Why is Infinite Dimensinoal Cape banned?

[Orion*]

Thats a fair claim. However this leads to the concept that in fact planking is the part of this strategy that is broken much less so than the IDC itself. IDC is powerful, don't get me wrong, but as you said doing it for more than about 30 seconds starts to get pretty hard. Planking without IDC for an entire match is very possible, but IDC without planking doesn't seem feaible at all.

So I still claim that planking is easier and more effective at human levels than IDC. And only barely less effective at superhuman levels.

I kinda... have to agree with this in a lot of ways.

 

[t!MmY]

Here's a simple experiment:

All those who wish to see how 'broken' Dimensional Cape is should host a tournament. At this tournament, run a standard tournament with the rules clearly stating that the Dimensional Cape Glitch is NOT banned. Use whatever LGLs are common in the area. Post factual data here.

I'd really like to see where all these super-human Infinite Dimensional Capers who can stall out entire sets are hiding.

 

[Kewkky]

Well Judo, IMO IDC shouldn't be banned solely for stalling purposes. It's also a VERY powerful tactic that gives MK a pretty freakin' good advantage over whatever enemy he's playing against. He can land however and whenever, he can avoid attacks easily, he can attack you when you least expect it, he can auto-snap the ledges and go straight into planking, and all of this while invincible and invisible. The player has complete control over how long he's going to be invincible and invisible, and where he wants to appear... Sounds like one broken technique to me, stalling with it is just a "plus".

I wasn't in the BBR when it got banned though, so I guess the only reason it got banned back then was simply because of "stalling purposes".

 

[Judo777]

Well Judo, IMO IDC shouldn't be banned solely for stalling purposes. It's also a VERY powerful tactic that gives MK a pretty freakin' good advantage over whatever enemy he's playing against. He can land however and whenever, he can avoid attacks easily, he can attack you when you least expect it, he can auto-snap the ledges and go straight into planking, and all of this while invincible and invisible. The player has complete control over how long he's going to be invincible and invisible, and where he wants to appear... Sounds like one broken technique to me, stalling with it is just a "plus".

I wasn't in the BBR when it got banned though, so I guess the only reason it got banned back then was simply because of "stalling purposes".

Yes it does seem like a VERY powerful tactic I agree. You know what else seems like a VERY powerful tactic? Planking in general. But that's not banned in every rule set.

 

[Kewkky]

Yes it does seem like a VERY powerful tactic I agree. You know what else seems like a VERY powerful tactic? Planking in general. But that's not banned in every rule set.

Yeah well I'm talking about the banned tactic IDC in the "Why is IDC banned?" thread, not the unbanned Planking tactic in the "Why is planking unbanned?" thread. My post was just to mention that IDC shouldn't be viewed as banned simply because it can be used for stalling, but also because it's a really powerful tactic.

 

[Judo777]

Yeah well I'm talking about the banned tactic IDC in the "Why is IDC banned?" thread, not the unbanned Planking tactic in the "Why is planking unbanned?" thread. My post was just to mention that IDC shouldn't be viewed as banned simply because it can be used for stalling, but also because it's a really powerful tactic.

Oh i know and ur right. However my entire post was on the concept that planking is in just about every way as broken as IDC and until planking is as banned as IDC, IDC shouldn't be banned.

 

[Kewkky]

Oh i know and ur right. However my entire post was on the concept that planking is in just about every way as broken as IDC and until planking is as banned as IDC, IDC shouldn't be banned.

The difference between IDC and Planking is that IDC being banned is the status quo. We can't simply say "stop banning IDC until we ban planking" and expect it to happen unless a vast majority (2/3 of the community) agrees to it. That's always been the rule to override status quo. :/

 

[Judo777]

The difference between IDC and Planking is that IDC being banned is the status quo. We can't simply say "stop banning IDC until we ban planking" and expect it to happen unless a vast majority (2/3 of the community) agrees to it. That's always been the rule to override status quo. :/

I don't honestly expect the community to override anything because they are lazy but it doesn't make my point any less valid.

 

[John12346]

Might as well throw scrooging in as a third case since it's not covered by rules that cover planking. :/

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

There is a difference between not agreeing to change for reasons and being lazy.

 

[Judo777]

There is a difference between not agreeing to change for reasons and being lazy.

But the community IS infact lazy and i DO think it is a reason why things won't be changed for a while.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But the community IS infact lazy and i DO think it is a reason why things won't be changed for a while.

How? TO's have reasons for not doing things like testing if people don't want to.

 

[Raziek]

Just throwing this out there, banning planking and banning IDC aren't comparable, since you can discretely ban IDC, but cannot discretely ban planking, only limit it with a LGL.

 

[Judo777]

How? TO's have reasons for not doing things like testing if people don't want to.

I'm just referring to us being lazy in general. My favorite example. Smash has been out for over 3 years now and we STILL don't have complete frame data on ANY character except Ike i believe. Just about every other fighter that has recently come out has had complete frame data within 2 weeks of release. Our community is pretty slow about getting anything done.

@Raziek that is the best argument I have heard so far and your right. However I think part of the reason we haven't tried hard enough to remove planking is because people still don't believe its over powered while people almost unanimously believe IDC to be overpowered,

 

[Crow!]

I've posted plenty of stuff about the IDC before. Some of it was in the BBR, and at this point I forget which was posted where. I have some stuff saved on my computer from a while back, so I'll repost it here.

Notice that my claim regarding "the status quo" regarding IDC vs EDC is certainly not universally true now, may not have been universally true ever, and may not be true in any specific region anymore, and post-ruleset-3.0 is no longer true anywhere that picked up the relevant clarification within that ruleset. While I wanted the IDC rule removed altogether in the BBR 3.0 ruleset, the rest of the BBR did not agree to that, but I did eventually get a slightly more clear definition which at least took care of that issue.

Also, the "as we enter the big leagues" quote referred to MLG picking Brawl up. Yeah, this essay is that old. The "I have not been to many tournaments" claim is now also false.

Anyway, here's the essay in its unedited (like, this is less clean than the one posted in the BBR), kind of outdated glory.


-------
And now it is time for me to take a position that will cause some people to jump.

THERE SHOULD NOT AND PRACTICALLY CAN NOT BE A RULE BANNING THE EXTENSION OF DURATION META KNIGHT'S DOWN-B BY LEAVING THE GROUND AND RETURNING TO IT USING THE C-STICK OR ANY OTHER METHOD

Right now, the BBR official ruleset has the line:

Metaknight's Infinite Cape glitch is banned.

This rule is poorly defined, inconsistent with general policies in making rules, and is unenforceable regardless of the definition chosen.

The banning of this technique is inconsistent with overall rules policy, it is unnecessary except in an attempt to make Meta Knight worse, and it is completely unenforceable.

For anyone unaware, the Cape "glitch" refers to the fact that, upon leaving or landing on the ground (I forget whether it is one or the other, or both, but it's irrelevant for this discussion), Meta Knight's timer for reappearing after disappearing using his down-B resets.

As Meta Knight can optionally attack upon leaving the invincibility, the applications for this move are obvious - if you know where and when your opponent will be vulnerable within range near the stage, this allows Meta Knight to attack that place and time. These applications are also completely in line with competitive play - it is an attack. It has startup time and ending lag. Shielding or spot dodging it by predicting within the MK player's reaction time will let you punish it. Aside from how long the invincibility portion of the move lasts, it is identical to normal down-B. Usage of this move is consistent with competitively trying to win the game normally, it's just really good.

One common argument in support of the bad rule is that the rule is merely for emphasis, basically, that using the dimensional cape is fundamentally stalling and so the rule doesn't remove anything which doesn't need to be banned but instead makes the stalling rule easier to enforce. This is completely false.

Yes, Meta Knight can also use this effect to stall. But there are many such effects in the game. For example, in certain matchups, Snake can perpetually blow himself up with C4's under the stage and out of his opponent's reach, and tech to keep himself alive, with absolutely no chance of being touched by his opponent. Actually PERFORMING any of these stall capable effects in cases where it is indeed stalling is not banned, and of course they aren't. Recovering from a possible gimp as Snake at high percents by teching your own C4 is consistent with trying to win the game, and it's really good.

Instead, these stalling techniques are banned when they are used to stall, using the existing rule:

Stalling is banned.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while doing an infinite grab endlessly against a wall is.

Which brings us to another point: the ruleset explicitly exempts running away from the opponent to get to a better position from being considered stalling. What's an example of how one might choose to run to a better position? How about using MK's advanced techniques to safely place yourself under the Windmill on PS1?

There is nothing about extending MK's down-B which makes it fundamentally a stalling action; banning it really does ban legitimate tactics.


And now to talk about where the dimensional cape rule goes from "unjustifiable" to "absolutely absurd":

The current, not officially documented status quo is that the method used to input the up and down motion during the dimensional cape is important. You're allowed to use the control stick to initiate the effect but not the C-Stick. Even though the actual action performed by the characters is literally identical. If you do it with the control stick, though, it is called the "extended dimensional cape", simply because so far nobody has demonstrated the ability to do it over a long period of time.

This, of course, amounts to an admission that the move itself is not what we want banned, but instead a particular use of it - when repeated over an impossible to decide "too long" period of time.

The stupidity of banning identical actions based on whether you do it using this or that analog stick becomes especially apparent in a game with four supported input devices and customizeable controls. What about Wiimote held sideways? After five minutes of practice I was able to use MK's down-B across the length of Final Destination. But for the lone wiimote, the control pad IS the control stick! What distinguishes the EDC from the IDC now?


Either in a stroke of sanity (or simply through a fear of publicly addressing the issue.. whichever), the EDC was not banned, and of course not. It is impossible to enforce (YOU try distinguishing the difference between whether the invisible Meta Knight first landied using down-B and then went up and down, or instead went up right before landing and then came down, from various heights in the air.. and that's assuming the game was recorded in a slow-motion capable way!). It is also plausible to accidentally activate it through completely natural actions - say, you change your mind whether you want to end the move in the air or on the ground. Maybe a few times in a row, why not? That's completely feasible.

Suppose there is a game between two great Meta Knight players during a major MLG sponsored event, and both players have practiced the "extended" dimensional cape and can do the equivalent of two or three c-stick flicks. Simultaneously, both players do MK's extended down-B, one player extending it with the control stick and the other with the C-stick. Each promply demands that the other be disqualified. How are we supposed to resolve this issue?

So far we have been fortunate not to run into significant problems like this in our tournaments simply because people haven't used the grey areas to try to win with it yet, and because public opinion has been swayed to hate this advanced technique enough not to question its removal. But this is not the sort of risk we can afford to take when we're in the spotlight with major MLG events, and we have no business risking MLG's credibility in this way, either.

Oh, and notice I had to use the "in order to win" clause. I've not been to many tournaments myself, but among those I have gone to, I have witnessed M2K frivolously extend his down-B during Winners Finals in singles against Blue Rogue. I've confirmed my memory on this was correct, and I have confirmed with Kel that this is not unusual behavior. I wanted to call M2K on it, but to what avail? Anyone looking at the screen to see the IDC use would not have also been looking at the controllers to confirm whether the C-Stick was used. Maybe M2K is honest enough that he would confess. But are we to completely depend on players' honesty when hundreds of dollars are on the line at MLG events?

Of course not. With any sensible rule, we can just go back to the replay of the game and ask, "which player's character broke a rule?" But in this case, the game itself has nothing at all to do with the rule broken. But if we are to enforce THIS rule, we would need to have cameras recording the players' controllers at all times, at every game where at least one Meta Knight is being played. Not to mention the complete impossibiliy of enforcing this distinction across GameBattles, where seeding for some MLG events will be determined!

If you can't distinguish between IDC and EDC, and you can't ban EDC, then you can't ban IDC.


And while we're at this topic of ridiculous terminology, using the term "glitch" in the rule is also apparently an attempt to bias opinion in favor of a ban. Fundamentally, the extension of the dimensional cape is nothing more than another advanced technique. Whether the AT is a glitch or is deliberately designed into the game is, of course, both unclear and irrelevant. The same question could be raised about glide tossing, Dash Attack Canceled Up Smash, and a variety of other advanced techniques.

Weirder still, the "it's a glitch!" complaint could be made by Ganon mains being punished for the landing lag on forward air: hackers have conclusively shown that attack is supposed to auto-cancel but doesn't due to a glitch in the character's .pac file.


Notice that I avoided probably the most natural argument:
You have to ban the full use of the dimensional cape because it is broken!

Well, no, it's not "broken" any more so than MK himself is. You can beat a player who is using the the dimensional cape for non-stalling purposes: you just have to guess what your opponent is going to do and punish it. The game becomes slightly more unfair than it already is, not broken.

And if the MK uses the "infinite" sense of the dimensional cape to stall, no rule targeting it is needed - just call him on the stall. It'll probably be the most straightforward stalling accusation ever made.

If the plan is really to just stop "too much" usage of the move because after some threshold it becomes too good, then the only logical way to do that would be to set a timer on how long MK is allowed to be invincible in this way, either per usage or over the course of the game. At this point the usual arguments found in the LGL thread apply - this sort of artificial fix to limit one character is not what is done in a respectable fighting game.

You certainly don't ban or limit Akuma using fireballs when he is in the air just because that makes it too good. Why would you ban or limit MK moving up and down when in his down-B just because it makes the cape too good?


Meta Knight is already so much better than the rest of the cast that banning him would clearly be beneficial to the success of the game. But any logically constructed ruleset would make him so unfairly good that fear of it drove the BBR to a 90/10 vote to explicitly ban it, without a good definition for what it even was, despite there being absolutely no justification for limiting the majority of uses for it in the way the current ruleset has, and despite the limitation being, furthermore, completley unenforceable even if it were justified.

If no incredibly creative and clean way to both justify and to enforce a ban on dimensional cape's advanced techniques is developed, Meta Knight cannot possibly be allowed in the game as we enter the big leagues. Right now, neither requirement is in place.

 

[Judo777]

Crow is too pro!

 

[Ghostbone]

The stalling rule is ******** though.

Define how long exactly it takes for the MK to be DQ'd from stalling with down-b.
You can't, it depends on the situation, and in some cases the MK might just be waiting for the other player to do something.(which they don't because anything they do will result in being punished)