that local law violations are grounds for removal and touching any game equiptment other then your controller is illegal, local laws are quite well-defined in this area and the only outside interference that wouldn't fall under this is dealt with in the "no touching equipment" clause.

quoted sololy so my sig will show

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'll consider changing it... If you set Ice Climbers as your main next to your name, put a picture of them Wobbling as your avatar and say in your signature "I love Wobbling".

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumb

everything that falls under my conditions are wobbling. thats why you ban it. cause wobbling is banned. and if you meet my conditions of wobbling, then you ban it, cause its wobbling and wobbling is banned, cause it wobbling, and wobbling is banned.

But that's a concept you're banning, not an action. To make it feasible to ban and have everybody know what is banned, you need to ban actions.

See, this:

Yeh, i'm back just to add a suggestion, that's so obvious that it has probably already been shot down... Why not just add a damage percentage limit before a regrab? (30% limit sound fair?) Sounds fairly simple to do, and is not vague. The only minor problem I can see with that is that people naturally stay grabbed for longer at higher percentages, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to me... And of course that the ICs players will now have to learn what chains they can pull off without passing that limit. I believe that there's already a rule against doing infinites past a certain percent as well (to avoid stalling).

Bans a specific action, ICs can only do 30% damage in a single grab before regrabbing, so if they do 31% they're DQ'd. The real issue is that enforcement is a nightmare here though.

 

[Roneblaster]

i can have fun with the quote button too.



all actions that fall under the conditions are banned.

im not banning an idea
im banning those actions